Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2009/August

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting‎ | Proposals‎ | Archive‎ | 2009

Proposals, August 2009

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

If (after approval) you create a stub type, please be sure to add it to the list of stub types. This page will be archived in its entirety once all discussions have been closed; there is no need to move them to another page.

NEW PROPOSALS

{{cooking-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.
Odd that there isn't one of these for preparation methods when we've got a {{cooking-tool-stub}}. I've tagged a few articles with {{food-stub}} instead but that's obviously not optimal. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Support -Seems reasonable. Himalayan 11:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Support per nom and above. Gosox5555 (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please. It should be a subcategory of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:food and drink stubs rather than ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:food stubs, since the latter has been repurposed to be about specific foodstuffs (corresponding to Category:Foods) instead of general food-and-drink topics. Dr.frog (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Only if there are 60 existing stubs that can use it. Best thing to do is to start with it upmerged (in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Food stubs), and change the category to a dedicated category once it's clear there are 60. After all, the proposal was for the template alone, not for the template/category pair. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe this now meets the 60 pages requirement. Dr.frog (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
71 stubs, if whatlinkshere is anything to go by. Assuming they are all stubs (which I didn't check). In which case it's speediable as a separate category. Theoretically it should be proposed (on the current month's page), but I doubt there'd be any objections if you just went ahead and made it, given that there were no objections to the template. Grutness...wha? 10:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Specialty templates for Cat:Tool 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.
To9ol stubs has long been a mix'n'match of articles ranging from dustpan to defibrillator, and it's not an easy one to sort through. It might well be worth adding a few more specialist templates to enable it to be split at a future point when it gets too big and amorphous. I'd like to suggest the following:

These three should between them cover about half of the articles, at a rough guesstimate, and the second and third of them would be in line with the one current subcategory (‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Cooking tool stubs). Grutness...wha? 23:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, I think the Adhesive is speediable as i think it os on the To Do list. Waacstats (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - main cat too generic anyway.. Himalayan 11:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Support - current ones are far to general.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosox5555 (talk • contribs)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Pyralidae-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.
Deserves its own category becaus it is the second largest moth family [1]. About 160 pages would be moved from {{Moth stubs}} Tim1357 (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Delayed support, had I spotted it I would have added it to the list below. Waacstats (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. If you do generate anymore stubs, perhaps you could make a note here that you are creating over 60 new stubs, I'm sure we can work out any new templates/categories in advance as a special case.. Anyway if you could generate like Laysan Hedyleptan Moth using a reliable source not self referencing to a family wiki article I don't have many complaints as, although it will involve a great deal of work to expand the articles, they are definately needed ones. Himalayan 21:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

i will be adding a lot of pages to this category. I have found a list of Genus' that i will create articles for. see that list here User:Tim1357/sandbox67.142.130.34 (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


{{Pyralidae-stubs}}

Deserves its own category becaus it is the second largest moth family [2]. About 160 pages would be moved from {{Moth stubs}}

Tim1357 (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess the stub-sorting should be done by family or (if the family is large) by subfamily. Some families (like the Geometer and Noctuid moths) have hundreds of genera and 10.000's of species.. Ruigeroeland (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
We should be looking at the numbers here in more detail: would we rather categorize 200 moth articles under one family category, or 10 groups of 20 moths (just an arbitrary set of data) using 10 different genus categories. What I'm getting at is the differentiation between thousands of articles categorized similarly, or having thousands of categories to categorize those thousands of articles. If the goal here is to split up the moth articles, we need to step back and look at any existing moth stubs.
I'm going to assume that there are no categories more specific than "moth" (which refers to the creatures in the order Lepidoptera). I propose that we split it up in a more basic way: by suborders. The four suborders are: Aglossata, Glossata, Heterobathmiina, and Zeugloptera, in which case we would want {{Aglossata-stubs}}, {{Glossata-stubs}}, {{Heterobathmiina-stubs}}, and {{Zeugloptera-stubs}}. Also, see {{Lepidoptera}}, because Aglossata, Heterobathmiina, and Zeugloptera each only have a single genus (so, that's like 100 potential stubs for 3 of the four suborders, and the final suborder could have like 11,000 stubs). --Notmyhandle (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Recent flooding of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Moth stubs means this and probably a few others are viable... As it stands we now have 5000 stubs in the main category.... Himalayan 16:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems the creator is taking the iniative to stub sort without proposing here see this. Perhaps somebody could notify him and direct him here.... Himalayan 21:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, im sorry to have filled the stub category. I am more then happy to help sort them, I did not see the box on moth stubs about proposing new ones here. Tim1357 (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe that this stub would be over 60 based on the article but are we missing a permanent category for this family. Waacstats (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I had to go back and fix quite a bit of the refrences so I was bold and just changed the stubs when i was there, instead of having to go back and change them later. Ill undo it if asked. Tim1357 (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Oversized cat propose a ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York City Registered Historic Place stubs fed by upmerged by borough templates. Waacstats (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Slovenia geography 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.
My proposal would be to replace the current municipality geography stubs for Slovenia (only a few have been created, they're of limited use and they mostly don't have a lot of members) with the stubs for traditional regions of Slovenia. Currently, I think this would suffice and would simplify things by bringing templates in the line with categories.

