Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aecis (talk | contribs) at 14:06, 7 January 2006 (→Food and drink stubs: Link fixed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut
WikiProject Stub sorting
Information
Project page talk
- Stub types (sections) talk
- Stub types (full list) talk
- To do talk
- Naming conventions talk
- Redirects category talk
Wikipedia:Stub talk
Discussion
Proposals (A) talk
- Current month
Discussion talk
Criteria (A) (discontinued) talk
Deletion (Log) (discontinued) talk
Category

On this WP:WSS subpage, you can propose new stub types (please read #Proposing new stubs - procedure beforehand!), as well as the reorganization and subdivision of existing stub types. You can also propose anything else related to stubs in #Other stub-related discussions.

Proposing new stubs - procedure

Proposing new stubs
If you wish to propose a new stub category and template, please follow the following procedure:
  1. List it at the bottom of the current month's section, under a header, like the ones shown (if any). Sign it with a datestamp (~~~~).
    • Please mind that a stub-category isn't about importance or noticeabiliy of the topic
  2. Find a good number[1] of stub articles, as many as you can, that will fit that tag. Each of these articles can be:
    • currently be marked with stub;
    • currently marked with another type of stub tag (in which case you should justify why your tag is better for the article than the current one);
    • a stub whose categorisation is highly ambiguous or questionable;
    • not marked as a stub.
  3. Others will do the same, if they feel like it.
  4. One week after listing it here, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new category and template following the format on Wikipedia:Stub. List the new stub type on the stub types list in an appropriate section.

^ . Good number means about 60 articles or more, or 30 or more if associated with a WikiProject, though this figure may vary from case to case.

Proposals, September 2005

{{Internet-bio-stub}}

I think we need a category for the many creators of notable websites, blogs, internet software, etc.--Carabinieri 15:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, falls in line with radio-bio-stub which got a pass below. nae'blis (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Headgear stub

I think there is a need to create this stub. There are a large number of hat and headgear articles which could use expansion. The list of hats and headgear page is getting messy. Snafflekid 19:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm - more to the point, Category:Fashion stubs is slowly getting towards the point of needing a split, and headwear (more precisely, headwear and hair styles) and footwear might be the two most obvious splits. Anyone keeping track of what the numbers are like in that category? Grutness...wha? 03:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Headwear seems better than Headgear. there is a redirect from headwear to headgear now but I think the page should be renamed to headgear. Probably do it after hearing comments on the stub. Snafflekid 04:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

either {{gang-stub}} or {{street-gang-stub}}

I've been finding a bunch of gang-cruft. The {{crime-stub}} seems to be the most appropriate stub to add, but there is almost certainly enough articles for a gang-stub. See gang, List of street gangs, List of Los Angeles street gangs, List of historical gang members of New York City, Category:Modern street gangs, Category:Historical gangs of New York City, and the woefully inadequate List of motorcycle gangs. There are also dozens of other gang articles that are not yet in those lists or categories (see Maravilla and Black Angels), plus related articles such as Gang Signals. Kasper Gutman 18:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just as there seems to be an effort to document every single school in the world, there also seems to be an unorganized effort to document every single gang in the world (or at least in Southern California). My best guess is that I could probably find a minimum of 40 to 50 gang stubs just for the SoCal area, so I think that there should be a gang-stub created. BlankVerse 12:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'm favoring the creation of a {{crime-org-stub}} → Category:Criminal organization stubs → Category:Criminal organizations, Category:Crime stubs, & Category:Organization stubs along with {{gang-stub}} as a redirect with possibilites to {{crime-org-stub}}. Barring an objection, I will so create this in 7 days per policy. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you want to create the stub as crime-org-stub. And why the redirect—I thought that the WP:WSS was trying to get rid of redirect? BlankVerse 04:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We already have both a {{crime-stub}} and a {{org-stub}} that it would make sense to have this be a child of. And contrary to popular perception, we're not against all redirects. In this case, where we have two synonyms for the same concept, "criminal organization" and "gang" we're not at all opposed to having redirects from alternate names, we just tend to get into a tizzy when people try to add redirects where the only difference between the redirect and the template is that one follows the naming conventions and the other doesn't. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And it's a broader scope, so it'd include things such as drug cartels that aren't gangs. Which I think is a plus, especially when it neatly covers the overlap between two existing stub types... --Mairi 06:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is that I would like to isolate the modern street gange articles as much as possible because most of them are crap. At the same time, I like to stick all of them with a warning template that says something like: "Warning: This is an article on a modern street gang. Much of the information is unverified, and may be unverifiable. Most of the websites on the internet on street gangs are also of dubious quality, written by gang wannabees, police wannabees, or "gang consultants" with vested interests in how they portray gangs." That probably isn't going to happen, so let's just create {{crime-org-stub}}, plus the {{gang-stub}} as either a redirect or subcategory, so I can start tagging articles with them. BlankVerse 21:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? The worst that could happen is that someone would delete the templlate. There is always going to be a problem with the verifiability of articles about gangs - I don't think there'd be much problem with making a small warning box template for them too. As for the stub template, I like the idea of street-gang-stub. If necessary a separate crime-org-stub could be made, which street-gang-stub would be a likely (but not automatic) child of. But street gangs are distinct enough from other crime organisations to warrant a separate stub, especially since here seem to be a lot of subs on them. Grutness...wha? 23:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed with Caerwine's suggestion, so I implemented it: crime-org-stub created with gang-stub as a redirect. Other stubs types can be created as children as appropriate in the future. I wouldn't be opposed to the creation now of gang-stub or street-gang-stub if their need is warranted and someone wants to create and use them. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, October 2005

Sub-stubs of {{Org-stub}}

I Propose the following subcategories under {{org-stub}} which is pretty over-full right now:

There are probably more, but that would be a start. GTBacchus 04:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, for a start you don't need the second and fourth ones: {{Party-stub}} or {{Honor-stub}} already exist (the latter for honor societies - we can use that spelling because these things don't exist outside the US). Charity-stub would probably be very useful. As for "Labor-union-stub", it suffers from the problem that honor-stub can avoid by being a US-only phenomenon; most of the English-speaking world calls them Labour unions. Union-stub might be a reasonable name, though. Grutness...wha? 07:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just sampling the fraternities and sororities from Category:Organization stubs beginning with Alpha, I don't get the impression that they're mostly honor societies. I wouldn't be inclined to put a social-oriented or even a service-oriented fraternity in a category called "honor societies". {{Union-stub}} sounds perfectly reasonable - I hope it's clear that it refers to labor/labour unions, and not something else. I'm new on the project, so I don't know how it works, but I'd be willing to go through the pages of organization stubs and pull out specific types, I just need the go-ahead to create new templates, I guess. Or does someone with some kind of admin status have to do that? GTBacchus 08:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, anyone can do it (but make sure to follow the guidelines!) - the main thing is to wait for a week or so, though, for any debate, suggestions, etc. Sometimes the discussion lasts a bit longer than a week if some issues are unresolved (which is why some of the things on this page date back as far as August). As to honor-stub, I'm not from the US so I have no idea what the difference between a fraternity or sorority and an honor society is - I'd assumed they were identical. Perhaps the solution would be to change the scope of honor-stub. Hopefully someone who knows more about the subject can make some suggestions? Anyone...? Grutness...wha? 09:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honor societies are special types of fraternities/sororities for those who are high academic acheivers. There are lots of other types of frats for professional groups, cultural groups and mostly just for socializing. It would probably be easier to just change what honor-stub is for since there arent many stubs in it. BL Lacertae 09:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean we would keep the name {{honor-stub}}, but redefine it to be a category for stubs relating to any fraternity or sorority, kind of like the way {{UN-stub}} now applies to any International Organization? I guess if I were to suggest an advantage to the name frat-stub, it would be that it makes such things as {{honor-frat-stub}} and {{service-frat-stub}} feasible; those would be more awkward if the main name were honor-stub. I don't know whether it's worthwhile to plan for so many fraternity and sorority stubs anyway. :-\ GTBacchus 05:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To that I would like to add {{footy-org-stub}}, for football-related organizations, player unions, associations, federations and confederations. I've now gone through the letters A to G of {{footy-stub}}, and I've already come across 81 football-related organizations. Aecis 22:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC) (Update: I've finished the count, and there are 120 footy-org-stubs in footy-stub.)[reply]
  • I've just noticed that {{UK-org-stub}} exists, and is attached to 308 articles, but isn't wasn't listed anywhere on WP:WSS/ST. Also, there aren't nearly as many frat-stubs as I thought there were, it turns out. I'm gradually working through org-stub and trying to identify sub-categories with the most entries in them. GTBacchus 00:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{mil-unit-stub}} & Category:Military unit stubs

For around a dozen articles on military unit types, and the 80 or so specific unsorted battalions, regiments, brigades, etc. (More if the US, UK, etc, ones already sorted are double-stubbed.) Alai 03:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add a few from Poland-related stubs. I wonder if this category would be only for for unit types, like Chorągiew, or for entire units like 1st Polish Army? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Both. Chorągiew actually appears in my 'count' of unit types, 1st Polish would be in addition to that for actual units. (I didn't count in any of the existing sub-categories.) I started off counting them separately, but it's clear the first doesn't hit the threshold, and them seem more naturally included here than with "ranks", say. Splitting up the actual-units by size doesn't seem likely to work, either, unless we're very careful about size cutoff, which would then probably not be very clear to other stub-sorters. Alai 15:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I am going over the Poland-stub category, here are some relevant ones you may or not may want to add to your list: Armia Ludowa, Batalion Parasol, Batalion Zośka, Confederatio, Confederation of Dzików, Kopia, Lisowczycy, Leśni, Operational Group, Poczet, Polish 28th Infantry Division, Pospolite ruszenie, Prusy Army, Rokosz, Rota (formation), Tajna Armia Polska, Wołyńska Cavalry Brigade. I hope that when you get your new templates you will go over those articles and update them :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Four of them already on the list, rest noted, thanks. Are there enough Polish military stubs in total for a {{Poland-mil-stub}}? Especially as there's a wikiproject... Alai 03:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of the stubs I am considering, but I haven't done the exact count - perhaps you should ask somebody from the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Polish Army to do a count. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, I've already mooted it there... :) Given the WP, the threshold would be lower: surely there must be at least 30 or so? I found 15 in the mil-stub category, there's probably more in weapon-stub, firearm-stub, WWII-stub, etc, as well as outside the hierarchy (as are the majority of the above). I think it'd be a shoo-in if someone from the WP suggested it (hint, hint!), but I can hardly force them if they don't want it... Alai 03:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure the poland-mil-stub would be feasible, as you point out there are various equipment-related stubs and such (like Ursus wz.29). Btw, found one more unit-stub for you: Zawisza (Szare Szeregi). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Bishop stubs

As I noted above, there are 111 biographies of (arch)bishops in {{reli-bio-stub}}. I don't know how many more there are in e.g. {{christianity-stub}} and {{bio-stub}}. I would like to (again?) propose {{bishop-stub}} and Category:Bishop stubs. Aecis 22:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested above, I'd be more keen simply to split reli-bio-stub by religion rather than actual rank: christian-bio-stub/moslem-bio-stub etc. The problem of course would be people being added to the categories not because they were religious leaders, but simply because they profess a particular religion. So yes, bishop-stub sounds feasible. How about imam-stub? There must be quite a number of them in there, too... Grutness...wha? 00:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are an immense amount of biographies of muslims in {{islam-stub}} and {{reli-bio-stub}}, which both could do with splitting. So Template:Imam-stub could indeed be viable. Aecis 11:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned it last time, but it got no responses, so I'll suggest it again: perhaps something like christian-relibio-stub/muslim-relibio-stub, to indicate that it's just not anyone who professes the religion? Or if not that, perhaps general christian-clergy-stub? --Mairi 18:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I didn't respond to your proposal back then was that I didn't know how I felt about it. I couldn't make up my mind either way, and I still can't. There are pro's and con's to it. Currently, {{reli-bio-stub}} has between 1,100 and 1,200 articles. About 95% of these are about a christian or a muslim. This division would mean that we would replace one large category with two large categories. Another problem is that it could become a catchall for seemingly unrelated people (e.g. 9th century tribal chieftains and 20th century theologians). OTOH, {{muslim-relibio-stub}} or {{islam-relibio-stub}} could be very useful for early muslims who played an important role in the development and spread of islam, but who did not fit within "bureaucratic structures" (like the tribal chieftains). When it comes to christians with stub biographies, many seem to fall within these structures. For them we could use {{christan-clergy-stub}}. Other christians can be double-stubbed {{christianity-stub}} and {{reli-bio-stub}}. Aecis 22:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the following:

{{Christianity-bio-stub}}

{{Catholicism-bio-stub}}
{{papal-stub}}
{{bishop-stub}}
{{Protestantism-bio-stub}} (sounds a little odd)

{{Islam-bio-stub}} (I don't know how that could be split further: I guess Imams would be one definate split)

{{Judaism-bio-stub}}

Further religions: Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, eg, can be split (if necessary) once we've gotten the Big Three out of the way--Carabinieri 02:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In your structure above, {{bishop-stub}} is a subcat of {{Catholicism-bio-stub}} and so excludes Orthodox, and Anglican bishops, as well as other Christian groups that have bishops? I think it should go directly under {{Christianity-bio-stub}}. In fact, once this is created, is {{Catholicism-bio-stub}} really all that useful? DES (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say the same thing. Either split by "flavour" or "rank", not by both. How about:

Grutness...wha? 11:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would the theologian ones needs to be "theologian-bio", or could they just be "theologian"? --Alynna 19:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to professions, we usually don't use "-bio" in the template title, like {{journalist-stub}} and {{economist-stub}}. So I would edit some of Grutness' proposals to {{Clergy-stub}}, {{Bishop-stub}}, {{Pope-stub}}, {{Christian-theologian-stub}} and {{Islamic-theologian-stub}}. Aecis 20:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Grutness on hierarchy, and Alynna and Aecis on the unnecessary "-bio"s. Alai 20:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't {{Imam-stub}} work as well instead of {{Imam-bio-stub}}?--Carabinieri 16:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - my fault. I automatically added "bio" to everything without thinking. I also used the proposed new name of pope-stub (papal-stub is up for renaming at sfd). Grutness...wha? 02:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be {{Christian-clergy-stub}} instead? as clergy isn't necessarily specific to Christianity... Other than that, Grutness's revised proposal sounds good. --Mairi 02:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{theologist-stub}} has been created prematurely. If it's worth keeping, I think it ought to be renamed to theologian-stub. --Mairi 02:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it ought to be kept as a split of {{reli-bio-stub}} and {{academic-bio-stub}}. {{Islamic-theologian-stub}} and {{Christian-theologian-stub}} should be split of {{theologian}} and {{Christianity-bio-stub}} and {{Islam-bio-stub}} respectively.--Carabinieri 14:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created {{bishop-stub}} and Category:Bishop stubs. Aecis praatpaal 00:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I dont like the name of {{Imam-stub}}, lets call it {{Islam-non-theologian-stub}}, its wider and does not have the "shia" association. That and {{Islam-theologian-stub}}+ {{islam-book-stub}} whoul be great. There are loots of book that need to have a proper stub... --Striver 08:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with {{Islam-non-theologian-stub}}. It's too long, too unintuitive, too "clumsy". I also don't know whether there are enough stubs for {{imam-stub}}. I think it would be better to use {{Islam-clergy-stub}}, which can include for instance ayatollahs. It could be used alongside {{christianity-clergy-stub}}, to provide some consistency. The problem is that Orthodox Islam is a non-clerical religion, according to clergy, so I'm open to suggestions. Aecis [[User_talk:Aecis|<sup>praatpaal</sup>]] 11:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, {{Islam-non-theologian-stub}} would be exactly what's in {{Islam-bio-stub}}, since all the theologians would be in {{Islam-theologian-stub}}. --Mairi 19:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Academic-bio-stub subcategories

There are just under 1200 {{academic-bio-stub}} articles. It needs to be subdivided. Here are my proposed subcategories.

  • acad-agri-bio-stub (Agriculture)
  • acad-acct-bio-stub (Accounting)
  • acad-econ-bio-stub (Economics)
  • acad-edu-bio-stub (Education)
  • acad-engin-bio-stub (Interdisciplinary)
  • acad-lang-bio-stub (Foreign Langue/Linguist)
  • acad-reli-bio-stub (Religion)
  • acad-manage-bio-stub (Management)
  • acad-mkt-bio-stub (Marketing)
  • acad-interdisc-bio-stub (Interdisiplinary Studies)
  • acad-women-bio-stub (Women's Studies)
  • acad-polisci-bio-stub (Political Science)
  • acad-psych-bio-stub (Psychology)
  • acad-soc-bio-stub (Sociology)

I like the idea, but not the names! Why not {{agri-academicbio-stub}} +c? Grutness...wha? 06:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't like the name, but some of these duplicate existing categories

That seems like a decent set of names and mostly avoids bunches of icky hyphens. Of course I'd still like to see 60 stubs found before creating new cats. Caerwine 07:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer something like {{educationalist-stub}} to {{pedologist}} (which sounds to me like something to do with feet! That's the problem with dropping that all-important first A in paed-). We also have {{psych-bio-stub}} for psychologists and psychiatrists already - I argued against splitting it earlier since - certainly for the early days of the discipline - the two fields overlap considerably, but perhaps now would be a reasonable time to reassess that. Grutness...wha? 11:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
doesnt look like weve got it ;)! BL kiss the lizard 18:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, for something like A._V._Williams_Jackson I should ignore the academic part of it and just label it as {{linguist-stub}}? Alison9 04:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by ignore the academic part; liguistics is an academic discipline, and the permanent "linguists" category is a sub-cat of "academics". Presumably linguist-stub should likewise be a sub-cat of academic-stub (though it isn't at present, admittedly). Also agree with Caerwine, at least approximate numbers would be nice. Alai 04:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So is this the right page to get approval for making linguist and the other existing cats a sub-cat of academics? Alison9 04:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's what being bold is for ;) but yes, making them sub cats of academic-bio-stub would be a good idea. --Mairi 04:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We will definately need theologist-stub. The focus seems to be on Islam at the moment. Alison9 04:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See also the prposed split of reli-bio-stub elsewhere on this page. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done for linguist-stub; in some other cases it may be less clear-cut whether all (or nearly all, or all notable) people in a given category are academics, so I'll be no more bold for now (but don't let me stop anyone else). Though where the permanent category already does it, it should be safe -- unless there's an on-going edit-war over that, or something. Alai 05:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, especially the sociologist-stub and historian-stub. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{theologist-stub}} has been created (prematurely no less), even tho all but one mention called it theologian-stub. --Mairi 02:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{pedagogue-stub}} has been created. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European royalty stubs

There is already a {{Euro-royal-stub}}, but it currently redirects to {{Euro-noble-stub}}. It has over 75 articles using it nonetheless, and there are a fair number of articles that have been double stubbed with {{Euro-noble-stub}} and {{royal-stub}}. I think it's time to give {{Euro-royal-stub}} a category of its own. Caerwine 22:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. We could also clean up the existing {{Portugal-royal-stub}} / Category:Portuguese nobility stubs so it has a clear scope... --Mairi 04:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but if you are looking at these, I would like to suggest going straight to {{Germany-royal-stub}}, {{France-royal-stub}} and - as Piotr is bound to suggest it anyway :) - {{Poland-royal-stub}}. The count for Germany is 134 - I'll do the others presently. We could also do with a specific stub for rulers of the kingdoms in the UK before it was a single country. These are presently scattered through royal, UK-royal and UK-noble (which is where they seem to be menat to go, rather awkwardly): I've found so far 91. (Would it be asking for trouble to suggest that the ancient Irish rulers could go in there as well? in which case another 20 or so). Not sure though what it could best be called - {{UK-PCroyal-stub}}? (= pre-conquest?)Staffelde 11:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think we may be having a problem of definition here. If we count petty kings as royals rather than as just nobles it's going to raise the count of royals considerably. In the case of Germany for example, I would not count the Kings of Bavaria as royalty, because Bavaria was never a sovereign national realm, so I would place any stubs articles about the King and Queens of Bavaria and their children under {{Euro-noble-stub}} (or {{Germany-noble-stub}} once that is created). By using the same standard, almost all of the Irish kings are actually nobles and not royals. Caerwine 23:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good god.Is that nonsensical redirection still there? There was agreement to remove that months ago but Gruntness fought a lone battle to stop that. But Caerwine is simply wrong in definitions. If it the subject is a monarch, then they should get a royal stub. Saying that Bavarian royals weren't royals, or that Irish kings weren't royals, is POV and not on. If they were called a king, then we have to treat them as a king and not say 'well we disagree' so we are going to call them something else. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I thought it had been deleted ages ago, too. (it's not "gruntness" either, BTW :) Grutness...wha? 02:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely: the objection is not based in fact. Bavaria, e.g., WAS a sovereign nation for centuries, as were all the other territories that were eventually lumped together as "Germany" - and the same for most of the rest of the world. It is not for us to say now that only certain monarchies were "real" monarchies. Nor do I understand the concern about "raising the count of royals", as if there were some intrinsic merit in avoiding it. {{Euro-noble-stub}} doesn't work well at the moment precisely because it is stuffed with articles on people who were royals and shdn't be there.
Clearly there is some difference in kind between, again e.g., the monarchies of the UK, Prussia etc in their developed forms, and the kings of the Hwicce and so on, and this is surely one of the reasons why it is worth having separate stub categories for them.Staffelde 01:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fairly sensible. (Though it was better as a redirect, than as a pointer to a redlink category, as at present... Not that'll affect the categorisation immediately, anyway.) OTOH, given the size of Euro-noble-, it'll be necessary to split that by country (or some other geographical subdivision, at any rate), and I'd be keener to do that first. And presumably lots of countries will have a 'viable' number of nobles+royals, but not royals by themselves, so I don't think we'll see the end of double-stubbing anytime soon... Alai 03:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this should be based on royal-stub, but we need a clear defintion of what can go there. Recently when I was sorting Euro-noble-stubs into Poland-noble-stubs I had to remove a lot of Euro-royal-stubs, and wondered who and why added those into the relevant articles. What about princes and dukes, like Grand Duke of Lithuania or Polish dukes during the time of division/fragmentation when Poland had no king (~14th century)? What about family of the king, especially in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were some were elected from families that have never before been kings (like Michał Wiśniowiecki, King of Poland - were his parents or children royality?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bavaria's problem wasn't so much it's lack of independence, as the Holy Roman Empire imposed but a light yoke on its constituent states, but it's lack of nationhood. However, Bavaria is definitely an edge case, and besides, a more serious problem is how closely do you have to be to a reigning monarch in order to be counted as royal? Obviously children should be counted as well as grandchildren that are in the line of succession, but once you get past that we're going to run into disputes. I'm not so much concerned with where the line is drawn, as that it be drawn so that there is a clear boundary between royal and non-royal. BTW, I was bold and since someone else had changed the stub from a redirect into an independednt stub that pointed to a redlink category, I went ahead and created the category, tho I haven't listed it as yet. Caerwine 00:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, should we decide to keep this, we won't need any null-edits, tho we definitely need to decide on a scope for a what counts as royal, and what is close enough to be in a royal family. If we define this too broadly, there won't be any difference bwtween being royal and being noble, given how inbred the European nobility is. Caerwine 02:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But the Kings of Bavaria, aside from a very brief overlap, weren't HRE subjects at all; rather they were Kurfuersten, and as such required not to call themselves kings -- and when some of them did, it was the beginning of a very rapid end to the (non-)Empire. (Just to confuse matters, the rulers of Bavaria did use the title "king" during and as part of the Kaiserreich.) Now, whether a Prince-Elector is "royal" is somewhat inobvious, and somewhat depends on one's definition. The "from sceptre to shovel" question is pretty fuzzy too, that's an entirely valid point. Naturally each present day or historical country has an internal system that is (or isn't) marvelously consistent and clear about the different ranks and layers of nobility (and royalty), but that doesn't mean a single universal definition can readily be extracted. Even particular titles can be confusing: consider "Serene Highness", for exampleAlai 02:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting to a useful point made by Alai, for most countries / geo'l regions, the category "royal + noble = viable" is a very effective solution, provided it is possible to find a term that means both royal AND noble, as otherwise, regardless of the intent, there will be constant arguments about it. Is {{Foo-royal&noble-stub}} technically possible?
On the subject of what constitutes "royal", it would be very misleading to limit this category to ruling houses that happened to call themselves "kings": if - for the sake of argument only - there were such a category as {{Germany-royal-stub}}, anybody browsing it would surely expect it to contain all the German ruling houses, whether they were Kings, Princes, Dukes or anything else. Obviously, though, what applies in Germany need not apply elsewhere Staffelde 10:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar enough with German terminology to say what the most logical "split" in that case would be. But for the "unsplit" categories, I think X-noble-stub is perfectly adequate (esp. if one is going to double-stub the royals with some geographically broader royal category, too). Indeed, it strikes me as logical to make the assorted "royal" categories sub-cats of the corresponding "noble" ones. Alai 00:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps implementing this proposal would open a Pandora's box of controversial and POV stubbings, but here it goes: How about having two templates, Foo-royal-stub and Foo-noble-stub, feeding into one category, Foo royalty and nobility stubs? That way you got two intuitive templates feeding into one viable category. It would also end the issue of who belongs in which category, because all would go into the same bowl. Aecis 11:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe its because as a firm small-r republican, I've never bothered to notice but aren't all royals also nobles or is there even such a thing as a non-noble royal? I just do not see why having royal stubs being subtypes of noble stubs won't work. Caerwine 03:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are two different things, and have (or historically, had) different functions. A possible comparison is in the RC church: all Popes are also priests, but they are sufficiently important, and different in function, to require separation. It would be inefficient for potential editors, and also totally inaccurate, to bury the Popes in a swamp of low to middle grade priests and bishops, or even Cardinals. Similarly, if you bury the royals in a swamp of low to middle grade "nobles", or even non-royal dukes, it is less efficient, and additionally gives the impression that Wikiedia generally isn't very well-informed - which is not a good thing for a would-be authoritative encyclopaedic source.
But if there is a good reason for doing that, as with the smaller countries where there are too few of either to justify a complete split, then the category title needs to make it completely clear that the category contains BOTH nobles AND royals (ie, that at least Wikipedia knows that there is a difference): if it doesn't, this argument is bound to recur at regular intervals until the question is sorted properly. We may as well do it now.(Staffelde, 31 Oct, 18.12 my time, from a machine on which I can't log in)
To answer your actual question, yes it is possble to have a non-noble monarch - you only need to look at the Roman emperors, who latterly were successful generals. Later monarchies were in practice virtually limited to the nobility for other reasons - heredity or a restricted circle of choice, mostly - but the two are not the same. (Staffelde again)
It's certainly the case that royalty don't always come from among the nobility, but it's less clear that this doesn't in effect co-opt them to it. Often with the assumption of noble-style names, titles, etc. The logic of this can be discussed on a country-by-country basis, though. (In this case, patrician- and imperial- would be more descriptive.) As to the "swamping" point: clearly that's the case; (part of) the whole point of stub-sorting is to avoid over-large and under-specific stub-cats. But equally, we don't want under-sized ones. Suppose, hypothetically, that we have the proverbial Small European Country for which there are 46 noble (qua noble) stubs, and 19 royals. I think it'd be preferable to sort them into single SmallEuroCountry-noble-stub category (double-stubbing the latter as euro-royal-, too), than dividing them into two undersized ones, or to leaving them unsorted. Alai 22:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you say, except for the matter of the category name. If you call such a category SmallEuroCountry-noble-stub and then include in it people who are unarguably royal, then regardless of the logic behind it there will continue to be disagreements about it, simply because the term 'noble' neither means nor includes the term 'royal', and every time another user notices that, they will point it out all over again. If you have a category called Trains and then put ships in it, you can expect constant arguments to the effect that a ship is not a train. If for good reasons, such as lack of quantity, you need to group ships and trains together, the category has to be called something else - eg, "vehicle" or "ships and trains" - that includes BOTH ships AND trains. May I refer back to the comparison with popes and cardinals, or bishops? If anyone suggested grouping popes with bishops for no other reason than that the Pope is bishop of Rome, and that they were a small-p protestant, so hadn't bothered to notice what the difference was, the argument would be over very quickly, and not in their favour - and the question here is rather similar.
The difficulty can be bypassed by the use of a satisfactory term that really covers both noble and royal (it seems to me a clear indication that there is a real distinction between them, that in fact it is not very easy to think of one, but perhaps this is my non-republican - with a small n - background showing up). "Imperial" only applies to empires; "patrician" is simply too imprecise. Would titled would do? Both royalty and nobility have titles of a particular sort, ie, titles of rank, which distinguish them from the rest of the population in their respective countries. So would {{SmallEuroCountry-titled-stub}} be acceptable? Or if not, can we look again at my earlier suggestion of {{SmallEuroCountry-royal&noble-stub}}?Staffelde 02:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]





