Open main menu

Wikipedia β

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
Criteria (A) talk
Proposals (A) talk
- Current month
Discoveries (A) talk
- Current month
Deletion (Log) talk

On this WP:WSS 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, September 2017Edit

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


Category:Annapolis, Maryland stubsEdit

I propose creating:

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Finnish diplomat stubsEdit

Currently there are 19 articles falling under this category that I can find through PetScan. More than 100 articles created by Mannerheimo in the month of September, are also falling under this category. Hitro talk 16:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Baton Rouge, Louisiana stubsEdit

I propose creating:

A full list can be found at User:Od Mishehu/BR. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Clothing retailers of the United Kingdom, Luke 1977 stubEdit

I propose to create a stub on Luke 1977 - a popular clothing retailer in the UK. This would sit as a stub sub-category page beneath the main category: Clothing retailers of the United Kingdom - which has 146 stubs. User talk:Fewey1 09;57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

As to creating a stub on Luke, that's not here; we don't handle the creation of stubs, only sorting them. As to vreating a stub category for Category:Clothing retailers of the United Kingdom, there are 146 articles in this category, but not all are stubs; a scan finds only 36. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Des Moines, Iowa stubsEdit

I propose creating Category:Des Moines, Iowa stubs/{{DesMoinesIA-stub}} - I have a list of 67 stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I am curious, why do you prefer to make city stub groupings vs county stub groupings? For instance, why not create Category:Polk County, Iowa stubs? Or is that just the standard for the types of stubs your working on? -Furicorn (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
With the exception of geography and NRHP stub categories, county-level stub types are rare. Please note, for example, that in Category:California stubs, we have 4 city top-level stub categories, but no county top-level stub categories other than San Francisco (which is both a city and a county). The major exceptions are cities which are also counties (such as San Francisco), and the boroughs of New York City. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Wisconsin Regional Stub groupingsEdit

I'd like to propose the following five regional categories for Wisconsin based on the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources regions.

  1. Category:Northern Wisconsin Geography stubs - 465 stubs
  2. Category:Northeast Wisconsin Geography stubs - 497 stubs
  3. Category:South Central Wisconsin Geography stubs - 376 stubs
  4. Category:Southeast Wisconsin Geography stubs - 201 stubs
  5. Category:West Central Wisconsin Geography stubs - 463 stubs

In the following collapsed table, I've included two possible versions of the proposed structure of the groupings. Some metropolitan areas have already been created as stub sub-categories, and I would mildly propose dismantling these smaller groupings to reduce confusion for people doing stub catting, as reflected in the first proposal. The second proposal retains the smaller groupings and moves them to the appropriate region. Although I think the first option is probably better from an administrative standpoint, I will reiterate that I would ultimately fine with either version of the categorization.

1. Wisconsin Regions stub category groupings (existing metro regions dismantled):

Category:Northern Wisconsin Geography stubs

Category:Northeast Wisconsin Geography stubs

Category:South Central Wisconsin Geography stubs

Category:Southeast Wisconsin Geography stubs

Category:West Central Wisconsin Geography stubs

2. Wisconsin Regions stub category groupings (existing metro regions retained):

Category:Northern Wisconsin Geography stubs

Category:Northeast Wisconsin Geography stubs

Category:South Central Wisconsin Geography stubs

Category:Southeast Wisconsin Geography stubs

Category:West Central Wisconsin Geography stubs

I guess I overlooked signing this initially, but I posted it on 2017.09.16. -Furicorn (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Honolulu stubsEdit

I propose creating Category:Honolulu stubs/{{Honolulu-stub}} - I have a list of 105 stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Support -Furicorn (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Tallahassee, Florida stubsEdit

Category:Phoenix, Arizona stubsEdit

Category:United Kingdom geology stubsEdit

There are now over sixty stubs marked with {{UK-geology-stub}}, and many other articles that could take that template - plus the existing Category:United Kingdom geologic formation stubs forms a natural subcat. Speedy? Grutness...wha? 00:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Support, and additionally it might make sense to consider a similar treatment for Category:Australian geology stubs since it has 76 stubs -Furicorn (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Not quite sure what you mean - Australia already has its own category. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I think I initially misunderstood the proposal, so ignore my comment about Australia (although I still support this proposal). -Furicorn (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Support I like this, it would allow categorization of quite a few of what I generally call 'landforms', like Tors. A Guy into Books (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Brunei government stubsEdit

