Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/November 2006

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting | Proposals | Archive
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pegship (talk | contribs) at 00:54, 18 November 2006 (archiving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Amalas

This is an archive of discussions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals for the month of November 2006. Please move completed November discussions to this page as they occur, add discussion headers to each proposal showing the result, and leave incomplete discussions on the Proposals page. After November, the remainder of the discussions will be moved to this page, whether stub types have been created or not.

Those who create a stub template/cat should be responsible for moving the discussion here and listing the stub type in the archive summary.

Stub proposers please note: Items tagged as "nocreate" or "no consensus" are welcome for re-proposal if and when circumstances are auspicious.

University of Virginia stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was do not create.
Propose Category:University of Virginia-stub to associate with the University of Virginia WikiProject. At least 30 articles would fall under this cat. Jazznutuva 16:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Per the naming guidelines, that would be {{UniversityofVirginia-stub}}, or something similar without spaces, and Category:University of Virginia stubs. For that and other reasons, better to "propose" something before creating it. Alai 17:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sfd bottom

Haitian people stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Propose Category:archivin. Both parent cats, Category:Haiti stubs and Category:Caribbean people stubs, have over 200 articles. At least 70 articles would fall under the new cat. Jwillbur 22:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sfd bottom

Category:Canadian comedian stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
I haven't done much hunting yet, but I'm amazed such a category doesn't already exist (esp since UK-comedian and US-comedian already do). Comedy is practically one of Canada's biggest exports. --Arvedui 07:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Those latter exist because there were a sufficient number of such stubs, and because they were urgently needed due to a vast excess of stubs in the parent. (Not because we think USians and Brits are funnier than Canadians. Necessarily.) I can find 28 possibilities: is there in fact anything like 60? Alai 07:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Which main category did you check? At present, there are about 1100 people in the Category:Canadian people stubs along with ~450 in Category:Comedian stubs. I can't believe at least 60 of them wouldn't be both Canadian and comedians. Is there an easier way to check than by looking at each one in turn? (By the way, is it kosher to put something in more than one stub category at once?) --Arvedui 02:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I only checked the former; throwing in the latter, it does seem to just about creep over threshold (62). My 'easier way' is a little on the difficult side: see the discussion on tools at WT:WSS. Adding multiple stub tags is OK, and sometimes necessary (i.e. to this point, a Canadian comedian should in theory have been in both of the categories you mention). Alai 04:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that's a support, btw. Alai 04:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sfd bottom

Splits of dinosaur-stub and paleo-stub

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create archosaur-stub, pterosaur-stub, ichthyosaur-stub, paleo-fish-stub, paleo-mammal-stub.

The recent sfd discussion of the horrible "dinobird-stub" has alerted me to the close-to-overpopulated dinosaur and paleontology stub categories, which have about 1200 stubs between the two of them. I'd like to suggest the following as potential splits: From {{dinosaur-stub}}:

From {{paleo-stub}}:

Note that lower order stubs (such as {{sauropod-stub}} may also be useful, since simply dividing dinosaurs into ornithischia and saurischia is still going to leave two fairly large categories. Note also that I haven't done a tally, so these are on the proviso that they're each a reasonable level. I doubt these will all be viable, but several of them will be, and at the very least templates for the others may be worthwhile, even if upmerged into larger categories. Grutness...wha? 05:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly {{theropod-stub}}, especially for those which are now classified with both {{dinosaur-stub}} and {{paleo-bird-stub}} (the latter could usually be retained). There are several taxa for which this would apply. Dysmorodrepanis 05:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Going by the perm-cats, here's what seems to be viable (or ballpark-close):

Usual caveats about the whackiness of the category tree apply. Alai 09:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think stubs such as {{archosaur-stub}}, {{pterosaur-stub}}, {{ichthyosaur-stub}}, {{|paleo-fish-stub}}, and {{paleo-mammal-stub}} might very well be useful. I'd use them, anyway. There's long been a need for them, as I've been sorting since February.

