Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/February 2008

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting‎ | Proposals‎ | Archive

This is an archive of discussions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals for the month of February 2008. Please move completed February discussions to this page as they occur, add discussion headers to each proposal showing the result, and leave incomplete discussions on the Proposals page. After February, the remainder of the discussions will be moved to this page, whether stub types have been created or not.

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

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

Audio technology 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.
Somebody moved one of my articles from {{tech-stub}} to {{electronics-stub}}, but it was a poor fit. {{Tech-stub}} is very large, so articles do need to be moved out. A new sub-category of {{tech-stub}}, {{audio-tech-stub}}, would be of benefit. HairyWombat (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Cycle races

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 about 160 articles in recursive ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Cycle races and marked as a {{cycling-stub}}. Propose {{cycling-race-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Cycling race stubs as sub-cat of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Cycling stubs. SeveroTC 00:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

2 more sports cats

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.
2 more templates pass 60 speedy propose

Waacstats (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Upmerged Animalia phylum 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.
‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Invertebrate stubs is nearing the point where it would need splitting, but the demise of StubSense makes finding good candidates a priori problematical. I suggest we create an upmerged template for those phyla of Animalia that have existing categories. Ctenophora has less than 60 known species and thus is unlikely to ever obtain a stub category of its own, but may be worth creating an upmerged template nonetheless. This would give us the following:

Suggestions or comments? Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

While wandering around adding my brand-new parasite stub to things I realized that there is a need for a platyhelminthes stub. I was going to send you a message, but then remembered that you had proposed these stubs and lo and behold you've got it right there. So, I wanted to say that I support all the proposed stubs listed here. Plcoffey (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
How do you feel about flatworm v platyhelminthes? I think prefer platyhelminthes, because flatworm is a misleading common name... Plcoffey (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We try to use the singular in stub template names so a {{platyhelminth-stub}} as a redirect is worthwhile. But since the corresponding article is Flatworm, I can't see eradicating {{flatworm-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fair. Plcoffey (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Created all of the above, plus since they were large enough, the categories ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Annelid stubs, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Cnidarian stubs, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Echinoderm stubs, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Nematode stubs, and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Poriferan stubs were all created. The only new template that is even close to getting a category of its own is {{flatworm-stub}} (and its redirect {{platyhelminth-stub}}) which are on 45 stubs at present. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Parasite 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 the creation of a parasite related stub template ({{parasite-stub}}). This would be applicable to all plants and animals that have a parasitic lifestyle. It would be applicable to anything in the category Parasites. For example:

to name a few. These pages are not only related, but in dire need of some work. A stub template that linked them would encourage users to add information to these vital pages. Plcoffey (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

First off, is there a count? Secondly, there was once a {{parasite-stub}}, voted to be kept back in 2005, but I can find no record of its deletion. Anybody remember? Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The log line shows "08:08, August 8, 2005 Grutness (Talk) deleted "Template:Parasite-stub" ‎ (deleted as per sfd vote (4-0") - Dravecky (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for digging that up, and there is a good point made in the brief discussion: this would cut across existing types by kingdom, phyla, etc. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)Indeed so - the debate, what there was of it, is here. The same argument holds as then - we do split things by their kingdom/class/order/genus, rather than their lifestyle - certainly enough time has elapsed that it might again be worth examining whether this is useful, though. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It's self evident that these organisms are important enough to warrant quality articles,since they influence the lives of billions of humans and animals every day, and play important roles in everyday life. However, these organisms haven't been getting the attention they deserve as far as the creation and expansion of articles. The problem lies in the fact that as a protist Plasmodium isn't that unique, but as a parasite it's incredibly important to the lives of millions of people. This holds true for most parasites, the thing that makes them important is their lifestyle, and so if they're to get the attention they need, it's going to have to be through their distinction as parasites. (Her Pegship,if you can define "count" for me, I'll make one and get back to you) Plcoffey (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The usual threshold is 60 or more existing stub articles for a new stub type to be considered. Since this one cuts across the existing scheme, I think we'd likely prefer a few more than that. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
There is now an Incomplete list of parasite related stub articles. This list took me about 45 minutes, it is 185 articles and I feel confident that given more motivation I could double this list easily. This list does not include more than 2 or 3 of the 100+ species of Plasmodium, or any of the fictional parasites. However, this list is more complete than the various parasite categories. Additionally in making this list it became even more clear that this stub template is necessary when I saw closely related species falling into different stub categories (Insect, Veterinary, Medical, Protist...) when a parasite stub would be much more inclusive and relevant. Plcoffey (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
As I see it, with that many stubs, there remains one final concern that needs to be addressed, where to fit this into the stub category heirarchy. Do we need/want ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Parasite stubs → ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Biology stubs, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Pathology stubs, or both? Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
They both seem applicable. I would support both. Plcoffey (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
With that many, I've no objection, though the usual caveat that this stub should supplement not replace the existing stub types by order/genus applies - i.e., add this as an extra template to articles; don't replace the ones already there. Grutness...wha? 23:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Might want to have it replace {{med-stub}} or {{disease-stub}} if it's been applied to them. but I agree that any taxonomic stubs should be kept. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Caerwine, taxonomic stubs should definitely be kept, but {{med-stub}} or {{disease-stub}} should be replaced. Plcoffey (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fair to me. Grutness...wha? 07:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Englilsh footballers