Proposal for speedy creation S2 for Template:Brunei-gov-stub. There are currently three members under (should be four but somehow this category in one of the pages was deleted by some user)) but there should be more since articles on the Brunei Government are currently underrepresented. Based on my local knowledge there are at least a dozen cabinet-level 'ministries' in the government, but only four of them have Wikipedia articles. Similarly, there are also many more departments under them but only a few of them have related pages. At present, I plan to create as many stubs on the related matter as possible, with introductory information, so that it is easier for me and other users to add more information on them whenever relevant sources are obtained.Zulfadli51 (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

a template certainly seems speediable - but linked to Category:Brunei stubs and Category:Asian government stubs for now - if it rises to 60 or more stubs, then a separate category will also be speediable. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree, if there are only 3 stubs, then Template:Brunei-gov-stub should be upmerged to Category:Brunei stubs and Category:Asian government stubs until enough stubs exist to breakout the stand-alone category. -Furicorn (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Japanese Regions groupings for regions (per backlog)Edit

I'm hoping to help clear out the backlog on this page, so I hope I'm doing it right. Category:Wikipedia stub sorting backlog lists Category:Japan geography stubs as part of the backlog. List of regions of Japan lists eight traditional regions, which seem like they might be good fits for regional stub categories. Here is how I propose we regroup the prefecture geography stubs.

Japan Regional stub category groupings:

Almost all the categories have at least 60 stubs catted directly and those few that don't have 60 direct stubs have at least one subcategory. -Furicorn (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Update - to be clear, the purpose of this proposal is in order to resolve the {{stub-sorting-backlog|75}} template currently applied to the category -Furicorn (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The first region is Category:Hokkaidō geography stubs. No need for a parent region-level category here - just like we don't have a county-level stub category for Category:San Francisco geography stubs like we do for the rest of the state of California. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah that's what I was trying to say with my comment next to the Hokkaido category, but I guess it wasn't clear enough. Glad you agree tho. -Furicorn (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I see it, uses the 'ō' character, no 'o'. I've edited to reflect. -Furicorn (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Weak oppose - given that all but a handful of Japanese geo-stubs are now in one of the prefecture categories, do we have any need for regional parents? It seems like it would simply add an extra, unnecessary layer in the hierarchy. Category:Japan geography stubs looks fine as it is - you (or you and others) have done a great job of tidying it! Grutness...wha? 01:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Grutness: It was not me, I was just trying to cleanup Category:Wikipedia stub sorting backlog. This sounds like a counter-proposal to remove {{stub-sorting-backlog}} from Category:Japan geography stubs? -Furicorn (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Furicorn: Not really. The template is often used on categories which fill up rapidly with undersorted stubs. It doesn't necessarily mean new categories are needed, just that some of the stubs in there need further sorting - which often happens with country-level geo-stubs. Given the number of subcategories that are in Category:Japan geography stubs, the threshold for reporting a backlog's probably a bit low. I'll re-set it to 100, which should ease the problems. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Grutness: ok, I think we can close this request then. -Furicorn (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Montgomery, Alabama stubsEdit

I propose creating Category:Montgomery, Alabama stubs/{{MontgomeryAL-stub}} - I have 61 stubs for this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

What would be the parent of this? Category:Alabama stubs? -Furicorn (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, just like the parent of Category:Sacramento, California stubs is Category:California stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Support, this seems to make a lot of sense -Furicorn (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

English church stubsEdit

Proposals, August 2017Edit

Cornwall StubsEdit


currently 181 stubs I propose that Category:Cornwall biography stubs is created. It will be a sub-category of Category:Cornwall stubs, which already has two sub-categories, Category:Cornwall building and structure stubs and Category:Cornwall geography stubs. It will have 80/90 stubs to begin with from its parent category, and (hopefully not too many) new stub creations.


I also propose that Category:Cornwall organisation stubs is created as a sub-category of Category:Cornwall stubs.

Roughly how many will there be? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
That I'm not entirely sure about, I believe it will be around 70-80, but it could be less (or more). None of the parish councils in Cornwall have articles yet, but probably will at some point that would make another 210. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)




(edited after suggestion by Grutness) I also propose that Category:Cornwall archaeology stubs is created as a sub-category of Category:Cornwall stubs, to contain articles on hill-forts, archaeological sites and historic places, and history in general. ~100 total articles expected to be in it.