Scientific journals

Our new stub sorter user: Chemturion has pointed out to me that we don't have any splits of {{mag-stub}}, and that scientific journals could probably do with their own stub. I agree, and will go one further, suggesting that both {{sci-journal-stub}} and {{med-journal-stub}} are probably long overdue. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking we could spilt the magazine into to two main stub catagories, {{journal-stub}} (for industry and professional periodicals) and the current {{mag-stub}} (for consumer magazines) and then catagorize further from there. In the journal stub we would have such things as {{sci-journal-stub}} and {{med-journal-stub}} and in the consumer mag stub we would have such thing as {{culture-mag-stub}} (for things like People and US Weekly) and {{tech-mag-stub}} (for things like PC Magazine, Macword, and PopSi.) Chemturion 06:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{music-mag-stub}} would be good too BL kiss the lizard 07:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above are logical as categories, certainly. "Journal-stub" I'd be especially keen to see for the sake of clarity of description. But do they all hit 'threshold'? Support 'em as and when. Alai 22:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
well, we could start by splitting it into mag and journal, and see how the numbers look from there... Grutness...wha? 00:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried about {{journal-stub}} as being clear enough from the stub name as being different from {{mag-stub}}. To me a journal is a magazine and vice versa. I'll grant that refereed periodicals include "Journal" in their name more often than not, but the distiction is just too ambiguous for me to like basing stub names on it. {{sci-mag-stub}} and {{med-mag-stub}} are just as clear as {{sci-journal-stub}} and {{med-journal-stub}}, so I don't see the need to try to draw a confusing distinction between two synonyms for stub names. Caerwine 05:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose -mag- variant names. "Journal" may sometimes be used as a synonym for "magazine" (though not really in these parts), but "magazine" is not a synonym for "journal". Smooshing together "scientific magazines" (like say, New Scientist) with actual journals would be much more confusing than any possible ambiguity between the two terms, which can in any case be made explicit on the category page. Alai 05:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think that there's a fairly clear distinction between magazines and journals. The only grey areas would be things like popular science magazines (e.g., SciAm, NewSci), and I'd veer towards putting those under sci-journal-stub simply for the sake of keeping science periodicals in one place. Grutness...wha? 08:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that; they're not grey at all. A peer-reviewed journal is a well-defined type of periodical, and the subject that's covered is irrelevant to its definition. Scientific American, at least, is definitely a science magazine, and not a journal. -- SCZenz 08:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And thus we see the nub of the problem. I think we all agree that there is a clear distinction between peer-reviewed periodicals and non-peer-reviewed periodicals, the problem is can we make that distinction unambiguously without resorting to a lengthy stub name such as {{peer-review-periodical-stub}}. I happen to read a "journal" six days a week, but it's the Wall Street Journal. At the very least I'd like to see the proposed stub text and the category name in this case. For example:
{{journal-stub}}
This article about a peer-reviewed journal is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Category:Peer-reviewed journal stubs
This category is for stub articles relating to peer-reviewed journals. You can help Wikipedia by expanding them.
To add an article to this category, use {{journal-stub}} instead of {{stub}}.
This is clearly a case where we need to discuss more than just the name of the stub template before we start creating. Caerwine 16:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, The Wall Street Journal isn't a magazine, either... But I'm happy to stipulate to Caerwine's caveats, or any reasonable variant thereon. (Mea culpa, I tend to be lax about including category names in proposals (and then on occasion, have ended up thinking, "hrm, hang on...", seven days or so later). And this is probably unwise, as it's the categories that are the real pain to change.) Alai 17:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that {{mag-stub}} be divided by topic. I'm getting ready to clean-up some medical and developmental biology articles by adding references. This will make (medical) journal stubs. I don't think sorting the stubs by peer-review is needed because it will take too long to research.--FloNight 19:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created {{journal-stub}} a few days ago, when I wasn't aware about the WSS project. But now I'm glad that there's a consensus about splitting {{mag-stub}}. There were almost 800 stubs in the category and I was surprised there was no separate stub category for journals. I named the category "scientific journal stubs", and moved relevant journals from Category:Magazines stubs to Category:Scientific journal stubs (there are 129 stubs in the category right now). Bmdavll talk 05:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, November 2005

More {{sportbio-stub}} splits

I'm going through gradually restubbing Category:Sportspeople stubs, and it's clear that some more sports can be split off in addition to the dozen or so that have already been created. The most obvious would be {{triathlete-stub}}, which would have over 100 stubs, according to a quick Google. I'll do some more checking before I propose any others. sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Going from the other direction, there certainly enough stubs in {{tennis-stub}} and {{autoracing-stub}} to justify a {{tennisbio-stub}} and a {{autoracingbio-stub}}. Probably also enough for a {{skiingbio-stub}}, but without a {{skiing-stub}} to quick count the double stubs, I can't be sure. Caerwine 17:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(See below for continued discussion -- SJO mmmmm 13:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

{{canada-abp-stub}}

Aboriginal peoples in Canada are an ethnic group comprised of the First Nations, Métis and Inuit. Currently articles in these subjects meriting a stub notice most often use canada-stub and ethno-stub, and org-stub may apply too. Creating an Aboriginal peoples in Canada-stub notice would encompass all of these subjects, and help to depopulate the very large ethno-stub and canada-stub categories. A list of where this proposed stub would be appropriate is as follows:

  1. Aamjiwnaang First Nation
  2. Aboriginal Multi-Media Society
  3. Aboriginal Peoples Television Network
  4. Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn First Nation
  5. Anishinaabe
  6. Burnt Church First Nation
  7. Carcross/Tagish First Nation
  8. Champagne and Aishihik First Nations
  9. Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation
  10. Council of the Haida Nation
  11. Elsipogtog First Nation
  12. Eskasoni First Nation
  13. First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun
  14. Fort Folly First Nation
  15. Gordon First Nation
  16. Hesquiaht First Nation
  17. Hivernants
  18. Huron-Wendat Nation
  19. Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit
  20. Kainai Nation
  21. Kashechewan First Nation
  22. Kluane First Nation
  23. Kwanlin Dün First Nation
  24. Kwicksutaineuk First Nation
  25. Liard River First Nation
  26. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation
  27. Lubicon Lake Indian Nation
  28. Magnetawan First Nation
  29. Métis Flag
  30. Métis in Alberta
  31. Métis Nation - Saskatchewan
  32. Métis Nation of Alberta
  33. Métis Population Betterment Act
  34. Mushuau Innu First Nation
  35. National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation
  36. Nitassinan
  37. Numbered Treaties
  38. Nuxálk Nation
  39. Ojibways of Pic River
  40. One Arrow First Nation
  41. Opaskwayak Cree Nation
  42. Pehdzeh Ki First Nation
  43. Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation
  44. Ross River Dena Council
  45. Sagkeeng First Nation
  46. SAY (magazine)
  47. Selkirk First Nation
  48. Siksika Nation
  49. Snuneymuxw First Nation
  50. Sunchild First Nation
  51. Ta'an Kwach'an Council
  52. Teslin Tlingit Council
  53. Thunderchild First Nation
  54. Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations
  55. Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in First Nation
  56. T'sou-ke Nation
  57. Tsuu T'ina Nation
  58. Union of Ontario Indians
  59. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation
  60. Waywayseecappo First Nation
  61. White River First Nation
  62. Whitefish Lake First Nation
  63. Yukon Land Claims

--Kurieeto 23:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A {{Canada-ethno-stub}} might well be useful. I would, however, emphatically recommend NOT using the name you suggested, since the term "abo" is extremely insulting in some countries (in Australia, it's on par with terms like "nigger"). Grutness...wha? 00:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for pointing that out Grutness! Because {{canada-ab-stub}} has Alberta connotations and we may need a stub for articles relating to that province one day, I'm changing my proposal to {{canada-abp-stub}} instead of {{canada-abo-stub}}. Kurieeto 00:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I support the creation of the stub, though {{canada-abp-stub}} seems awkward. Is there something better we could use? Mindmatrix 00:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{Canada-aborig-stub}}, mebbe? Would {{Canada-aboriginal-stub}} be too long? The Tom 00:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{Canada-ap-stub}} is an option too. Now that I look at it, we already have {{Quebec-stub}}, so I assume we'll be going straight to {{Alberta-stub}} if it's necessary at some point in the future. That frees up {{Canada-ab-stub}}. Kurieeto 01:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no to {{Canada-ab-stub}} solely on the grounds that it's ambiguous; someone will surely use it for an Alberta-related article. I was going to propose {{Canada-aboriginal-stub}} too, but didn't do so because it could be used for non-biographical articles. In retrospect, this shouldn't matter, since we aren't restricting this to just biographical articles anyway. Right? Also, {{Canada-ap-stub}} isn't bad, but isn't very clear either; my preference right now is {{Canada-aboriginal-stub}}. Mindmatrix 01:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support {{Canada-aboriginal-stub}}, but would propose and prefer {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}} for consistency in capitalization of the term. See also Aboriginal peoples in Canada#Capitalization. Kurieeto 01:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a (slightly more general) {{Canada-ethno-stub}}; this also keeps a consistent naming with it's parent. Also, {{Canada-aboriginal-stub}} might get used on biographical articles about aboriginal peoples, which is a rather different scope then is proposed. None of the abbreviations seem particularly desirable or intuitive to me. --Mairi 01:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree. The reason I suggested -ethno- in the first place is that we have a precedent for it, and - being slightly more general - it will take more stubs. I don't think the First Nation stubs would be drowned out by ones for groups like the Acadiens, which could theoretically also take that stub. Grutness...wha? 02:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have both? There are over 600 First Nations in Canada, and most of them will likely need the proposed {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}} at some point in their existance. This is without considering the possibility for growth in Métis and Inuit stub articles. If we can I'd like to avoid the manual renaming of many {{Canada-ethno-stub}}s to {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}}s that would be likely at some point in the future. Kurieeto 02:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just leave it at the one stub for now (canada-ethno-stub). It can always be split later if that's needed, but there's no evidence yet that it would be. Grutness...wha? 07:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is the proposed stub notice for a {{canada-ethno-stub}}? I see the following options as possible:
  This ethnic groups of Canada-related article is a stub.
  This ethnic groups of Canada-related article is a stub.
  This ethnic groups of Canada-related article is a stub.
I remain in favour of an Aboriginal peoples in Canada stub notice. Great lengths have been gone to on Wikipedia to avoid describing or implying Aboriginal peoples in Canada as belonging to Canada, as advised against by the Government of Canada [2]. Actions on Wikipedia taken in this manner have been the renaming of Category:Canadian First Nations to Category:First Nations and the renaming of Aboriginal peoples of Canada to Aboriginal peoples in Canada. This policy has been extended to all Indigenous/Aboriginal peoples, see the renaming of Indigenous people of Brazil to Indigenous peoples in Brazil. These renamings required a vote, or were otherwise not objected to. I'm very hesitant to describe Aboriginal peoples as an ethnic group being "of Canada", thereby implying belonging, especially when a need has been demonstrated for an option like:
 This Aboriginal peoples in Canada-related article is a stub.
Other possible names for an Aboriginal peoples in Canada stub are: {{Aboriginal-canada-stub}}, {{Aboriginal-can-stub}}, or {{abcan-ethno-stub}}. This would begin a new syntax for Aboriginal/Indigenous peoples stubs that one day may be needed, such as for Category:Indigenous peoples and/or its subcategories. Kurieeto 13:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why not {{Canada-indiginous-stub}}? aboriginal isnt pc everywhere and could cause complaints. And it could say something like

> This article about indiginous peoples in Canada is a stub.

BL kiss the lizard 01:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best option is to go for {{Canada-ethno-stub}}, which follows {{ethno-stub}}. And while we're at it, what about {{Africa-ethno-stub}}? {{Ethno-stub}} could do with splitting, and Africa seems to be closest to being viable. Aecis praatpaal 21:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Aboriginal' is the correct name for all aspects of Canadian indigenous people, the name agreed to by all parties. I would fully support {{canada-abp-stub}}. Radagast 17:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-abp-is definitely not a desireable abbreviation as it is not self explanitory. I could live with either a {{Canada-ethno-stub}}, {{Canada-indiginous-stub}}, or a {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}} with a capital "A". Caerwine 21:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A week has passed since a stub for Aboriginal peoples in Canada was first proposed and I wanted to summarize the comments received so far so that a stub could be created soon. Please also note that when the word "indiginous" has been used above I have changed it to "indigenous" below, because indigenous is the spelling used on Wikipedia, indiginous is not.
Individuals who have expressed support for a stub for Aboriginal peoples in Canada, though we haven't completely established the syntax of the name of that stub yet, are: Myself, Mindmatrix, The Tom, Radagast, and Caerwine (Caerwine being supportive of either Canada-ethno, Canada-indigenous, or Canada-Aboriginal).
Individuals who have expressed support for {{Canada-ethno-stub}}: Grutness, Mairi, Aecis, and Caerwine (Caerwine for reasons above).
Individuals supportive of {{Canada-indigenous-stub}}: BL, Caerwine (Caerwine as above).
So, including Caerwine's position, an Aboriginal peoples in Canada stub has the support of 5 people, Canada-ethno has the support of 4 people, and Canada-indigenous has the support of 2 people. How should we proceed? Continue open debate until one stub establishes a clearer majority? Create both an Aboriginal peoples in Canada-stub and a Canada-ethno stub? Or proceed solely with the creation of the stub that has the support of the (bare) majority? In the case of the latter debate will need to be re-focused onto what the exact syntax of the Aboriginal peoples in Canada stub should be. Kurieeto 14:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we have to continue discussing this proposal. The proposal itself doesn't seem to face any objections, but there are some differences of opinion as to what the template should be called. I think we need to find some common ground before proceeding with creating the stubs. It might be wise to drop Canada-indigenous-stub, although I don't know whether BL and Caerwine agree with me on this one. I think we should focus on Canada-ethno-stub and what I will call "an aboriginal stub". Aecis praatpaal 14:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that dropping Canada-indigenous-stub from consideration would be useful in focusing our discussion. Of those in favour of {{Canada-ethno-stub}}, would any be in favour of the simultaneous creation of {{Canada-ethno-stub}} and {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}}? I would support this dual-stub creation. For those against this creation of two stubs, at what number of {{Canada-ethno-stub}} articles would you support the creation of a split-off {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}}? Kurieeto 02:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And/or, at what number of articles where an Aboriginal peoples in Canada-stub would be the most specific and appropriate would you support its creation? Currently 63 have been listed. Kurieeto 14:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I generally concur with the Canada-Aboriginal-stub idea. But if that can't get consensus, what about using the phrase First Nations? As in, This article related to First Nations in Canada is a stub. This seems to be an acceptable terminology to Indian Affairs Canada ([http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mand_e.pdf PDF of IANAC's mandate). Do note that the term is not seen to include Inuit peoples. -Joshuapaquin 01:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that IANAC seems to like "Aboriginal" more, consider this press release with five uses of the word. -Joshuapaquin 01:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Aboriginal" isn't blocking consensus currently. The roadblock is debate regarding if a {{Canada-ethno-stub}} should be created before a {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}}, with a {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}} being broken off once there is an excess of articles in {{Canada-ethno-stub}}. The roadblock would remain if the scope of the proposed stub was reduced to just the First Nations. Kurieeto 02:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also favour -ethno-, for consistency of naming (hence increasing the chances of people using it, and using it correctly) and inclusivity. Opposed to -abp-, excessively cryptic. Alai 03:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would favour -ethno- for consistency across Wikipedia and to avoid stub proliferation. We need a place to put First Nations plus we need a place for the Portuguese-Canadians, Armenian-Canadians, etc. I don't think there is any point at this stage to have more than one stub category. If we ended up with a couple of hundred First Nations stubs and a large number (100+) of other ethic stubs, we could revisit at that point. Luigizanasi 16:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being late in getting back here, I got distracted by other matters. Before I support the creation of solely a Canada-ethno-stub I want to clear up the wording of "ethnic groups in Canada" vs. "ethnic groups of Canada". To that end I've submitted a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)#Ethnic groups by country categories to establish a naming convention on Wikipedia for ethnic groups by country. Once that's settled I'd be fine with a {{Canada-ethno-stub}}. I had been under the impression that 60 articles where a new stub would be appropriate would be enough to merit its inclusion which is why I advocated for the dual creation of Canada-Aboriginal-stub and Canada-ethno-stub. But I see the sense of making first solely a Canada-ethno-stub, which would be the parent of a future Canada-Aboriginal stub. Kurieeto 02:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{reli-bio-stub}} splits

This was pretty much agreed to while discussing the {{bishop-stub}} proposal, but I thought I'd re-propose it before creating since these are pretty major changes. I propose splitting {{reli-bio-stub}} as follows:

--Carabinieri 19:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, as long as {{theologist-stub}} also gets renamed to {{theologian-stub}} --Mairi 03:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
and pope-stubs waiting to be changed from papal-stub at sfd. BL kiss the lizard 04:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's happening by bot right now, and will be done within an hour ;) Mairi 05:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarification: {{theologian-stub}} will be a split of {{academic-bio-stub}} and {{reli-bio-stub}}; {{Christian-theologian-stub}} and {{Islamic-theologian-stub}} will be splits of {{theologian-stub}} and {{Christianity-bio-stub}} and {{Islam-bio-stub}} respectively, OK?--Carabinieri 17:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm sorting Category:Religious biography stubs, it's clear that {{Judaism-bio-stub}} will get enough use, so I've gone ahead and created it. It also looks like seperating out catholic clergy might reduce {{RC-stub}}, but that ought to be proposed seperately. --Mairi 01:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

India History Stubs

Hi, we really need a listing of history stubs related to India. I do not know what tpo do about it, but please can we have such a category? There are a whole lot of articles that would fall into such a category.

  • Hi whoever you are. At the moment theyre listed in Category:Asian history stubs and marked Asia-hist-stub. a seperate one would be india-hist-stub or perhaps SAsia-hist-stub since stubs from other countries would overlap like Maynma and Pakistan. it would be useful too i think. BL kiss the lizard 02:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A {{SAsia-hist-stub}} would probably be the more useful, given the overlapping nature of the history of all of what was British India - extending from Baluchistan to the Andaman Sea. it might be a very useful one to add to the list, too. Grutness...wha? 03:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are enough obvious stubs for a {{India-hist-stub}} in the overlarge India stubs category that I would not mind creating that directly. However, I do ask whoever does the resorting to be sure that it really is India related and not South Asia related. I suspect that are quite a few stubs misstubbed as {{India-stub}} instead of {{SAsia-stub}}, mainly due to the fact that {{SAsia-stub}} hasn't been around that long, so people went for the best substitute available while it wasn't available. Caerwine 05:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not a {{SAsia-hist-stub}} and a {{India-hist-stub}} as a daughter of it for stubs that relate specifically to India?--Carabinieri 20:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{sportsclub-stub}}

For a few weeks now, we've got {{footyclub-stub}}. Category:Sports stubs contains many more stub articles about sports clubs (mostly basketball, ice hockey and volleyball), which leads me to propose {{sportsclub-stub}}/Category:Sports club stubs. Aecis praatpaal 21:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sports stubs are divided by sport, and this type doesn't fit into this scheme. But I think it's a good idea to have {{basketball-club-stub}}, {{icehockey-club-stub}} etc, provided there is enough stubs. Conscious 10:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{icehockey-team-stub}} already exists. Stub articles about basketball clubs can be double-stubbed sport-club-stub and hoops-stub if there are not enough articles about basketball clubs/teams for a separate template/category. Same goes for volleyball-stub (which doesn't seem to exist yet), which can be used in combination with sport-club-stub for teams/clubs, and with sport-bio-stub for players, until there are enough stubs for a separate template/category. Aecis praatpaal 11:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Singular please! I'd prefer {{sport-club-stub}} or {{sportclub-stub}} with Category:Sport club stubs. Caerwine 06:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks after the proposal, there is 1 support (Caerwine) and 1 oppose (Conscious). So there is no clear consensus either way. What do others think of this proposal? Aecis praatpaal 13:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be useful - there are at present plenty of cricket clubs or teams that would be added from Category:Cricket stubs (although I suppose those would have to be double-tagged). Plus, there are a number of sports teams that are "all-sports", at least in Europe. I would perhaps suggest {{sport-team-stub}}, however, to include things that aren't really clubs but still could be logically categorised together (see Indian women's cricket team for example) Sam Vimes 13:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. {{sport-team-stub}} → Category:Sports team stubs → Category:Sports teams looks like it would be best. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]




Aircraft stubs

Category:Aircraft stubs consist of more than 900 articles, and would like to sort according to country of manufacture, bu am open to other structures if anyone has anything better. Bjelleklang - talk 14:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another possibility would be to:
  1. Expand {{bomber-stub}} into a {{mil-aero-stub}} to also cover fighters.
  2. Add {{airship-stub}} to deal with lighter than air aircraft.
  3. Add {{rotorcraft-stub}} to deal with helicopters, gyrocopters and tilt rotor planes.
  4. Add {{jet-aero-stub}} to deal with jet airplanes. Strangely enough this is the only one of my three proposals that doesn't seem to already have a parallel main category as there is no Category:Jet aircraft.