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.
Continuing the football theme from Matthew. A number of England footballer templates have passed 60. I propose the following templates be de-upmerged to the relevent category

also I propose these 3 as 2 being very close and the third passing 60.

also call for the renaming of the catch all categories to

Waacstats (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And also the Brazilian, i proposed. Matthew_hk tc 20:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

New subcat of South American football club stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
I have not yet counted the stubs, but the clubs in the Category:Brazilian football clubs, about half of them required expand, and i suggested first to create the tp: Template:Brazil-footyclub-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Template:Argentina-footyclub-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

and then see how excat num for a cat. Matthew_hk tc 11:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Support templates and given that catscan gives 100 aticles marked with a footy club and argentina template I see no problem there for a cat, Brazil might be a bit closer. Waacstats (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Madagascar geo 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 upmerged templates.
Currently {{Madagascar-geo-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Madagascar geography stubs has around 250 articles. As I'm planning to add 1,000+ more in the coming weeks, I would propose splitting it along the provincial borders:

See Provinces of Madagascar for more info. Or should these stubs also include the word "Province"? All these are also towns... – Sadalmelik (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • not to sure what the names need to be, I'm sure the geo experts will answer that one. I support the idea here and if the articles are going to exist then I suggest creating the templates upmerged to Madagascar geography stubs until the articles do exist, then the categories would be speediable. Waacstats (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with Waacstats that these would be worthwhile as upmerged templates for the time being - the categories can be made once it's clear there are 60 stubs in them (which, if you're planning to make that many stubs, shouldn' be long). Regarding the names, the categories should be in the form "X Province geography stubs, since as you point out they are also names of towns and cities (that would also make them match the permcats, e.g., ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Fianarantsoa Province). Hope you don't mind, but I've amended the proposed names accordingly. Don't think there's any need to amend the template names - I doubt we'll need a separate stub for any of the cities any time soon. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Upmerged templates sound sensible - only ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Antsiranana Province has around 60 articles in it at the moment, and I suppose there are could be few non-stubs among those, too. I'm still waiting to see if there are any comments on the stubs I created so far (the text is computer generated based on the census database) – Sadalmelik (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.
Finaly, the last speedy-able US state! There are currently 62 articles that link to {{NewMexico-radio-station-stub}}, which I believe to be sufficient to warrant these particular stubs getting their own category, a sub-category of Category:Western United States radio station stubs. - Dravecky (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

4 more countries

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.
In a further attempt to cut down the Olympic medalist categories I propose the following

and 1 possibly contentious one

Waacstats (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I'd imagine this would be uncontentious if used only on those who won medals for the historical entity. In those cases, the alternatives seem clearly worse. The first three seem speediable. Alai (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That would be the plan but I know i) not everyone likes using historical nations. and ii) problems can be started in that part of the world. Waacstats (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Indeed, it might do no harm to wait five days on that one. OTOH, it seems relatively safe to have this to cater for the proverbial half-Serbian/half-Slovenian born in Bosnia who lived in Montenegro, but only ever represented "Yugoslavia" in the Olympics, and potentially bad to start trying to unpick that sort of thing, or indeed to sort on what are in danger of becoming "ethnic" grounds at all. Worst case, surely, is that someone insists that some half-Croatian/half-Croatian born in Croatia who live in Croatia, and only ever represented "Yugoslavia" in the Olympics should be tagged with {{Croatia-Olympic-medalist-stub}}, but that could arise with or without an extant "Yugoslavia-" template. Alai (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Normally I'm not that keen on them, but in cases like this where a person clearly represented a specific historial entity, I've no ral qualms. Grutness...wha? 23:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