However, I don't like the idea of {{ornithschia-stub}} or {{saurischia-stub}}, for multiple reasons. One, "Ornithischia" is the correct spelling, not "Ornithschia". Not a big deal, until you think about the number of times that template will be misspelled. Let's keep it simple, if possible. People know how to spell "Dinosaur"; and the word "Dinosaur" has name recognition that S&O simply don't have, while still being a scientifically valid name. Secondly, there are many dinosaurs which don't "shoehorn" easily into Saurischia or Ornithischia: the Herrerasaurs, for example, which may predate the S/O split. In my work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs, I've come across dozens of reptiles which are "probably dinosaurs" but which cannot be classified further, based on the material. Less-well known reptiles ("possibly dinosaurs", "definitely not dinosaurs", "indeterminate vertebrates formerly considered dinosaurs") have been sent to various other categories. I'd rather keep the dinosaurs seperate from the other stuff, if possible. And it's easier to monitor the 1,200 dinosaur articles if they're not in a hodge-podge of different stub categories. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

My fault about the spelling of ornithischia (you're right, of course - I was going from moderately distant memory). We can leave that in one section for now if it's preferred, but it is getting pretty big at about 580 stubs. If splitting at the next level down is more useful, then perhaps putting the theropods into one subcategory would be useful. remember that I'm not talking about removing the current stub types - simply adding a subcategory or two. As far as the non-dinosaur stubs, another possible subtype which might be useful which i thought of after my intial proposal if there are enough of them is {{Therapsid-stub}}. If Alai's counts are anything to go by, it may not reach the standard threshold, though. I'd say that - barring any objections - it looks like paleo-mammal-stub is definitely a good place to start if there are around 350 of them (including the placental ones). Grutness...wha? 12:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I only pointed out the misspelling because I worry about misspellings in the future. If perfectly intelligent users such as yourself have difficulty spelling it, imagine how hard it will be for all of those dino-fancruft people who are constantly adding misspelled content to Wikipedia (and there are dozens every day! :( ). I've got all the dinosaur pages on my watchlist, and you would be surprised at the poor quality of many of the additions. "Dino-bird" isn't even all that bad when considered with other contributions.
Some questions: Would these templates be used in addition to or replacing the existing dinosaur-stub tag? I really don't like the idea of adding a second stub tag. Some of these articles are so short that (1)adding a second tag would mean most of the content would be at the bottom of the page, and (2)since I use pop-ups to determine the size of the shortest articles and list them on the short dinosaur article page, I would need to account for the size (in bytes) of the tags themselves, which is a bit of a pain.
If they replaced the existing tag, which category would they then appear in? This is something that worries me, too. The WikiProject Dinosaurs team has just spent the last 10 months categorizing every dinosaur article on Wikipedia. We have articles for every last one on the List of dinosaurs (four new ones were added today, so I haven't had time to make articles for them yet). Each dinosaur appears in at least three categories: Era, Family, and Continent (except for a few dinosaurs which are invalid; they appear in an Invalid dinosaurs category). The problem with the above proposal is that it doesn't take into account all of the Family-level categories: there's no mention of an Ankylosaur-stub category, no mention of a Stegosaur-stub category, or Hadrosaur-stub category, or Thyreophoran-stub category, or Therizinosaur-stub category, etc, even though these exist as populated categories. One major problem I forsee is that these articles will end up being listed in multiple categories, with short stub articles being listed in more categories than similar articles that aren't stubs, and with no regard for the current classification scheme. We've just spent ten months cleaning up these articles, categorizing them and sorting them, and this sounds like a bit of a huge mess. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
(ec)The general practice is indeed to replace the existing stub tag (other than where there's overlap, rather tha strict inclusion, which doesn't appear to be the case here, give or take the taxonomic uncertainty). So they'd appear in a sub-category of the dinosaur stub category: all other categorisation would obviously not be changed. I didn't mention the family-level possibilities as they don't appear to be large enough: I did nearly mention the Thyreophorans, at 41, which would have been next on the list, but since categorisation seems to be quite good, and a split isn't at all urgent, it seemed unlikely to be a going concern. However, it's certainly an option to create per-family templates, feeding into broader stub categories. Might be a good idea, as the families are more familiar -- not to say, easier to spell. Alai 21:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The new stubs would replace dinosaur-stub (or paleo-stub) on many current articles, but both stub templates and categories would still exist as base types. The articles would be categorised into new subcategories of Category:Dinosaur stubs and/or Category:Paleontology stubs as an extension of the stub tree, in exactly the same way that Category:Rodent stubs is a subcategory of Category:Mammal stubs which is itself a subcategory of Category:Animal stubs, while {{mammal-stub}} and {{animal-stub}} are still regularly in use. Thus the main Category:Paleontology stubs would appear emptier in terms of articles, but would have more subcategories (and the same with Category:Dinosaur stubs). The above propsal doesn't mention ankylosaurs, hadrosaurs or stegosaurs simply because none of these are likely to reach a viable level of 60 stubs - those articles could simply remain marked with dinosaur-stub until such time as there are enough articles to warrant separate categories, or alternatively they could be marked with upmerged templates (that is, stegosaur-stub etc could be made but feed into the main Category:Dinosaur stubs).This is why my initial suggestion was just for a basic split into the two main categories of dinosaur, with the added comment that subdividing might be useful. Grutness...wha? 21:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What about splitting paleontologist-stub (which presently, like paleo-stub, captures non-dinosaur entries as well)? Jackrepenning 23:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Paleontologist stubs only has 83 stubs - not big enough to really consider splitting. And in any case, a significant proportion of paleontologists would be involved in the study of both dinosaurs and other fauna of the same era, so splitting it could be a problem. If we were to split it, splitting by nationality would probably be a more sensible way to go, as per other bio-stub types. Grutness...wha? 00:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur. There's only three permanent subcats by paleo-speciality, dinos not being one of them. Alai 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have been more contentious than I initially thought... still, there seems to be enough support at least for the following:

Revisiting the dinosaur category at a later date seems like a reasonable option - at least this has opened us up to some possibilities such as splitting out theropods. Unless there are any objections, the five above at least seem like they can be proceeded with. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Template:Sfd bottom

Jewish Schools stub

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create yeshiva-stub, upmerging cat.
I counted about 45 Jewish school stubs. That might seem like a small number, but trust me; it's needed. Many Jewish schools operate under Hebrew or Yiddish names that are hard to spell, look up, or even recognize as schools; most Jewish articles are under Hebrew or Yiddish titles, so it's hard to differentiate between subjects. Catchthedream 03:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Why does this argue for a stub type, as opposed to an ordinary category, if the issue is simply one of finding the articles? Schools are being sorted by ___location, I'm not at all sure we want to start double-tagging them by "ethos". Alai 05:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I see your point, but I have to qualify. For the user genuinely interested in Jewish schools -- which are, by the way, already listed under the Judiasm stubs -- finding such schools proves tedious. Plus, the schools are arguably already listed by "ethos"; most of them are not listed under the other tags for school stubs. --Catchthedream 06:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not commenting on the use of the Judaism stub tag, which seems fine, but whether we should split up the school-stubs on that basis. It would certainly have to be in addition to a geographical tagging, since surely most "interested editors" are going to be so primarily on the basis of ___location (though granted not all), and combined with the fact that there's strictly speaking too few... But just to make sure we're on the same page here: are we talking about "day schools", or yeshivas? Alai 06:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Hmm. Again, I see your point. I was talking about both. --Catchthedream 01:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I'd think that day schools are most appropriately tagged as <region>-school-stubs. For the religious schools, I can easily believe they wouldn't be tagged as school-stubs at present (and I'm not quite sure if it's even entirely appropriate they should be), so I could see a case for them, but if there's even fewer of those... What about a {{yeshiva-stub}} template, upmerged to Category:Judaism stubs until the size issue is less of a gotcha? Alai 04:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sfd bottom

Gaelic sports stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was creating hurling-stub & upmerge cat, rename gaelic-sport to gaelic-games.
We have over 200 stubs in this category and a quick count would suggest half are bio stubs so I would like to propose Category:Gaelic sports biography stubs and {{Gaelic-sports-bio-stub}}. Waacstats 20:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no permanent parent, though (at least that leaps out of me). One might be created, but what about a hurling/football split? (With all apologies to the hardball handball players.) I also note that the current stub cat is Category:Gaelic Athletic Association stubs. Alai 22:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Am going to mention this over at WP:GAA. As for a new stub i agree their is a need for football/hurling split and possibly a stub for GAA clubs as their as currently over 35 over these (Gnevin 22:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC))
35 is a bit low for a stand-alone category, though it's never too early to start populating upmerged templates, sez I. Alai 22:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
perhaps further division is needed into counties/provinces??--Macca7174 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Is this the correct place to suggest that {{gaelic-sport-stub}} be renamed as {{gaelic-games-stub}} (19:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC))
Technically you'd want WP:SFD for that, but if you don't require mass-moves of the usages or deletion of the old template as a redirect (and I don't think there's any need), I suggest you just go ahead and do it -- either move and leave the redirect, or create a redirect at the above redlink. Alai 20:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sfd bottom

Logic

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus.
Logic-related stubs are either categorized with {{philo-stub}}, {{math-stub}}, or {{mathlogic-stub}}. It is often the case that something categorized as one could have just as easily been categorized as another (e.g., most foundational topics in logic are applicable to both philosophical and mathematical logic).