I have no real preference in this case for a propulsion based, versus nation based scheme, but I doubt if there enough aero-stubs to support both. Caerwine 16:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that at combination of the two would be too much, but I don't think that a propulsion-based sorting would be best, as some of the sub categories would be extremely large ({{rotorcraft-stub}} and {{jet-aero-stub}}). A better idea than both these two might to sort by manufacturer... Bjelleklang - talk 16:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...or at least by the nationality of the manufacturer. Another option, one which I'd probably favour, is to do the same as with cars - split by era, using important dates in Aircraft history as cutoffs (e.g., Alcock & Brown, Chuck Yeagar, Concorde) and using the same terminology as for cars. Grutness...wha? 23:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure that era would be the best way to go, as there isn't really any tradition of 'veteran,' 'brass,' 'vintage' or 'classic' aircraft (that I'm aware of) unlike cars, so I just think that would tend to confuse people. I think we would be better off by sorting either on manufacturer or type (with several subcats for some), although not both. Bjelleklang - talk 23:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While there would be some overlap, {{biplane-stub}} (which would also include triplanes and the like) and {{jet-aero-stub}} would be a defacto era sorting. It's doubtful that a manufacturer based spilt would yield groups large enough for stub categories. Caerwine 02:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Still not too convinced about this, especially not about {{jet-aero-stub}}, as this would get quite large. Have another suggestion though, what about the following:
Although I'm open for just about anything, I think it's important to split up some categories such as the proposed {{jet-aero-stub}} as it would encompass quite a lot of aircraft. Bjelleklang - talk 14:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to propose {{mil-aero-stub}} myself, subject to it being of sensible size (in either direction). I'd suggest it doesn't replace {{bomber-stub}}, but supercat it. Several of the other proposals seems less clear-cut. Alai 17:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree to this; {{bomber-stub}} should be replaced by {{Milcombat-aero-stub}} (or under another name), as it currently only holds 21 stubs. I can agree to other alternatives regarding the category names, but believe that there should be a category for single-engined aircraft (or General Aviation), commuter aircraft, smaller jets, and as bigger jets. Bjelleklang - talk 18:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unless a {{mil-aero-stub}} would be too large, which I rather doubt, I would oppose splitting the stub into combat and supprt aircraft stubs given that there are quite a few craft that have served in both roles such as the C-130/AC-130, T-37/A-37, or the B-29/KB-29 to name the most notable ones.
I also don't like the proposed division of jets into three rather arbitrary stubs, especially since most of the jet aircraft articles are not stubs. The writers of aerocruft have been very busy writing good and complete articles about modern military and passenger aircraft. Each of the aircraft mentioned in the three jet sub types above as examples have lengthy non-stub articles. I'd actually be more worried whether we actually have 60 stubs about jet aircraft than whether we should have three separate stubs.
Finally, I don't like the proposed {{misc-aero-stub}}. Isn't that just simply {{aero-stub}}? Caerwine 23:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind combining both milstubs into {{mil-aero-stub}} (including {{bomber-aero-stub}}),. What about dropping the categories I mentioned earlier, and settling on {{GA-aero-stub}} for General Aviation, {{Airliner-aero-stub}} for airliners/commuter aircraft, {{Cargo-aero-stub}} for freight/cargo aircraft with their own stubs, as well as {{rotorcraft-aero-stub}} for rotorcraft, leaving gliders, airships and other rare types in {{aero-stub}}?
The only problem as such I could see here, is certain airliners that has been modified to be used in the cargo role as well. This is easily fixed, as they would a) be a seperate stub, or b) be included as a subchapter of the aircraft type. Bjelleklang - talk 16:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to delete {{bomber-stub}}, you're on the wrong page. I strongly suspect that under-sorting is the issue here, not lack of articles. Also strongly oppose {{GA-aero-stub}}: that's just the root category reinvented, as per the previous proposal of misc-. I could live with {{Airliner-stub}} (note name), and with the cargo one if there's the numbers. Your last proposal is not clear: if you're suggesting a single stub type for dual-use airliners with cargo versions, then equally opposed. Alai 06:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
General Aviation is actually an established term, used to describe private aircraft, often used by hobby pilots (who don't fly for a living). See General Aviation. What I meant by that last sentence, was merely that for some aircraft, cargo and passenger versions are identical, as with the 747-200F. Basically, this will either have an own article, or be written as a paragraph in the article about the 747, but in both cases, ther won't be any problem sorting them. Bjelleklang - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 07:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake. Always good to be enlightened. I'd suggest that private-aero- would be much clearer (if less strictly accurate), though, assuming there are a splittable number of these. And thanks for the clarification on the second point. I agree it's a non-problem; there's likely be be relatively few of these, especially as unsplit articles that remain stubs, and in such cases double-stubbing is hardly horrendous. Alai 07:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, this category seems to contain numerous "aviation concepts" stubs, and others not on specific types of aircraft. I assume these would be more correctly/usefully in {{aviation-stub}}, which confusingly is almost empty, aside from being a super-cat. A tighter wording on the category page might be helpful. Alai 08:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Have listed {{Bomber-stub}} on WP:SFD, if anyone wants to contribute to that discussion. Bjelleklang - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 13:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's any objections, I would like to create the templates, and begin sorting around friday first with the following stubs:
{{mil-aero-stub}} also including {{bomber-stub}} Note: will leave {{bomber-stub}} alone for now.
{{GeneralAv-aero-stub}} - General Aviation
{{Airliner-aero-stub}} - Other passenger aircraft
{{Cargo-aero-stub}} - Cargo/freight aircraft
{{Rotorcraft-aero-stub}} Rotary-wing, V-22, gyrocopters and similar.
Will also sort technology and other related non-aircraft stubs to {{aviation-stub}}. Bjelleklang - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 23:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd like to point out that there are already several objections to these. "GeneralAv-aero-stub" has not been proposed; its immediate predecessor in this discussion, GA-aero-stub, I have already objected to: I don't think this is a clearly-named stub tag, nor is the most common term for what would be placed in it, nor does it correspond to the naming of any analogous permanent category. Mil-aero- I (still) support, the others I (still) oppose at those names, including the "-aero-" addition to Caerwine's proposal. We also lack any indication of the sizes of any of these proposed splits, aside from the mils. Alai 04:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]



American Football Bio Stubs

Right now, there are about 1118 articles in American football biography stubs. That sounds like a large, large, large number which could be cut down considerably if we split the stub. Currently, the description is "this biographical article on an american football player, coach, or other figure is a stub." Well, wouldnt an american football player stub, an american football coach stub, and an american football personailty stub make sense? I'm not sure what images we could use (all this copyright documentation stuff scares me), but I DO feel that there should be a stub-split. Thoughts?jfg284 16:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no requirement that stub messages have icons, but if they do, they can't be fair use images. Caerwine 22:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Caerwine. Ther's no need for an icon. As to the split itself, splitting out the coaches and the personalities might reduce things a little, but the main problem's probably likely to remain - the players category will be big. Since I doubt a geographical split would be useful on this one, with players moving from team to team, perhaps this one could be split by era? A pre-WWII American football-player stub might reduce some of the load, for instance, and is likely to be a specialist area that certain editors would know far more about than others. A short, snappy name for it would be needed, though, since Pre-WWII-Amfootball-player-bio-stub is just a tad longwinded. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could also sort by league in which the players were most active (e.g. af2-bio-stub, nifl-bio-stub, aifl-bio-stub, etc.), or by franchise (e.g. packers-bio-stub, nygiants-bio-stub). I personally am more inclined towards the latter. Aecis praatpaal 01:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shows how little I know about American Football - I'd assumed that players transferred from club to club, like in other sports (which would make separating by franchise very difficult, I would think). Grutness...wha? 08:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • They certainly do. I believe it used to be more common for a player to spend his whole career in a single club, but it certainly doesn't seem to be the norm these days. League sounds broadly feasible to me: though wouldn't that leave a pretty huge NFL-player-stub category, all the same? (Just guessing.) Alai 08:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • They indeed do, but I assume there are many players who are notable as a player of one particular club. I see no reason to believe that American football is any different from football/soccer. George Best will always be associated with Manchester United. The same goes for sir Stanley Matthews and Stoke City. Michael Jordan will always be associated with the Chicago Bulls. Kobe Bryant will always be associated with the LA Lakers. Aecis praatpaal 10:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sir Stan with Blackpool, I hope you mean! Which gives some indication as to why this could be a problem. Played who have moved between several clubs could get many stub templates or even be subject to edit wars. Grutness...wha? 05:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is, there certainly are players that will be associated with more than one, and players who wont be associated with any. I'd say that the best way with the players would be to go position: first break it into offensive player / defensive player, they after that into offensive backfield, offensive line, defensive line, and secondary, if need be. basically, i'm saying position would be the best.

Alright then. I'll go ahead and start on Quarterback, Wide Reciever, and Linebacker. I don't really have an image, so i'll just stick with the wilson football image that's in there now. Thanks for the input.jfg284 17:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note there's supposed to be a seven day discussion period, i.e. waiting until the 19th before doing any actual creation. Also, the suggestion was "quarterback-stub", not "quarterbackbio-stub". Alai 18:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's also now {{Widereceiverbio-stub}}; I'd move it, but I think the capitalization needs to be discussed abit more first - do we want {{WideReceiver-stub}} as proposed, or {{Widereceiver-stub}} as originally created, given that it's not a proper noun and the article is at wide receiver? --Mairi 05:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
dammit. i never know when exactly i'm supposed to do stuff. my bad, it seemed like a consensus had been met supporting the stubs so i made them according to naming conventions (i first created them at quarterback, widereceiver and linebacker, but then tacked bio on there to follow conventions. should i re-tag the "a"s that ive moved back to am. football bio stub, or what?

jfg284 06:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jfg: No, don't bother, just hang your head penitently for a while. :) It's better to wait, though, to avoid needlessly tagging things with templates that then become redirects due to later moves. So far as I know, there's no convention to include "bio" in all sub-cats of bio-stub, just where it's logically needed. Typical patterns are "<job>-stub", where <job> would only logically refer to a person, or "<field or nation>-bio-stub", to clarify that it's not for other things in <field> or <nation>.
On Mairi's question: I don't know if we're yet completely consistent about this -- much less having an actual convention! -- but the recent trend seems to be to use CamelCase for all references, regardless of original caps, so I'd suggest WideReceiver-stub. The alternative would be wide-receiver-stub, which fits the pattern of many existing types, but seems to be somewhat less trendy. Alai 04:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so what should they be? Quarterback-stub, WideReceiver-Stub, and Linebacker-stub? Those three to start? Or should we also add a RunningBack-stub? i think that would significantly decrease the amount of football stubs, and its logical to me.jfg284 you were saying? 13:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify status on this thread: The following now exist: {{quarterback-stub}}, {{widereceiver-stub}}, and {{linebacker-stub}}. I've done some sorting, but in the time it's taken to start sorting, Category:American football biography stubs has grown to fill another page! I'm also seeing a lot of biographies that do not fit one of the three newly created categories. I recommend adding four more:
We'll probably need to discuss name structure on the latter two. I've used the "Amfoot" prefix found in the parent stub {{Amfootbio-stub}}, but that doesn't mean there isn't a better option. --EncycloPetey 15:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Folklore stubs

I'd like to propose 2 folklore stubs. One would be a Category:Folklore stubs, with template {{folklore-stub}}. This would include all the nationality entries for folklore generally, as well as for folklorists. This category would come under literature (recognizing that much in the way of folklore is non-verbal, too, such as folk art). The second would be a sub-category called Category:Folktale stubs, with template {{folktale-stub}} and would come under the category Category: Story stubs. Bruxism 20:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea how many folklore and folktale stubs there are? (The threshold for stub templates/categories is usually 60 to 80 articles). I reckon there are quite a few in {{culture-stub}} and {{socio-stub}}, and perhaps even one or two in {{myth-stub}}. Aecis praatpaal 21:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I checked those. There are very few (<10) in {{culture-stub}} or {{socio-stub}} that most folklorists would consider folklore-related. I did a quick count on the Folklore entry, and there are about 10-15 right now. I could easily add two dozen more, or could add them as requests for articles, and they could work their way up to stub-length. There are other entries that could yield many more. Proverb - itself a stub at the moment - could include a list of proverbs with links to their own stubs, although some of those could be in Wikiquote, so I don't know how to handle that issue. As for {{myth-stub}}, there are entries there that properly should be in a folklore, rather than a myth, category, given that they refer to popular beliefs but are secular or not connected to myths in any way (in other words, they refer to the unsicentific definition of "myth" as "wrong belief" rather than "sacred narrative.") As for folktale, it would be fairly easy to do a big data drop of several hundred worldwide folktales, with a stub-like entry for each including basic info like 1) well-known collections or printed versions, 2) tale-types, 3) motifs, 4) areas recorded and other variants, etc. So, are there 60-80 stubs now? I don't know. But if I had enough time I could come up with them. What's the proper Wiki way to proceed on this? And, assuming we go forward, where can we get a nice little image to go with the template? Bruxism 01:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Songs stubs by categories

Like

Not sure who wrote this, but it's a thought. Another possible split would be {{nonenglish-song-stub}} for songs in foreign languages. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming they're of sufficient size, the original 4 sound like good ideas. I don't care for {{nonenglish-song-stub}} as it doesn't fit well with the other categories. For one thing, it'd only cover vocal songs, which I don't think is too useful for editors. It also cuts across genres that include songs in both english and other languages (classical compositions, rock, and potential categories such as celtic music). Something like {{worldmusic-song-stub}} might be useful, if there was a non-vague term for it... --Mairi 21:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've been bold. I hope it's all right. By the way, I used {{world-music-song-stub}} instead. Smmurphy(Talk) 07:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OneTwo more basic ones are needed I think: {{pop-song-stub}}, {{rap-song-stub}}. Do I need to wait another week to add it? Others such as for folk, electronica, polka, and chamber music can wait for now, we'll see how small {{song-stub}} can get from just these, I guess. Smmurphy(Talk) 07:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On top of this, some subcategories could be further subcatagorized in two ways: chronologically - for instance {{1970s-rock-song-stub}}, {{1980s-rock-song-stub}}, {{1990s-rock-song-stub}}, {{2000s-rock-song-stub}}, and by band - {{beatles-song-stub}}. Also, there seem to be two types of popular music songs, one could be called {{pop-standard-stub}}, or something to denote the song came before about 1964 (the year the eight track was created) or were recorded famously by multiple artists, and the other {{pop-song-stub}} for more recent creations. The reason for this split is that the older songs tended not to be connected to one musician as more recent songs. Other subcategories that could get close to the requirements (would have 30-50 articles) include Madonna, Blondie, and Rammstein songs, jazz songs, anime related and video game related songs, folk songs and electronica songs. It seems that country and show tune songs might be too small, although a folk-country category would easily be large enough. Would {{folk-country-song-stub}} be an ok name? If it becomes clear that show tunes will indeed be fairly small, they could be sent over to theatre stubs or even musical (not yet in existance) or broadway stubs. this addition was made by me, Smmurphy(Talk) at 15:23 on 11 December 2005
Make that {{hip-hop-song-stub}} rather than {{rap-song-stub}} since the stub category would have Category:Hip hop songs as it's non stub parent. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can see from whats not red what is now created. I'm still on the fence about beatles song stub and {{blondie-song-stub}}, and if I ever get things sorted we can see if country song stub is still too small. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not there yet, but eventually pop songs could be split further, something like {{1990s-pop-song-stub}} and {{2000s-pop-song-stub}} (I'm estimating each will be in the 50-100 article range). That will cover bubblegum pop which is going to make up the bulk of the category. earlier than that, pop music wasn't as clear of a genre, with pop consisting alternately of rock, disco, funk, and r&b. Smmurphy(Talk) 07:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{sportbio-stub}} census

Okay, I've finished checking Category:Sportspeople stubs (~1550 stubs), and the following look splittable:

I'd welcome advice on all the above names, although I've kept "bio" in all of them as they will often include coaches, owners, broadcasters etc. as well as athletes. Creating all of the above would take the category down to ~1000 stubs.

Other possibilities... Swimming could also be expanded to "aquatics", with the addition of diving, synchronized swimming and water polo (total 118). There are also 246 auto racing bio stubs, but I'm not sure how to split these - there may be enough to create separate bio stubs for F1, NASCAR and Champcar.

For the record, the next few sports are:

  • field hockey (51)
  • canoe/kayak (40)
  • weightlifting (39)
  • skiing (39)
  • rowing (36)
  • cycling (36)

Article lists on my sandbox. SJO mmmmm 22:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to expanding to {{Swimmingbio-stub}} to {{aquaticsbio-stub}}, how about a {{boatsportbio-stub}} or the like to get canoeists, kayakers, rowers, and yachters? Even without the yachters that would 76 stubs by your census. Caerwine 23:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of minor points here - 1) what was ma-stub changed to was it martial arts or martial art? whichever, there should be some consistency with the bio name. 2) I take it that skatingbio would be a subcat of the wintersportsbio. 3) Personally, I'd like to keep the yachting and the rowing/canoeing/kayaking separate, though the latter three could probably be combined. I know there's a bias here (I come from a country which just about has these as a national sport nowadays), but I don't think there's enough crossover for the same group of editors to be involved. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC) (PS - "yachters"?)[reply]
Well, I didn't want to use the term sailors as that would include people who engage in non-sport sailing, and yachers seemed preferable to yachtists, yacht geeks, yachtspersons. Caerwine 03:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They're called "yachties" here, but that might be a NZ-only thing. Although I'm not keen on the term, sailboat-bio-stub might do if it ever gets big enough - it could include windsurfers as well that way. Grutness...wha? 04:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only 51 in field hockey? As a former field hockey player, I'll get that one above the threshold asap ;) Aecis praatpaal 21:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing has 16 stubs, although I'm not convinced about a merged {{boatsportbio-stub}} either - as far as I know there isn't any significant overlap between those sports (apart from canoe and kayak). ma-stub seems to now be {{martialart-stub}}, so {{martialartbio-stub}} would presumably be the best name for that (I've now put the full list of martial arts stubs on my sandbox). Indeed, skatingbio-stub should be a subcat of wintersportbio-stub, as should {{icehockey-player-stub}} (which is due a rename, but that's another matter). SJO mmmmm 21:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Will archerybio-stub be a child of martialbio-stub? After all, archery (aka kyudo) is one of the martial arts. Caerwine 03:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't feel like it, as archery doesn't equal kyudo. Conscious 07:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with conscious. If you included that, you'd have to include javelin throuwers as well, which would look very strange in martial arts. You might want to consier boxing and wrestling in there, though. Grutness...wha? 04:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A propos {{tennisbio-stub}}: {{tennis-stub}} already has approximately 300 biographical articles, so {{tennisbio-stub}} would have close to 400 articles. Tennis is perhaps the biggest sport without a bio-stub category. Should be created ASAP... GregorB 21:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
TYeah, that looks a very strong contender. Grutness...wha? 04:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved two field hockey players from {{sport-stub}} to {{sport-bio-stub}}. Were they already in the 51 you mentioned, Sjorford, or are they #52 and #53? Aecis praatpaal 22:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got my spreadsheets in front of me right now, but I'll post the full list of hockey articles tonight. SJO mmmmm 13:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I've created some of the above, and the totals for some of the other sports are now:

  • Auto racing: 251 (created, being populated)
  • Swimming: 110 (done) (Aquatics: 176)
  • Gymnastics: 76 (done)
  • Martial arts: 74 (created, being populated)
  • Field hockey: 73 (done)
  • Cycling: 73 (done)

All of these look pretty safe to split off. SJO (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further updates - hockey now has 89, so I'll split off {{fieldhockeybio-stub}} shortly. Water polo has grown to 86 on its own, many of which are hiding in Olympic stubs. That could be a separate subcategory of {{aquatics-stub}}, although it would seem odd to split that off and and not {{swimming-stub}}...but doing both would leave {{aquatics-stub}} with only 42 stubs (diving and synchronised swimming). Comments etc.? sjorford (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further furtherness - there seems to be a {{diving-stub}} already, but for underwater diving rather than platform diving. Should these two be separated, and if so should this stub type be renamed? sjorford (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I wasn't planning to get involved in this until the biosciences were fully under control, but... How about a {{watersport-stub}} and {{watersportbio-stub}} for all water sports, except for those children that have sufficient numbers to warrant splitting off? The name would be generic enough to include swimming, rowing, surfing, and sailing.
Since well more than the requisite week has passed, I'm creating a template and category for {{autoracingbio-stub}}. --EncycloPetey 11:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about watersport-stub - that sounds like an artificial grouping of sports to me. The various winter sports and aquatic sports at least have common organisations grouping them together (the Winter Olympics and FINA respectively). For now, I think creating {{swimmingbio-stub}} and {{waterpolobio-stub}} should be enough. sjorford (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Business bio stub daughters

After having gone through just the A of {{business-bio-stub}}, I've already found 38 European and 35 United States business biography stubs. This continues in the other letters. So I would like to propose {{euro-business-bio-stub}} and {{US-business-bio-stub}}. There are only 9 Asian business biography stubs, but that might reach the threshold as well. If it does, I would like to propose {{Asia-business-bio-stub}}. I would have proposed the same solution as {{footybio-stub}}, with daughters for every continent, but I'm not sure about Africa, Oceania and South America yet. Aecis praatpaal 23:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After having gone through A, N, O, P, Q, U, V, X, Y, Z and "other", the scores are:
{{US-business-bio-stub}}: 65;
{{Euro-business-bio-stub}}: 59;
{{Asia-business-bio-stub}}: 19.
Aecis praatpaal 01:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look in Japan-bio-stub to increase those asian numbers considerably! Grutness...wha? 04:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Business bio stubs aren't yet at such a size that we need continent level subcats just yet. Let's first create and populate any approporiate country level stubs. Since {{US-business-bio-stub}} was the subject of an earlier proposal this month and I'm starting a sort of {{US-bio-stub}}, I'm going to go ahead and create that one now. Caerwine 14:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that a category like Category:European business biography stubs is going to be too large, and country split will be more helpful. The most likely candidates are countries with largest bio-stub categories: UK, Canada, France, Germany. Japan is also famous for its businesspeople. Also, a contry-based split will take stubs from both {{business-bio-stub}} and [country]-bio-stub. Conscious 15:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]




Ontario-geo-stub

Ontario-geo-stub has ~1000 articles already. I have looked into the content of 20 or so of the matching articles and thought about how Ontario is divided up (I live in Ontario), and I think an appropriate split (50-150 articles per proposed subcategory) would be:

  • Eastern Ontario-related geographical stubs (e-ontario-geo-stub)
  • Northeastern Ontario-related geographical stubs (ne-ontario-geo-stub)
  • Southern Ontario-related geographical stubs (se-ontario-geo-stub)
    • Toronto-related geographical stubs (toronto-geo-stub)
  • South Central-Ontario-related geographical stubs (s-c-ontario-geo-stub)
  • Southwestern Ontario-related geographical stubs (sw-ontario-geo-stub)
  • Western Ontario-related geographical stubs (w-ontario-geo-stub)

I do not know how to design stub templates, and the instructions seem confusing. Would someone else be kind enough to design them? --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 09:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, but a few points first:
  1. How is Ontario actually divided - I mean the place itself? Are the categories you've suggested a reflection of how it's normally divided, and are there well-known boundaries 9or are people likely to argue about where Eastern Ontario ends and Northeastern Ontario starts?
  2. We're trying to get rid of the "-related's in category names, and you don't need any other hyphens there.
  3. The template names probably need a bit of work - the ones you suggested are a bit less than optimal.
  4. There is a Toronto WikiProject, so a city-specific geo-stub's not a bad idea.

If points 1 and 3 can be cleared up then I doubt you'll get many objections, but (as normal0 we'll give it a week to see what stirs up. Grutness...wha? 10:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario is rather confusing when trying to subdivide, as it has a a variety of different first order-subdivisions, and the boundaries haven't been stable. That said, I think the following should work as an acceptible split of Ontario, if not as ambitious as unforgettableid's proposal:

In that case, I'd suggest starting with NOntario, Toronto, and Ottawa, and seeing how much that cuts the main category down to. If it's still too big, then it'll be one to revisit - but hopefully just removing those three will cut it down quite a lot. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the proposal to split Ontario-geo-stub, although I don't know Ontario well enough to assess which way of splitting is best. However, I would advice you to use e.g. "Northern Ontario geography stubs", instead of geographical. Aecis praatpaal 00:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, where to start...alright, Ottawa already has an {{Ottawa-stub}}, which contains geo stubs among other articles. (It should probably be renamed, but that's another discussion.) Toronto itself has a large number of neighbourhoods, but not enough stubs to require its own category, unless we consider the Greater Toronto Area. This will whittle the list down significantly, but may make future splits a tad more difficult (see below).

Ontario is typically divided into four areas, which don't have geopolitical divisions. They are:

  • Northern Ontario, which is relatively sparse compared to all the others; it includes all districts
  • Eastern Ontario, which includes Ottawa
  • Central Ontario, which extends from Peel Region in the west, to Durham in the east, and Simcoe in the north; this includes Toronto
  • Southwestern Ontario, everything west, north and south of Peel Region and southwest of Georgian Bay

These areas are generally well known in Ontario, and probably Canada. The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is generally a large component of Central Ontario, but excludes some portions of it, and (depending on who you ask) may include parts of Southwestern Ontario. This is why I say it'll create problems in the future.

I propose we split as follows:

The first two should absorb nearly two thirds of the stubs between them; if there's a need, the latter two can be created in the future (this will be likely, since there are at least 600 more locations without articles at all). I wouldn't be opposed to a {{Toronto-geo-stub}}, which would be populated from entries in the list of neighbourhoods in Toronto, but I don't think it's necessary. The one problem is that the usage Central Ontario is far less common than Greater Toronto; we could use {{GreaterToronto-geo-stub}}, define the boundaries in the cat (see notes above), and exclude locations that are in Central Ontario but not in the GTA (ie - leave them as {{Ontario-geo-stub}}). Mindmatrix 01:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that'd leave us with too few categories. Sharper category divisions (they say) means more people will improve on stubs they know more about. People can look for Ontario-geo-stubs about cities near where they live. I believe four is far too few categories. --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 04:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that someone above mentions it, I think there should be a {gta-stub} type as well. Conjecture: As implied? above, The GTA is perhaps more familiar a concept to people than Southern Ontario. --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 04:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to agree with subdivisions, but this is going to take some explanation:

Northern Ontario: I'd favour a single Northern Ontario stub; having separate stubs for Northeastern and Northwestern is largely unnecessary at the present time. The number of articles just isn't there to warrant two separate stub cats. But the boundary between Northern and Southern is as clean and straightforward as an unofficial boundary can possibly be. I also disagree with Mindmatrix on the timing; I think we may as well do it now, sort the articles and get it over with.
Southern Ontario: This is a grouping that's rarely used by itself; it's almost always further subdivided into Eastern, Western, Central and the Greater Toronto Area (and Niagara Region, which isn't considered part of any of the above.) But the problem is that since these are all unofficial, there's no real agreement on precisely where the boundaries of each region are.
A lot of places are straightforward: London is incontrovertibly in Western, Kingston is obviously in Eastern. But depending on who you ask, Guelph and Brantford could be either Western or Central. A lot of people think that Hamilton is part of the GTA -- it isn't, in reality, but in most people's minds it's not part of Western or Central, because it's "in the GTA". (And a lot of those who don't lump it with the GTA tend to put it on the Niagara "none of the above" bus instead.) And Belleville is generally considered Eastern, but by the generally understood definition Eastern begins where Lake Ontario ends and the St. Lawrence River starts...and Belleville is actually west of that point, which means that by definition it's in Central. And as I already mentioned, Niagara isn't considered to be within any of the compass-point-subregions; it's just Niagara (or Golden Horseshoe, if necessary, but certainly not Western or Central or GTA...which leaves no stub category available for it.)

Bottom line, I'd have to agree with Caerwine: distinguishing Northern from Southern is entirely unproblematic, but subdividing Southern is a bigger can of fuzzy-edged worms than Wikipedia wants to open. So this would be my suggestion:

  1. Northern Ontario geo-stub
  2. Southern Ontario geo-stub (MINUS Ottawa/Toronto)
  3. use the general Ottawa-stub and Toronto-stub for stuff specific to those cities, rather than special geo-stubs. (Although AFAIK the Toronto-stub would need to be created.)

