Open main menu
WikiProject Stub sorting
Puzzle stub cropped.png
Project page talk
- Stub types (sections) talk
- Stub types (full list) talk
- To do talk
- Naming conventions talk
- Redirects category talk
Wikipedia:Stub talk
Proposals (A) talk
- Current month
Discussion talk
Criteria (A) (discontinued) talk
Deletion (Log) (discontinued) talk

On this WikiProject Stub sorting subpage, you can propose new stub types (please read the procedures beforehand!), as well as the reorganization and subdivision of existing stub types. You can also discuss anything else related to stubs on the talk page.


Proposing new stub types – procedureEdit

Important: If you wish to propose the creation of a stub ARTICLE you've come to the wrong place. If you don't have a username yourself, please go to WP:AFC for proposing a new article. If you already have a username, you can create the article yourself. If you don't know how, add {{Helpme}} to your user talk page to request help from other editors. This page only deals with stub TEMPLATES and CATEGORIES; we cannot help you with creating articles.

Proposing new stub types
If you wish to propose a new stub category and template, please follow these procedures:
  1. Check the List of stub types or under Category:Stub categories to make sure that your proposed new stub does not already exist.
  2. List it at the top of the current month's section, under a header, like the ones shown (if any). Sign it with a datestamp (~~~~).
    • Please bear in mind that a stub category isn't about the importance or notability of the topic!
  3. Find a good number[1] of stub articles, as many as you can, that will fit that template. You may use this tool to scan through categories; tagged stubs are always in Category:All stub articles and transclude {{asbox}}. Each of these articles can be:
    • currently 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.
  4. If you use any category scan (from the tool mentioned above or from any other), please link to it so that other users can confirm that the results are still accurate.
  5. Others may do the same, if they so desire.
  6. 5 days after listing it here, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new category and/or template following the format on Wikipedia:Stub. List the new stub type on the stub types list in an appropriate section. If consensus is not clear, or discussion is still ongoing, the proposal will remain open until consensus can be reached.
  7. If you wish to propose a stub type which does not currently have 60 articles that could use it, you may propose an upmerged template in a similar way. An upmerged template would feed into currently existing stub categories until such time that there are enough stubs for a separate stub category. At that point a category for it may be separately proposed. Some times, it may be difficult to be sure how many stubs would get a tag - in which case you can also start with an upmerged stub tag until you're sure there are enough.

DO NOT place a proposal here for any stub type which has already been created and is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. The proposal page is only for stub types that have not yet been created, and it is better to keep any discussion of such stub types in one place rather than splitting it between different pages. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is the correct page for proposals to delete a stub type.

^ . Good number means about 60 articles or more, or 30 or more if it is the primary stub type of a WikiProject, though this figure may vary from case to case.

"Speedy creation"Edit

A stub type may be proposed for "speedy creation" if it meets one of the following criteria:

  • S1 - the creation of a category for which an approved upmerged template already exists and is now in use on more than 60 articles.
  • S2 - the creation of an upmerged national-level template for a subject in which other such national-level templates currently exist (e.g., X-bio-stub, X-hist-stub, or X-geo-stub, where X is the name of an internationally widely recognised country) or other instances where a clearly established pattern of similar subtypes exists. The proposed topic may not be controversial in scope. Many templates qualifying for S2 are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/To do/To create.

List speedy creation proposals in the same proposal listings as normal stub proposals below.

Proposals, May 2019Edit

Please check how many articles qualify for a stub type before proposing it.


College football season stubs by decadeEdit

There are currently well over 4500 articles in Category:College football season stubs. No sub-categories currently exist, but obviously some are necessary.

I propose that we sub-categorize the stub articles by decade. As such:

Rektroth 21:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Clone200: If we do this, would you be interested in a bot sorting all of the stubs for you? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Rektroth: ^^ --DannyS712 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: That would certainly save time. -- The Man Known as Rektroth 22:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

NRHP stubs for U.S. Virgin Islands, and for U.S. possessions in the PacificEdit

There currently exist 206 articles in generic Category:National Register of Historic Places stubs. The vast majority of U.S. NRHP stub articles are in subcategories already existing:

which are further subcategorized by U.S. states, and

Note that the "Puerto Rico" category currently has 91 members. There are 350 NRHPs listed in Puerto Rico, 182 of which have articles so far, and 108 of which are stubs, per wp:NRHPPROGRESS report as of today. So 168 new articles may be created for existing NRHPs, plus articles for new NRHP listings.