3 more sport cats

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 the following cats

Waacstats (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

2 more sports cats

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.
2 more templates pass 60 propose

Waacstats (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 template goes passed 60 propose above cat is (speedy) created. Waacstats (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.
3 recently approved templates have reached 60. I (speedy?) propose

Waacstats (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 taken to sfd.
This would reduce ambiguity, fit the normal category naming conventions, and match parent ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Austin, Texas. I further propose the renaming of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Dallas stubs to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Dallas, Texas stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Houston stubs to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Houston, Texas stubs for the same reasons and to match parents ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Dallas, Texas and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Houston, Texas. - Dravecky (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Though I support the move I should point out that renaming is usually handled at WP:SFD, not here, so that it can get more input from outside the stub-sorting community. Grutness...wha? 20:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
What the grutty one said. I realize the distinction seems fairly pettifogging, since much the same Usual Suspects will comment either way, but explicit tagging (with {{sfr-c}}) does lend some additional transparency. Alai (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Well that's my next step then. Thanks for the guidance! - Dravecky (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think I've done that correctly. (Fingers crossed.) - Dravecky (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
"The grutty one"? Grutness...wha? 07:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.
This would be a single organizational stub cat for {{USVirginIslands-radio-station-stub}}, {{AmericanSamoa-radio-station-stub}}, and {{NorthernMarianas-radio-station-stub}} as well a parent cat for ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Guam radio station stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Puerto Rico radio station stubs, both currently in the generic ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United States radio station stubs category. The content and naming would reflect the cat ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Radio stations in the United States by territory. - Dravecky (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{USVirginIslands-radio-station-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.
For organizing the 24 stub articles currently tagged {{US-radio-station-stub}} and lumped into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United States radio station stubs}. This would parallel the function of {{AmericanSamoa-radio-station-stub}} and {{NorthernMarianas-radio-station-stub}} plus the naming of market template {{US Virgin Islands Radio}}. - Dravecky (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You forgot the final "s". That should be {{USVirginIslands-radio-station-stub}} to correspond with {{USVirginIslands-geo-stub}}. (It would be {{USVirgins-radio-station-stub}} if we followed the usual convention of dropping the Islands part for the stub template, but unlike other Islands, the "Islands" is seldom dropped for either the USVI or the BVI in actual usage. "United States Virgins" gets only 98 hits on Google. While most are as expected a shortcut for "United States Virgin Islands", some are from the misspelling "United States Virgins Islands" and others are from "United States virgins". "British Virgins" fares better at 15.3K hits, but that is still paltry compared to the 30.4M hits for "British Virgin Islands".) Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I've created the stub template, using the name recommended by Caerwine. I haven't tagged any of the appropriate articles yet, though. JPG-GR (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've amended the name above (I hope that's kosher) since I made a typo, not a conscious choice to singularize the word "Islands". Thanks for spotting that, Caerwine. - Dravecky (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.
After this, only one more speediable US radio station stub cat to go! (Spoiler alert: it's New Mexico.) There are currently 65 articles that link to {{SouthDakota-radio-station-stub}}, which I believe to be sufficient to warrant these particular stubs getting their own category, a sub-category of Category:Midwestern United States radio station stubs. - Dravecky (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.
Stub for Xbox related articles as a part of WikiProject Xbox. Almost all stub articles in the categories on this page would fall under this stub's category. Thingg⊕⊗ 18:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And given the presence of your WikiProject, only 30 stubs are necessary. Are there 30 stubs on Xbox? If so, it seems reasonable. Certainly as it stands the template is useless - it isn't even upmerged, which it should be. Of course, it would have been had you proposed it here first... proposals aren't just for categories! Grutness...wha? 00:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
umm...could you run that by me again? I'm not really familar with how this whole procedure works and I'm not sure what you are saying by "upmerged" and "the template is useless as is". Also, the Xbox project covers all Xbox-related consoles (that's including the Xbox 360), products, and exclusive games so I'm pretty sure that there are more than 30 stubs in that range of articles. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Basically, the template should have been proposed here for debate prior to being made (in the same way as you've just done with the category). Stub templates, when made, always have a stub category linked to them - which this one currently doesn't have (though one is commented out). Without a category, they can't perform their function of putting stub articles where they can be found by editors. Stub templates can either link to their own distinct categories (such as the one you've proposed) or - if there are only a few stubs - can be upmerged, that is, linked to a more general category until it's obvious there are enough stub articles for a separate category (e.g., Cat:Microsoft stubs or Cat:Videogame stubs). I'm a little concerned that you're suggesting using this stub type for both games and hardware - usually those sort of things get separate stubs types - but a stub-sorter more familiar with the way videogame-realted subjects have been split will be able to weigh in with some thoughts on that. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for explaining it to me. Assuming we got enough stubs to make it worth it, would making a sub-category of Category:Microsoft stubs called "Category:Xbox stubs" be ok? Also, the reason I commented out the category thing was because I found this page and I wanted to make sure I do stuff correctly when making a stub (before I made that stub, I wasn't even aware this page existed.) and I didn't think there'd be a problem with making the stub in advance if I didn't put it on any pages (which I haven't). I can just db-author the template if this proposal fails. Thingg⊕⊗ 02:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
If the category is created, it should have both ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Microsoft stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Video game stubs as its parents. Depends on how many of the 75-odd Xbox exclusive games have stub articles. This stub should not be applied to multi-platform games. If you want to gather stub articles for the multi-platform games as well, getting the Xbox Wikiproject talk page template {{Xboxp}} to do assessment in the same manner as a number of other Wikiproject talk page templates would be the appropriate way to go. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Great idea, thanks. Also, I am aware that this should only go on games that are exclusive to Xbox consoles. Btw, this stub would go on both Xbox and Xbox 360 related stubs. (like {{PlayStation-stub}} goes on stubs relating to the PS1, PS2 and PS3) Thingg⊕⊗ 19:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Yup, that makes sense. The only thing now is to see whether there are enough stubs for a category - which, as I said, is 30 stubs, given that there's a WikiProject. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 templates for the three territories