I'm not really sure how else this could be done, given the too-high potential for fuzziness that I noted above. Bearcat 10:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, I don't think splitting in that fashion will do much to reduce the target category. {{Ottawa-stub}} is already populated, and would acquire only a few dozen articles at most from {{Ontario-geo-stub}}. There are about 100 Toronto (not GTA) stubs and 150 Northern Ontario stubs at most - for a grand total of 300 or so, which would still leave 700 in {{Ontario-geo-stub}} (there's no need to re-stub them to {{SouthernOntario-geo-stub}}, since that creates more work for no additional benefit). We all seem to agree that {{NorthernOntario-geo-stub}} will be created, so we'd have:
As Grutness says, let's start on these then. I'm certain we'll need another split though. Mindmatrix 16:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care where we put the divisions, as long as there are enough of them. We're just organizing the stub tree, not adding permanent category markers to the bottoms of articles, Will people really care that much about which stub tag an article gets? And, most importantly, if the purpose of stub sorting is to encourage people to expand stubs, and there are ~1000 Ontario-geo-stubs, wouldn't it make more sense to make more categories than that so that people could look at a list of stubs near where they live? Cheers, --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 21:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that someone will have to do all the re-stubbing, and in this case it will need to be done on a case-by-case basis. That's a lot of work. Also, 200 stubs is only one page in a category listing, so that's not a bad max target to aim for. I do agree we need more splits though, so how's this:
That should make each category contain less than 200 articles, while reducing the load on {{Ontario-geo-stub}} to less than two pages. Mindmatrix 20:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an excellent compromise. --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 21:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]




{{succulent-stub}}

This stub would greatly relieve the stress on {{plant-stub}}. The category would include all the cacti and ice plant stubs, among others. I noticed a lot of these as I was marking articles with the new {{tree-stub}} tag, though I don't have an exact count. --EncycloPetey 05:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky - 'succulent' is a very hard one to define. Are there enough cactus stubs to warrant a cactus-stub of their own? (I'd suspect not). Otherwise, a {{herbaceous plant-stub}} stub could be more useful - MPF 23:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The term 'succulent' is well enough defined that there are books about succulent plants, societies for the study and cultivation of succulents, and succulent sections of many major botanical gardens. Between the Cactaceae, Aizoaceae, Agavaceae, and Asphdelaceae (or Aloeaceae) there are plenty of stubs to fill such a category, but there's probably not enough Cactus stub articles on their own to warrant a separate stub. As for a separate stub for plants that are herbaceous, well that seems a bit redundant, since the majority of plants in {{plant-stub}} are herbs or shrubs. In any case, the stub categorization is intended only to be temporary until the articles aren't stubs any more. Whether we create a permanent Succulent category is an entirely separate issue that we don't have to deal with right now. --EncycloPetey 02:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]




{{behavior-stub}}

This stub would relieve the stress on {{psych-stub}} and would include a fair number of articles on plant and animal behavior currently stuffed into {{biosci-stub}}. --EncycloPetey 08:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would use {{behave-stub}}, to avoid the o/ou controversy, or {{ethology-stub}}. Aecis praatpaal 10:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that the term ethology is not well-enough known; it doesn't appear in any of the dictionaries I hvae at hand. Also, that term may not include as broad a set of topics as behavior would. I'm not sure how I feel about {{behave-stub}} as an alternative, but you're right that we should try to avoid spellings that would be controversial. -- EncycloPetey 10:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ethology is narrower in scope than behavioral science (which also includes psychology and anthopolgy as sub cats). However, given the appraent focus of where the stubs that are to be regrouped are coming from, perhaps {{biopsychology-stub}} → Category:Biopsychology stubs → Category:Biopsychology would prove a useful stub that avoids having to deal with the o/ou controversy for now and do what the proposer intends. Caerwine 16:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{perception-stub}}

There a quite a number of stub articles under this topic in {{psych-stub}}, {{biosci-stub}}, and {{neuroscience-stub}}. IT seems a useful addition, and would include basic biology of vision and hearing, and well as cognitive processes associated with the reception of environmental stimuli, such as those topics associated with photobiology. --EncycloPetey 16:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

heh... my real area of expertise (though I'm pretty rusty). Conflating perception and cognition may cause a few minor concerns, though it's understandable and is probably a good idea. This would be a logical subcategory of psych (as would the behaviour-stub suggested above. Are you thinking of including psychophysics articles as part of this new category? Grutness...wha? 10:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That would have to be someone else's call, since that's an area I'm not so familiar with. My own interest in perception comes through mathematics and art history. I've read the Scientific American volume on Perception, and the relevant chapter of Philip Zimbardo's incredible psychology textbook, but it's not my area of expertise. If you can suggest specific parameters, it would be a great help. --EncycloPetey 02:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's getting close to ten years since I finished my MSc (with a thesis on visual perception of angles), so I'm a bit rusty. I know of Zimbardo's book, though I was in the (un?)enviable situation of having a thesis supervisor who wrote text books too (actually, he's an occasional Wiki editor, too - User:Robert P. O'Shea. Grutness...wha? 05:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


{{Airport-stub}}

There are currently 1,180 articles in Category:Airport stubs. I would like to propose the same division as with {{Airline-stub}}: {{asia-airport-stub}}, {{euro-airport-stub}}, {{US-airport-stub}}, {{NorthAm-airport-stub}}, {{SouthAm-airport-stub}}, {{Oceania-airport-stub}} and {{Africa-airport-stub}}, provided they reach the threshold (which for many of them doesn't seem to be a problem). Aecis praatpaal 23:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created {{asia-airport-stub}}, {{euro-airport-stub}}, {{US-airport-stub}} and {{NorthAm-airport-stub}}. I will wait with the other three until I know how many stubs the four newly created templates will draw from the main stub category. Aecis praatpaal 21:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The stubsorting of Category:Airport stubs is finished, and this is the final tally:

  • Airport stubs - 79 articles
    • Asian airport stubs - 71 articles
    • European airport stubs - 85 articles
    • North American airport stubs - 79 articles
      • Canadian airport stubs - 573 articles
      • United States airport stubs - 365 articles

This means that the sorting is finished for now. This proposal can now be logged and archived. Aecis praatpaal 23:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia and Montenegro stub types

Currently, there are three stub categories relating to Serbia and Montenegro, Category:Serbia and Montenegro stubs (13 articles), Category:Serbia stubs (155 articles) and Category:Montenegro stubs (5 articles). All but Category:Serbia stubs are seriously underpopulated. I propose:

There are about 70 bio-stubs in Category:Serbia stubs. Conscious 09:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you do realise this was all debated and sorted out only a couple of weeks ago, don't you? Have a look at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted/October 2005#Serbia and Montenegro. A separate bio-stub's not a bad idea, but I think we can afford to keep the Montenegro-stub around for now to see what happens with it. Grutness...wha? 09:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. For now, I withdraw first of the proposals. Conscious 10:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I had a quick look round... the Montenegro category's up to 40 stubs now :) Grutness...wha? 10:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We really need {{Serbia-bio-stub}} now. Take a look at {{Serbia-stub}} for yourself; it contains well over 60 biographies. Duja 10:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK to create {{Serbia-bio-stub}} now? Duja 09:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no-one's objected, so yeas it's OK - but it might be better to make it SerbiaMontenegro-bio-stub, for now at least. Grutness...wha? 09:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I'll stick to Serbia-bio-stub. I'll do the creation and article fixing tomorrow. Duja 15:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More film stubs needed

The Category:Film stubs category is still very overpopulated, and while some sub-cats have been added, there are many that still don't fit into any of them, so i propose:

Apologies for any bad code in my edit, I am not good at it. Jdcooper 14:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not certain about the latter, but the former should be {{sf-film-stub}} to parallel {{sf-stub}}. {{Western-film-stub}} for the cowboy and Indian films, and {{war-film-stub}} should also be quite servicible and easily defined catgories. Caerwine 18:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I afree with Caerwine - "scifi" is an insult to true believers! Would be useful though, as would western and war stubs. Thriller/action could cause some problems, so I'd leave that for now, see if we can come up with clearer category break-downs. Oh, and your code was fine! Grutness...wha? 23:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of the broad and nebulous {{action-film-stub}}, how about {{martialarts-film-stub}}? There also ought to be plenty of police/detective films, but I can't come up with a reasonably short stub name for that. -- EncycloPetey 05:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just discovered three new film stubs, including {{HK-film-stub}} and {{India-film-stub}}. What about an over-arching {{Asia-film-stub}} to include Chinese, Japanese, and Korean films in addition to these two as children? --EncycloPetey 08:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{Asia-film-stub}} would be useful, and would get populated pretty fast, since a lot of the films in at least the Korean films and Japanese films categories are stubs. Someone already made the {{Western-film-stub}}, but at the moment it puts the films in the drama film stubs category. If that one's being kept (and I think it should, Westerns are a very unambiguous categorization), you should create the correct category for it. (I'd do it but I don't know if this discussion has reached a concensus on it.) - Bobet 12:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is on-going, but if you'll note the dates on the various comments, most of them are less then a day old. Procedure is to take at least a week to discuss an issue and reach consensus before taking action to create new stubs. Since there are lots of proposals floating around about how to break up the 21 pages of the film stubs, the discussion may take longer than the minimum of one week. --EncycloPetey 14:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a browse through the Category:Film stubs category, and have come up with three new stubs that look reasonably viable:

as well as four others that are plausible:

Those last four will need someone to investigate further as to whether there are really enough existing film stubs of the appropriate genre to populate them. --EncycloPetey 09:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well here goes on those seven stubs
Taking a look at the other *-book-stub templates {{bio-film-stub}}, {{fantasy-film-stub}} and {{crime-film-stub}} would likely also be useful parallels. Caerwine 18:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created {{war-film-stub}} and {{sf-film-stub}} and given {{Western-film-stub}} its proper category and a still from The Great Train Robbery as its icon. I held off on the later suggestions of EncycloPetey and myself because a full week hadn't yet passed. At this point I'm leaning towards creating {{bio-film-stub}}, {{child-film-stub}}, {{crime-film-stub}}, {{fantasy-film-stub}}, {tl|musical-film-stub}}, and {{silent-film-stub}} once the requisite week has passed. {{Hist-film-stub}} has possibilities, but while looking at the film genres in Category:Films by genre, I was inspired by a possible solution to the {{hist-book-stub}} problem which I will be presenting in to SFD, and if adopted would mean that the stub should be created as {{period-film-stub}} instead. I'll add the three new stubs to the stub list once Mairibot finishes recatting the Western-film-stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry but I already added the science fiction one to the list, and I've started adding films to it, terribly sorry about that. I think a horror one would be good too, it could be further subcategorised if needed, but there are a lot of horror stubs there. --Cooksey 21:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So how about that {{Asia-film-stub}} that was proposed a week ago? Googling around (site:wikipedia.org "Japanese films"+stub) shows it would get over a 100 films listed in it from the Japanese films alone (so a {{Japan-film-stub}} might be useful too). - Bobet 01:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more like a reason to create a {{Japan-film-stub}} instead of a {{Asia-film-stub}}. country level stubs are generally more useful than continent level stubs because they eliminate double stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looking around some more, if the {{Japan-film-stub}} was added, I don't think there'd be 50 stubs for the other countries combined (around 20 Korean film stubs would be the next biggest group, and after that, basically nothing). So if that's preferable, I'd be all for it. - Bobet 03:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the seven I promised and {{Japan-film-stub}} as well. The stub type for period/historical film stubs I intend to wait until the SFD for renaming the related book stub is settled to create. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about also adding {{film-org-stub}} for Organizations and their Awards? --EncycloPetey 03:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a {{romance-film-stub}}? A {{thriller-film-stub}} would also be useful, since it doesn't fit neatly into horror or drama, but

 

This article about an action film is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

is definately the most necessary here. Kerowyn 03:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{socialistparty-stub}}

I propose a stub category for socialist and social democratic parties around the world; a similiar stub category already exists for liberal parties. I have listed 422 articles that could be included under this category on my talk page. I have divided up the party articles into four sections: parties from Europe, the Americas, from Africa, and from Asia and the Pacific. I think there are enough articles for them to be further separated into these four regions, much as the more general political party stubs already are.

Actually If I had my druthers, I rather delete {{liberalparty-stub}}, as it's too laxly defined to be of much use. I could see perhaps having a {{socialistparty-stub}}, but I would want it restricted to those that have chosen to affiliate with one of international socialist organizations. Caerwine 18:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would find that problematic, though, because there are lots of explicitly socialist groups (like the Socialist Party USA) that don't have international affiliations and others (like Plaid Cymru) that have international affiliation but not with socialist bodies. That's effectively a bias in favour of the Socialist International.
Whether parties identify as socialist or social democratic stub can at times can be mushy (and that's just as true with SI members as non-SI members) but should that stop us? I think a stub category would encourage people with an interest to contribute, and I think that's a benefit that outweighs being too lax. If a party article is given a socialist or social democratic stub and a user disagrees, then it can act as a catalyst for them to edit the page and add more content. aliceinlampyland 19:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
To be honest, I'm with Caerwine. I'd far rather see parties split by region than by their political alignment in general. I think it's far more likely that articles about socialist parties in the Balkans would be edited by people knowing about Balkan politics than socialist politics. As to the fuzziness of the border being an impetus to edit, it's usually an impetus to edit-war. I've seen stub templates swapped backwards and forwards on articles by people who would be far better employed extending the articles. Grutness...wha? 23:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the continental party stub categories are too large and have the potential to become much larger, and that the logical way to fix that is by continent and by ideology at the same time. Moreover I think it's setting bad precident if liberal party articles have a stub category but other ideologies aren't allowed to create them. aliceinlampyland 16:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Continents are usually split by countries, which would mean we'd same get a category for German parties, one for French parties, etc etc. Far more logical to split things that way, and it parallels the way other stubs are split. As to the liberal party stubs, as I said, I'd be far happier to get rid of that category too - and the communist party one. If you're an Italian socialist, which are you more likely to know something about: an Italian liberal party, or a Norwegian socialist party? Grutness...wha? 23:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Proposals, December 2005

{{US-hotel-stub}}

Many of the buildings listed under {{US-struct-stub}} are hotels. That category is 8 pages and could use more subs. If not under US, then maybe just a general {{hotel-stub}} stub.--MrCalifornia 07:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is getting to splitting point. The question is, whether to split by type of structure or by state. I slightly favour by state, since at least then everything can be covered by 51 categories. Splitting by building type, though, makes some sense too, and there are already some tentative splits of this form (Stadium, mast, and church). Anyone have any thoughts either way? Grutness...wha? 11:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the state split. Again, an average person is more likely to know about local buildings than about all US hotels. (I can imagine some exceptions, though :) And this category is far beyond the splitting point. Conscious 13:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since we don't have even a {{hotel-stub}} I can't say that I favor a {{US-hotel-stub}}. Also in each of the cases of functional sub cats of {{struct-stub}} we had an identifiable group of editors who were interested in the subject. That's less likely in case of hotels. With rare exceptions, hotels are going be buildings of intense but purely local interest. There should be a few states that enough stubs in {{US-struct-stub}} to support a state level split. Caerwine 15:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a {{hotel-corp-stub}}, but I don't know how appropriate that is. Aecis praatpaal 18:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, really - that name was deliberately chosen to make it clear that it was for the corporations, notfor the hotels themselves. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In relation to a point made above, about structures such as churches, there is a category already existing. Shouldn't these be placed in {{church-stub}}. I support the category rather than state split, it seems more relevant - a hotel in California has more in common with a hotel in Idaho than with a stadium in California. Lupinewulf 12:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

splits of {{politician-stub}}

I propose splitting the politicians by continents first to make further splitting easier and to cut down this stub category:

--Carabinieri 14:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not! Let's first exhaust the potential country level splits. If and only if that should prove insufficent should we try continent wide splits. The continent wide bio categories are not in any danger of being overlarge, while there are quite a few country level ones that are. {{Germany-politician-stub}} and {{Italy-politician-stub}} should both be definitly viable, yet they don't exist. Create those two and then resort Category:Politician stubs while counting the ones that don't fit into an existing sub type. Caerwine 15:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See what can be done at the country level first. Once those are cut out, it should be clear whether continental cuts are needed. Africa, I suspect, will be useful, and possibly SouthAm. Not so sure about the others. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be easier to split by continents first and then go onto splitting by countries.--Carabinieri 10:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It's what we've been doing with geographical articles, so why not do it with biographical articles as well? Aecis praatpaal 10:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, fair enough. I'm fairly ambivalent about it either way. It'll mean re-stubbing a lot of the articles twice, but you've got a point. Caerwine, any specific reason for your concerns? If we do the Germany and Italy splits at the same time as the continental ones, will that allay them? Grutness...wha? 12:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly a concern that the stub list is getting too freaking long. If continent level stubs are needed in addition to country level ones to bring Category:Politician stubs out of the verylarge status I have no objections, but I would really like to see if we could do without them if possible. If it must be done, leave {{CentralAm-politician-stub}} and {{MEast-politican-stub}} out of the mix for now. With only 7 countries, Central America should get at most 413 stubs if perversely every country has 59 stubs. Similarly, I'd rather leave the Middle East in Asia unless Asia-politician-stub gets too large. Caerwine 01:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about Central America; I'll add that to the list now.--Carabinieri 22:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and carribean. and grutness and me in oceania! BL kiss the lizard 22:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a tally of politician stubs (5 from the top of each column = 240 out of total 3175). There are several countries that seem splittable now:

  • Germany (12 stubs counted/159 estimated)
  • Republic of Ireland (8/106)
  • Finland (7/93)
  • Switzerland (7/93)
  • Poland (6/79)

There are also several coutries that are probably splittable, the estimation is rather rough.

By region (excluding coutries already named):

  • Africa (39/516)
    • includes Liberia (4/53) and South Africa (4/53)
  • Asia (40/529) (35/463)
    • includes Iraq (5/66) and Japan (5/66)
    • Middle Eastern countries combined: (20/265) (including Iraq)
  • Caribbean (7/93)
  • Central America (13/172)
    • includes Nicaragua (5/66) and Honduras (4/53)
  • Europe (57/754)
    • includes Croatia (5/66), Serbia and Montenegro (5/66, or 4/53 if you want just Serbia), Austria (4/53) and Ukraine (4/53)
  • Oceania (7/93)
  • South America (13/172)
    • includes Argentina (5/66)

Conscious 08:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, {{Japan-politician-stub}} seems to exist aleady. BTW, there are some 400 stubs in the main category that aren't sorted into existent subcats. Conscious 09:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So I propose the following hierarchy:

{{CentralAm-politician-stub}} and {{SouthAm-politician-stub}} may be useful too, but these stub can as well be left in the main category. Also, subcategories for other countries mentioned may be viable too, as there are probably some stubs about politicians that are marked with national tags but not {{politician-stub}}. Conscious 19:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be cool, if the people sorting this category would also double-stub the politicians with the national stub tags, as far as that is possible. This will make further splits easier and is also more practical since people who will expand stubs are more likely to know something about politicians from the country they live in or know a lot about.--Carabinieri 20:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With the numbers given above, I'll reluctantly support the {{Africa-politician-stub}}, {{Asia-politician-stub}}, and {tl|Euro-politician-stub}}, tho I hope we can do away with them at some point. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not also create {{CentralAm-politician-stub}}, {{SouthAm-politician-stub}}, and {{MEast-politician-stub}}? This is the way {{bio-stub}} is split. It has always been the policy of WP:WSS to make the stub categories as specific as possible while maintaining a certain but never quite defined minimum of stubs in each category. There is a good reason for this, that is that the point of the project is to allow people to find stubs they would be interested in expanding as easily as possible. Why change this policy when it comes to politician stubs? We can't suddenly say that the list of stubs has gotten too long and we need to stop creating new ones as these become viable.--Carabinieri 14:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because the stub list is too long now and the only virture those three possess is the elimination of some double stubbing. (Not all, as those which are for politicans in countries that have enough stubs to make a bio stub category, but not a politician stub categiry viable will continue to be needing a double stub.) Double stubbing is far from the most pressing problem this project faces right now. That problem is bringing stub categories down to the <800 or lower range. It's why I've reluctantly supported the African, Asian, and European continent wide splits of politican-stub, as the numbers above by Conscious indicate that they are necessary at this time to achieve that goal for {{politician-stub}}. The other three aren't, and I strongly doubt if {{CentralAm-politician-stub}} in particular ever will be. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A question - why has the proposed hierarchy got HongKong-gov-stub rather than HongKong-politician-stub? Wouldn't it make more sense to keep things consistent? Grutness...wha? 11:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's actually Hong-Kong-gov-stub and it exists already. And it's not really a subtype of {{politician-stub}} but Category:Politician stubs text suggests to mark HK politicians with {{Hong-Kong-gov-stub}} (and indeed some of them are). Something probably must be done with that. Conscious 11:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{poli-stub}} (politics)

Note that {{poli-stub}} has a similar problem as {{politician-stub}}: there are just a few subcategories, apparently created ad-hoc, but no continent-wide (or country) categories, making the main category rather large. I propose to introduce templates like {{euro-poli-stub}} etc. --IByte 15:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politics stubs is definitely very large and in need of help. However, it isn't even fully sorted among the existing sub types. Until that is done, I'm going to be opposed to a continent wide stub type here. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Denmark-politician-stub}}

Comment. I think it's about time to start considering {{Spain-politician-stub}}, {{Hungary-politician-stub}}, {{Romania-politician-stub}}, {{Austria-politician-stub}} and {{Portugal-politician-stub}} as well. I've been through A-G in {{politician-stub}}, and these countries pop up frequently, however I haven't made a definite count yet. But especially Romania, Hungary, and Spain seem to be rather well represented. Just for the record: must every single country be listed here and wait eight days even if the country meets the required 60 {{politician-stub}}s? Or is it enough simply to find 60 stubs relating to e.g. Romanian politicians, and then create the relevant stub? --Valentinian 02:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the "pro-forma" type seem to be split after far less than a week, but it's still worth proposing them first just in case there are some unforeseen problems with them. Purely personally, I'd say that for types where there's a recognised precedent (such as country-politician-stub with more than 60 articles), any problems would be spotted within a day or two - so as far as I'm concerned, propose, but the wait after proposal could be only a couple of days. Whether others here would agree or not is another matter! Grutness...wha? 03:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

splits of {{UK-politician-stub}}

I propose splitting the UK politicians stubs by nationality, to cut down this huge, and growing, stub category:

There are 1123 articles in {{UK-politician-stub}}. And it is growing all the time, for example many Scottish MSPs do not even have an article initiated yet, and lots of Scottish politician stubs have not been categorised here yet, but to {{Scotland-bio-stub}} instead, or not stubbed at all. I propose that we split it into:

Given the rough rule of thumb that about 10% of most British things will be Scottish, 5% Welsh and 3% Northern Ireland, then I guesstimate that the new cats would have approximately the following number of articles:

  • Eng: 930
  • NI: 30
  • Scot: 110
  • Wales:60

As the one thing that Northern Ireland exceeds the rest of the UK at producing is politics (that was an attempt at humour) I do not think that we need to worry overly about NI's ability to break the "60" barrier. For example, how long would the term "UK", even if only as part of a stub template, last on an article about a republican politician? ...whereas "NI" may have a better chance of actually getting used.--Mais oui! 16:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many British politicians have been active at the national level. Putting, say, Gordon Brown into a “Scotland” category could be unhelpful. Susvolans ⇔ 16:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This also still leaves us with a category pushing a thousand stubs, and breakdowns of England-politician-stub by county or region would be rather odd. I suggest we split by party instead (but NI-politician-stub is OK as they have entirely different parties and politics). Morwen - Talk 16:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Morwen - SoM 16:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We might also try to split off {{MSP-stub}} or something to catch all the MSPs and then double-stub them if they are active nationally too? That should serve purposes of Scottish politician project, whilst not implying {{England-politician-stub}}. Morwen - Talk 16:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We could indeed sort by parliament (e.g. lord-stub, common-stub, msp-stub, etc). However, I would favour sorting by party (labourbio-stub or labour-politician-stub, tory-stub, etc.) For reasons mentioned above, I disagree with sorting by nationality. Aecis praatpaal 18:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "whilst not implying

  

This article about an English politician is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

". What is wrong with implying that England has politicians? I would have thought that that counted as common knowledge.

Gordon Brown will not be appearing in any stub cats soon, nor anyone else within the UK government. But even if he did, are you seriously suggesting that he would not belong in {{Scot-politician-stub}} if his article were only a stub? That will be news to the fair electors of Kirkaldy.

"Many British politicians have been active at the national level" And... ? They do still come from somewhere. They do not suddenly lose their nationality when elected.

"... but NI-politician-stub is OK as they have entirely different parties and politics" So do Scotland, Wales and England.

"I disagree with sorting by nationality" Why? Nearly everything on Wikipedia is sorted by nationality, including (and especially) politicians.--Mais oui! 22:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand the reasons - the UK is still a largely non-federal system, despite the recent separation of parliaments for Scotland and Wales and the on-again-off-again Northern Ireland Assembly. As such, a politician will frequently - usually - be seen as representing the entire UK. It's a completely different system, for instance, to the US, where Bush is still known as being a former Texas governor. Ask the average Brit whereabouts the leaders of their main political parties are from and most won't be able to tell you quickly. Having said that, I slightly favour the separate nationality approach, although you'll still be left with an enormous England category, and breaking that down geographically wouldn't make much sense. I don't like the party split idea much, and I don't think that the commons-lords split is viablse since a fair number of politicians start in one and end up in the other. Might I suggest a middle way - for now simply make MSP-politician-stub and AM-politician-stub and a NI equivalent (Stormont-politician-stub?), and see how much that cuts down the main category. Once that's done we can re-assess. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support middle way That sounds reasonable to me. It won't catch the many historical politicians, nor MEPs, MPs, councillors, politicians from minor parties, nor the back-room boys, but it is a good start.--Mais oui! 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the dead ones can be assigned to the relevant stub cats. That would only leave the councillors and minor ones (presumably not many, yet) floating about in the main cat. What do people think?--Mais oui! 20:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
is AM-stub too ambiguous? and wouldnt lords-stub be almost the same as UK-noble-stub? the others look ok. BL kiss the lizard 00:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
AM-stub would be too ambiguous, I think, especially since it was previously used for AM radio stations. --Mairi 04:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy with {{NI-politician-stub}} since the NI abbreviation is hardly obvious. Perhaps {{Stormont-stub}} or Template:MNIP-stub ?

Well, we've been using {{NI-geo-stub}} and {{NI-stub}} for quite a while with no complaints. I thought this one, aty least, was a fairly obvious abbreviation (and I live in a country with its own "NI" region) Grutness...wha? 07:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do I create them myself, or does someone do that? (I haven't created a stub before.)--Mais oui! 09:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this list is final, could they be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types please? I've sorted a few MPs but then noticed with a minor panic that these stubs aren't on the official list. --Whouk (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Need more biosci-stub segregates?

The stub categories for {{ecology-stub}} and {{evolution-stub}} (along with additional aggressive sorting) have taken {{biosci-stub}} from 9 pages down to less than 500 stub articles. Do we want to sort out any more topics? I ask because it looks like the category is currently filled primarily with stubs in three disparate topics:

Along with these topics is a minority of assorted articles that are harder to classify.