Support - but note several things -
  1. this is for archaeology and archaeological sites - not for general historic items like Kiddlywink or Battle of Sourton Down
  2. it should replace not add to, any current stubbing with UK-archaeology-stub (it should have been, and now is, a subcategory of Category:United Kingdom archaeology stubs)
  3. as with all stubs, it goes below the categories, not above!
You should have waited before creating this, but I've cleaned it up to meet the usual stubbing standards. That's one of the reasons for delaying, so that any problems can be fixed BEFORE the stub is in use! Grutness...wha? 01:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, i will let you create the others!. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


Overall commentsEdit

Comments greatly appreciated. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with the bio and org stubs, as long as there are enough of them - but as far as the geography stubs are concerned, the standard way of doing it (apart from rivers, for unexplained reasons) is to divide by sub-region (see Category:North Yorkshire geography stubs's subtypes for an illustration), so I'd be against the landform stubs, village stubs, and district stubs. Instead, I'd suggest splitting by the former districts of Caradon, Carrick, Kerrier, North Cornwall, Penwith, and Restormel (there don't seem to be any current equivalents, unfortunately). The other reason I'd be against the sort of split you suggest is that you'd probably find that most of the articles are villages, so you'd just end up with another overpopulated category. There also seems to be a bit of undersorting in the Cornwall-geo category; quite a few of those 1100 geo-stubs should actually be marked with {{Cornwall-struct-stub}} (e.g., Carminow Cross, Church of St Adwen, Advent).

Historic geo stubs is one we don't really have any precedent for, but many of them (especially the hill forts etc) could easily be covered by a more standard {{Cornwall-archaeology-stub}}.

By the way, please note that I've changed the capitalisation of your proposals - they wouldn't fly at all in all caps!) Grutness...wha? 12:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Reply to - @Grutness:. I agree with the gist of what you are saying here, I suppose a revised proposal for an updated set of geo-stubs is needed. Unofficially, Cornwall can be divided into West, Central and East. [[2]]. each including two former districts. This could be combined with a {{Cornwall-river-stub}}. Perhaps aiming to have about >200 stubs in each new stub category? Or use the former districts and have >100 stubs in each new stub category. A fair amount of stubs will remain in Cornwall-geo-stub's since this will hold the ones that cant be sorted easily.

{{Cornwall-archaeology-stub}} is an excellent idea, I wish I’d thought of it myself before conjuring up {{Cornwall-historic-geo-stub}} A Guy into Books (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about {{Cornwall-river-stub}} since I have noticed Category:Rivers of Cornwall only has 38 pages, and there are only ~70 rivers total (not counting streams) in Cornwall altogether. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I've added my best guess at stub counts for references to each of the proposed categories. Please note there is double counting in some of the district and people categories, as I couldn't manage to eliminate people stubs from my district queries. -Furicorn (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Your estimates do somewhat backup what Grutness was saying about Cornwall-village-stubs being too big, however I like the Cornwall-landform-stubs category so:

These could help break village stubs into manageable sections. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Cornwall doesn't have districts any more; it did at one time, but all of these vanished when it became unitary on 1 April 2009. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes I'm leaning more towards the West/Central/East divide because of this, at least that's still current. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I repeat - I am strongly against having village stubs and landform stubs, even split by region, for the reasons specified above. And I was not suggesting a cornwall-river-stub, only mentioning that it is the only case (a far as I know) where any type of landform is split by type. The following would be far more in line with our standard stub-sorting methods:

If the current usage is three unofficial regions, but each of those reasons is simply two former districts, then either would be appropriate.