Some examples: Atomic formula Illicit minor Illicit major Inverse (logic) Logical constant Modal operator Ternary logic Semantics of logic The Laws of Thought T-schema

Simões (talk/contribs) 02:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There's obviously some overlap, but there's also a difference in terminology, and as many of these articles are about the terminology... What are you suggesting we do with the existing mathematical logic stubs: merge them en masse? Restub the ones that seem most overlappy? Alai 03:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sfd bottom

1960s albums

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
A couple new stub types are requested; one for 1960s albums in general, and one for 1960s rock albums. At present we have a 1960s pop album stub, but none for 1960s albums in general or for rock albums in particular. There are presently stub templates for pop albums, rock albums, and albums in general for the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Adding the two missing 1960s templates would make sense and help to classify things better. Owen 23:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds like a reasonable idea, assuming there are plenty of stubs - any idea of the numbers? Grutness...wha? 23:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I count... 12. Total, between the two. However, I was only looking in the album-stubs (obviously many have already been moved into more specific types, especially by genre), and many (many, many) album stubs lack genre (or artist) categories, or by-years categories, or both, so the actual potential population could be anything, really. Like Grutness, I'd be all in favour of one or both, if they're at all sensibly-sized. Alai 02:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I've been working on cleaning out the rock album stubs category, and it's looking like there's quite a lot of 1960s albums listed there. It's hard to give any accurate count, but even by the most conservative estimate there's well over 30 rock albums. I haven't looked so much at general 1960s albums yet, though I'm sure that one would be put to good use as well. Owen 12:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I just went ahead and started the rock stub category. The other category is necessarily simply because it is the root of two existing categories (1960s rock albums, and 1960s pop albums). Owen 00:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
        • So far as I know, there's nothing in the guidelines to the effect that the stub hierarchy must be a complete lattice (and by the self-defeating logic of IAR, presumably if there were, we'd either follow or ignore it at whim), so I don't see any particular necessity if there's little in the way of population. Alai 01:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, think about it this way. If we empty out lower level categories, does it make sense to delete them? If only 14 articles remain in Category:Stubs, is that a reason to delete the stub category as unnecessary? Not really, because organizationally it makes sense to have it. We don't delete stub categories when the stubs are moved into more specific categorizations, because even if the category appears nonessential, it's better to have things as close as possible to where they should be. It also makes categorization confusing for editors, who for the most part would assume if there is no categorization for 1960s albums stubs, there wouldn't be for anything more specific. Anyway, the hierarchy is now a complete lattice. I've classified 24 articles as 1960s album stubs. I'm sure that a number more exist, and not too worried about it being an unpopulated category. Owen 02:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
            • I prefer to think about it this way: WP:STUB. Category:Stubs is (in effect at least) at the root of the hierarchy: we don't delete it because it's constantly filling up, only to be "diffused" downwards, not because it's inherently undersized, never having reached the target size (as you appear to be rationalising on the expectation of). If it's not in fact in due course underpopulated, fair enough, but your "IAR, organisationally it makes sense" rationale, could just as well be applied to any old category with 24 stubs, and if iterated (un)suitably would end up duplicating a large portion of the category space as stub types, very many of them counterproductively small for the purposes of editors finding a reasonable density of reasonably related articles. Alai 05:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
              • I'm not sure I understand your complaints. I also notice that you created the 1970s album stubs category, which was apparently also out of process. That category isn't much larger than the one I created. And I'm not saying I created it simply because it makes organizational sense, although I feel that it does. Something in the range of 1500 articles are currently classified as being albums in the 1960s. Having a stub type for these articles is useful, and keeps clutter from the higher levels of classification. Owen 06:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
                • I'm not sure how to complain more understandably. Excessively small stub types are counter-productive to stub "management", because they a) needlessly multiply the entities involved, and b) leave stubs to languish in categories likely to have little foot-traffic. The 70s type has two perfectly decently-sized sub-types, and if it wasn't mentioned explicitly in a proposal here, it was certainly within the "spirit" of a related proposal. IARing and 'organisational sense' were the justifications you offered when asked about size, and they make a poor precedent as they can be applied to just about anything. Various bits and bobs of album stub hierarchy are indeed persistently oversized, which makes a somewhat stronger one, but 24 articles is still a large stretch. Alai 07:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • Category:1960s album stubs is NOT an "excessively small stub type". I've been adding new stubs to the category, and it currently holds 66. By the time I'm done working there could be well over 300. IARing was not a justification for the size. It was a justification for ignoring the typical wait period before starting to stub articles. The reason I chose to ignore this wait period was because I was motivated to work on these categories. In a week, I probably wouldn't be. I've spent hours today working on these, and I find your reaction baffling. Owen 07:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
                    • And NOW (to coin a case convention) you decide to mention the size, after repeatedly defending your inalienable right to create two stub types on the basis of 24 stubs? I asked specifically about size; your later comment, which your indentation would suggest was a reply to mine, was, one might infer, IARing in that regard (as opposed to just IA comments, too). Personally, I couldn't care less about the waiting period, if the end result is unaffected. I'm baffled as to what you find baffling: you've taken me on a pointless digression about the stub size guidelines, and now you are wondering why? Alai 08:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • I just said that the stub category has well over 24 stubs. At present count it has 119 stubs. You seem to have misinterpreted me, as I never said anything about any "inalienable right" to create stub categories with 24 stubs. Obviously we were not communicating. I said that I created the 1960s rock albums by way of IAR; then I said that I would probably work on the 1960s albums stubs because it made organizational sense. I linked to IAR under the text "went ahead". I thought that made it obvious that my use of IAR was to ignore the seven day period. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was using IAR to create stub categories that "made organizational sense", since I never talked about IAR in relation to organization. What I found baffling was your seeming hostility to my efforts, and what I took as your not assuming good faith in my actions. Hopefully this matter is settled. Owen 08:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
                        • I wasn't misinterpreting, but rather paraphrasing, but yes, there seems to have been the proverbial failure to communicate. I'm sorry if I appeared to be hostile, that wasn't my intention, and nor did I at any point doubt your good faith. I still find it hard, even with the benefit of hindsight, to put any other reading on your earlier comments other that the "rule" you were "ignoring" was the size guidelines, given the on-going exchange in which you did nothing to dispell the impression that that was the topic ay hand; oh well. The main lesson I take from this is that doing something 'per IAR' (as opposed to for some actual specific reason) leaves everyone as wise as before (though I may be biased about that, since that's rather what I've thought for a long time). At any rate, I'm indeed now more than happy with the stub types -- another panel pin in album-stub, hopefully. Alai 08:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sfd bottom