On the one hand, the biosci category is down to a manageable number. On the other hand, it's a mixed bag of three very different topics with clear divisions. It's also possible that other stub articles are lying around mis-filed in other stub categories. I'd be willing to bet there are a substantial number of articles on genes and genetics lurking in {{cellbio-stub}} and {{biochem-stub}}, for example. So what do people think? --EncycloPetey 15:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have a {{geneticist-stub}}, I'd say that a {{genetics-stub}} would be natural counterpart. I'm neutral on the other two stubs, but neither proposed name is good. "-bio-" indicates biography not biology under our current stub scheme and {{development-stub}} is too ambiguous. Caerwine 16:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note:{{geneticist-stub}} refers to geneticists and evolutionary biologists.--Carabinieri 22:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just got into WPSS. My area of expertise/interest in particular is biosciences, as I'm currently studying microbiology, which incorporates aspects of many different areas of biological sciences. I definitely think this section would benefit from more sub-categories.
  • I suggest that genetics should definitely have its own category {{genetics-stub}}.
  • As for reproductive biology, perhaps the name {{reprobio-stub}}? (I'm new to this, please take my suggestions with a pinch of salt!)
  • If {{development-stub}} is too ambiguous, then perhaps {{devbio-stub}}? (I.e. developmental biology). In the latter two cases I suggested the suffix bio-stub be added after an abbreviated form of reproductive and developmental. This would be consistent with the already existing template {{Cellbio-stub}}. Mushintalk 01:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{Cellbio-stub}} is an exception to the guidelines because it predates the guidelines being drawn up and no one's taken the effort to make it fit the guidelines. Frankly, I don't see what's wrong with {{cell-biology-stub}}, {{developmental-biology-stub}}, and {{reproductive-biology-stub}}, but if absolutely must use an abbreviation here, it should be "biol" and "bio". Caerwine Caerwhine 23:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I dislike stub names that are longer than the stubs themselves, though I can understand the problems inherent in using abbreviations, especially where bio/biol is concerned. I think I prefer:
However, that's only a savings of three letters, so it's not a strong preference on my part. --EncycloPetey 00:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{genetics-stub}} seems to be the only one where the name has no controversy. IT's been a week, so Ill create that one and leve the other two to percolate for now. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With no further debate, I've created {{developmental-biology-stub}}, in part because I'm finding articles in anatomy and medicine that should really go here. --EncycloPetey 05:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{activist-stub}}

{{Activist-stub}} is growing rapidly (in part as I restub US-bio-stub) and I see some fairly obvious splits that should keep things from growing too large.

Including the pros and cons in the last three mirrors what we already do with {{crime-bio-stub}} which includes both criminals and their victims. So what do you all think? Caerwine 01:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Carabinieri 16:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{journalist-stub}}

This intended to also serve as an indirect way of trimming the writer stubs, especially the 9 page {{US-writer-stub}} by reducing the need for the use of writer stubs to serve to indicate print journalists by double stubbing them with writer.

Because it has not been unusual for radio and tv journalists to switch back and forth, and I'm not certain if we have enough radio journalist stubs, I'm proposing a single stub for both. Caerwine 02:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will tvbio-stub cause problems with bcast-journalist-stub? BL kiss the lizard 04:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten how overpopulated (7 pages) {{tv-bio-stub}} is. Perhaps it would be wiser to do a {{tv-journalist-stub}} instead and then see if a {{radio-journalist-stub}} is needed once the journalist stubs have been restubbed. At 193 stubs {{radio-bio-stub}} is not in any immediate need of splitting. I'm not heavily against a {{radio-journalist-stub}}; I'm just rather uncertain that it would have 60+ stubs right now. Caerwine 05:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Transformers-stub}}

This was proposed earlier but rejected. I propose it again. Transformers (toyline) is one of the most important toylines of the 1980s. When it was originally launched, it had over 300 toys, a TV show with 98 episodes, a movie, and a monthly comic book. It has lately been resurrected in various forms. Stubs related to Transformers have previously been marked {{toys-stub}}, {{comics-stub}}, {{Marvel-Comics-stub}} or {{animation-stub}}. The problem is that Transformers can not be identified objectively and undisputably as either a toyline or an animated series. It is a fictional continuum all to itself, with various representations of it available in the real world. Also the categories are a little overpopulated: Category:Toys stubs has 242 articles, Category:Comics stubs has 626, Category:Marvel Comics stubs has 365, and Category:Animation stubs has 444. — JIP | Talk 07:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to this one, for a very simple reason. There don't appear to be enough stub articles relating to the Transformers to warrant a stub for just the transformers. That's not to say that there aren't a good number of articles about the robots in disguise, just that most of them have already progressed past the stage of being stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked all stub articles in both Category:Transformers and its subcategories? I personally must have created well over 20. My main concern is, however, currently some Transformers stubs are being marked as toys stubs, some as comics stubs, and some as animation stubs. We need to unify these to a single stub template. It needs to cover all the Transformers stubs, but not necessarily be limited to them. As far as I know, we don't have {{TV-show-and-comic-book-based-on-toyline-stub}}. — JIP | Talk 17:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest you draw up a list of about 60 stubs that would go in this category? Morwen - Talk 20:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find twice that many in Category:Transformers, Category:Transformers characters, Category:Autobots and Category:Decepticons alone. I've included articles that are very short but don't have stub templates.
Action Master, Aerialbot, Allspark, Angolmois energy, Atlantis Pattern, Autobot Clone, Walter Barnett, Battle of Autobot City, Michael Bell, Berko
Binary-bonding, G. B. Blackrock, Blaster (Transformers), Boltax, Brakedown, Bruticus, Bud (Transformers), Camshaft (Transformers), Carbombya, Carissa Carr
Clocker (Transformers), Club Con, Cobalt Sentries, Coby, Cosmos (Transformers), Peter Cullen, Cruellock, Crumplezone, Cyber Planet Key, Decepticon Clone
Depth Charge, Floro Dery, Diagnostic Drone, Dirt Boss, Doubledealer, Duocon, Elita One, Emirate Xaaron, Energo sword, Galen Kord
Dan Gilvezan, Hoist (Transformers), Hound (Transformers), Hubcap (Transformers), Hydra-Cannon, Jhiaxus, Keeper (Transformers), Kicker (Transformers), Last Autobot, Liege Maximo
Mechanic (Transformers), Meijin Zarak, Metalhawk, Metallikato, Minerva (Transformers), Micromaster, Monsterbots, John Moschitta, Mudflap, Neo-Knights
Nucleon (Power Source), Omega Lock, Omnicon, Henry Orenstein, Orion Pax, Overhaul, Override (Transformers), Pax Cybertronia, Perceptor, Powerglide (Transformers)
Prima (Transformers), Prime Nova, Primon, Protectobot, Protoform, Punch-Counterpunch, Rapid Anti-Robot Assault Team, Requiem Blaster, Ricochet (Transformers), Robot Master (Transformers)
Scramble City, Scraplets, Seekers (Transformers), Sentinel Maximus, Sentinel Prime, Sharkticon, Sixshot, Skyboom Shield, Slingshot (Transformers), Slugslinger
Stakeout (Transformers), John Stephenson (actor), Straxus, Strika, Sunstreaker, Superdimensional teleport gate, Superion, Swarm (Transformers), Target:2006, Targetmaster
Tech spec, Teletraan I, Terrorcon, Throttlebot, Tigerhawk, Tornedron, Trannies (Transformers), Transformers (game), Transformers: Convoy no Nazo, Transmetal
Triple Changer, Ultracons, Underbase, Universal greeting, Vector Prime (Transformers), Vehicon, Wash'n'Roll, Wreckers (Transformers), Z Foundation, Zone Energy
— JIP | Talk 09:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Support. Morwen - Talk 11:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


{{Australia-struct-stub}}

This parallels discussion at WP:SFD. Originally, I proposed a re-scope of Oceania-struct-stub, since 3/4 of the stubs in that category were for Australia. But a scrounge around various other categories and the creation of a handful more stubs has raised the number of non-Australian stubs in this category above the 50 mark, and it wouldn't take much more effort to get it into the mid 60s. I think it now makes more sense to add this as a new subcat rather than rescoping the old one. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]



{{Doll-stub}}

barbie-stub was found and taken to sfd becuase it wasnt a good split of toy stub. but doll-stub probably would be a very useful split, for dolls, stuffed toys and action figures and things like bionicles. i havent done a thorugh count but it looks like there are fifty or so in Category:Toys stubs alone.BL kiss the lizard 05:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see lumping in action figures with dolls, since it's just a marketing ploy to sell dolls to boys and from there to transformers and the like, and once you go that far I can see lumping in the stuffed animals. However, without all that exposition, who is going to call a teddy bear a doll? (Except for Wikipedia that is, which includes Teddy bear in Category:Dolls.) There are two other logical splits of {{toy-stub}} that are both less ambiguous and would also serve to eliminate double stubbing:
  • {{toy-corp-stub}} would have have about fifty stubs from just {{toy-stub}} and would serve to also thin the very large {{corp-stub}}
  • {{toy-product-stub}} would easily have more than the 60 stubs generally considered a minimum and cover various brand name toys.
Thus for example if they were all stubs teddy bear would have {{toy-stub}}, Teddy Ruxpin would have {{toy-product-stub}}, and Worlds of Wonder which first made T. Ruxpin would have {{toy-corp-stub}}. In any case, with less than 250 known toy-related stubs, a split is hardly urgent. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok sounds more useful that doll-stub. ill support that one instead. BL kiss the lizard 23:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine stubs

moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting

I'm not formally a participant of this project, but I noticed that there is a notice in Category:Medicine stubs that the category is becoming too large. If someone could create Category:Medical organization stubs (or something similar) and its associated template, I could move a bunch of professional organizations and hospitals into it. Thanks! Edwardian 07:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Category:Diseases stubs. Edwardian 07:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
support both {{med-org-stub}} and {{disease-stub}}. This will leave in items like medical practices and developmental disorders, among other topics. --EncycloPetey 14:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about {{med-inst-stub}} for medical institutions which would include medical universities, colleges; they're not really organizations.--Carabinieri 21:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support {{med-org-stub}} and {{disease-stub}} - medicine is too large a topic as it is. Mushintalk 03:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Turkey-bio-stub}}

There are currently 66 {{bio-stub}}s in {{Turkey-stub}}.--Carabinieri 22:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Valentinian 21:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Proteobacteria-stub}} and possibly {{Firmicute-stub}}

I have counted a total of 123 existing and newly-tagged {{bacteria-stub}}s in Category:Proteobacteria, which is a sub-category of Category:Bacteria. Therefore I propose that {{Proteobacteria-stub}} should be made into a sub-category of {{bacteria-stub}}. There are also 51 {{bacteria-stub}}s in Category:Firmicutes, but is this considered too small? There are currently 268 {{bacteria-stub}}s in total, so the creation of one or both of these categories would still leave Category:Bacteria stubs well populated. Mushintalk 00:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two more nationality band stubs

Another pass through {{band-stub}} has revealed enough stubs to populate two more nationality band stub categories. I'm proposing:

Support {{Japan-band-stub}} and {{Norway-band-stub}}. Mushintalk 15:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{psychologist-stub}}

I don't know if it's been formally proposed before...it's listed above as a possible split of academic bio stubs. Might also be a possible sub-cat of medical biography stubs. I stopped counting after 75 candidates. --Etacar11 01:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I suggest that this includes psychiatrists too. Category:Psychology stubs also contains biographies among other things. Conscious 09:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disgree with including psychiatrists in this stub. While there is overlap at the clinical level, psychologists and psychiatrists are two different beasts and there is zero overlap between research psychologists and research psychiatrists and the researchers are likely going to be the bulk of the stub entries, not the clinicians. I would not make this a sub cat of the medical biographies, tho a {{psychiatrist-stub}} if viable, would be. Caerwine Caerwhine 10:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested including the psychiarists because both psychology and psychiatry stubs are under {{psych-stub}}. AFAIK, this was done because it's hard for a non-specialist to tell whether it's one or another. If the persons are easy to distinguish, let them be in different categories. I don't really mind either way. Conscious 16:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Material-stub}}

The {{Material-stub}} points to the material (disambiguation) page (approximately 120 links). I would like to propose that the material-stub be further defined, and material-stub becomes a parent stub of the various items that are defined as materials. For example {{Textile-material-stub}}, {{Construction-material-stub}}, {{Polymer-material-stub}}, etc. -- Kaiserb 02:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Materials stubs has only 132 articles, so it doesn't need splitting. Perhaps the scope could be more clearly defined, but it's parent category is also called Category:Materials, so it matches that (and presumably has a similar scope). Also, {{Polymer-stub}} already exists. --Mairi 03:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Further definition is the goal not necessarily splitting. and the {{Polymer-stub}} is for Polymer science not really materials. --Kaiserb 05:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of the now 128 stubs in material-stub, exactly half, 64 are of various textiles. There are categories that are far more urgently in need of a split, but with those numbers I could suppport the creation of a {{textile-stub}}. None of the other types of materials have anywhere near enough stubs for even a Wikiproject stub (30) let alone a regular stub so that is the only one I could support at this time. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a {{textiles-stub}} on the discovery discussion (stating creation in Sept but no items) that could be used and later renamed to suit any substub it would be placed in. --Kaiserb 18:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "further definition"? Conscious 09:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many things could be know and materials. There are construction materials, plastics, chemicals, textiles, raw materials etc. all under {{Material-stub}}. These materail stubs could be classified into their various fields (construction, textiles, plastics, etc) thereby using some empty stubs, creating a few new ones, and pointing them all to a relivant page rather than material. This further classification may help with other WP wanting to finish out stubs for a particular field (textiles for example). --Kaiserb 18:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there should be a category for Material Science, which is different than just talking about materials. For example, I think the stubs on crazing and Fracture Toughness would make a lot more sense in a material science category.--Tkemp 20:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's alerady relatively easy to find the material you want, because there are not many stubs in this category. And materials science stubs should be marked with {{physics-stub}}, I think. Conscious 07:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone object to the removing of the link to material, which is a disambiguation page, from the template while this discussion continues? It would certainly help in cleaning up the the links to the Material page. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 21:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-radio-station-stub}}

I propose {{US-radio-station-stub}} to be in a subcategory of both {{US-bcast-stub}} and {{radio-station-stub}}. There are many US radio station stub articles using each of these two templates, and it would be good to consolidate them into one category. More than half the stub articles in Category:United States broadcasting stubs are radio stations, and there are far more there than there currently are in Category:Radio station stubs. DHowell 05:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, just wait the full seven days. If we already had nation based splits of the stations, I'd wink wink nudge nudge if this one were created early, but best give anyone who might object to splitting on this basis instead of some other. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Having waited much more than the required 7 days, I have gone ahead and created the template {{US-radio-station-stub}} and Category:United States radio station stubs. Populating it is another matter. I don't know if someone wants to make a bot to do it or if it will just get done manually, eventually. DHowell 00:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splits of {{writer-stub}}

Previous efforts to split writers by anything other than nationality have not met with favor, but the large size of {{US-writer-stub}} suggests that unless there are an awful lot of misstubbed articles there, we may need to rethink that stance. This is a semi-proposal. I don't have the numbers compiled to indicate whether this split is even viable or if would help to usefully split the American writers stubs that at present are the largest concern. However, I would like to guage the reaction of others to see if it would be worth doing such a census before undertaking the effort.

  • {{academic-writer-stub}} Persons whose notable writing is about non-scientific academic topics.
  • {{sci-writer-stub}} Persons whose notable writing is about scientific topics.
  • {{diarist-stub}} Persons whose notable writing is a diary r chronicle that is used as a primary source material by academics.

This avoids the previously rejected poet/playwright/novelist type splits that concerned fiction writers. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the large size (8 pages now) of {{US-writer-stub}} is the problem, isn't it better to split only this category? Category:American writers offers a choice of 43 possible subcategories. Conscious 10:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. If we create a {{US-diarist-stub}} for example, it would be nice to also have a {{diarist-stub}}. Also, such subject level splits might allow us to do away with the continent level {{Euro-writer-stub}} and the like without causing {{writer-stub}} to grow too large. I've grown to dislike the use of continent level stubs for biography articles, tho I realize that it is a personal quirk. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that although there are perhaps 100 or more writers from Mexico and South America, particularly Brazil, there is no stub by nationality for these writers. Although the idea of supporting writers into the three aforementioned categories would definitely help literature experts, I believe that the creation of {{Mexico-writer-stub}} and {{Brazil-writer-stub}} would certainly reduce the number of writers now confined to the broad area of {{writer-stub}}. Also, sorting by the nature of the authors' works may best be done through literature stubs, not writer stubs; this would show origin of author and topic. In addition, although I am not certain this a major problem, some may be including the Mexican authors under the US stub which would make the creation of stubs for the countries beneath the US helpful to theproblem.--Emersoni 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Emersoni 17:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Military Analyst Stub

My latest project has been upgrading Wikipedia's military history entries. I have created a page for Lynn Montross, and kicked around a few other pages. I noticed that Wikipedia only has a stub for Military History, but is rather short on other military related topics, such as military technology, and such. I particular, I just created a stub for Harry Summers, who is a military analyst/writer, but not a military historian. There are some, such as Dupuy & Dupuy who are both analyst and historians, and some such as R. Adm. William Rodgers or Lynn Montross, who are only military historians. Obviously, I am proposing here a stub for military analyst to separate the group from military historians. GestaltG

Well, the first question is how many stubs are we talking about? 60 is the generally recognized minimum for a new stub type around here. The second is would you mind if I hijack your idea and add {{mil-writer-stub}} to my proposed split of the writer stubs above or are you thinking something more along the lines of a possible {{mil-journalist-stub}} (tho we haven't been splitting journalists by subject area)? Just thinking out loud here, so I'm not favoring or disfavoring anything at this time. Caerwine Caerwhine 10:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a plan to make mil-journalist-stub, would it be better as war-correspondent-stub? That's the more usually heard name, and ISTR the parent category name, too. Grutness...wha? 23:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking of limiting the scope to those reporting on just fighting militaries as opposed to all militaries. Sounds like a case where having a redirect from an alternate name is likely appropriate. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{International-law-stub}} & Category:International law stubs

From the discoveries page. With all the treaties floating around in the history stubs, having enough stubs is not an issue for this stub. However, I was thinking that we might wish to also add a {{int-law-stub}} redirect to parallel {{int-org-stub}}. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

split {{Engineer-stub}}

I propose splitting the engineer stubs (most of which are bios) into stubs paralleling pre-existing categories in Category:Engineers. I would suggest not creating them all at once, but only as stubs were found to put in each one. (Although creating them all at once would also work.) Category:Engineer stubs has between 500 and 600 entries now, and actually has more than the non-stub version. Sorted stubs should probably also be simultaneously placed in the correct subcat of Category:Engineers. --ssd 18:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first split has just been made (but not yet fully sorted) {{US-engineer-stub}} → Category:American engineers → Category:Engineers by nationality → Category:Engineers. It was proposed a week ago and received only favorable comment. I'm not opposed top further splits by nationality or subject area, provided that the recommended 60 stub minimum for a new stub type can be shown. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

add {{bridge-stub}} under {{struct-stub}}

As a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges, I would like to create a stub specific to bridge articles. There are several conventions being used on bridge related stubs such as {{Architecture-stub}}, {{struct-stub}}, and {{US-road-stub}}. It's logical place would be under buildings and structures. A bridge stub category would help to identify tasks for the Wikiproject. Cacophony 20:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly should be enough stubs for such a type so that isn't a problem, but the template name is. It's too ambiguous. Indeed, my first thought before I saw struct-stub being mentioned was that someone was proposing a stub to join {{poker-stub}} under {{card-game-stub}}. I'd suggest using {{bridge-struct-stub}} instead, but I'll be the first to say that it's not very euphonious. A better alternative would be nice if possible. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
how about {{span-stub}}? BL kiss the lizard 05:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about that one. Span is a disambig, of which only one link is related to bridges: span (architecture). So I'm not sure that one is intuitive and unambiguous enough. Aecis praatpaal 09:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reorganized contract bridge articles, and categorized them (Category:Bridge). Lot of articles have attached currently non-exisiting {{bridge-stub}}; I did not delete those references though, in the hope that it will be created soon (as the number of articles is around 40 by now). So, what's your suggestion to resolve this (still potential) name clash? Duja 10:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to follow the naming convention currently in use it would be {{bridges-stub}}. That is consistent with Category:Bridges for bridges and Category:Bridge for Bridge (card game). Cacophony 19:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
sounds ok. im a bit worried about the bridge-stub on the card articles tho. theytll need nulledits anyway and i would think bridge-game-stub would be better for that. BL kiss the lizard 01:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, since we use the singular in the categories so the stub category for bridges shouldn't be Category:Bridges stubs. Let me suggest the following:
{{bridge-struct-stub}} → Category:Bridge (structure) stubs
{{bridge-game-stub}} → Category:Bridge (card game) stubs
With a possible redirect from {{bridges-stub}} to the former for those who insist on brevity, tho I don't like it too much. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caerwine's solution sounds like a good one. I agree with BL about the null-edit problem, too - I hope those articles are also stubbed with something more substantial! Grutness...wha? 03:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with it too. I'm currently watching all bridge articles so I'll take care about null edits when the time comes (just remind me if I forget). Duja 10:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the plan then, to move Cat:Bridges to Category:Bridge (structure), or just create {{bridge-struct-stub}} under Cat:Bridges? Cacophony 03:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming no complaints are registered, {{bridge-struct-stub}} would feed into Category:Bridge (structure) stubs which would have Category:Bridges as its non-stub parent category. If the name of the non-stub category were to be changed it have to be done by WP:CFD not WP:SFD. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll stress again though that I'd like bridge-struct-stubs to be double stubbed with their ___location (e.g., US-struct-stub) too, since a lot of editors will be hunting based on ___location. Grutness...wha? 05:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Re bridge (game) stubs: a version which I like slightly more than {{bridge-game-stub}} would be {{contract-bridge-stub}}. Grutness & Caerwine, please decide. Duja
Should I take the blessing for creating it (one of) when sufficient number of articles arises, as granted? (I can think of creating at least 50 contract bridge stubs myself). Duja 12:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I don't know much about the game, but I was under the impression that contract bridge was just the most popular form of the game of bridge. What about duplicate bridge? Or have I got confused? Grutness...wha? 12:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You got confused. Today, "contract bridge" is a synonym with "bridge" and duplicate bridge is one type of competition (rubber bridge being the other). There is indeed also the ancient form of the game (auction bridge) but it can be ignored, being pretty much dead. Actually, "bridge" is far more used as term than "contract bridge", but it can lead to ambiguities in Wikipedia environment (as you see). Duja 13:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind a {{contract-bridge-stub}} as a redirect, but since the non-stub category includes other varieties, I can't see making it the main stub or narrowing the scope since there is no corresponding category for contract bridge only. (Nor shopuld there be in my opinion.) Caerwine Caerwhine 23:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Czech-stub}} with two redirects

From the Czech it out! discussion below:

Create a {{Czech-stub}} → Category:Czech Republic stubs → Category:Czech Republic.

Create redirect {{Czechia-stub}} → {{Czech-stub}}.
Create redirect {{CzechRepublic-stub}} → {{Czech-stub}}.

If this should meet with your approval, I'll then proceed with creating it and sending the Czech biography and geography stubs to SFD so that they match the stub and two redirect pattern here. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Create a stub related to Jainism (Religion), so that all the smaller article related to jainism can be tagged. Use http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Jainism_logo.png as the Logo, any other logo can be used as well as long as it is related to Jainism and does not lead to confusion. Chirags 18:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chirags, welcome to the project. We usually use 60 stub articles as a minimum for new stub templates. So could you give us an indication of how many stubs there are about Jainism? If there are enough, I see no reason not to support {{jainism-stub}}. Aecis praatpaal 19:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{British-newspaper-stub}} or {{UK-newspaper-stub}}

There seems to be a fair few stubs pertaining to British/United Kingdom newspapers (The Caithness Courier, Sheffield Star, Sheffield Telegraph, Sunderland Echo) e.t.c. Personally I think that {{UK-newspaper-stub}} would be best but I would like to hear others' opinions. GracieLizzie 20:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Sudan-stub}}

Currently at least 58 stubs (see User:Carabinieri/Sudan) and necessary as parent for {{Sudan-geo-stub}}--Carabinieri 22:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

58s close enough that i dont mind either way (60-65 is the usual threshhold), but its not 'necessary' since lots of places with geostubs dont have non geostubs. BL kiss the lizard 00:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With 'necessary' I meant prefferable.--Carabinieri 18:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a reasonable split. Be sure that - if done - you list the new stub on the Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Canada-airport-stub}}

I'm now busy moving articles from Category:Airport stubs to the newly created daughters. Just about every stub that gets the {{NorthAm-airport-stub}} tag is a Canadian airport. Judging from the subcategories of Category:Airports in Canada, this proposed new template should easily reach the threshold. I'm not sure what that will mean for {{NorthAm-airport-stub}} though. I think that it will end up just below the threshold, but because it plays a role in creating some form of hierarchy (parent --> continental daughters --> national granddaughters), I see no need to send that one to SFD. Aecis praatpaal 23:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how small it ends up being. If it's small enough, I could see sending the template to SFD while keeping Category:North American airport stubs as a collector category as we have done for other stub types. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've manually checked every North American, Central American or Caribbean country category other than Mexico, the US and Canada for stubs. Mexico was too much to check manually, so I've relied on an unreliable Google test. According to that test, there are 22 Mexican airport stubs. There definitely are 18 stubs for the other countries combined. This means that Category:North American airport stubs (if the consensus on the SFD of the continental airline stub categories is to rename those, I will send this category and its siblings to SFD for renaming as well) without Canada would contain at least 40 articles. Would that be enough to escape deletion? Aecis praatpaal 21:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With 40 stubs and two child stubs, I know I wouldn't bother trying to delete it. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Canada-airport-stub}} / Category:Canadian airport stubs created. Category can be nominated for renaming depending on the result of the cfr on the airline counterparts. Aecis praatpaal 18:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Physics-stub}} again

After recent splits Category:Physics stubs is still too large. I propose two more subtypes to reduce the category size:

Suggestions about template names welcome. Conscious 11:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{classicalmechanics-stub}} and {{fluiddynamics-stub}} have been created and populated. Conscious 17:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty contest winner stubs

While soring through the US bio stubs I've encountered quite a few stubs for whom the claim to notability is that she was Miss <name of state> of <year>. I think there are enough these that a stub for beauty contest winners would be useful, I just can't think of a good name for the stub. {{beauty-bio-stub}} could be construed as a stub for people in the cosmetics industry. Any ideas that would be both unambiguous and suscinct? Caerwine Caerwhine 01:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not put those into {{model-stub}}? That's what I always do when I encounter such stubs.--Carabinieri 13:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because I wasn't thinking of them as models, tho I see that Category:Models is one of three parents Category:Beauty pageant contestants. The other is Category:Entertainers, so I suppose, double stubbing them with {{model-stub}} and {{entertainer-stub}} would be appropriate for now. Still, I suspect there are more than 60 of these stubs. When you consider that between Miss USA and Miss America alone, there's the potential for over 100 stubs each year, I'm surprised I haven't come across more. Model-stub isn't in critical need of a split, so I'll leave this for now, but hope that someone can come up with a better solution when we need to split the pageant winners off from the others. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit wary of this one. Beauty in itself is pov, and because it is, it opens the category to deliberate vandalism and to unintentional mistagging. That means that the category could quickly become unmanageable, unmaintainable and unworkable. Aecis praatpaal 16:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Beauty is pov, but beauty contests, pageants, aren't! :-) How about {{pageant-winner-stub}} or {{pageant-contestant-stub}} or {{beauty-contest-winner-stub}}?
GRuban 16:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what category I'm thinking of...