A {{Cornwall-archaeology-stub}} (but NOT "cornwall-arc-stub"!) would be a good idea, and I'm in favour of it - but should not have been created until discussion was complete, in case there were dissenting views! Grutness...wha? 01:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The category of Category:Category:Landforms of Cornwall was the inspiration for landform stubs but i can understand that it doesn't really fit this project, I still cant see what is wrong with 'arc' as its used in {{arc-stub}}, but my bad. {{EastCornwall-geo-stub}} {{CentralCornwall-geo-stub}} {{WestCornwall-geo-stub}} is my preferred option over using the former districts directly, mainly because they are more recognizable for a non-local person. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Didn't know about arc-stub - it appears to have been created and never used by someone unconnected with the project and was never reported here! Basically, we try to avoid shortcuts that would be ambiguous, and it'd be far too easy to assume it was a shortcut for {{architecture-stub}}. It's the same reason we usually use full names for countries and US states rather than using their standard ISO abbreviations. It's probably not too much of a biggie, but any way we can reduce confusion with the hundreds of stub names and keep them consistent is worthwhile :) Grutness...wha? 02:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
That makes sense. Just out of interest, at what point is this discussion considered closed? Other places have a 7 day/15 day timeframe but im not sure about here. Now that August is over. A Guy into Books (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The official line is: 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.
I'd say we're pretty close to consensus now, but it might be worth waiting a day or so to see if there's any new discussion. If not, then it's probably safe to go ahead. Grutness...wha? 01:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
That looks right, yes. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Grutness: . Α Guy into Books § (Message) -  07:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes? Grutness...wha? 12:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Buffalo, New York stubsEdit

Plantation stub templatesEdit

Hi, if it is the case that I need approval to create upmerged templates, I'd like to create plantation stub templates. There are 642 members of Category:Plantations in North America with {{asbox}}, so I propose minimally created the following templates that upmerge into the state level building and structure stub categories like Category:South Carolina building and structure stubs. I've already created {{SouthCarolina-plantation-stub}} and added it to a couple dozen pages, and I'd like to additionally create the following upmerged templates:

-Furicorn (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

If you're doing this, please start from the root category (Category:Plantation stubs/{{plantation-stub}}) (863 stubs), then work your way down to specific countries where a stub category may be appropriate (doesn't surprise me that the US is one of these), followed by subdivisions of countries with large numbers of them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I'll work on the following
-Furicorn (talk) 07:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The currect structure is:
עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
What about this structure?
I'm not sure I see the need for tags at the top two levels
-Furicorn (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, when is it appropriate for a stub category to belong to more than one category? See for example {{SouthCarolina-museum-stub}}, which belongs to Category:Southern United States museum stubs and Category:South Carolina building and structure stubs, both of which ultimately rollup to Category:Southern United States building and structure stubs. -Furicorn (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
This is directly related to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#Stub template as children of multiple parent stub categories. I see that Category:Plantation stubs was created less than two hours ago, without waiting either five days or for agreement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Hey, that was my bad, I've blanked out Category:Plantation stubs. -Furicorn (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Re your proposed structure of 09:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC), the first two should definitely have stub templates, {{plantation-stub}} and {{US-plantation-stub}} respectively, since there will be plantations in the USA where there are insufficient examples to justify a state-specific template; similarly, there will be plantations outside the USA where there are insufficient examples to justify a country-specific template. I work mainly with railways: but there are parallels. A recent stub tagging exercise that I was involved in was the railway stations of India: there is Category:Indian railway station stubs which has 11 subcategories for those states where there are 60+ stub articles about stations, each with its own stub template; there are also 19 stub templates which upmerge to Category:Indian railway station stubs for those states with fewer than 60 stub articles about stations. There is also {{India-railstation-stub}} which has two uses: it covers those stations where we don't yet have a state-level template; and also those stations where the person tagging the page as a stub could work out that it was in India, but couldn't work out which state was relevant. So:
  1. Wait for approval here.
  2. Create {{plantation-stub}} and add it to some articles.
  3. When 60+ articles are tagged with {{plantation-stub}}, create Category:Plantation stubs (oh, you already did) and amend {{plantation-stub}} to populate that category.
  4. If you have found that most are in the USA, create {{US-plantation-stub}} and add it to some articles; in many cases, this will replace the {{plantation-stub}}.
  5. When 60+ articles are tagged with {{US-plantation-stub}}, create Category:United States plantation stubs and amend {{US-plantation-stub}} to populate that category.
  6. If you have found that most are in South Carolina, create {{SouthCarolina-plantation-stub}} and add it to some articles; in many cases, this will replace the {{US-plantation-stub}}.
  7. When 60+ articles are tagged with {{SouthCarolina-plantation-stub}}, create Category:South Carolina plantation stubs and amend {{SouthCarolina-plantation-stub}} to populate that category.
The principle should be that we create when needed, and not in anticipation of a need. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
To be totally fair: I have occasionally first creatd a stub category, and then populated it with at least 60 stubs. In these cases, I already knew (not just suspected, but actually knew) that I was able to populate it with at least 60 stubs before I created the category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: thank you for the detailed explanation. So in the India example, am I correct in inferring that there was often no information at all about these stations? It seems like that might be the case since there are stations that still can't be positively identified with a particular state in India. So, I definitely understand your approach, it makes a lot of sense if the articles are just a title and a sentence with no categories or clarifying information otherwise. That's generally not the case with these National Register of Historic Places stubs. They are typically already subcatted (with non-stub cats) down to the county. I've learned to use PetScan a little better, so I'll give some clearer references:
For any of those under 60 stubs, I think we should make a state-level template that upmerges to {{US-plantation-stub}}, and for any of them over 60 (NC, SC and Virginia), I think they should get a state-level template and a category (and maybe even some other division for SC and Virginia) Edit: I've added my proposed templates and their categories. -Furicorn (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Stub tags for the US state of Georgia are GeorgiaUS-, not Georgia-, so it would be {{GeorgiaUS-plantation-stub}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
And the category names would be "Foo plantation stubs", not "Plantations in Foo stubs". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok how about this
-Furicorn (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that there is no need for a Category:Plantations by country stubs, and won't be for a long time. Given that there are currently only three articles (none of them stubs) for plantations outside the United States, simply going from a generic Category:Plantation stubs to a subcat Category:United States plantation stubs seems appropriate. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with OM's assessment of the names, both in terms of the Georgia stub and the categories. I don't see a need for a specific US-plantation stub, though, given that individual state templates seem natural. I doubt there are/were any US plantations which aren't/weren't in any of the states, so a parent-only category seems a sensible choice. Grutness...wha? 14:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Washington D.C. (which is technically not a state, nor within any state) had plantations, although currently Category:Plantations in Washington, D.C. contains 0 stubs. So that's a hypothetical problem, but something that could be addressed later if necessary. -Furicorn (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Creation of a WashingtonDC-plantation-stub if and when needed would fix that, and given that it would then be part of an accepted pattern of templates, it could be speedied. Grutness...wha? 12:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, can someone please answer the question I originally posed over here at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#Stub_template_as_children_of_multiple_parent_stub_categories - how do people generally decide whether a stub should tag to multiple categories? For instance {{SouthCarolina-railstation-stub}} and {{SouthCarolina-museum-stub}} tag a page to multiple stub categories. And, should this stub go to multiple stub categories? -Furicorn (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The hyphens in the template name are the cue. If there's no specific Category:South Carolina museum stubs category, then you look to parents in each of those two hyphened parts - a museum stub category and a South Carolina stub category. Given that the most specific South Carolina type is Category:South Carolina building and structure stubs and the closest museum stub type is Category:Southern United States museum stubs, those would be the two usual parents. If there are more than sixty SC museum stubs, a separate category for them can be broken out, and that would have the same parent categories. If in doubt, have a look at similar stub types (what are the parent categories of Category:Florida museum stubs?, where does {{NorthCarolina-museum-stub}} feed?) Grutness...wha? 01:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
To give a more practical example: Until recently, {{Arkansas-bridge-struct-stub}}, having fewer than 60 transclusions, was upmerged into its 3 natural parents; recently, having brought it up past 60 stubs, I created its category - Category:Arkansas bridge (structure) stubs - the stub parents of which being the same 3 parents. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubsEdit

Sorry if this is the wrong place to add a new entry, last time I added a new entry, someone had already made an entry for the month. I'd like to propose 4 new stub categories for Category:South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - Category:Lowcountry South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs, Category:Upstate South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs, Category:Pee Dee South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs, and Category:Midlands South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs. I think these categories should be large enough as they each contain multiple counties, and there are >1,200 stubs currently in the top-level category. -Furicorn (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Furicorn: What's the list of counties for each? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Furicorn:I've made a list; there are 18 counties I'm not sure how to place - if you can find the way to do it, we have a viable split here.
The unsorted counties are: Aiken (38 stubs), Allendale (13 stubs), Bamberg (11 stubs), Barnwell (11 stubs), Berkeley (16 stubs), Charleston (98 stubs), Chester (18 stubs), Clarendon (8 stubs), Dorchester (stubs), Edgefield (9 stubs), Georgetown (28 stubs), Horry (29 stubs), Lancaster (25 stubs), Lee (18 stubs), McCormick (18 stubs), Newberry (31 stubs), Williamsburg (12 stubs), and York (51 stubs).
The 4 groupings would be:
Category:Lowcountry South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 95 stubs
Category:Upstate South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 248 stubs
Category:Pee Dee South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 119 stubs
Category:Midlands South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 334 stubs
How does this look? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Od Mishehu: I think your scheme looks fine, but I didn't respond earlier because I was looking at 3 schemes:
  1. This one is from some guy with a blog, and was what I was originally using as the basis for my proposal. Although I don't know what his basis for those regions is, the advantages are that it has an even number of counties per region, and not that many regions (and that you have basically done the work setting this up))
  2. The SC Councils of Governments have the advantage of being official and more evenly sized regions than the first example, but there are more regions
  3. SC Tourism regions has advantages similar to the COGS, slightly less official, but maybe more relevant from a NRHP perspective?
I would be interested your opinion on the other schemes. -Furicorn (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
More regions isn't necessarily a bad thing; the question is the size of the categories. The Councils of Government split has one region (Santee-Lynches) with 62 stubs; this is borderline, especially since there may be 1 or 2 overlap, and may result in us needing to cancel this category too soon if some one starts to expand a few NRHP stubs. The Tourism regions is worse - with Anderson, Oconee and Pickens as a separate area, we would only have 42, which is definitely too few. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The first one looks relatively good. the Pee Dee region has 214 stubs and no counties we could separate out into a subcat; the Midlands region has 453, including Richland (a subcat of 133) and 2 other potentially separateable counties, which would leave this region at 215; however, that would be much better than the other split options you presented, and would certainly be better than the 724-stub category we would be left with if we don't split it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, it's helpful to understand your thought process. If the first one is best for our purposes, then here is how I would propose we proceed
My revision of the 4 groupings would be:
Category:Lowcountry South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 305 stubs
Category:Upstate South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 197 stubs

Category:Midlands South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 498 stubs

Category:Pee Dee South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 236 stubs
What do you think of this revision? Also, I can't always get petscan to reliably do a count. For instance I can't get Category:Plantations in South Carolina‎ with {{asbox}} to return any values, no matter how high I set the depth value, even though its subcat Category:Plantation houses in South Carolina‎ has 84 stubs. Do you know why that might be? Thanks. (Edit: I did some testing and it lookslike it has something to do with copying the text from a link vs copying text alone) -Furicorn (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like what you copied may have had a left-to-right mark (LRM) after it. This is a known problem with some browsers, and in the past I have fixed several instances where the LRM made it into the stub template itself (see for example these seven edits). I normally see them on stub templates set up by Od Mishehu (talk · contribs), as it happens. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I have no reasonably easy way to see them when creating/eidting a page. When they land in my PetScan requests, I can easily find them and remove them by using the links between the request and the list, and examining the URL. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
A split of SC NRHP stubs sounds like a good idea. It also looks like a subcategory for Richland County (what would be the best format for the category name?) would be useful. Grutness...wha? 02:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the 3 counties with over 60 NRHP stubs already have stub cats, named in a similar way to other county-level NRHP stub cats. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I looked at it briefly, it actually looks like most of the stubs tagged to the Richland county stub category should probably be subcatted to the city of Columbia within Richland county. National Register of Historic Places listings in Columbia, South Carolina has 129 entries, while National Register of Historic Places listings in Richland County, South Carolina only has 36 entries. It might therefor also make sense to make a subcat for Charleston County, South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs that is just for the city of Charleston which is within the county. I'll do another revision of the groupings. -Furicorn (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is another revision of the groupings that includes the cities of Columbia and Charleston as subcats of their county.