Support Actually a while back we discussed creating a full set of municipal templates and upmerging by region. Might I suggest we also split Category:Cities, towns and villages in Slovenia by subdivision too? Himalayan 16:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose replacement, though suggest adding region-specific templates. While it looks like the current templates aren't much use, given the upmerging, there are still close to 1700 unsorted Slovenian geography stubs. Which means that there's a very good chance we'll be splitting the regions up into subregions sooner rather than later. If that's the case, then we'd need to start splitting out the larger municipalities (since that's the second tier of Slovenian region split). Having the urban ones at least with templates ready for that eventuality makes sense. As for "bringing templates in line with categories", upmerging is fairly standard practice at WP:WSS, so there's no real necessity for that. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh sorry I didn't read the proposal properly. Oppose replacement. We should create templates for each Slovenian municipality and upmerge into the regional cats definately NOT replace existing municipal stub templates. That would be best. As far as I am aware those are only loose historical names for the regions anyway and officially the government goes by munipalities. Duh Himalayan. Must be altitude sickness... Himalayan 16:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Europe-videogame-company-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.
Actually, I wasn't aware I was supposed to go through here for new stub-types, and I boldly created this one as well as the accompanying category. It is consistent with the related stubs based on video game companies by region. I've already filled the category up and have 124 articles that fit under this stub-type. This is the stub-types that are out there, so far (the one I just created in bold):

I don't know what else needs to be done, here, but I apologize for not coming here first as I didn't know I had to do that. Regards, MuZemikeUse my VG templates! 16:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately it'll lead to a fair bit of work. Renaming it needs to be done, to start with - if the decision is to keep it. It should be at {{Europe-videogame-company-stub}} - the same as all other Europe-specific stub types, and also in line with the Japan- type (not, note, Japanese- ), and the current name need to be deleted. However, in recent years we've gone away from having continent-wide stub types and now usually only make country-specific ones, upmerged into continent-wide categories (it makes for easier later splitting and also allows stubsd to be upmerged to two separate useful categories) -so this particular stub template may not be appropriate anyway. Either way there'll be a fair bit of restubbing work to do. Perhaps you should have read the part of WP:BOLD which says that it applies to articles, but not to templates... Grutness...wha? 01:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    My bot can update the usages for the proper naming, it won't be painful at all (I see borgarde already moved it in line with proper naming, so I updated the heading). As for the individual countries... some countries have only a single VG company - at all - let alone multiple stubs (eg. Bulgarian video game companies, Norwegian video game companies, or Danish video game companies). Just to use in your thinking on this. –xenotalk 19:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
This is currently large with 371 articles and with only Australian prison stubs as an empty subcat. This is mainly a list of present, historical or fictional prisons, jails and detention facilities with far too few entries on prison or jail legality, practices, conditions and history. To encourage development of entries on prison and jail topics and to distinguish between the fundamentally different categories of individual facilities and topics about corrections facilities, I propose two subcats:

Other names welcome. Jessamyncp (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC) (Moved from bottom of page)Waacstats (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

firstly there are 106 articles in the Australian subcat, you had me worried saying it was empty, secondly 371 really isn't all that large (check out ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Asteroid stubs or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American people stubs and some of there subcats) I'm sure with a bit of work the US and UK templates could reach 60. I don't think we need to split this at the moment other than if the US/UK get up to size unless someone is planning to create a mass of articles and then I would suggest templates till there are 60 articles. Waacstats (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Waacstats. My mistake, there are indeed 106 articles in the Australian subcat. Second, you're right that there aren't enough Prison Topic stubs to justify a subcat yet. It's too bad that there are so many stubs with names of individual prisons obscuring the Prison topic stubs. (I only disagree in that I think this category is very different from the lists of asteroids or American people since those homogeneous categories might not meet other stub sorting guidelines such as "will the new sub-type be well-defined".) Prison name is quite different from Prison topics of current stubs (prison transport, work release, youth detention center). Many more people are likely to be able to contribute information on youth detention centers (juvenile hall!) than on, say, Bracebridge jail. Due to their nature, it is very difficult to find the topical prison stubs without a subcategory. Hopefully users will soon be adding more prison topics stubs and editing the ones that are there and it will be appropriate to create a subcategory.Jessamyncp (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
A better name might be ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Prison structure stubs.--TM 20:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the proposed names are pretty odd, as neither suggests that it is a stub category. However, since we've started to split out stubs by location, surely that's the way to continue. Stubs in the category are really only supposed to be on individual prisons, though, so perhaps some larger parent stub category is needed for the other related topics. Then we'd have

We could that way later extend it, if necessary, to have penal system stubs for individual countries. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a very good comprimise. Waacstats (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Support. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds great. -Jessamyncp (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Korea-bio templates

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 think these templates should be split into NorthKorea-bio and SouthKorea-bio where necessary. I also think we need to keep Korea-bio for articles before the countries divided.