...but something fairly generic, and yet specific, in a way, is needed for such articles as: Searching, Stationary policy, and Systemic shock, all of which are about very generic ideas, that can apply to many different very specific types of systems and/or organizations. This is not the first time I've run into such articles, but it's the first time I've seen three at once beginning with the same letter, and it's the first time I've seen them bounced back into Category:Stubs after being categorized as {{vocab-stub}}s, which is obviously sub-optimal, but seemed the best thing around, to more than one stub-sorter. Any suggestions? -GTBacchus(talk) 08:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps these articles should be speedily expanded beyond stub status? I see what you mean about the generic quality of these articles, and it may simply be a result of an article stub being too vague and unfocussed, rather than a need for a new stub category. Perhaps we could have a page where such articles get listed with a request for speedy expansion? --EncycloPetey 03:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See also User:Uncle G's comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. Grutness...wha? 05:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting {{India-geo-stub}}

I had earlier suggested on 19th October 2005 as follows:
I have a suggestion. Currently, all India related geo stubs are bunched together and the page is gradually becoming unwieldy and simply a long list of places in alphabetical order. I think if these stubs are re-organized in state-wise sub-stubs (like the existing ones: {{TamilNadu-geo-stub}} and {{Kerala-geo-stub}}), the page will have a lot of value-addition. I may also add that without coming here, I added two more such sub-stubs: {{Jharkhand-geo-stub}} and {{Bihar-geo-stub}}. Mairi pointed out the significance of proposing creation of sub-stubs here for valuable comments and observations of other users. I think that all India related geo-stubs may be split into state-wise stubs for better organization/ indexing of all India related geo-stubs. Thus, there will ultimately be as many India geo sub-stubs as are states in India – for example: {{Gujarat-geo-stub}}, {{UttarPradesh-geo-stub}} and so on. This will make the work of user/s interested in developing geo-stubs of a particular state of India, and I may repeat shall surely be a value addition to India-geo-stubs page. I invite suggestions and further comments.
Now, I would request for comments for creating {{UttarPradesh-geo-stub}}, which is an Indian state with a population of 166,052,859 (2001). Thanks. --Bhadani 08:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support if there are 60 stubs (Google search [3] yields 99 hits, but some of them are irrelevant). BTW, {{Gujarat-geo-stub}} is only on 2 articles. Conscious 10:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also saw that - something will have to be done about {{Gujarat-geo-stub}} - I will create sufficient number of stubs (smiles) or/ and try to sort the relevant stubs from India-geo-stubs. Thanks for your interest in the matter. --Bhadani 16:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is okay to create different geo stub for each state. along with that we should add more articles related to that state. Chirags 18:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support the splitting of any state that has reached the 60 stub mark -but not the others. There's no point in splitting the smaller ones if its unclear whether there will be plenty of stubs. To use an analogy with US states, California has been split because it had over 60 stubs, but Delaware currently has five stubs, so there's no point in splitting it. Grutness...wha? 23:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mairi's pointed out on the discovery page that there is also {{AndhraPradesh-geo-stub}} now... is this part of the proposed split? Grutness...wha? 09:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think unless there are sufficient number of stubs, at least more than 60, there is no point in splitting the stub, and my comments about {{Gujarat-geo-stub}} was in a lighter vein, though there may be more than 60 Gujarat-geo-stub (if India-geo-stubs are re-classified), but I am not sure. However, I am sure of geo-stubs for Uttar Pradesh - they must be more than 60. --Bhadani 16:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK... the way to do this is to start by splitting those where we're sure there are 60+. In doing that, it'll soon become fairly clear which others are at the splittable level too. The other option is to literally go through everything in Category:India geography stubs and count up what is where (which is what I do to see which country-geo-stubs need splitting), and keep the list of what is there as a checklist for later splits. That method's hard work, but makes things a lot easier in the long run. Do UttarPradesh-geo-stub, and AndhraPradesh-geo-stub and Gujarat-geo-stub (since they've been created). There are a couple already existing (TamilNadu-geo-stub's one, i think). Those will empty things out a little and make it a bit clearer whether there are more (e.g., Rajasthan or Maharashtra) that can be split. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed, and certainly you have shown the right way. Thanks. --Bhadani 11:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

European footballers

Category:European football biography stubs is 7 pages long. I propose creating the subtypes that will allow to bring it down to ~700 level:

Conscious 19:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to six of them, but I have a question about the seventh: does "Ireland" here include both the republic and N.I.? They are different nations in terms of soccer, so I'm not sure they should be combined into one stub. Grutness...wha? 05:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's only Republic of Ireland. Does it need to be clarified in the template and category name? Conscious 08:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. The template name's fine, but mention the republic in the wording. And I'd make the category "Republic of Ireland football..." as well (unfortunately there isn't an easy adjectival form that differentiates). If it's just the RoI I've no objection to this split either. Grutness...wha? 09:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After these splits, there are 767 stubs left in the main category. It will probably reach 800 in a few weeks. So while I'm at it, I propose

Conscious 10:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These have been created, along with two others :( Conscious 06:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few stubs more in {{Turkey-stub}}) and made the Turkish stub category of 61 stubs. As mentioned by Conscious, I made two categories below 60 stubs before realising the process of proposing:
Please let me know if I should recategorize them to {{Euro-footybio-stub}}. Furthermore, I browsed the Category:Dutch footballers and found so many stub-worthy articles, that I made:
Poulsen 17:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through Category:Portuguese footballers, I propose:

Poulsen 18:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to this one. Conscious 07:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Five more splits from {{plant-stub}}

I've been working through the Category:Plant stubs to sort as many as possible into the newly created {{tree-stub}}, {{grass-stub}}, and {{orchid-stub}}. Now that I'm about halfway through, it seems to me that even after I've finished, there will still be at least six pages of stubs left in this large category. Based on the large numbers of certain plant groups I'm seeing, the following additional stubs should be created:

Each of these categories will easily contain 60 articles, and some would have more than 100 on a quick sift. --EncycloPetey 03:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I won't doubt your numbers since you've been doing the heavy sifting here, however, I must object to the proposed abbreviation for Euphorbiaceae as I can't imagine that it would be at all intuitive. Make it {{euphorbiaceae-stub}} and if you must have a shorter version {{spurge-stub}} from the "common" name of the family would seem appropriate. I put "common" in quotes as I've never heard of them, but them I'm neither a botanist nor a gardener. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The term "spurge" is just one common name for the family, and not the one that first comes to mind for me (as a botanist trained in systematics), so I don't think that would be an appropriate choice. Part of the reason for this is that "spurge" reflects a rather Euro-centric view of the family. More plants in the family are tropical cactus-looking plants than are spurge-like weeds. In my experience, the term "euphorb" is fairly standard among botanists (at least in the US), and it qualifies as a name in its own right. However, I don't know if the same holds true for non-botanists or people in other parts of the world. If others concur with your objection, then I would prefer {{euphorbiaceae-stub}} as an alternative over {{spurge-stub}}. --EncycloPetey 05:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Euphorb gets less than one percent of the hits that euphorbia gets on Google, along with Google asking if you meant the latter when you serach for the former. Granted, ~12,000 hits isn't chicken feed but its not common except possibly amongst botanists. However, articles that are specialized enough to be of interest only to botanists probably belong on Wikispecies, not Wikipedia. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting {{anatomy-stub}}

Since the listing of anatomy stubs is now to 5 pages, how about separating:

  • {{muscle-stub}} - for articles on muscles and muscle function
  • {{circulatory-stub}} - for articles on the heart, arteries, veins
  • {{eye-stub}} - for articles about optical anatomy

This should take care of about 2 or 3 pages of stubs. --EncycloPetey 04:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UK-struct-stubs again

I'm busily going through UK-struct-stub, sifting out the Scottish and London ones, and even once they're all gone it's going to be a pretty sizable category. What I've noticed going through them is that a very large number of these stubs are from Liverpool. I'd like to propose a {{Merseyside-struct-stub}}, which I think would reduce the main UK category by 20-25%. The problem with this, of course, is that it might open the doors to a whole host of county-struct-stubs, so it may need a bit of though... Grutness...wha? 07:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If all of them or a large part of those buildings and structures are in Liverpool, then won't {{Liverpool-struct-stub}} suffice? AFAICT, it´s less ambiguous and more established than {{Merseyside-struct-stub}}. Aecis praatpaal 11:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merseyside isn't ambiguous at all. There is already a {{Merseyside-geo-stub}}, it would make sense to use the same system for splitting both geo-stub and struct-stubs. And there are a few (not many) from Sefton, Knowsley, St Helens and the Wirral popping up. Morwen - Talk 15:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that Merseyside is not ambiguous. Ambiguous on second thought is not the word I was looking for. I guess the pivotal issue is how Liverpool and Merseyside stack up to each other. If there are 99 "Liverpool-struct"'s and 1 "Merseyside-struct", I think it would be better to leave the Merseyside-struct in UK-struct and move the rest to Liverpool-struct. On the other hand, it might be best to follow the subcategorization of UK-geo-stub. Aecis praatpaal 17:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think its very unlikely that any of the other 4 boroughs will have >60 stubs, so if we don't put them all together they are doomed to staying in the parent category forever. I noticed quite a lot of things that could go in {{WestMidlands-struct-stub}} too, so we might make that. Curiously not as many that could go in {{Manchester-struct-stub}} - the Liverpool ones appear to have been made systematically. But yeah, I don't see that we'd need to split out the shire counties individually for a long time...

Morwen - Talk 00:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Well, I made ones for Merseyside, West Midlands, and Wales. Turned out the Merseyside one easily reached threshold (150 stubs), though neither of the other two did (both were close, with around 50 stubs each, so they may well reach threshold soon). There are now almost exactly 500 stubs in the main UK category, so I don't think we need to split any further yet. If we did, the biggest group would be a combined Yorkshire-struct-stub (like we had for a while with the geo-stubs). That would account for probably 90-100 of the remaining stubs. Grutness...wha? 12:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Atlanta-stub}}

I created this stub template before realizing I needed to bring it here for discussion first. I already began tagging the numerous stubs categorized under Category: Atlanta neighborhoods and Category: Atlanta landmarks. Several of these stubs had already been categorized with {{GeorgiaUS-geo-stub}}. I think that an Atlanta stub will better serve these articles. Examples of city stubs already in place are: {{NYC-stub}} and {{Chicago-stub}}. My proposal is to put the category Category:Atlanta-related stubs as a subcategory of Category:Georgia (U.S. state) geography stubs. --t-bte288-c 19:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(ignoring other issues) the category ought to be Category:Atlanta stubs. But if you want a subcategory of Category:Georgia (U.S. state) geography stubs, for just places (which would include neighborhoods but not most landmarks), then it should be {{Atlanta-geo-stub}} and Category:Atlanta geography stubs. --Mairi 03:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All fine with me. (I'll make Atlanta-stub a redirect to Atlanta-geo-stub and have it point the cat. Category:Atlanta geography stubs. Are there other issues?--t-bte288-c 05:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need. given that {{GeorgiaUS-geo-stub}} has less than 100 articles stubbed with it at present. to separate out an {{Atlanta-geo-stub}}. Go ahead and keep {{Atlanta-stub}} for now, but fix the category to be Category:Atlanta stubs without the "-related". (We're in the middle of removing "-related" from all stub categories.) You'll need to restub the atricles once you've done that for them to show up in the category. Any geographical stubs, such as for the neighborhoods should be double subbed with both {{Atlanta-stub}} and {{GeorgiaUS-geo-stub}}. Keep in mind that if this stub doesn't meet the usual minimum threshhold (60 stubs) it'll likely get sent to SFD in a month or three, but since it's already created and the template follows the naming guidelines, I don't see any reason to not give it a chance to prosper once the category problem has been fixed. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Road stubs...

Well I'm ready to create more road stubs... but the FL, NY. and... some other state's discussion got archived in Archive15. Could it be pulled out? I'll be using the hyphenated version, with -stub as the ending. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say just reference it as you already have and proceed normally. I archived it as it seemed to have bogged down to total inaction following the SFD mess and it had been more than a month since the last comment. (Tho I do need to write the Archive 15 summary on the Archive page.) Caerwine Caerwhine 05:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks... I'll do it after I finish tagging the U.S. Highways. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crafts-stub

{{crafts-stub}} A general category used in life is "arts and crafts". Art-stub seems to impress images of only painting, drawing and sculpture. Many crafts are textile art, but there is a large number that is not. Therefore, I propose a craft stub. This could cover textile art and practices such as sewing, embriodery, quilting, millinery. It could also cover other crafts such as fimo sculpture, jewelry-making, knitting, crocheting, decoupage, and related concepts. Another slightly different interpretation of the term is an area skilled workmanship. For example, in this context, it could be used for crafts such as cabinet making and wood-carving related entries (such as veiner, v-tool, carving knife, fishtail, palm tools, parting tool...).

Here are some non-existant or short existing articles that this stub would be appropriate for (as per instructions at top of page). Some terms/links were acquired from a page I did major editing on (sewing), but were in place before I did that.

chinese frog, toggle, eye (sewing), heading (sewing), blanket stitch, feather stitch, buttonhole stitch, hemming stitch, padding stitch, running stitch, sailmakers stitch, slip stitch, stretch stitch, straight stitch, topstitch, whipstitch, basting stitch, backtack, tailor's chalk, tracing paper, Holbein stitch, brazilian embroidery, serger, serging, Entrelac, slip-stitch colour, double knitting, tambour hooks, crocheters, dress-making, Ribbon embroidery, Pergamano, toy-making, Spirelli, wood firing, once-fired

n.b. depending on how some of these articles get explained, the tool-stub may also be appropriate. However, there is the concept of explaining what a specific tool is (tool-stub), and distinctly, detailing its use in the applied craft (crafts-stub). --Kat 09:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a concept, this one sounds reasonably good, but where do you see it fitting into the stub and category heirarchy? Category:Crafts or Category:Arts and crafts? Also, are you viewing this as fitting under Category:Culture stubs directly or under Category:Art stubs? Caerwine Caerwhine 11:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My head is going to "asplode". I am so confused. I am getting so twisted around with category vs template vs stub... Ideally what I would like to see is an arts stub and a crafts stub (but "arts and crafts" should not exist (redunancy), or if it does, people shouldn't be allowed to use "arts and crafts"). I just looked now and noticed the Arts and Crafts category is a subcategory of... the Category:Crafts. What's up with that (it's like: first came the branch... then the tree...)? The insanity goes on from there. This whole stub, category etc. thing is exceptionally messy... oh whattdya know, there is a cleanup project... From what I understand, Template:Crafts-stub should be a subcategory of Category:Crafts? --Kat 18:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
what do we do with lace stub? that would be a reasonably similar thing i think. BL kiss the lizard 04:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right now that is in Crafts->Arts and Crafts->Textile Arts->Lace->Lace-stubs (and there are articles listed in there... though there appear to be people fixing that area up...) I'm guessing it should stay where it is? Other things around it definitely need re-organization, but not that itself.--Kat 18:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're getting a little confused because there are two separate types of category - standard ones and stub ones. With stub categories they keep to a tree (at WP:WSS/ST) which more or less tries to parallel the main categories. So more to the point, lace-stub is currently listed under "Other culture" in the stub type list, along with things like fashion-stub. Following on from that thought, Crafts would probably best form a separate heading under culture, with lace stub as a subcategory of it. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The latest ready-to-split geo-stubs

Two more countries and another US state have passed threshold and are ready to split. I'd like to propose:

Grutness...wha? 09:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corporation stubs

Category:Corporation stubs currently has a large category warning. I am in the process of going through and attempting to recategorize the generic Corp stub to more specific stubs. As I am doing so, I am noticing that there are some rather large categories that seem to be missing. I would like to propose the following:

* {{computer-corp-stub}} - This stub will be for computer and software related corporations. Examples: Actional Corporation, Adaptive Portugal, Airgo Networks

Epolk 18:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the computer and software related corporations, we already have {{ict-corp-stub}}, although that might need renaming (through {{sfr-t}} and {{sfr-c}}). In stub names, computer is usually abbreviated to compu, so that would be {{compu-corp-stub}}. Do you have any indication of how many articles would be covered by the four stubs you proposed? Do you think they can reach the threshold of 60 articles? Anyway, good luck in sorting out Category:Corporation stubs. I know from experience that it's an extremely difficult category to sort. It's where I started sorting stubs. I hope you can do a better job at it than I did. Aecis praatpaal 22:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I didn't know about the {{ict-corp-stub}}. I will add that one to the list on the corp stub page and remove it from my proposal list. As for the 60 threshold, I am sure that the manufacturing stub can meet that, probably just in letters A-C. Chemicals, I'm not so sure of. It might be best to lump under petroleum and alter that stub to reflect chemical companies as well as petroleum. Transportation, so far, might no meet the 60 limit. Epolk 23:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Series of Unfortunate Events stubs

Wikipedia:WikiProject A Series of Unfortunate Events has been started recently, and since many A Series of Unfortunate Events articles are stubby and not easily covered by existing stub templates. For examples see much of the category:Lemony Snicket and associated article. smurrayinchester(User), (Ho Ho Ho!) 20:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you can get 60 stubs? thats the threshold used for creation. id also suggest calling it {{LemonySnicket-stub}} since Template:ASeriesOfUnfortunateEvents-stub is too wordy and something like {{ASOUE-stub}} would be too ambiguous. if you can get to 60 stubs then sure, wait a week and then make it. BL kiss the lizard 21:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ASUE is a widely used abbreviation among A Series of Unfortunate Events fans. --Celestianpower háblame 22:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We can certainly get 30 easily, and it is a WikiProject, which I believe lowers the needed boundaries. smurrayinchester(User), (Ho Ho Ho!) 21:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that means there's 30 stubs already, it sounds fine to me. I'd rather have it called {{LemonySnicket-stub}} tho, so it's more obvious to most people (I wouldn't terribly mind {{ASUE-stub}} as a redirect, as it's a fairly unique, altho opaque, abbreviation). It looks like it already exists as {{ASUE-stub}} / Category:A Series of Unfortunate Events stubs... --Mairi 22:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean that the redirect can be kept then? --Celestianpower háblame 09:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer not to, myself, but I could be swayed. It's worth noting that ASUE is a disambiguation page, which doesn't make for confidence as far as the redirect's name is concerned, but the other things listed there aren't really the sort of things we'd have stubs for. Grutness...wha? 10:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
erm... you do know that ASUE is a German ecology organisation, don't you? I've no problem with there being a stub, but I'd definitely prefer to see it moved to LemonySnicket-stub. If you've already got 30 stubs, then it looks like it'll be well used. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's been moved. smurrayinchester(User), (Ho Ho Ho!) 06:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I personally am not inclined to believe this book series needs its own stub template. How many other book series have their own stub templates? Earthsea certainly hasn't, and it's got six books. Has Narnia? Has Harry Potter? Has the Lord of the Rings? — JIP | Talk 21:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Potter has, and there is a Tolkien stub which is to all intents and purposes a LoTR stub. Without an active project, I certainly wouldn't consider this one worthwhile, but there is an active project. If there was a Narnia project, or Earthsea project (or Belgariad project, for that matter), then they'd be worth considering too, but not until that time. The project's the difference. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charitable organization {{org-stub}} sub-cat

Organization stubs is huge, and contains a large category warning. One possible sub-category is charitable organizations: {{charity-stub}}. This would be defined as not-for-profit organizations (international or regional) that pursue primarily philanthropic missions. Specifically excluded would be, for instance, political organizations that receive donations to pursue political and/or lobbying goals (that could be another sub-cat, or could just be put into {{politics-stub}}. --Bk0 (Talk) 21:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick informal glance through the As of the org-stub category show dozens of candidates, depending somewhat on exact definition (note that I wouldn't include organizations that fund scientific research, but probably would include orgs that distribute university scholarships). I feel safe in estimating that a significant percentage of org-stubs could be moved to this sub-cat. --Bk0 (Talk) 22:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've stubbed a few of these things myself, and yes, it would be useful. But I agree with Aecis about the name. it's for organisations so, charity-org-stub's a better name. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Created. --Bk0 (Talk) 15:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Software-stub for Category:Computer and video game stubs

I've come across a lot of stubs in the CVG category that cannot be put into any of the existing ones. Most of them are articles pertaining to computer code and game engines, such as Famicom BASIC and DromEd. I propose a new stub category called {{software-cvg-stub}} or something similar. Thunderbrand 06:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should probably be {{cvg-software-stub}} to parallel {{compu-software-stub}}. While we have stubs of both the *-cvg-stub and cvg-*-stub, the former are with one execption that I plan on taking to SFD shortly all stubs that deal with a specific genre of CVG, and as far as I know there is no software genre, altho I suppose Core War would fall into that category. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be {{cvg-soft-stub}} to parallel {{compu-soft-stub}}. — JIP | Talk 13:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be a category with subcategories for "corporation", "culture", "fictional element", "hardware", "musician", "software", "specialist", and "website" subcategory stubs

{{spider-stub}} or {{arachnid-stub}}

Category:Invertebrate stubs is starting to get fairly large, and a pretty high proportion of the stubs there are about spiders. The use of {{arachnid-stub}} instead of {{spider-stub}} has the advantage of also including other, related taxa, like mites, ticks, harvestmen and scorpions, but the disadvantage of being more technical. --Stemonitis 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel a stub is necessary, then I recommend {{arachnid-stub}} over {{spider-stub}}. However, there are only 233 invertebrate stubs. I don't see this as a place where an additional stub type would be of real benefit. --EncycloPetey 07:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{asteroid-stub}}

Category:Asteroid stubs is perpetually enormous (950+ at present) and really ready for splitting. It suffers to an extent from the fact that it remains somewhat unclear what an ideal non-stub article would look like in many cases: there's often very little to say about a lump of rock other than how big it is, where it orbits, and who found it, so should articles that supply such information in a table form but otherwise have one line of text be considered stubs? It's also poorly named, because it has tended to include all kinds of minor planets, which is generally treated as an umbrella term for both asteroids proper—rocky bodies in the inner solar system—and icy bodies in the outer solar system, generally known as trans-Neptunian objects and centaurs.

Here's a starting suggestion for a new rubric:

Category:Minor planet stubs would be a generally non-used catchall (the actual stub template needn't be created, if that's the preference here), and its four subcategories ought to split the current membership of asteroid-stubs relatively evenly from an eyeballed check, something like 300-400-150-100, respectively. Picking the appropriate one of the three asteroid templates can be done reasonably easy by a nonexpert by looking at the orbital radius (inside the belt, in the belt, or outside the belt) and not getting into the technicalities of Hirayami families and planet-crossing groups and so on.

I'm mildly unclear on what capitalization format is preferred for the templates themselves, so I'm at your mercy there. Any thoughts? The Tom 18:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation is as per proper nouns. If it's trans-Neptunian objects then theoretically it would be tNo - although you're right that TNO "feels" better. You're right that this is a big category and could probably do with a split, and I bow to your better knowledge of the Solar System than me, but would {{Kuiper-stub}} be a better name for that template? Grutness...wha? 23:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
TNOs and similar bodies
Nomenclature for these faraway hunks of ice [hereafter FHoI :)] is a real mess, even within the scientific community. Properly speaking, only a subset of FHoI are in the Kuiper belt; those ones, however, tend to be the best known, and many scientists tend to adhere to the theory that all FHoI formed in the Kuiper belt originally but a fair number of them subsequently got smacked into different orbits. This leads to FHoI not in the Kuiper belt region (which is fairly precisely defined) sometimes getting labeled "Kuiper belt objects," and sometimes not. Throw in the fact that there's an ongoing academic hissyfit over whether Kuiper deserves credit for discovering his belt (and so some academics use "Edgeworth-Kuiper belt" or "Edgeworth belt" or avoid it altogether "The Gulf" style) as well as American/Commonwealth spelling issues over the scattered dis(c/k) and there's a real mess. At right is the nomenclature and nesting structure we've been sticking to on Wikipedia thus far.
As for the capitalisation issue, thanks for the clarification. I still say stick with {{centaurTNO-stub}}, then, as "TNO" all-caps tends to be used ubitiquously in the literature, rather than the full name or a mixed-case version. I was actually also curious about where the hyphens are supposed to go in the template names: names in the format "xx yy" or "xx and yy" stay as xxyy, with hyphens only linking to clarification words like "-bio" or "-geo", right?
Final Q, and possibly getting a little cart-before-horsey here, but is there any sort of bot support likely to be available for this convert? Considering most of the articles are already listed in one of the subcats of Category:Asteroid groups and families, would it be possible for somebody smarter than I instruct their faithful servant to pick which of the templates to replace {{asteroid-stub}} with based on how it's filed there? The Tom 04:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While we haven't done so before, it'd be trivial for me to have User:Mairibot to go thru a category, and replace {{asteroid-stub}} with the appropriate specific stub type. Could also replace ones that're still tagged with {{astro-stub}} easily enough. --Mairi 05:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Minor planet stubs is fine, altho {{minplan-stub}} sounds like it should be a subtype of {{1984-stub}} to me. However, I'm not certain that there are enough stubs for a {{centaurTNO-stub}}. It certainly won't reach 60 form just bot restubbing as there are less that 60 stubs in those two cats. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's move {{minplan-stub}} to {{minorplanet-stub}}. That abbreviation saves only 4 letters, and makes a name a little ambiguous. Conscious 08:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One comment I didn't notice before - hyphenation. Two hyphens are used when something is split in two different ways (so we get India-geo-stub, which is both an India-stub and a geo-stub), or when something generically named is split to be something more specific. For that reason there'd definitely be nothing wrong with {{belt-asteroid-stub}} +c, since they're further splits of {{asteroid-stub}}, though it's probably better to keep it consistent with {{centaurTNO-stub}} and the like and keep it to one hyphen. I agree that minorplanet-stub is a better name than minplan-stub, BTW. Grutness...wha? 09:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no. This split failed miserably. Here's what it resulted in:

Instead of one oversized category, we've got one oversized and four undersized. (Stubs in the only properly sized category are probably there only due to the lack of information.) We could have done with {{beltasteroid-stub}} only, really. Sad but Conscious 16:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A clear indication of why at least a rough count of stubs is good before a split. I must admit I would have expected more near-earth objects, and no doubt the number of TNOs will incrase quickly as they are being discovered at a fair rate of knots. Is it worth merging minorplanet-stub and asteroid-stub? Grutness...wha? 23:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, to be totally frank I'm feeling more than a little sheepish about how things are looking after the dust has settled. I had done far too small a random sampling before coming up with the system I proposed, and overlooked the vast number of Main Belt asteroids that weren't in any particular group category but just in the root of Category:Main Belt asteroids. I was also pretty sure there was at least 100 worthy of {{innerasteroid-stub}}, but was going more on the total number of Near Earth Asteroid articles (which is quite significant) rather than the number of stubs (which is, er, 20-something). Indeed, it seems the holy-crap-this-might-kill-us-all crew have made sure that a lot of pokey little rocks (that would be ordinarily have only managed to merit stubs if they were elsewhere in the solar system) are instead three or four paragraph bits sans-stub-tag. The Tom 02:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four more genre splits of {{US-band-stub}}

{{US-band-stub}} is currently sitting at 5 pages. I've identified 4 more genre stub categories that all have at least 60 articles. I'm proposing:

{{US-RnB-band-stub}} and {{US-pop-band-stub}} already exist and are listed in WP:WSS/D and I propose that we keep both stub templates, renaming {{US-RnB-band-stub}} to {{US-R&B-band-stub}}. --Bruce1ee 08:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A week has passed and I've created the above stub templates and categories. I created {{US-singing-band-stub}} as {{US-singing-group-stub}} which I think is more appropriate. I'll ask Mairi if he could use Mairibot to rename {{US-RnB-band-stub}} to {{US-R&B-band-stub}} to bring it in line with Category:United States R&B musical group stubs. --Bruce1ee 09:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{D&D-stub}} break out of {{rpg-stub}}

The Category:RPG_stubs, for stubs related to Role-playing games, has 272 entries, and is getting unmanageable. About 40% of these are concerned with Dungeons & Dragons. That would be over 100. Proposed, creation of {{D&D-stub}} to separate out those just for D&D.