2017/09/03 revision of the 4 groupings would be:
Category:Lowcountry South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 305 stubs
Category:Upstate South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 197 stubs

Category:Midlands South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 498 stubs

Category:Pee Dee South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 236 stubs

Ultimately, I think it makes sense to take a look at all the location categories of {{National Register of Historic Places in South Carolina}}, and see if we are missing any more locations that need templates. -Furicorn (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably no point in creating a subcat for Columbia NRHPs until/unless we create a base stub category for this city (I would have probably said otherwise if the stub count for its county was 200 or more); there is certainly no need to create an upmerged stub tag for the city of Charleston NRHPs until/unless we create a base stub category for it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
What is a base stub category? -Furicorn (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
In this case, the base stub category would be Category:Columbia, South Carolina stubs or Category:Charleston, South Carolina stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC
This may be justified - there are [460 stubs that roll-up to Category:Columbia, South Carolina, and 351 stubs that rollup to Category:Charleston, South Carolina -Furicorn (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
City-level stub categories are more complicated than a simple scan; when deciding whether or not to propose one, iI always sort through them stub by stub. In general, for example, I exclude all articles on individual human beings other than the city's own mayors; and I tend to find many stubs which are actually about the city's suburbs and ot the city itself. Columbia, with your reported 98 NRHP stubs, would almost certainly pass; however, before I can be sure, I need to check each article. I'm currently working on state capitals, but South Carolina is near the end of the alphabet, so it will take me a while. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

This revision removes the cities for now, as topics to be revisited later:

2017/09/07 revision of the 4 groupings:
Category:Lowcountry South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 305 stubs
Category:Upstate South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 197 stubs

Category:Midlands South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 498 stubs

Category:Pee Dee South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 236 stubs

-Furicorn (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposals, July 2017Edit

Category:Arkansas Registered Historic Place stubs splitsEdit

Since the Category:Arkansas_Registered_Historic_Place_stubs category has over 2,500 stubs, I would like to propose the creation of county-level stub tags similar to what exist for other states. The 75 Counties range from 8 to 239 possible stubs (based on the counts at National Register of Historic Places listings in Arkansas), so if we just want to keep it to the Categories that will include at least 50 stubs, I minimally propose the following stub categories:

I would propose upmerged templates for the remaining counties. Also, is it possible to mark these for S1 or S2 speedy creation? I'm not sure I understood very well if this request fits into those categories. --Furicorn (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Create tags for all counties, and categories for tags with over 50 uses. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I created the tags about 2 weeks ago and have been slowly populating them Furicorn (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Medieval history stubsEdit

I'm surprised this doesn't already exist, I think we are using "England" but it would be preferable to have a historical period stub. WPMA currently shows 4,050 stubs.Seraphim System (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Middle Ages stubs is a thing now. Seraphim System (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposals, June 2017Edit

Category:Hong Kong businessperson stubsEdit

Create {{HK biz bio stub}}. PetScan shows 83 stubs in Category:Hong Kong businesspeople. See all Hong Kong stub templates here. —A L T E R C A R I   02:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Altercari: Why that name for the template? To fit in with established conventions, it would surely be {{HongKong-business-bio-stub}}, which already exists. Similarly, the category would be Category:Hong Kong business biography stubs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Um. Wew. How did I miss that? I'll just quietly let myself out. —A L T E R C A R I   07:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Nationalist Congress Party politician stubsEdit

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Skr15081997, I'd also like to know this. —A L T E R C A R I   02:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Both are different parties. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Samajwadi Party politicians stubsEdit

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:European football club stubsEdit

Currently there are over 20 different stub tags filling into this category, and it has ~900 pages in it. Some of these stub tags are clearly big enough to merit their own categories, while others could merit their own categories as they have a significant number of articles and it would reduce the number in the master category. I do not believe that having such a large category is helpful for anyone. My proposal is as follows:

I would also like to propose the creation of {{Gibraltar-footyclub-stub}} as currently there are 19 pages with the template {{Europe-footyclub-stub}}, all teams from Gibraltar. Currently there are many country football club stub tags which are on less than 19 pages and I believe it would make sense to specify from Europe. Stub tags exist with fewer pages for clubs from Andorra (11), Austria (16), Greenland (15), Ireland (8), Isle of Man (9), Kosovo (13), Liechtenstein (5), Luxembourg (16), Montenegro (15), San Marino (11) and Slovenia (17).

Thanks, JDWFC (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I support the Cyprus, Hungary, & Netherlands categories but would rather keep the rest of the templates upmerged until they actually reach 60+ articles. Also support formation of the Gibraltar template, upmerged to the Europe category, same reason. Her Pegship (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support There is evidence that the 60 rule isn't observed in this area. —A L T E R C A R I   02:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposals, April 2017Edit

Category:2000s hip hop album stubsEdit

Category:Australian crime biography stubsEdit

Category:Europe politics stubs splitsEdit

County Westmeath geography stubsEdit