The following will be affected:

Category structure proposed is:

Borgarde (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I would see what User:Caspian blue has to say... Himalayan 19:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming more viable - the main problem is that so many of the articles (especially for things like writer, painter, etc) are people who lived predominantly pre 1950. So even with the two subtypes, there will be a large number of articles in the parent cats. Grutness...wha? 22:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
currently oversized (1200+) articles with no subcats. The only subcats I can find that have 60+ articles is ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Cutaneous conditions at over 1000 articles from here we have 5 categories that have 60 + articles so I suggest

God alone knows what to call the templates though, any ideas. Waacstats (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - Thank you for notifying us at WP:DERM about this discussion. I think having the dermatology stub categories mirror the formal derm categories is a good idea. The current categorization scheme for dermatology-related content is available at WP:DERM:CAT. With that being said, I therefore would like to see, as you have done above, stub categories that are named the same as the formal category, but with the word "stub" appended. Does that make sense? ---kilbad (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
So it sounds like a major editor of dermatolgy articles is supportive of this, given the above are the only categories that have over 60 stubs, any idea on template names? Waacstats (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
From a WSS point of view, one or two of them are fairly straightforward - {[tl|Cutaneous-stub}} for the parent and {{genodermatoses-stub}} - for the others, perhaps {{Skin-appendage-stub}}, {{Dermal-growth-stub}}, {{Epidermal-growth-stub}}, and {{Cutaneous-infection-stub}} respectively? Grutness...wha? 22:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Waacstats (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 seem to be taking on the life stubs so here goes, according to catscan the follwoing are viable

Geometridae would be immediatly oversized at 2889 but better having that than one cat at over 5000. Waacstats (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Support, Waacs you do realise I am baldy don't you? Himalayan 19:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed, I tend to avoid fuss on here where possible, sorry to hear about all the trouble but glad to see you've stayed. Hope we will still have your input here even if we won't be seeing so many of your articles. Waacstats (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Aah. That explains why we haven't seen the evil doctor around here lately... Grutness...wha? 23:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Renaming and reorganization of Gene 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.
Nothing about the "gene-stub" category or its 23 subcategories suggests that it's for human genes only. Right now, there are 15 articles using the gene-stub tag, several of which are non-human genes. That seems right to me...in fact, I don't know where the non-human gene stubs are ending up, because there MUST be more! BUT, the subcategories are all called "Chromosome a gene stubs", where a = 1-22 or X. This is clearly referring to HUMAN genes!! But this should be much more explicit. So, I propose the following:

1. The category Gene stubs under Genetics stubs be either
(a) renamed to "Human gene stubs"; or
(b) kept titled as is, with 1 subcategory entitled "Human gene stubs"
Which option to choose depends mostly on where the non-human gene stubs are going. If they're just going under "Genetics stubs" (which they don't seem to be), option (b) seems the better choice. If they're elsewhere (the various fungus/plant/animal/microbio categories?), option (a) may be better...
2. All the "Chromosome __ gene stubs" be retitled "Human chromosome __ gene stubs".

I think the most logical idea would be to have the "gene stubs" category, with "human gene stubs" underneath, AND also have the other organismal genes placed in there too...but that would require a LOT of collaboration. I'm posting a link to this on the WikiProjects Genetics page immediately. I'm also going to look into the non-human genes thing a bit more, and then possible post a link on some of the following WikiProjects: Biology, Evolutionary biology, Microbiology, Molecular + cell bio, Viruses, and more...wow, there's more than I thought....

— Skittleys (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Erm, I hope it was implied, but I'm also proposing the templates be renamed, not just the categories! — Skittleys (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This may be more something for WP:SFD than here, since it requires a mass renaming of templates and categories. The gene stub types were proposed in the middle of last year, but somehow it must've slipped through that they were for human genetics. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
current upmerged template with over 60 articles. speedy? Waacstats (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Oversized; currently at 193 568 entries. There are others that belong here that aren't stub tagged, and there are other known ghost town articles that still need to be created as per List of ghost towns in Manitoba and List of ghost towns in Colorado. Therefore, I recommend the following:

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

193 is hardly oversized (Good knows what you would call ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Asteroid stubs), though I agree I have seen many articles in US/CAN that could use this and don't so would support templates for US/CAN and possibly California and categories for them once they pass 60. Waacstats (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Like I mentioned, there were quite a few articles categorized as ghost towns who had other stub tags, but no ghost-town-stub tags. I'm working on that tagging process and I've changed the count accordingly. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
As long as you don't remove the others (if they're relevant, of course) - I wouldn't want to see, for instance, a ghost town in South Australia marked with ghost-town-stub but not also marked with SouthAustralia-geo-stub. Actually, if we're going to start breaking out national ghost town stubs, Australia would be a reasonable one to add to the list. But yeah, 193 (and even 253) is nowhere near oversized (in fact, it's pretty close to the "sweet spot" for stub category size) - we don't normally start thinking of splitting things until they reach the 600-800 area. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
It hink if your going to keep pudhing this upit may be an idea to create the templates now save having to sort twice
Yup, Waacstats, good idea. So the Canada, US, and California templates are in place and I've updated above the number of articles that use these 3 template tags. Also created {{Australia-ghost-town-stub}}. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Numbers update.--Rosiestep (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Himalayan 19:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Oversized: 979 stubs. There are some sub-categories, in addition to those I propose the following:

It might not be a bad idea to just have stubs types for each of the sub-categories of computer science (about 21 in total). --Robin (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  • The idea of 21 separate templates might be good, but I doubt all 21 would reach the 60 stub mark for separate categories at the moment. It may be easier to work on a case-by-case basis. As to the two you've proposed above they both look fine, but the second needs a tweak of name - I'd go for ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Algorithm stubs (singular, per stub naming conventions) and {{algorithm-stub}} (avoiding the potentially ambiguous abbreviation). It might also be better to have the first's template (or a redirect to it) at {{comp-sci-theory-stub}}, since there are (IIRC) several other "theory" types all in that format. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I've modified my proposal. --Robin (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The 60-something rule is clearly not always obeyed, nor is it part of any page baring even "guideline" status at the top, let alone "policy". For instance, check out Category:Mathematics stub templates, e.g. Template:Math-competition-stub. Template stubs should be created whenever a category is sufficiently distinct so that tagging with something-else-stub looks weird, especially when the category with which the stubs are associated naturally belongs to more than one parent category. Otherwise you need to either pick a potentially uninformative stub or "multi-stub" an article, which looks equally grotesque, although I've seen that done too. Pcap ping 11:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Oversized; currently at 963 entries. Following the naming convention of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Nova Scotia geography stubs subcategories, I recommend the following:

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Support in principal with splitting Manitoba, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Newfoudland and Labrador. Unfortunatly none of these have categories so can't work out any numbers and most articles don't state which area they are in so may proove difficult for those of us outside the areas to do. Waacstats (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I thought that you ment other regions of Canada. That's why the lng list. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 15:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Good find Rosie. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, not much of a find. As I've created many of the Nunavut geo stubs, it's been gnawing on me to also deal with the splitting... kinda like the responsible thing to do. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. With regard to N&L, it may be worth noting that Labrador-geo-stub is already used as a redirect. Not sure whether it's an officially designated subregion, but if so, making it into a stand-alone template might help alleviate things a little. Grutness...wha? 23:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Oversized, catscan suggegsts the following would be viable

Again not my area of expertise so any comments grateful.Waacstats (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Yes to all your creature proposals. I am clueless as you are but you seem to have caught relevant sub categories. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Oversized, catscan suggegsts the following would be viable, though I know some have been proposed in the past thought I would gather them all together

The last three would be immediatly over 800 but can't see any possible splits. Again not my area of expertise so any comments grateful.Waacstats (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - as to the last 3, lets first get them established and then see where (if at all) we can split them. 3 categories of over 800 each is better than these over 2,000 sitting in a single parent category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Oversized, catscan suggegsts the following would be viable

Again not my area of expertise so any comments grateful.Waacstats (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Oversized, catscan suggegsts the following would be viable

Again not my area of expertise so any comments grateful.Waacstats (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Oversized, catscan suggegsts the following would be viable

Again not my area of expertise so any comments grateful.Waacstats (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split of New York geography 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.
Yet another oversized US State propose

both from currently upmerged templates with 60+ articles. Waacstats (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Looks OK Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
I'm proposing a new stub template for Ideologies stubs. Then, an article such as Festivalism can use that template rather than having to use another template that is not so suitable. BejinhanTalk 04:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ideology stubs, not ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ideologies stubs, but I'm a little concerned that it's a fairly vague category - it could cover everything from politics to religion to philosophy. Grutness...wha? 07:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with G but may be a {{Politics-ideology-stub}} upmerged to the oversized politics stubs may be an idea. Waacstats (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{chemical-nomenclature-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.
There's already a ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Chemical nomenclature, and I've found many stubs among this category. I'm proposing a stub separation between ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Chemical nomenclature and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Chemistry or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Physical chemistry. It should be used for certain articles as oppose to {{physical-chemistry-stub}}. ForestAngel (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad suggestion, though perhaps widening it to a similar form as other comparable stub types by making it a {{Chemistry-term-stub}} (for chemistry terminology) might be more useful? Grutness...wha? 01:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Grutness we already have -foo-term-stub for other areas, law and geo spring to mind might be wider in scope but will probably be as useful. Waacstats (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Not my usual area of expertise but help from catscan suggests the following are viable splits of this oversized category