Waacstats (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.
Category:Polish people stubs is as usual too big (~1000 entries?). I think we could use a Polish version of {{Artist-stub}}. Well populated {{Poland-actor-stub}}, {{Poland-singer-stub}} and {{Poland-writer-stub}} could become its subcategories; there are many painters, sculptors and other artists that merit a larger category ({{Poland-painter-stub}} probably merits creation, too).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's strange. If we're following the permanent categories as we should, then Artist is used in categorization for just the visual arts, and this would include the above mentioned painters and scupltors, but not actors, singers, or writers. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Concur. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:arts occupations, btw. Alai (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I note that we have already had ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Polish painter stubs for a year now, but for some reason ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Polish people stubs was not added as one of its parents, but has now been fixed. Support adding {{Poland-artist-stub}} as at least an upmerged template, and since it already has an existing subcat, support lowering the threshold for category creation to 45 or 50 in this case instead of the usual 60 suspects. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Reconcur. Alai (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.
After this, only one more Midwest US radio station stub cat to go. (South Dakota, you're on notice!) There are currently 63 articles that link to {{Iowa-radio-station-stub}}, which I believe to be sufficient to warrant these particular stubs getting their own category, a sub-category of Category:Midwestern United States radio station stubs. - Dravecky (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{software-eng-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 redirected.
Currently the template for the software engineer stubs is {{soft-eng-stub}} whilst the template for the software stubs is {{software-stub}}. Clearly there is a need for a {{software-eng-stub}}, but should it be a simple redirect or should it be taken to SFD so that the {{soft-eng-stub}} can be renamed, either with or without keeping the original as a redirect? Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.
It's the last of the speediable NE US radio station stub cats! (Delaware and Rhode Island are too small to ever speedy but we'll discuss them in the future.) There are currently 64 articles that link to {{NewJersey-radio-station-stub}}, which I believe to be sufficient to warrant these particular stubs getting their own category, a sub-category of Category:Northeastern United States radio station stubs. - Dravecky (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.
2 templates have passed 60. Speedy propose

and renanme ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Australian rules biography, pre-1970 birth stubs to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Australian rules biography, pre-1950 birth stubs. Waacstats (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Make it so! Alai (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 day, another state full of radio stations. I am, perhaps unsurprisingly, almost done with these United States. (Whew!) There are currently 76 articles that link to {{NewHampshire-radio-station-stub}}, which I believe to be sufficient to warrant these particular stubs getting their own category, a sub-category of Category:Northeastern United States radio station stubs. Dravecky (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 Europeans are the wrong side of 800 anad the rest are getting there. I propose the following