Please note, there already is a {{Dragonlance-stub}} stub, and Dragonlance is a Dungeons and Dragons world. So {{Dragonlance-stub}} should probably become a subcategory of {{D&D-stub}}. But I don't feel strongly about that part of it, I just want to be able to separate D&D from non-D&D RPG stub articles. GRuban 19:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ive moved this up the page where it belongs. 272 isnt nearly large enough to be unmanagable (600 stubs would be borderline unmanagable). id favour replacing dragonlance-stub (which was never proposed that i know of) with D&D-stub since we probably need a D&D stub but i doubt theres much need of a dragonlance stub thats seperate from it. BL kiss the lizard 23:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a mere newbie, I would with all humility propose that any list that doesn't fit on one page (>200) would be noticeably less useful than one that did (<200). I understand that 60 is considered the boundary requirement for a new stub category, surely (~40% x 272 ~= 112+) is over that boundary.
As for the Dragonlance rename, I can see your point from a high level. However, from a practicality point of view, I'd like to keep {{Dragonlance-stub}} separate, just as a subcategory. I don't know who proposed it or made it or how, I'm relatively new here, it was here when I got here. First, because there are already a large number of articles in it, and there are, presumably, people interested primarily in Dragonlance stub enhancement, and not just D&D stub enchancement. Second, because from my estimate, {{D&D-stub}} would already have over 100 articles, throwing more into it wouldn't help. But, most importantly, I'm probably going to be the one doing the work sorting RPG-stubs and D&D-stubs, and, frankly, I'm not that enthused about doing the Dragonlance-stub work. Subcategorying it would be editing one page, I can do that, but changing all 50+ Dragonlance pages would probably be rather low on my list of things I'd like to do. GRuban 16:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
yeah makes sense. the 600 idea is becuase weve already got over 1000 stub types even with not having split everything with over 2000 stubs. if we split everything with 200+ instead of 600+...well its already difficult to keep track. but this one might work. wait until a few more people comment. but who says youd need to change the dragonlance stubs? were stub sorters - thats what we do! BL kiss the lizard 22:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Week passed, category and template made, working on sorting. GRuban 21:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{diplomat-stub}}

While sorting through the US bio stubs I've come across certain groups that I haven't been able to assign satisfactory stubs to. Diplomats are one such category, and while there is a degree of overlap with politicians, not all diplomats are politicians in the sense of having gone out and sought votes. I've largely been tagging various ambassadors with {{poli-bio-stub}} but I don't think its the optimal place for them. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Political relative stub

While sorting through the US bio stubs I've come across certain groups that I haven't been able to assign satisfactory stubs to. People who notable for being related to a politician are one such category, Outside the nobility (which by definition includes relatives), politics is one of those rare fields where relatives receive a good deal of notability just by being a relative. I don't have a good name for this proposed stub type, but it would be viable. I've been placing them in {{poli-bio-stub}} so if we can't vome up with a clear name this one can back burner this one. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{settler-stub}}

While sorting through the US bio stubs I've come across certain groups that I haven't been able to assign satisfactory stubs to. Unlike the previous two stubs I've proposed, I haven't been able to these people to a particular stub type. These stub articles typically begin "John Doe helped found the town of Arwedairyet, Fivenessee." or "Jane Roe came over on the Mustfruit." Caerwine Caerwhine 20:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US Government Agency Stub

I have created the United States Government Agencies Wiki Project There is no stub, at the moment that this plethora of articles can fall in, according to a LSU project, there are 1174 different government agencies, now granted about 400 of these or so are things, like civil rights compliance board and accounting for each agency and such. Though, this plethora of articles need a stub category CuBiXcRaYfIsH 21:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A stub more exclusive to the project

CuBiXcRaYfIsH 20:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US-agency-stub, perhaps, making it clear in the wording of both the template and category that it's for government agencies? Grutness...wha? 01:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split {{India-bio-stub}}

Having the following stubs under Indian people stubs can trim the category.

--Pamri • Talk 16:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree in general terms, there are a few minor niggles I have with this. Firstly a couple of the names - we use the one "k" form of Sikhism, and India-Cricketbio-stub would have a small "c". Second, the scope of one or two of the categories - the two religion-based ones are a definite problem unless you mean people who are best known for their religion rather than anything else, in which case they'd probably be better as something like Hindu-theologian-stub and Sikh-theologian-stub or similar. If it's simply for people who are Hindus or Sikhs then it's going to cut across other categories (this is the sort of reason why the earlier discussions are still going on!). Indian-entertainer-stub might be a tricky one to define, too. Those three categories might need some thought, then, but other than that, if you can find 60 stubs in any of the other categories, I've no objections at all, and given the size of India-bio-stub, you probably can find that many. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, it would be hard to find that many articles, if we split the religious bios into specific categories. The Hinduism-bio-stub & Sikhism-bio-stub are for Hindu/Sikh religious figures (Saints, theologians,etc.,), quite similar to {{Christianity-bio-stub}}. We can later think of split it into specific groups, when we have a large number of a articles. Indian-entertainer-stub would cover TV anchors, comedians, dancers, music directors,etc., --Pamri • Talk 04:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's made clear they're for religious figures in the wording of the template and category, there shouldn't be any problem. The problem would only be if - for example - an article on someone like Harbhajan Singh was given {{Sikhism-bio-stub}}. He is a Sikh, but not a religious figure. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, It will be similarly worded to {{Christianity-bio-stub}}. I guess, any other miscategorization can be checked. --Pamri • Talk 06:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If {{Hinduism-bio-stub}} and {{Sikhism-bio-stub}} are under {{India-bio-stub}}, does this imply that all Hinduists and Sikhists are Indians? And I think that {{India-singer-stub}} and {{India-actor-stub}} should be subtypes of {{India-entertainer-stub}}. Conscious 10:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the religious figures of both denominations do come from India, but its not necessary for them to come under {{India-bio-stub}}. --Pamri • Talk 12:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the idea of splitting it into religious bio stubs. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If a stub about an Indian is tagged with, say, Hinduism-bio-stub, should India-bio-stub be preserved? If yes, this won't help shortening India-bio-stub, if no, Hinduism-bio-stub should be a subtype of India-bio-stub. Conscious 06:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The idea reflects a need and should be implemented. Nitpicks: Club related stubs together; eg., one stub that encompasses "singers" and "entertainers" may well suffice, and could perhaps be worded "culture/arts/somethingelse" rather than entertainers -- anyway, film already boasts a separate bio-stub. Also, all the names could be abbreviated: even the 'bio' can generally be dropped; try "indo-sport" for size (only an idea) -- I definitely agree with Nichalp on the religion parameter. ImpuMozhi 08:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative suggestion: what about {{India-reli-bio-stub}} instead of {{Hinduism-bio-stub}} and {{Sikhism-bio-stub}}, with the wording of "Indian religious figure"? Conscious 09:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egypt

None of the Egyptian related stubs have been categorized. I am proposing the following new categories:

Suggested by: Yorktown1776 20:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to the names, that would be {{Egypt-struct-stub}}, {{Egypt-myth-stub}} or {{Ancient-Egypt-myth-stub}}, and {{Egypt-mil-stub}}. {{Egypt-bio-stub}} apparently already exists. Could you give us an indication of the number of articles for each stub? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 20:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we talking Ancient Egypt (as in the header) or Egypt (as in the proposal)? Category:Ancient Egypt stubs only has some 350 articles, so a big split isn't really needed. We laready have {{Egypt-bio-stub}}, which is for both ancient and modern Egypt (in the same way that Greece-bio-stub is for both ancient and modern Greece). There are certainly nowhere near enough stubs for an Egypt-struct-stub (not Egypt-building-stub!) - there were 12 last time I checked Category:Buildings and structures stubs, so unless someone has been hiding them somewhere else...). And I'm not really convinced we need a separate military stub for Egypt either (if we did, it would be Egypt-mil-stub, BTW). {{Egyptian-myth-stub}} sounds fine, though, and might well be very useful. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian military stubs has been removed. The category was to small and would have been insufficent. As for the other 3, there are several Ancient Egyptian mythology related stubs. In addition the Ancient Egypt stubs page lists some 70 unnamed pyramids in the Valley of the Kings. Finally there are dozens of minor pharaohs that could be sorted into {{Ancient-Egypt-bio-stub}}

...but which should be sorted using {{Egypt-bio-stub}} Grutness...wha? 03:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-law-stub}}

There is a significant amount of law-stubs that are US specific. It would make life better to have its own stub. There is already a Canada-law-stub and an Australia-law-stub so I don't think it would be much of a stretch. PullUpYourSocks 18:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Ancient Rome

There are a large amount of unsorted Ancient Roman stubs. After reviewing I propose the creation of 3 new stub categories.

  • {{Template:Ancient-Roman-mil-stub}} - Would cover all Roman battles, wars, weapons, and military related topics. There are over 100 articles that would fall under this.


By the standards of the stub sorting project, 340 stubs is not a large amount, tho that doesn't mean that it can't be split where a reasonable split exists.

The first would be {{Ancient-Rome-mil-stub}} as we generally use Rome and not Roman in stub template names and if the quantity of existing stubs is as you say, I would have no objections, providing you wait the customary week this time so that you can get input from others.

The second one is a definite NO. To begin with, even if we were to use such as stub, {{Ancient-Rome-geo-stub}} would be the stub template's name. Secondly, we do not separate locations based on history, but on the current occupier only. Doing otherwise would lead to excessive numbers of stub templates being applied to individual articles.

{{Ancient-Rome-law-stub}} would be acceptible providing you can find 60 stubs. I find that doubtful. With Roman law being a foundation of much of western law, most topics that have their genesis in Roman law would be applicable elsewhere to such an extent that the stub would belong in {{law-stub}} and not {{Ancient-Rome-law-stub}}. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I will take them into consideration. Yorktown1776 21:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I basically agree with Caerwine's points. the geo-stub is a no - places are always stubbed with the modern territorial authority. Ancient Roman provinces and the like are generally double-stubbed with the modern place's stub plus Ancient-Rome-stub (Gallia Aquitania, for instance, has both Ancient-Rome-stub for the Roman Empire and France-geo-stub for its modern country). The law-stub would be dependant on the number of stubs. The mil-stub is much more likely though - let's face it, the Roman Empire was noted for its military might. Some of the articles that could be stubbed with this would need to be double-stubbed where appropriate, though. If Gladius was a stub, for instance, it would get both Ancient-Rome-mil-stub and weapon-stub. Grutness...wha? 04:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


{{NZ-geo-stub}} splits

There are apparently 5 pages of NZ-geo-stub articles, which need to be broken down into smaller categories. New Zealand has 17 administrative units that could be used as a basis for subcategories: Auckland, Bay of Plenty, Canterbury, Chatham Islands, Gisborne, Hawke's Bay, Manawatu-Wanganui, Marlborough, Nelson, Northland, Otago, Southland, Taranaki, Tasman, Waikato, Wellington, West Coast (see under "Primary Subdivisions": http://www.statoids.com/unz.html). These administrative names are in common use and are instantly recognisable to the average New Zealander.

There are also 27 "tourism" regions (http://www.newzealand.com/travel/destinations/), which are too detailed, I think, and which leave out the Chathams. Another possible breakdown would be North Island/South Island/Other, but since there is quite a bit of geography in NZ (despite its size), I think they would be too broad. There are also 4-6 "traditional" provincial areas, but these are no longer in use (and would probably cause some offence if they were used).

How do people think about the 17 administrative units as a basis? Trxi 11:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a NZer, I feel that's overkill (and this is coming as someone who probably created close to 200 of those stubs!). A simple N.I./S.I. split would be the best option, as far as I'm concerned, and wouldn't leave that many places outstanding - especially if offshore places were included in with the rest of their provinces. New Zealand has a lot of geographical stubs, but the people here travel around a lot, so anyone's as likely to know about places outside their region but in the same island as places within their region. Another possibility - though a bit more arbitrary - would be to divide it into four broad regions: Southern SI (Otago & Southland), Northern SI (Canterbury, Westland, Nelson, Marlborough), Southern North Island (Wellington, Manawatu, Hawkes Bay, Taranaki, Wanganui, Central Plateau) and Northern NI (Gisborne, BoP, Auckland, Waikato, Northland). Grutness...wha? 00:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I was thinking that something like you've suggested, four "regions" all up, would be another way to go. I am/was mildly leery of "inventing" new regional areas, since we don't want non-NZers to think that they are real administrative divisions. I think just NI and SI are a wee bit too broad. But using neutral names like NNI, SNI, NSI and SSI should reduce any potential confusion. I also like your idea of using the actual regions as the means of defining these divisions - if in future there is some justification for finer detail, it's easy enough to make the real regions subsets of the arbitrary ones. Trxi 05:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A case could be made for having a fifth category, just for the Auckland region. It's got 1/3 of the country's population and (understandably) a lot of the towns and the like, so it could survive as a separate category. As far as the NNI, SNI, NSI, SSI split, the South Island splits quite nicely - people in the south tend to think of "North/South of the Waitaki River", so there's little problem there. The NI's a bit more difficult, although - with the exception of the Central Plateau - everything falls relatively well into the two sections. BTW, I'm having a small look through some of those stubs, see if there are any which can be easily expanded. Grutness...wha? 05:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-mil-stub}} splits

The military stub category has 4 pages of articles and I think it would be easy to add some new categories here. I was thinking of somethign along the following lines.


Jabencarsey 21:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the naming you suggest is a little non-standard:

I doubt whether any of these four would have 60 stubs, especially the military computer graphics one (are there any articles on this?) In every case, if needed, the M of mil and the S of stub would be lower case. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, Ha. While I don't know if there are 60 stubs about the United States Coast Guard, the example of the {{RAF-stub}} is worth looking at here. That would give us:
The reserves are usually considered as part of their parent branch rather than separately, so I wouldn't support a stub for them.
The forts, camps, navy bases, air force bases, etc. should get {{US-mil-base-stub}} and/or {{US-mil-geo-stub}}.
The operations should go into the existing {{US-mil-hist-stub}}.
The only real problem here (besides a possible lack of 60 stubs in some cases) is that {{USA-stub}} is definitely potentially ambiguous. (The U.S. Government tries to resolve the problem by using U.S.A. for the nation and USA for the army, but the rest of the world tends to not use the USGPO Style Guide). Caerwine Caerwhine 21:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why US-mil-base-stub when we have {{fort-stub}} for military bases in general? And thanks for telling me what CG stood for, I'd never have guessed that in a million years! Didn't realise it was part of the military in the US (it's a branch of the police here). I'd definitely go with USArmy-stub, USNavy-stub, USMarines-stub and USCoastGuard-stub. USAF is unambiguous enough though. Grutness...wha? 23:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Coast Guard is semi-military over here. In peacetime, it's a vagabond group that has at various times been assigned to the departments of the Treasury, Transportation, and lately Homeland Security, but in war time it can get transfered over to the DoD either in part or in whole to help our blue-water Navy deal with brown-water situations, since the USN doesn't like doing coasts or anything that requires small ships. Since forts are always military bases but not the reverse, I think of {{mil-base-stub}} as more inclusive that the admittedly shorter {{fort-stub}}. Might be worth adding it as a redirect, but considering that we don't have 60 stubs in {{fort-stub}} at the moment, I don't think we need to worry at this time about a {{US-fort-stub}} or {{US-mil-base-stub}}, no matter what the name should be. As for the branch stubs, the abbreviations I proposed are all extremely standard over here, so anyone with a minimal knowledge of the U.S. military should have no difficulty with them, except for {{USA-stub}} due to the other use of that TLA. I can see going with {{USArmy-stub}} for that one because of that and {{USNavy-stub}} as a redirect for {{USN-stub}} for stub sorters not familiar with the military. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-radio-station-stub}}

For the same reasons given for the creation of {{US-radio-station-stub}} (above) – there are over 60 UK radio station articles in Category:United Kingdom broadcasting stubs – I propose {{UK-radio-station-stub}} to be in a subcategory of both {{UK-bcast-stub}} and {{radio-station-stub}}. --Marknew 10:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Princely India Stub

Proposed stub: {{princely-India}}

There are MANY articles out there that pertain to Indian Princely states which need to be expanded in an orderly fashion. Subjects encompassed include: resumes of the states themselves (like Kingdom of Mysore); cities that were seats of princely states (like Bundi); biographical pages (vast numbers); important monuments (Chittorgarh/Padmanabhapuram Palace) and other things like succession systems, titles, etc. Kindly opine. Regards, ImpuMozhi 09:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • this one sadly would be a major problem. Geography stubs are always split by the current geopolitical entity, so any stubs relating to cities in the various princely states should be stubbed by the modern Indian state. Bundi, for instanc, would get Rajasthan-geo-stub once that is made (probably very soon). Monuments and buildings are already well covered by {{India-struct-stub}}, which is hardly overpopulated. And a lot of things should be well-covered by a {{India-hist-stub}}, which was proposed not that long ago. We don't split biographies by time period, either, rather we split them by nationality and then occupation. One thing that might help, you, though, and is definitely worth considering, is an {{India-royal-stub}}, for articles relating directly to the Princes, Maharajahs, Nawabs et al themselves. Grutness...wha? 11:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well Caerwine this is w.r.t Maratha stub. Princely states are specifically those states which were under the suzerainity (sic?) of British monarch during British India. Hence Mughal Empire and Maratha Empire wont fall under these categories. अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 19:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{Poland-geo-stub}}

The geographic stub category for Poland is up to 5 pages. The logical way to split this is to subdivide by regions. Poland has 14 voivodeships, which is too many ways to split only 5 pages, so I recommend only creating subcategories for the 4 most populous regions:

The only really annoying bit is that the first one includes a Polish crossed-L in its name, but there isn't a standard English translation for either the first or last one on the list. I've seen Małopolska translated at least three different ways in standard texts and histories (e.g. "little Poland", "lesser Poland", "smaller Poland"), so I think we'd have to go with the Polish name to avoid confusion. Thankfully, the second and third have the same name in English --EncycloPetey 12:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be {{Malopolska-geo-stub}} with a redirect at {{Małopolska-geo-stub}}? Conscious 12:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd considered that, but it would mean creating and using a new spelling that's neither Polish nor English. Polish crossed-L is pronounced like English W, whereas L is L. We'd be creating a new spelling with an incorrect pronunciation, much like trying to write English words in Japanese. I really don't like that option, and anyway most people expanding stubs about Polish geography ought to be familiar with the Polish alphabet. --EncycloPetey 13:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
yeah but not all stub sorters are and not all browsers use them easily. thats the reason for redirects like aland-stub and bahai-stub. a redirect from malopolska-geo-stub would be good. BL kiss the lizard 22:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like the idea about splitting up a large stub, but I'd prefer {{GreaterPoland-geo-stub}} and {{LesserPoland-geo-stub}} instead of {{Wielkopolska-geo-stub}} and {{Małopolska-geo-stub}}¨. Silesia and Masovia aren't Polish names either. BTW, why is there any reason why {{Masuria-geo-stub}} and {{Pommerania-geo-stub}} isn't on the list? Poland is usually divided into six regions. --Valentinian 23:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Several comments:

  • First off, there are 16 not 14 voivodships. You may be referring to an old map as Poland hasn't had 14 voivodships since 1950. It's had the current configuration of 16 since 1999.
Oops, you're right. I had just checked on the Poland voivodships article, too. --EncycloPetey 04:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondly, what exactly are these four regions supposed to cover? They have the same name as four of the current voivodships, and the only reference to areas larger than the voivodships for which boundaries are well defined I've found are for six regions labeled I to VI of two or three voivodships each used for statistical purposes, and those don't appear to correspond to anything even remotely historical that would have a name that would not be confused with voivodship name, and {{PolandI-geo-stub}} to {{PolandVI-geo-stub}} does not appeal to me.
They're intended to cover geography of places in the current voivodships of the same name. As I understand it, we prefer to split geography by current boundaries. The proposed stubs will not cover the whole of Poland, merely reduce the content of the general {{Poland-geo-stub}}. --EncycloPetey 04:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thirdly, while an average voivodship would have only 55 stubs, experience with other countries strongly suggests taht the stubs will not be equally distributed. There are probably 6 to 10 voivodship stubs that meet the recommended 60 stub limit.

In short, I do not see where trying to avoid using the voivodships is a good idea. If there were 49 voivodships as there were from 1975 to 1998, I could see going for groups of voivodships, but not with the current 16. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting we avoid the voivodships; I am suggesting we begin by using only some of them, and possibly add others later if such seems warranted. The four I chose are the most populated, and their names were taken from the article on Polish voivodships on WP in order to make sorting sensible. It sounds to me as if we're thinking alike on this, even if we're talking past each other. --EncycloPetey 04:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it's just that you managed to confuse me by calling them regions instead of voivodships. Granted, I have to check each time I type "voivodship" to make certain I've typed it right, so I understand why you did so, but it confused me, especially when you didn't explain your reasoning. To avoid further confusion, when you mention population are you refering to stub population or people population? Based on what has happened with other countries, the highly populated places have a tendency to have fewer stubs than the middly populated places because their articles are more likely to have developed past the stub stage. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EncycloPetey's suggestion would mirror what we did with England, and what we've been trying to do with France and the US - unsuccessfully, since someone seems to come along and make the rest :/ - that is, break out the largest ons and see what is left. In the case of England, we eventually had all but a handful of counties and they were very close to splittable numbers of stubs, so we bent the guidelines a little and in at least two cases more stubs were made to make categories more splittable. Doing the same here would be a reasonable idea. Grutness...wha? 06:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art and Artist stubs

OK, so Category:Art stubs is up to 5 pages and Category:Artist stubs is up to 7 pages. I also see a number of oddly-placed children, so here's the idea broken into four points. I suggest commenting on each one individually if you like, or putting general comments immediately before item 1. --EncycloPetey 16:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1 - Relocate {{architecture-stub}} and {{photo-stub}} as children of {{art-stub}}. Architects and Photographers are considered artists already, so the disciplines should be there too. We can leave cross-references under Geography and Technology (respectively). In any case, architechture shouldn't be under geography, since it isn't.
  • 4 - Split {{painter-stub}} geographically; the category in running to 4 pages already.
There's several different things here, so I'll tackle them separately:
  • 1) photo-stub, fine, but architecture stub is more of a problem. Currently it deals with architectural features and types of building, so should perhaps be split into two separate stubs. It shouldn't be currently under geo-stub - it should be under struct-stub, and any split would leave the building types still under struct-stub. Building features could use both struct and art as parents.
  • 2) Sounds fine to me.
  • 3) I'm still firmly of the belief that the primary split should have been by nationality rather than by medium, since very few artists work in only one medium (I'm a professional painter and illustrator, for instance, and my partner is a painter, installation maker and graphic designer). Since it has been, though, an illustrator-stub would make sense.
  • 4) definitely - see my comments about 3. I could see france-painter-stub, US-painter-stub, netherlands-painter-stub, italy-painter-stub and UK-painter-stub being likely candidates, to start with.
Grutness...wha? 23:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1)But as I understand it {{struct-stub}} is for stubbing specific structures, not general architectural styles and sturctural motifs. One reason I recommend placing it under {{art-stub}} is that the Dewey Decimal system for libraries places architecture as a subcategory of art, so it's a place people would know to look. A cross-reference under {{struct-stub}} makes sense, though. --EncycloPetey 04:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same situation as geo-stub and geo-term stub. Geo-stub is for individual places, geo-term-stub is for things like terminal moraine or till plain. And Category:Geographical term stubs is a subcategory of Category:Geography stubs. In the same way, struct-stub is about individual buildings, architecture-stub contains building types like shed and bandstand, and that's why Category:Architecture stubs is a subcategory of Category:Buildings and structures stubs. If architecture-stub was split in two, putting building types in one category and building features and general arcitectural terms (from alcove to window shutter) in another, then one could go under structs and the other under art quite happily. And since there are nearly 600 architecture-stubs, a split's not that bad an idea... Grutness...wha? 05:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cemetery stub

{{cemetery-stub}} used to distinguish cemeteries, most now use the {{geo-stub}}. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any estimates of how many stubs could be given this stub type? Some examples would be nice too. --TheParanoidOne 20:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I count around 125 with minimal information and I plan to add 50 more this month. I also proposed a Cemetery wikiproject and if other join more will be added --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a very large number of cemetery stubs in the various geo-stub categories. I've no objection to a separate stub for them, BUT I would definitely use it as part of a double-stubbing with the appropriate geo-stub, since it's very likely that people who know a particular area will know the local cemeteries. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If created, this should also be a chlid of {{death-stub}} which is not all that highly populated at the moment. Also, should the scope of this also include tombs, burial mounds, crematoria, etc.? Caerwine Caerwhine 01:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US TV station/channel stub

Now that there is {{US-radio-station-stub}}, and seeing that there is a {{UK-tv-channel-stub}}, I think we should probably go ahead and split out the US TV stations as well. However, should it be {{US-tv-channel-stub}} or {{US-tv-station-stub}}, or perhaps even both, with "station" referring to local over-the-air broadcast stations (e.g. KTTV) and "channel" referring to national cable/satellite channels (e.g. CNN)? DHowell 20:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • We need to clean up the whole set of TV stubs, and {{US-tv-station-stub}} looks like a reasonable addition as a prelude to a revamp. I'm too bogged down with other stubs at present to oversee that revamp which is why I haven't proposed one, tho I certainly won't mind if someone else does. Channel is too ambiguous as it could mean either station, frequency, or network and as part of any revamp I hope {{UK-tv-channel-stub}} gets renamed or split, so please don't use it for a US tv stub. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Consider this a proposal for {{US-tv-station-stub}} then. I still think it should be restricted to terrestrial broadcast stations, because I don't think I've normally heard cable/satellite channels referred to as "stations" ({{US-tv-network-stub}}, maybe?). Perhaps when we've gotten all of the "K" and "W" articles sorted into the proper radio or TV station stub category, we can then decide if we need to sort whatever is left under {{US-bcast-stub}}. DHowell 01:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting {{RC-stub}}

There's already 71 articles double stubbed with {{RC-stub}} and {{bishop-stub}}, and 26 with {{RC-stub}} and {{Christian-clergy-stub}}; with {{reli-bio-stub}} only sorted thru F. These would decrease double-stubbing, and help split {{RC-stub}}, which is at 4 pages and growing. --Mairi 20:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Progressive-rock-album-stub}}

Rock-albums stubs are about to get more crowded as sorting gets done, and there are plenty of prog-rock albums (adding up Pink Floyd and a few others gets to 30). Part of the Albums WikiProject Last Avenue 06:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ireland-royal-stub}}

For the historical and legendary kings of and queens of Ireland that didn't hold the English crown. There are well over 60 of these already double stubbed with {{Ireland-bio-stub}} and {{Euro-royal-stub}}, so the only complaint I can see is the mixing of the historical and legendary ones in one category, but the dividing line between the two is not readily discernible. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you'll get that problem if you go far enough back in any royal line, though I'll admit Ireland's mixes the two spectacularly (I have an Irish history at home that traces my family's ancestry back to Noah! :). See no reason not to give the thumbs up to this proposal though. Grutness...wha? 05:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, January 2006

{{Metal-album-stub}}

Category:Album stubs is currently the largest stub category, and while there have been several recent subcategories created (and proposed, see above), there are still some gaps that I saw when sorting through many of the A and B entries. The most obvious one is metal music and its many subgenres. Other possible categories that seem to have a fair bit of representation include:

  • punk rock albums
  • folk music albums

The following are generally less well defined and overlap more compared to the above suggestions, but I'd support creating them if others feel strongly about them:

  • indie albums
  • pop albums (most likely should go into rock instead?)