Any tree of life experts want to comment, or anyone else for that matter. Waacstats (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split of California geography 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.
The following are all viable based on existing upmerged templates

Speedy? Waacstats (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sí. Approve all. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Latvia-icehockey-bio-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.
I was stubsorting just now and realized that Latvia does not have even an upmerged stub for ice hockey players despite a category including 73 articles. Propose an upmerged stub until the requisite number of stubs can be found.--TM 16:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Support and for any other European country. Waacstats (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shock Horror

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 we DON'T have a ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Delaware geography stubs despite the template having over 250 articles, I propose this be speedy created based on the fact that every other state in the US has it's own category. Waacstats (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Very surprising indeed! Ofcourse speedy.--TM 15:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Not suprising when you consider that when all the others were broken out into their own categories there were three stubs! It must have slipped under the radar since then, though. Speedy support. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


Now if it was California... Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We'd already have 8 county geo cats and a proposal for another 23. Waacstats (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Another speedy support. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Oversized stub category already split out the largest genus but another genus has over 60 and that is ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Dendrobium stubs. Waacstats (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Another Brazilian state tops 60 (actually tops 250), category name based on existing categories. Waacstats (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
According to [3], this category can already contain 165 stubs, from Category:Asteroid stubs - which is the biggest stub category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

looks like a needed split. Waacstats (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Anything which can sensibly split that category will be an advantage - it's almost useless in its current form. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
A similar search shows that 4000 should be in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs will have to get AWB out for that I think. Waacstats (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Board-videogame-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.
Require a board game sub category under video game. There are a lot of games under this category eg Mahjong, Monopoly, UNO, etc Banej (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

seems a reasonable grouping but I'm wandering why I can't find a permanent category for these? Waacstats (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Try ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Video board games. Which suggests that the template should perhaps be at {{video-board-game-stub}} to match {{board-game-stub}} (possibly with a redirect at the proposed name). Grutness...wha? 01:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree we should have a redirect one way or the other and I am not that fussed which way round, but catscan only shows 40 articles so template only unless 60 are found during stubbing. Waacstats (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Have tagged some of the previously missed articles - Latest catscan shows 66 articles. Banej (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Everything seems fine then. Waacstats (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Anybody able to assists in the creation? Have no experiences creating a stub, especially on the graphics part. Banej (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Bulbophyllum-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.
I've never proposed a science stub tag before, so I'm not sure - would this be the way to do it? I did some heavy orchid stubbing last night, and I think the above would clean out the orchid stub category quite a bit. Requisite category would be ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Bulbophyllum stubs, I suppose. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

would certainly cut down the Orchid stubs but would it self be iimmediatly oversized. Can't see any other way of pruning the orchids though so Support Waacstats (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Main category is already divided by countries and, if we use the UN guidelines, each region should easily come close to and surpass the minimum.--TM 19:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

missed this till now, seems reasonable and we have split everything in Africa the same way (geo,bio,politician etc) Waacstats (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Should be over 60.. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

along the same lines the following Chinese provinces are also viable

don't think any need any disambig but not 100% sure. Waacstats (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 of the templates upmerged into subcats of scottish geography have passed the 60 mark, anyone fancy

and what do we do once these are created because ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:North East Scotland geography stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Orkney and Shetland geography stubs will just be container categories so do we have the above as sub categories of the regions or as subcats of the scottish category and delete the regions. Waacstats (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{AzadKashmir-geo-stub}} and {{NorthernAreas-geo-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.
Also I think a ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Azad Kashmir geography stubs is in the pipeline, looks around 60 stubs to me. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak support - only weak because this one is fraught with edit-warring possibilities and may need to be protected preemptively (note that Azad Kashmir is similarly protected). Grutness...wha? 23:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes I am aware of that, Azad Kashmir though is a formal state and is internationally recognised. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Strong support, if you look at Category:Pakistan geography stubs there are hundreds of articles, the vast majority for Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas, there should also be a {{NorthernAreas-geo-stub}} currently the four provinces of Pakistan have geo-stubs but not these areas. Pahari Sahib 09:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Grutness would you suggest a PK or something in the Northern Area template or is that OK? Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article on the place is simply Northern Areas, so it should be fine. A redirect from {{NorthernAreasPK-geo-stub}} would make sense, though. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Template is upmerged into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York City geography stubs, and has 66 pages. I propose making it into its own category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, surprised it hasn't been split before. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UPmerged templates past 60

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.
the following are all viable based on existing templates

will also need to change the name of the existing catch all categories. Waacstats (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, quite an interest among editors eh... Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Following on from the proposal lower down, the following are now viable, expect more to follow

Waacstats (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Support to all Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Changing proposal for malls to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Canadian shopping mall stubs to agree to parent. Waacstats (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
and adding ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Quebec building and structure stubs should be the last one. Waacstats (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Support per Waacstats' addition/alteration. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HIV/AIDS 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.
I propose there should be an {{HIV-stub}} and {{AIDS-stub}} for the AIDS and HIV virus. An example of something that would fit is V3_loop.Smallman12q (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for the HIV one, but AIDS is a subset of HIV. Is it really distinct enough to gain it's own stub? Gosox5555 (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Create university templates by each remaining Asian country