I don't have counts but believe these are the most likely to reach 60 (i hope Catscan is back online soon}. I realise that we rarely split by USSR and South Korea but I feel these will be useful and they do match the perm cats. Waacstats (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.
...and another nation is nursed up to the speediable 60 stub mark. Grutness...wha? 09:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 are currently 60 articles that link to {{Idaho-radio-station-stub}}, which I believe to be sufficient to warrant these particular stubs getting their own category, a sub-category of Category:Western United States radio station stubs. - Dravecky (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 has 60+ articles speedy? Waacstats (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 speediable - the penultimate Asian country to get to 60 geo-stubs. Only Qatar to go. Grutness...wha? 05:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.
Most of the subcategories of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American football biography stubs are already subdivided by decade. Placekicker (149), Punter (141), Quarterback (420), and Tight end (419) are not. Punter and placekicker are sufficiently small already, but I would like to split quarterback and tight end. Using the structure in Category:Running back stubs, I would like to create {{quarterback-1980s-stub}}, {{quarterback-1970s-stub}}, {{quarterback-1960s-stub}}, etc and {{tightend-1980s-stub}}, {{tightend-1970s-stub}}, {{tightend-1960s-stub}}, etc. If we have an even distribution across the 12 new categories, that's something on the order of 70 articles/category, which brings them down to a manageable size. Thank you. --B (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Quarterback and tight end are still fairly small by stub standards (usual size for worrying about a split is 800 stubs), but certainly upmerged templates would be a good idea, with categories split out for any reaching the standard 60 stub threshold. Grutness...wha? 05:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Even if we only had separate categories for 1980s, 1970s, and pre-1970s, that would be very much useful from a patrolling standpoint - it groups the college and current NFL players together so that vandalism targets can be more easily checked and hoax/non-notable articles can be removed. --B (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If the average number of stubs per template is around 70, then there should be no problem since several - possibly most - of them are bound to reach the 60-stub threshold. Grutness...wha? 05:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 are currently 70 articles that link to {{Montana-radio-station-stub}}, which I believe to be sufficient to warrant these particular stubs getting their own category, a sub-category of Category:Western United States radio station stubs. - Dravecky (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{rail-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 surprised to note while sorting just now that we have a {{US-rail-bio-stub}} but no generic {{rail-bio-stub}}, not even as an upmerged template. Uncertain how many would go in there and I'm not planning on going a hunt for them just now myself, but an upmerged template for now would seem to make at least minimal sense. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Yet another template upto 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.
{{Sport-book-stub}} is over 60 articles, propose ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sport book stubs. Waacstats (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

more football templates and categories

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 know that a discussion has been taking place re footy/football etc and I will modify this if necessary but Germany, Spain and the Netherlands footballers are all large and Argentina footballers is over sized I propose the following templates with categories if size allows.

Waacstats (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Another speedy sport cat

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.
{{Poland-footyclub-stub}} has reached 68 articles propose ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Polish football club stubs. Waacstats (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

South American Roman Catholic diocese 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 as revised.
{{SouthAmerica-RC-diocese-stub}}

South America has hundered of Roman Catholic diocese. Most stubs are currently being classified as {{RC-diocese-stub}}. Instead, they should follow the pattern established in other regions.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.