--Interiot 17:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting {{India-stub}}

I have a suggestion. Currently, all India related stubs are bunched together as {{india-stub}} and category is becoming very large. If these stubs are re-organized as state-wise sub-stubs (like the existing geography ones: {{TamilNadu-geo-stub}} and {{AndhraPradesh-geo-stub}}), the category would become much smaller. I am proposing creating state-wide sub-stubs such as {{TamilNadu-stub}} and {{AndhraPradesh-stub}}, so that the state-related articles can go into that category. {{TamilNadu-geo-stub}} and {{AndhraPradesh-geo-stub}} will be sub-stubs of these new categories that I am proposing. -- Ganeshk 07:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

while it makes sense to split geography items by subregions, it doesn't make as much sense to split non-geographic items in this way, which is why the splits going on for india are on the basis of what they are, not where they are (like India-struct-stub and India-bio-stub with its subcategories like india-politician-stub). An India-specific history stub has also been proposed and is in the process of being debated (see above), and other possibilities of the same form may follow (like India-rail-stub and India-road-stub for example). That would also keep it in line with what has been done with other countries. Grutness...wha? 07:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just as it applies to geographic items, it applies to others too. Examples, {{AndhraPradesh-bio-stub}}, {{AndhraPradesh-struct-stub}} etc. It helps to bring together all Andhra Pradesh related articles so that it can be managed better. {{AndhraPradesh-stub}} will be the top level of all these sub-stubs. This will be similar to {{California-stub}}. Hope that clarifies - Ganeshk 09:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather go with all-India stubs like {{India-poli-stub}} and {{India-hist-stub}}. Conscious 09:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few US state stubs do exist separately with individual wikiprojects (like WikiProject California), but you might also notice that several of the existing US state stubs were not proposed here, and several of them are currently being voted on for deletion at WP:SFD, along with the one existing English county-stub. Grutness...wha? 09:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


My view would be basically the same as Grutness'. Keeping the current India focused stubs for all non-geographical pages, and using state stubs for geo/district/city etc. pages. Regards, Kaushik twin 11:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few things other than geography that we've split by subdivisions, such as politicians, roads and structures, but it doesn't look like India's stub categories for those are particularly large. --Mairi 06:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more geo-stubs - Namibia and Myanmar

Both Namibia and Myanmar have reached the threshold for separate geo-stubs, so I propose {{Namibia-geo-stub}} and {{Myanmar-geo-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 05:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{coffee-stub}}

At the Discoveries section of WP:WSS, {{tea-stub}} was found. Aecis had an idea that, a coffee-stub should be created, with both tea-stub and coffee-stub feeding into Category:Tea and coffee stubs. There would be about 60 articles in this category. Thelb4 09:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{canada-corp-stub}}

A stub of Canadian corporations is badly overdue. It would be a child of {{corp-stub}} and {{canada-stub}}. --YUL89YYZ 16:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{japan-tv-stub}}

{{Japan-film-stub}} already exists, and now that I am working my way through Category:Kaiju, Category:Tokusatsu and others, I think that this will be useful (see Toei Superheroes for a fairly complete list of tokusatsu shows). Upon examination, there are about 50 or so, and many redlinks in various places. They could potetially use a distinct stub type ({{Tokusatsu-stub}}, {{Kaiju-stub}}, something along those lines), but we can leave that for later. Thoughts?--Sean|Black 23:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Australian languages stub

I'd like to propose creating {{ia-lang-stub}} for Indigenous Australian languages-related articles. There are potentially quite a few hundred which could be written on this topic, and I estimate probably 20 or so related stubs already exist with the non-specific {{lang-stub}}. Before creating a whole bunch more it'd be better to have a specific stub for this group. Any objections?--cjllw | TALK 23:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

isnt that what {{au-lang-stub}} is for? BL kiss the lizard 05:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, {{au-lang-stub}} is for languages in the Austronesian languages family, a widespread group in the pacific and SE Asia, but (confusingly perhaps) none actually in Australia itself ("austro" here just means "southern"). The indigenous languages in AU on the other hand consist of a few other families and isolates, and have not been (convincingly) shown to be related to this or any other defined language family. Hope that helps.--cjllw | TALK 05:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British nobility

The British stub page currently has almost 1000 articles. I would like to create these stub categories to better manage it. Here are my two proposals.

Plan A - Each stub will be sorted into its gender specific category.

Propsed categories:

Plan B - Each stub will be sorted into its title category. Both genders will be sorted into the same category.

Proposed Categories:

(preceeding comments by user:Yorktown1776 (I think))

not sure either would work. someone who starts out as a viscount can end up as an earl through inheritance or "promotion". and you can get people with multiple titles like Prince Charles who is Duke of Cornwall. wouldnt it be far better just to split it into UK-royal-stub and UK-noble-stub, like with everywhere else, and see where we go from there? BL kiss the lizard 06:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


{{Jhangochi-Culture-stub}}

Category:This stub will be associated to people, culture and language of the Jhangochi(dialect) speaking area of Punjab. This is a huge area having three big rivers named Ravi, Chenab and jehlum flowing through it and the people living in whole area have common culture language and communties. There are lot of categories that can become its sub categories like 

   * Geography and Geology of Jhangochi Culture Area
   * History of Jhangochi Culture Area
   * Notable Personalities of Jhangochi Culture Area
   * Poets of Jhangochi Culture Area
   * Legends of Jhangochi Culture Area
   * Cities and Towns of Jhangochi Culture Area
   * Singers of Jhangochi Culture Area
   * Rivers of Jhangochi Culture Area
   * Crops of Jhangochi Culture Area
   * Tribes and Communities of Jhangochi Culture Area

Here are few examples of eisting articles which lie under these categories: 

   * Jhang
   * Faisalabad
   * Toba Tek Singh
   * Gojra
   * Samundri
   * Chadhar
   * Bhatti
   * Kathia
   * Chenab
   * Ravi
   * Jehlum
   * Abdus Salam
   * Dr. Tahirul Qadri
   * Heer Ranjha etc

--Abulfazl 7:45 , 7 January 2006 GMT

I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of this page. It is not for general categories but stub categories. Of the categories you listed, I'm sure they would be fine for general categories but for stub categories they have too narrow a scope.
Of the articles you mention, Jhang, Gojra, Samundri and Heer Ranjha are currently marked as stubs. I would say that only Chenab could also be classified as a stub. All of the others are non-stubs (larger than a stub: Faisalabad, Chadhar, Bhatti; disambiguation pages: Toba Tek Singh, Ravi; non-existent pages: Kathia, Jehlum, Dr. Tahirul Qadri). Therefore only five of the fourteen articles you mention are relevant to this discussion.
If you would like to help with Pakistan, I suggest you look through Category:Pakistan stubs and see how it might be split. Look at any existing discussion on this as well. --TheParanoidOne 12:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category renaming: American foo stubs to either US foo stubs

Moved from the general proposals.

We have a number of mismatched category names where stubs such as {{US-politician-stub}} have a category named like Category:American politician stubs. I counted seven categories that are like that. [There are also two American football stub categories that can probably keep their current names—Category:American football stubs ({{Amfootball-stub}}) and Category:American football biography stubs ({{Amfootbio-stub}})].The "American" in the category names should be changed to either "US" or "United States". BlankVerse ∅ 02:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a big enough topic to go at the foot of the page.. I'd prefer changing all of these and the ones starting "US" to ones starting "United States" . I'd also like to replace all the categories which start "UK" with ones starting "United Kingdom". Grutness...wha? 03:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We probably ought to go along with the consensus developed by Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American. That consensus is that if the general scheme in a category name is to use Fooian stule adjectives to indicate nationality, then American should be used to handle the indication of the United States. Following that convention would mean changing:

The preference of which way to go was made based solely on what existing stubs use, with the issue being left to be settled when there was no clear consensus outside of existing US/UK stub categories. Caerwine 05:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I was mildly against this renaming on main categories, and I'm mildly against this for the same reasons. The obvious ones - American doesn't always equate with the United States (I have, for instance, a book on the history of American painting which lists such American artists as Rivera, Kahlo, and Siqueiros), and United States is in common enough adjectival use for it to be acceptable. I'd also ask what would happen with Category:Americas geography stubs, which is a parent category for North America, South America, Central America, and the Caribbean. BL kiss the lizard 07:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That was actually me, not BL Lacertae. Emma (i.e., BL Lacertae) visited here earlier on and did some Wikiing... and didn't log off. (Sorry to reveal your name Emma!) Grutness...wha? 07:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
erg. my fault. but why tell them my name? I hate that name. BL kiss the lizard 05:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For rail ones we also need to decide whether it's Foo rail stubs or Fooian rail stubs, as there's some of both (e.g. Category:India rail stubs and Category:UK rail stubs, but Category:Japanese rail stubs and Category:Australian rail stubs). --Mairi 22:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, again, that might favour the "United States X" situation, since it's both a noun and an adjective. IOt's not only the rail stubs that are like that, either. But, as I said, it's only a mild niggle as far as I'm concerned, so I'll go with the flow on this one. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It may be both, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American has clearly ruled that when using the adjective form, American and not United States is the prefered form. If you don't want American used, then all of the categories need to be changed to use the country name and not the country adjective. Caerwine 07:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should take into account the outcome of a Category-for-deletion action; see 10 Nov 2005 CfD (look at the "Category:U.S. inventors to Category:American inventors" section). Courtland 14:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more inclined to use "United States" (as in Category:United States railroad executives) instead of "U.S." or "American"; "U.S." is less easy to type because you're bouncing on the Shift key to get it right, and "American" seems too ambiguous (does it mean US, North American, Central American or South American?). In general, I would prefer Foo over Fooian (can't type that without grinning) and acronyms without periods (as in "US" and "UK"), but that's just me. slambo 16:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself agreeing with Slambo on this. "American" has several meanings, United States has only one. Also, the term "United States" is often used as an adjective, as Grutness has indicated. But if the community consensus is to use "American" instead, then so be it. Aecis praatpaal 10:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Czech this out!

We've got a slight amount of confusion over how to specify the Czech and I'd like for us to clear it up and settle on a single consistent policy. We have {{Cz-geo-stub}} with redirects {{Czech-geo-stub}} and {{Czechia-geo-stub}} feeding into Category:Czechia geography stubs which has has its non-stub parent Category:Geography of the Czech Republic. We also have {{Czech-bio-stub}} with no supporting redirects feeding into Category:Czech people stubs which has as one of its parents the non-existant Category:Czechia-related stubs. Now as much as I personally prefer using Czechia instead of the Czech Republic, it hasn't yet caught on in English and more to the point all of the regular categories in Wikipedia use the long form rather than the short form. Also, we generally use the noun form instead of the adjective to make the stub template. To straighten this all out, I'd like for us to do the following, altho will need to head to SfD for part of this:

  1. Create {{Czechia-stub}} with {{CzechRepublic-stub}} and {{Czech-stub}} as redirects feeding into Category:Czech Republic stubs. (It's a little light in the mnumber of known stubs category, but should be doable.)
  2. Reset the Czech geography stub type as follows:
    1. Rename Category:Czechia geography stubs → Category:Czech Republic geography stubs;
    2. Change {{Czechia-geo-stub}} from being a redirect into the main template feeding into Category:Czech Republic geography stubs;
    3. Delete {{Cz-geo-stub}};
    4. Add {{CzechRepublic-geo-stub}}; and
    5. Modify {{Czech-geo-stub}} to point to {{Czechia-geo-stub}}.
  3. Move {{Czech-bio-stub}} to {{Czechia-bio-stub}}, keeping the redirect and adding {{CzechRepublic-bio-stub}} as a second redirect.

This would make the Czech stubs follow a consistent pattern between themselves and our existing conventions. My reason for picking Czechia as the primary form for the template names was that it was the shorter of the two noun forms. CzechRepublic should also be avaialble as it is the noun form more commonly used in English, and Czech be justified as being that long form with the Republic dropped. Opinions? Caerwine 21:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the basics of your proposal, but there are a few things I disagree with. What it boils down to is that you choose Czechia as the main form, to which other forms should redirect. However, as you say, in English, the name Czech Republic is used for the country. I've done a small, completely unrepresentative google test. "Czech Republic" gave 129 million hits, "Czechia" only 1,7 million. Czechia redirects to Czech Republic in Wikipedia. So I think we should be consistent with that, and I'm very skeptical about using Czechia in the first place. What I would propose:
  1. Create {{CzechRepublic-stub}}, with {{Czech-stub}} and {{Cz-stub}} as redirects, all feeding into Category:Czech Republic stubs.
  2. Create {{CzechRepublic-geo-stub}}, with {{Czech-geo-stub}} and {{Cz-geo-stub}} as redirects, all feeding into Category:Czech Republic geography stubs.
  3. Create {{CzechRepublic-bio-stub}}, with {{Czech-bio-stub}} and {{Cz-bio-stub}} as redirects, all feeding into Category:Czech Republic biography stubs.
Aecis praatpaal 23:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly oppose the idea of renaming the templates. The whole reason for using "cz-geo-stub" and ""cz-stub" was because of an edit war going on over the stub template. As soon as you create one template with redirects from the other it is likely to start up again. It created a hell of a lot of work for this project several months back (check the edit histories and discussion pages around April). The compromise name was chosen deliberately because it was the only name acceptable to both sides of the debate. Mind you, the categories probably could use a rename to match the parent. Czech-bio-stub is fine, because both sides of the debate call the people from that country Czechs. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, with the edit war that I now see that CzechRepublic and Czechia would obviously stir up if either were the primary name, it would probably be best to avoid using either of those forms for the root. However, how about using Czech for the root form with Czechia and CzechRepublic as redirects? There's zero need to rename the bio stub category since those uniformly use the adjective form which is Czech no matter which form of the name you use. I want to avoid using ISO3166 abreviations if possible. Caerwine 03:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. Not entirely convinced, since Czech-geo-stub was one of the two templates being fought over. But maybe if its stressed that this is the non controversial adjectival form and CzechRepublic is one of the redirects it could work (FWIW, I don't like the ISO abbreviations either, but at leasy Cz was unlikely to be anything else). In any case, given that the battole was six months ago, hopefully no-one will want to restart it (he says with fingers crossed) Grutness...wha? 04:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly agree on the category rename. I'd like to think this would be speediable, but I guess that we'd have to at least nominate it first... Will stand mute on the templates for the time being, given the apparent problems. Alai 05:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


US State-stubs

It seems we are unearthing quite a few US state-stubs and sending most of them to SFD becaused there's no wikiproject. I'm beginning to wonder whether it would be more useful to keep them, given that - with the federal nature of the US - a lot of the US-stubs are specific to individual states. This was prompted by a message on my user talk page from Karmnafist blithely asking me how to add categories to two new stubs he'd created (one of them incorrectly named. Sigh). Grutness...wha? 23:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you just incorrectly named me ;-)
What Grutness is talking about is basically WP:MOS cruft. I often make redirects for mispellings such as {{New Hampshire-stub}} for {{NewHampshire-stub}}. Making stubs shouldn't be about cruft and instruction creep, they should be about "Hey, this article is a stub, and it needs to be categorized, but not everybody might know what the stub is or be willing to step out of RC mode/casual user mode to keep on trying if they capitalize something that they shouldn't or miss a dash or something". karmafist 03:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the name! It isn't MOS-cruft at all. The only people who regularly use the many varieties of stubs are either stub-sorters or people who refer to the stub list. Everyone else uses far coarser stub types, and the stubs are sorted from there. In both cases, there isn't any excuse for typing the wroing name - in fact, quite the opposite. Regular stub sorters know there are a few simple rules which keep the stub names regular; people referring to the stub list can see what the spelling is. In neither case is there any reason for a stub redirect. And anyway, redirects for templates are generally frowned on since they double the server load. But that's not the point with the current discussion. The question is - do we want to allow state-stubs for all US states, or only those with wikiprojects? Grutness...wha? 09:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There also tends to be a lot of movement of people between states. I'm slightly worried that people would start adding state stubs willy nilly to various stubs because a person spent a few years there, even if his noteworthiness was elsewhere, or not patricular to single state. If we're going to do this, I want us to nail down such "floaters" rather tightly with a rather strict and well-publicised policy on their use (i.e. a copy of the policy, not just a link to it, on every state stub category page. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Policy discussion on ignoring this page

On Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:WSS/P User:karmafist has basically annouced his intention to ignore this page when creating stub types. Please visit and comment. DES (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also note Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements/Karmafist#Policy for a discussion related to stub sorting. Conscious 18:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's misuse of WP:IAR like this that makes me wish the page had never been created. BlankVerse 04:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hardly call it a misuse, he's ignoring an attempt at ownership of Wikipedia pages. If anything, Karmafist's invocation of this policy is perhaps the best example for why WP:IAR exists. —Locke Cole 04:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The best example? Do you mean there isn't a better example anywhere out there? You're either misusing the word best (which probably means you're an American) or you're a sock puppet (which is why your signature is a red link). --EncycloPetey 05:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a better example, but given that WP:IAR is about cutting through bureaucracy and red tape, this seems as good as any to me. Regarding my redlinked name, you might wanna be more thorough there and check my contribs, or my edit count. —Locke Cole 05:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There was an or in there -- I know that not everyone is a sock puppet. However, I also don't believe in using edit counts to prove anything. A person's edit count means nothing to me. Take my own edit count as an example. It is very high, but most of it is from sorting stubs, which can be done very quickly and doesn't contribute content. I have some contributions that I'm very proud of, but that's not reflected in my edit count (whcih in fact swamps out my contributions instead). So then, if on 29 Nov 2005 you declared that you were "done with Wikipedia", why are you suddenly so vocal again? --EncycloPetey 06:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because the situation resolved itself? And why is this about me all of the sudden; is there some problem with discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of this page? —Locke Cole 06:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm honestly curious. Normally, I'd take a discussion like this to your user page, but that's not really appropriate in this case, since you don't have a user page. --EncycloPetey 06:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Food and drink stubs

This discussion is not about simply a new template, but about changing the use and structure of an existing stub hierarchy. Therefore I'm bringing it up in the discussions. The template {{food-stub}} currently feeds (nice choice of words there) into Category:Food and drink stubs. However, {{drink-stub}} feeds into Category:Drink stubs. Imo, it would be better to have {{food-stub}} feeding into Category:Food stubs. Category:Food and drink stubs could act as a (grand)parent for the related categories. I was thinking of this structure:

  • no template / Food and drink stubs
    • food-stub / Food stubs
      • cheese-stub / Cheese stubs
      • condiment-stub / Condiment stubs
      • confection-stub / Confectionery stubs
      • dessert-stub / Dessert stubs
      • food-corp-stub / Food corporation stubs
        • restaurant-stub / Restaurant stubs
      • fruit-stub / Fruit stubs
      • ingredient-stub / Food ingredient stubs
      • vegetable-stub / Vegetable stubs
    • drink-stub / Drink stubs
      • beer-stub / Beer and brewery stubs
      • wine-stub / Wine stubs
    • cooking-tool-stub / Cooking tool stubs
    • cuisine-stub / Cuisine stubs

A simple template change with null edits by Mairibot won't do, because many of the just under 1,600 articles currently in Category:Food and drink stubs belong in one of the daughters. This makes the mess a bit more complicated. Any thoughts on this? Aecis praatpaal 22:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since five of those stubs are brand new, we definitely need someone to slug through and sort {{food-stub}} anyway. (I'm busy at the moment with sorting {{US-bio-stub}}.) I can see where Category:Food stubs would be useful, but there are likely too many stubs which wouldn't fit into an existing child type for Category:Food and drink stubs to be without a template of its very own. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal for restructuring sounds reasonable, but why is food-corp (and restaurant) a sub-category of food-stub, while cuisine-stub is not? I would move ford-corp (and its child) up one level. Otherwise, I'd say go for it once the requisite week has passed. --EncycloPetey 03:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that food-stub should refer only to food and not to drink (ISTR that I actually suggested that when I made drink-stub). Drink-stub could well be splittable by now, too (soft-drink-stub and spirit-drink-stub, perhaps?). As to going through the list, this is exactly what WP:WSS/T was created for. Grutness...wha? 05:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about drink-corp-stub? It could ease the load on {{food-stub}}, {{drink-stub}} and {{corp-stub}}, and could act as a parent for Category:Beer and brewery stubs. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 14:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd reccomend adding a few more stub types, like bread-stub, meat-stub, packaged-foods, as well as ethnic categories, such as chinese, japanese, mexican, french, etc. Just an idea. --TexasDex 06:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hold off on that for now. The separate types of food (bread etc) might be useful, but it's worth waiting until we know how many there are likely to be (that'll be clearer once the current proposal is done). As to the ethnic split, I can understand it as an idea, but it would mean splitting the stubs on two different dimensions (e.g., Chinese confections would need to be double stubbed with both Chinese food and confectionary), so that's best handled with care, since it can lead to confusion for stub sorting. It's worth considering, though, for all that. Grutness...wha? 09:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Having two stub-categores per article isn't that bad, it's better then having multiple branching types. Even just looking at the category I can guesstimate that sub-types on bread, meat, and packaged foods will be plenty populated. --151.205.207.248 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been stub-sorting within food-stub quite a bit. I'd recommend bread-stub, meat-stub, soup-or-stew-stub (or maybe separate soup-stub and stew-stubs), and cereal-stub (there's a surprising number of breakfast cereals). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I hope this is the right place to ask. There's "condiment stubs" and "condiments". If you look the "Condiments" topic, you'll find that the "condiment stubs" category is listed in the "mu" (μ) block. Why is that? What's mu about "condiment stubs"?Mikeblas 05:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

a lot of people were complaining about the stub categories cluttering up the main part of the categories, so we decided to put them right at the end of all the subcategories by using a non-alphabetical character. A lot of recent stub categories are listed under μ, to stand for "micro" (i.e., "very small articles"). Grutness...wha? 23:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Italy-struct-stub question

im busy moving stubs from euro-struct-stub to italy-struct-stub. what do i do with vatican ones? do they stay in euro because the vatican city isnt really italy, or do they get italy-struct-stub? or do we need a seperate vatican-stub for everything to do with the vatican? BL kiss the lizard 05:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

good question... I'd be inclined to put italy-struct-stub on them, but it is a separate country, so I'm not sure it's the right thing. There's about seven of them, I think. Not sure there'd be enough stubs for a general vatican-stub, but it might be the solution. Grutness...wha? 10:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with that. Italy and the Vatican City are two countries, so those buildings can only get Vatican-struct-stub. We use the same distinction with geo-stubs. Aecis praatpaal 11:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The San Marino articles have been going in Euro, not Italy, so teh same should apply to Vatican City. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ok ill leave them with euro-struct. BL kiss the lizard 23:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Occult-stub}} and {{Magic-stub}}

Ok, this is rather confusing and needs sorting out. Both have Category:Magic as their only parent. That category deals with religious/occult magic, and references Magic (paranormal) for a description. Hoever, {{Magic-stub}} links to Magic (illusion) and gets used on both illusion magic and occult magic. {{Occult-stub}} links to Magic (paranormal).

Two ways I see of resolving this:

Or

I'd favor the latter, as it doesn't have any overlap between the stubs, and more encompasses more things. --Mairi 03:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also favor the latter and will support it if you bring it to SFD. As this will be a rescoping of an existing stub it has to be handled there rather than here. However, would there be any problem with adding {{magick-stub}} as a redirect for {{occult-stub}}?
  • FWIW (and speaking as a "pagan" :), I've always used these stubs in the second way. Magic means stage magic to me, magick is concerned with the occult. So I'd have no problems with changing magic-stub to link with illusion and using occult-stub for paranormal "real magic". Grutness...wha? 23:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC) (PS - happy solstice!)[reply]

{{Vocab-stub}}

Lately I've had some issues regarding the proper use of the vocab stub category, and have opened an open discussion in an attempt to come to a consensus on its talk page. Please take a look there and make comments. Thank you. xaosflux Talk/CVU 01:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals&oldid=34240060"