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.
Templates are greatly needed for universities in places like Burma etc of where they are a huge number of universities. I propose {{Burma-university-stub}} etc and upmerge. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy support. Waacstats (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Both have well over 60 stubs in them, makes sense to create cats. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, these seem to be the largest governorates in the Yemen. Waacstats (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Having just emptied the euro's out of the parent cat I noticed atleast 70 of the remainder are american worth a template and category? Waacstats (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy as well Gosox5555 (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
950 odd, oversized. Recommend creating new templates by oblast and creating categories where viable. Best to drop the Oblast ending, when writtne they will clearly state oblast anyway. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd wait for Grutness to check over these but they seem OK, {{IvanoFrankivsk-geo-stub}} without the extra hyphen is the only change I would make. Waacstats (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
That's the only change I'd make to the names, unless there's something strange about Ukrainian geography that I'm unaware of. Grutness...wha? 22:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I created these templates with the intention of sorting them tonight, but it's gotten a bit late so I'm off. I do however think we also need a {{Crimea-geo-stub}} for the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Borgarde (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Company templates by country

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.
Specifically South America, although might be a good idea for every country. {{Chile-company-stub}} etc is definately the sort of template that is needed. There are tons of notable companies in most of the Latin American nations. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

given that we already have a continental cat I think this can be speedied but we only have 50 odd articles in there so not really a high priority yet. Waacstats (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Asia-scientist-stub}} and {{Asia-botanist-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 do not create.
Would be easier to use on some of the scientist articles. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said below, would prefer by nation templates for Asia-scientist, I'm not sure that the botanist stub is needed yet, we only have 400 odd stubs and haven't split out Europe yet which would teake the vast majority of them. Waacstats (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well {{Burma-scientist-stub}} didn't exist neither did an Asian one... Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was I'm happy either way just think it would save time in the long run going for the {{Burma-scientist-stub}}. Waacstats (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK.. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Windmill stub template

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.
OK, I've created this before coming here because I didn't know not to! {{Windmill-stub}} is intended for use by WP:MILLS on stub class windmill articles. It's only in use on one article atm and I won't add it to any more until it has been approved/discussed first. If it gets deleted it's no big deal. Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Support You did the right thing coming here and I'd imagine the others will also support it. I would evne go as far as to propose a {{UK-windmill-stub}} and a {{Netherlands-windmill-stub}} and any other major windmill country. Given time or if not already they are likely to be viable for their own categories too. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Belated support, and hopefully we can get more articles on Dutch windmills (belive it or not we only have 4 articles, and that is not a challenge!)Waacstats (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Support from me too, with the proviso that they're used in addition to the nation-specific struct-stubs, not replacing them (e.g., a windmill in Australia should be tagged with both Windmill-stub and Australia-struct-stub). Once we get to the point of nation specific windmill-stubs, of course, then they'd replace both as a combined form, but - despite Dr B's suggestion, I'm not convinced there are enough of them for that yet. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

See List of windmills in the Netherlands, that's why I suggested it!!. There is a group of editors working on them I believe, so soon enough there will be hundreds... Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I take it that this is approved then? Mjroots (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, though note that even with a wikiproject it should be used on at least 30 articles in order for a category to be regarded as viable. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Just noticed that the number of buuildings for Spain and the sheer amount being transwikied by region more than makes it appropriate to create new structure templates by region of Spain e.g {{Catalonia-struct-stub}}, {{Andalusia-struct-stub}} etc. Also the number of museums is growing big so ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Spanish museum stubs should be on the cards. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Note though that the number of articles for each region is likely to be very uneven and propbably a lot of articles are not categorized or stub sorted properly. I think creating templates by region of Spain and at least upmerging any that aren't viable yet would be a good step for organization in the future I think. If needs be I can create a lot of articles too...

Support. These are much needed templates to help with the large group of Spain-struct-stub articles; and the cat ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Spanish museum stubs would grow daily. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Support, but with a couple of alterations. 1) We'd normally use {{CastileLaMancha-struct-stub}} (no gap, no extra hyphen), and {{Balearics-struct-stub}} (Canary Islands only uses "Islands" because of the possibility for confusion with the birds); 2) Note that with Ceuta and Melilla we usually use a more inclusive {{Plazasdesoberanía-foo-stub}} type to cover both the PdS and the autonomous cities in North Africa (spelt out for such use on the template itself), with redirects from {{Ceuta-foo-stub}} and {{Melilla-foo-stub}}. This has caused a bit of a problem in the past, though (we had one repetitive, angry, and vandalous Spanish editor who claimed that by saying that the stub type was for "Spain's autonomous cities in North Africa" - as the template was worded - we were claiming they weren't Spanish. Go figure.), so it might be worthwhile to clear that up starting with separate stubs for the two cities here. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think we also use BasqueCountry-foo-stub as a basic type, to avoid confisuon with the people. Anyone know for sure?Grutness...wha? 00:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Support struct templates no problem there. Will support the museum category once the template gets to 60 which it hasn't yet. Waacstats (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mathematical Biology

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 propose this stub because there isn't a mathematical biology stub template or category and there are a good number of articles that would support it. Currently, there is nothing that speaks to both mathematics and biology together as one discipline. If I'm missing something here, please let me know.