Within the Wikiproject, we currently have about 23 articles that are marked "stub-class" and some that are marked "start-class" that probably need downgraded. In addition, there are a number of articles that need to be created and I am finding more articles everyday that need to be included in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Social work. Ursasapien (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What category should the template be linked to? Is ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Social work stubs good? Ursasapien (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me - but a separate category is only used if you can get 30 stubs. If you can't, it'll need upmerging. Somewhere. Any ideas where? Grutness...wha? 23:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I have indentified about 33. Some of these are articles about social workers, social work organizations, and maybe even a few schools of social work. Am I on the right track? Ursasapien (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, though I'm less certain about articles on actual social workers (they'd normally get some form of bio-stub). In a lot of the cases this wouuld probably be a supplementary stub type rather than a replacement (if something's already marked, say, with a US-org-stub, you'd add the new stub to the old one rather than removing the old one), so it's probably less of a problem. If you've got over 30, then given it's the main stub type of a wikiproject, you can add the category :) Grutness...wha? 00:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.
Create the following category and template:

Create the following upmerged templates:

SeveroTC 22:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Support since we have a Yugoslavian Olympic medalist stubs I see no problem with a czechoslovakia template, nb that it should only be used on those who won medals for the country not people from the successor states. Likewise I would supoprt a Ukraine template only to be used on people who won medals while representing Ukraine not Ukrainians who won medals while representing anyone else. Waacstats (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Update
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.
{{UK-model-stub}} has 65 articels ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:British people stubs has over 1200 this would make a start on reducing it. Waacstats (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It would make an even better start if "model" had a lower case "m" :) Grutness...wha? 13:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Corrected. Waacstats (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Propose:

This should cut ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Olympic medalist stubs down a fair bit, currently about 500 articles plus numerous articles not tagged that fit in this category. SeveroTC 16:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

2 more templates reach 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.
Speedy propose

Waacstats (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.


Sports teams

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

The result of the debate was create.
Propose the following

Waacstats (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Kosovo 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 templates for all, cats for all exc footy.
With the forth coming independence, it is high time for Kosovo-related stubs. Propose the following templates until they reach the standard 60 mark, though i'd assume the biography and geo-stubs will reach them easily. {{Kosovo-bio-stub}} (remove redirect), {{Kosovo-politician-stub}}, {{Kosovo-geo-stub}} (remove redirect to euro-geo-stub), {{Kosovo-stub}}.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And just a TP for {{Kosovo-footy-bio-stub}}. Matthew_hk tc 11:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See my comments on the talk page - we usually allow these things once a country has a degree of international recognition. In Kosovo's case, that will probably only be a few days, so I'd support this then. UDIs can be messy businesses, though - in the unlikely chance that no-one recognises the new country, I'd hold off. Either way we should know before the end of the week. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In the case of {{Kosovo-footy-bio-stub}}, I suggest we wait until Kosovo is recognized by either FIFA or the IOC as fielding a team. For the rest, at least Kosovo has picked a flag that is as uncontroversial as possible under the circumstances. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
...i.e., one that everyone hates equally :) FOTW has predicted that it's only a few months before it's replaced. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just came across the absence of a {{Kosovo-stub}} when cleaning up short pages. It's obviously needed. And regardless of independence or not unless we are to assume by existence of {{Texas-stub}} that a certain piece of real estate has flown the coop (again). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason the Texas tourism slogan is, "It's like a whole other country!" In all seriousness, if the article count is sufficient I would easily back creation of a general stub for Kosovo no matter how the independence movement settles out. - Dravecky (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
OK , since for 7 days no comment has been made I guess I can start creating these --Cradel 13:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Cradel, this discussion is only about templates, not categories! There are nowhere near enough articles yet for separate categories, so leave these upmerged for now. Also, the comments on the footy stub were "wait", not "make a redirect"! Grutness...wha? 23:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 by year of first appointment.
We seem to have picked up one or teo college football coaches! Any one have any ideas on a likely split. Nationality is out as I'm guessing 99% are US, we don't split by teams but even if we did no college appears to have enough for a category, dob does not seem to be considered important as 1000 articles don't have a dob category and the majority of those don't have the information in the article. So any one any ideas. Waacstats (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorting by division doesn't seem useful as almost all of them appear to be from Division I-A NCAA schools. A split by school is too fine a split to be useful. I'm hesitant to suggest by conference, since not only do coaches move around, so do the schools and the articles are likely to have only school not conference info. The only other split I can think of is by date of first college head coaching job, which while not our usual practice, will be well documented and an objective criteria to use. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, So templates along the lines of {{1990s-collegefootball-coach-stub}} and categories ??, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:College football coaches, 1990s stubs seems a bit ambigous while anything else seems long winded. Waacstats (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
We have done similar splits by date of birth in the past, but if that's not given on very many articles, date of first appointment does make a certain amount of sense. Grutness...wha? 12:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.
Create upmerged:

SeveroTC 22:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 propose following

Waacstats (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was create.
Propose the following

to match permcat ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Baseball executives. Waacstats (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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

Waacstats (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was create.
Propose we finiish off the split of this category based on templates for level 9 leagues upmerged to categories for level 7, and also one additional template & category

Waacstats (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 a Project page for this subject, and there are a great many stub articles in it.