New Zealand split

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
A few suggested splits:

  1. I've run a bit of a quick survey of the 750-odd New Zealand stubs, and found just under 100 which could be given a {{NZ-org-stub}} (and accompanying Category:New Zealand organisation stubs).
  2. There's also about 80 which would use the proposed but never implemented {{NZ-ethno-stub}} or {{Maori-stub}} (whichever was decided - I don't recall).
  3. There are also now 43 {{NZ-struct-stub}}s... not enough for a separate category, but getting on that way, and probably enough for an upmerged template.
  4. FWIW, there's also considerable undersorting, with about 70 bio-stubs and 30 geo-stubs in there. I've added some lists at User:Grutness/NZ stub split. both of the ones I found for the three proposed splits and those which could do with restubbing if anyone feels like some work :)
  5. There are also nearly 40 potential NZ-tv-stubs... something to possibly consider in future (but not now).

Grutness...wha? 08:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Further comment - the tv stubs would tie in with the proposed by-continent split from last month. it would take the oceania total very close to the 60 mark. Any thoughts, Alai? Grutness...wha? 23:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
What I'd failed to notice, though, is that there's already a TV stub for the Aussies. However, 40 stubs and a sub-type wouldn't be disgraceful. Alai 23:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sfd bottom

Japanese rail subtypes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Also getting close to a fifth page. The stations would be an "over-viable" type, though we might want to create it anyway, partly as a container for the following:

I was also going to propose Category:Japanese railway line stubs, at 60, but false positives appears to reduce that slightly, so I won't. Alai 06:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Template:Sfd bottom

Category:German World War II stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
I've probably mooted this one before, but as there's several possible axis of split, I'll open this up for fresh discussion. I'm attracted to this one as double-stubbing puts 76 in Category:German military stubs and Category:World War II stubs, so it's the easiest one to do. (Rogue bluelink's nothing to do with me, btw, and nor is it a 'live' stub type.) Alai 23:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Kein Problem. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Klein Problem (but only slight). be aware that this will probably overlap to a considerable extent with nazi-stub. Other than that, I don't see much of a problem, so make that a ja from me. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd have had that worry myself, were this a count based on perm-cats, but as it's double-stubbing, it seems relatively safe. (I won't swear that none of them aren't treble-stubbed -- I haven't checked.) Not that it would be the first time that someone has told me with a straight face that something can be both an x-stub and a y-stub, but isn't an x-y-stub. Alai 02:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sfd bottom

Category:Japanese Go biography stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Believe it or not, there's 82 articles double-stubbed into Category:Go stubs and Category:Japanese people stubs; latter is oversized. Alai 22:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sfd bottom

{{Sweden-musician-stub}}| / Category:Swedish musician stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
More whittling of {{musician-stub}} by nationality. There's quite a bit of double-stubbing here, I've noticed. Crystallina 21:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Template:Sfd bottom

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/November_2006&oldid=88533671"