There are a number of articles that this could be applied to, but Isuggest a template (feeding into both Maths stubs and biology stubs to see if this does get past 60 and if itdoes then I will support a category. Waacstats (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Major World Cuisine 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.

Each of these could have more than 60 stubs, currently located in {{Cuisine-stub}} or the stub categories for each country. - AKeen (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I proposed this only about a month ago. Support. Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

if we are going to have these then it would be {{UK-cuisine-stub}}
Ok, thanks, modified stub- AKeen (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bivalve 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.
I have created {{Bivalve-stub}} to better organize bivalves. The main purpose was not to distinguish bivalves (there exist 10 000 species of bivalves, so it will be usefull in the future), that are in majority of now used mollusc-stub, but to clearly organize the rest of mollusc-stub articles of their smaller taxons like polyplacophorans, monoplacophorans and other little known ones. --Snek01 (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

the thing is do we have 60 articles or are these articles waiting to be created, we normally only make categories when there are 60 articles, if the articles aren't there yet we normally merge the template into a related category (normally any stub category that would act as the categories parent). I don't know enough about molluscs and bivalves to know and my usual tool isn't working so I will say belated support assuming the articles are there. Waacstats (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree (and Snek01 would have been told as much if (s)he had proposed the stub rather than simply creating it and telling us later). Unless there are 60 currently existing bivalve stubs, this may need upmerging. Snek01, if you plan to do any more organisation as you mention above, it needs to be debated first. Grutness...wha? 22:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
There is few hundred bivalve stub (less than 500, according to my guess about 400. But certainly more than 100.) --Snek01 (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC) My guess was good, it is exactly 303 articles right now. Thank you, that you have trusted in me. Next time I will not announce any started stub type here, but rather I will normally start it without this project. --Snek01 (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Create building templates for Canadian provinces

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.
Amazed we didn't have any:

Templates to create:

Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure these fall under any of the normal speedy rules, but they should be speediable, given the rate we seem to slipping behind at the moment though I don't think that really matters. (thats a speedy support by the way). Waacstats (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Probably not quite speediable, though if we have lighthouse-stubs for all of these 9which we do now) I seriously doubt there'd be much of a problem if the five-day rule was um, bent slightly, shall we say? Grutness...wha? 23:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Created the templates and noticed this should be {{Nunavut-struct-stub}}. Waacstats (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed above typo on Nunavut. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Upmerged template has 48 articles and an upmerged poet template has 17 and there is already a ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ancient Greek writer stubs easily enough for a category.Waacstats (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Support' Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
The following are viable based on the relevenat -musician-stub and -singer-stub templates.

-speedy. Waacstats (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy all Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Terrorism

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.
There is no terrorism stub template or category. There is need for one, as stub articles are currently being marked with other tags, such as ones relating to their location. Category:Stub-Class Terrorism articles has 849 articles in it. I am suggesting simply:

 

This terrorism-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

to use: Category:Terrorism stubs

and

 

This biographical article relating to terrorism is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