There remain 206 in the remaining, generic "NRHP stubs" category, most of which I see are from the U.S Virgin Islands, from Guam, from other Pacific territories, etc. Per wp:NRHPPROGRESS, the total of stubs in these areas is 189 (35+75+25+25+22+5+2+0=189). (So perhaps 17 in the generic category should be put into already existing categories. But another explanation for discrepancy in numbers is that there are formerly listed NRHP places, e.g. demolished buildings, which properly have a NRHP-stub and are categorized in the NRHP system, but are not counted in the NRHPPROGRESS report, which covers just current listings. A further explanation is that separate articles are sometimes created for individual contributing buildings within NRHP-listed historic districts, and are not counted in NRHPPROGRESS report.)

I propose:

to cover all those on the Atlantic side of the U.S. (all of which are in the U.S. Virgin Islands, besides those in Puerto Rico)
but my proposal is to make just one for all of these VI ones together. Note that the number of stubs can grow from current 35 as new articles are created for the 43 current NRHPs that are currently redlinks, for new NRHP listings in VI, and for split-outs of any individual contributing buildings from NRHP historic districts. I am myself creating more VI stubs these days.
Note that there do already exist general geography stubs {{SaintCroixVI-geo-stub}}, {{SaintJohnVI-geo-stub}}, {{SaintThomasVI-geo-stub}}, and their articles are categorized into Category:United States Virgin Islands geography stubs with just the St. Croix ones subcategorized into Category:Saint Croix, United States Virgin Islands geography stubs. I think all the NRHP ones, out of these, can be put into just one NRHP-stub subcategory.
to cover all the rest, which are all in U.S. territories and other possessions in the Pacific
I wondered if this should be called "Pacific Ocean Registered Historic Place stubs" instead, but the definition of Oceania seems to fit well. Oceania is a generally understood term and is defined to be vast, running from Australia and arguably to include even as far east as Hawaii, so includes all of these. (The Hawaii NRHP ones are properly covered in Category:Western National Register of Historic Places stubs. I think "Oceania" is clear in this context, and will be understood to include all of these, without confusion about the U.S. state of Hawaii.)
It would be possible to further divide this into:
but my proposal is to make just one for all these Oceania ones together. Note the number of stubs can grow from current 154 as new articles are created for the 60 current NRHPs that are currently redlinks, for separation of contributing buildings from historic district articles, and for new NRHP listings in Oceania, which would include on Wake Island and other places where there are not yet any NRHPs.
--Doncram (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The above is a brilliant proposal! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncram (talkcontribs) 01:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Australian rules biography, 1910s birth stubsEdit

Category:Australian rules biography, 1910s birth stubs currently has over 1,000 pages. I propose that it be split by year of birth (1910-1919). Each year has enough pages for a category:

To make the split easier, I also propose that a bot (mine) go through the 1000 pages and update the stub template accordingly. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Her Pegship (speak) 16:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Pegship: Since BRFAs usually link to a discussion that agreed that a bot run would be okay/desired, do you also support a bot implementing the split? --DannyS712 (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Music award stubs/Science award stubsEdit

Currently Category:Award stubs is overpopulated; a cursory scan several Polaris Awards, a bunch of Dove Awards, some Grammys/Latin Grammys/Swedish Grammis, various standalone awards. There are also several music awards in Category:Music stubs, and many sorted into Category:Music event stubs. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Science awards are also another large, broad category (and even larger if you say the IEEE awards, of which there are dozens, qualify) Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC).

Holy cats, support both per nom & overflow! Her Pegship (speak) 16:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Splitting Cycling race stubsEdit

Currently, Category:Cycling race stubs, which is populated by 1 template, has 2,426 different stubs in it. Below is a list of specific races where the current category contains 60 or more stubs that are the yearly iterations of the race. Each of these should have its own new template and category:

Together, these would reduce the cycling stubs category to only 1521 pages.

I'd like to further propose that a bot (mine) go through and replace these stub templates, so that editors don't need to manually subcategorize 900 stubs. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Support split per nom. Also, are there more articles in Category:Cycling stubs that should be moved to these categories? Her Pegship (speak) 16:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Pegship: I didn't see any, but once this is created (if it is) I'll do some further analysis. I was thinking of a new stub template (but not a separate category) for races with 30-59 iterations that are currently stubs, and classifying those separately will make it easier to see what pages may need to be categorized. Also, since BRFAs usually link to a discussion that agreed that a bot run would be okay, do you also support the bot edits? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: I support the bot edits in order to populate upmerged templates, per y'all. Her Pegship (speak) 16:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposals, March 2019Edit


2010s single stubsEdit



Speedy: French politician categories - S1Edit

Proposals, February 2019Edit



Proposals, January 2019Edit

State governments of the United States stubsEdit