to use: Category:Terrorism biography stubs

Any changes and suggestions welcome. Patchy1Talk To Me! 06:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably not too bad an idea, as long as a close check is kept on what does and doesn't get marked with this (given that it's a fairly dangerous area to try to define). The general terrorism type would be a reasonable parent to the Guantanamo Bay internee stub category, too. I'd support both templates, but only one category for now (the parent ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Terrorism stubs, until we know for certain there are 60 biographical articles (if there are, that would be speediable later). Please note, though, that something being a Stub-Class article doesn't necessarily mean it is a stub (or vice versa). Even so, if there are 170 Stub_Class articles, there's certain to be more than 60 stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems sensible. Caution needs to be exercised though in who is labelled a "terrorist". Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is one occasion when Related is important, do we include anti-terrorist organisations in terrorist stubs as they are RELATED to terrorism? Waacstats (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
That is an interesting question, but i suppose it would include anti-terrorist orgs, terrorist acts, terrorists and terrorist groups. Other stub categories include that depth, don't they? Happy to discuss this. Patchy1Talk To Me! 07:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
If we're going to separate writer and poet stubs (and that's a question), I think these are necessary. Most of the articles in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:poet-stub are from either of these regions. Also, {{Romanian-poet-stub}} seems necessary. Gosox5555 (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The categories sound good, but I'd prefer templates by nation rather than region. In the case of SA it would only be about a dozen templates, and the same with ME - it makes for easier splits later if needed. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Fine by me. Gosox5555 (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Edit: my one question would be what to do if a poet was before modern contries were in existence. Gosox5555 (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
With one or two very, very rare exceptions, we use the current national boundaries. If someone was born in, say, Zagreb when it was part of Austro-Hungary, they'd still get a Croatia stub. Understandably discretion and a bending of this rule are used for, say, a Palestinian poet born in what is now Tel Aviv, but we certainly don't have specific stub types for countries that no longer exist except in very rare cases (among them an overall China- type and an overall Korea- type). By the way, we use the noun form of country names for templates (CamelCase where necessary), so you're looking at things like {{Romania-poet-stub}}, not {{Romanian-poet-stub}} (a full list showing usual country names can be seen at User:Grutness/Geo-stub list). Grutness...wha? 08:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Seams to be a case of spellcheck gone wild. I meant {{Romania-poet-stub}}. Gosox5555 (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That is true. Support. I would also support the creation of poet templates by country e.g {{Brazil-poet-stub}} and upmerge. Sometimes "writer stub" is a bit generalised. Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, though I'm fairly sure the categories should have a lowercase p in poet. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:South American poet stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Middle Eastern poet stubs. Waacstats (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Oops -yup, you're right. Hadn't spotted that. Support per Waacstats' amendments. Grutness...wha? 22:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
My bad again. Thanks for fixing it. Gosox5555 (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Canadian lighthouses

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.
Ser Amantio (formerly Mr. AlbertHerring) is drawing up a big list of lighthouses from Canada by province, first one is List of lighthouses in Prince Edward Island. At present we have about 50 stubs on Canadian lighthouses but shortly we should create ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Canadian lighthouse stubs and split it from canadian building and structure stubs. Note that given time I expect a lot of the province ones to be viable e.g Category:Ontario lighthouse stubs as there are reportedly something like 400. Anyway for now I propose the creation of province lighhouse templates. I made one for {{PrinceEdwardIsland-lighthouse-stub}} and propose to follow suite with the others. Even this island has about 45 lighthouses so they will be umerged into the new ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Canadian lighthouse stubs. The rest maybe with the exception of the inner provinces will all become viable eventually so I propose the creation of province templates before he starts on each list and then creating a category if it becomes viable. For the inner provinces where there may not be many lighthouses I propose a {{Canada-lighthouse-stub}}. As you guys, Waacs and Gruts both know how fast Ser amantio works there shouldn't be a problem with these. If he decides to work through this extraordinary world lighthouse source then eventually it may become necessary to create a lighthouse stub template by country but for now this is OK. Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates to create:

  • Support - and for any other country which needs one (not for all countries, though - I doubt we'll need a Mongolia-lighthouse-stub, for instance :) Grutness...wha? 00:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

On some countries you'd be surpised. There are a number of notable lighthouses in Eritrea for instance!! Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

At least Eritrea's on the coast. I doubt there's much danger of any ships running into the Mongolian coast ;)) Grutness...wha? 08:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Support for all, nice to see Ser back Waacstats (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Support, of course - though Manitoba's iffy (there are eleven current and former stations, if memory serves). And thanks - it's good to be back. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

11 is OK to make a template. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. in the future it may be wise to create struct templates by Canadian province like {{Ontario-struct-stub}}. What do you think. So far 528 Canadian struct stubs but I'm certain there are much more not tagged under this, Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, I think. Some must be getting close to the golden 60 mark. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
we haven't got these already? I'm sure I've used them in the past?Waacstats (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I know I could have sworn I used a Ontario-struct-stub to add to buildings in Toronto. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
We already have three subcats and recently created upmerged by district templates. The folowing categories would pass the 60 mark

my guess is the other two districts will pass 60 if they do I propose

I believe that the Urban districts will struggle to pass 60 and if any do will propose them seperatly. Waacstats (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Darn these months are sialing by SOOO fast. Support Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Japan-road-stub}} and {{SouthKorea-road-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.
A brand new month... two upmerged templates - it looks like the majority of the articles in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Asia road stubs are from one or the other of these countries. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Looks like we've had one of these - and category - (unproposed, and unlinked to any stub parents) for two years! I've added it into Asia road stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Do we have SouthKorea-x-stub or do we have Korea-x-stub. Waacstats (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Like with China, we tend to use Korea- for historical items and things which stretch pre 1950. Things like geography, where it's clear which side of the border something is on, we have both NorthKorea- and SouthKorea-. I'd be quite willing to amend the proposal to Korea-road-stub, though, if it's preferred. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I just couldn't remember a North/South Korea split, so given that I'm happy with a Korea-road-stub
I'm a little confused - happy with Korea, or SouthKorea? Grutness...wha? 23:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry shouldn't edit when tired. Happy with SouthKorea-road-stub as proposed. Waacstats (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Support I've had my eyes on those for a while. Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Support as well. I see no problems. Gosox5555 (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/2009/August&oldid=1138356823"