This would be a sister category to Ancient Egypt stubs, Ancient Greece stubs, etc.

Sumerophile (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I must admit I'm in two minds about this, though the presence of a Wikiproject does sway me a little towards support. It certainly looks like a fertile area (or perhaps fertile crescent :) for stub sorting...
I can foresee a few problems, though, given that much of this ground is already covered by a variety of different stub types (subtypes of stubs from archaeology-stub to myth-stub to hist-stub, as well as the potentially fractious Jewish history stub types). Most specifically, we already have a {{MEast-hist-stub}}, which covers much of the same ground. As you say, similar types work well enough for Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece, though in each of those cases it's one distinct culture at the base of it all. This is more of a "catch-all" type which might if anything be better split into Ancient-Mesopotamia-stub, Ancient-Persia-stub and the like.
The other minor concern (very minor) is the template name - I suspect that Ancient-NearEast-stub would probably be more in keeping with our standard naming. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the standard naming procedures, so whatever you propose is fine as far as I'm concerned. MEast history covers a lot of ground, just like Egyptian and Greek history. Ancient Mesopotamia and Ancient Persia might work too; there are some areas that would fall under both, such as Elam. Add to that Ancient Levant and Ancient Anatolia as well?

And yes, different articles fall under Archaeology, Mythology, Nobility etc. One thing I notice that's missing is a category for ancient persons. Ancient Sumerian kings are classified as Middle Eastern Royal House stubs, and I don't think that's what most people would think of them as. Sumerophile (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

{{AncientNearEast-bio-stub}} or {{Ancient-bio-stub}}

Another suggestion for notable persons (kings, queens, visiers, priests) in the ancient world. Sumerophile (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This one is probably best dealt with concurrently with the one above it, since whatever is done with one naming wise would affect the other. An Ancient-NearEast-bio-stub (or equivalent for Ancient Mesopotamia, Ancient Persia, etc) would probably make sense at least as an upmerged template type.
I'm not keen on a blanket "Ancient-bio-stub", though, for several reasons: first, "ancient" eras vary from culture to culture (where I live anything over 250 years old would qualify!), and there is no guarantee that the stubs using it would have the same group of editors (would the same editors know about Three Kingdoms Chinese emperors and Welsh tribal chieftains, for instance?). In most cases, there is far more likelihood of editors having knowledge about historical figures from one particular country or region, so lumping them in with national bio-stubs would make more sense. Grutness...wha? 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with preferring to break them up by region. The thing is that in some areas in world (such as the Near East or Mesopotamia and Persia) ancient history is a very different topic, and has a different set of editors than recent or national histories. Sumerophile (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

After giving it some thought, I'd like to suggest that the AncientNearEast bio and hist(?) stubs not be broken down into smaller groups (such as Mesopotamia and Persia) for this reason: that there are so many groups, and there are overlaps in languages and territories that would cause confusion.

Summarizing

I'd like to summarize to get the ball rolling.

There is a need for a separate stub category for an {{AncientNearEast-stub}} and an {{AncientNearEast-bio-stub}}, because these articles are getting lumped into modern history which for the most part has a different set of editors than ancient history in this area. This would parallel the AncientGreek and AncientEgypt categories.

Sumerophile (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.
Continuation of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:1980s-US-hoops-bio-stub, the next high school class of seniors is graduating and will begin to attend college next fall. Majority of them are born in the 1990's.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DP08 (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.
To cover "pirate"-related subjects by "official pirates".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trekphiler (talk • contribs)

As noted, "pirate" does not equal "privateer". A subtle distinction, perhaps, but valid. Trekphiler (talk) 07:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Piracy stubs is populated by three stub templates: {{Pirate-stub}}, {{Privateer-stub}}, and {{Piracy-stub}} but the entire category doesn't hold more than 50-odd articles. It seems that you already have the relevant template, but stub categories aren't normally split before reaching a much higher number of articles.
Privateer=pirate with an alleged, assumed, or affected air of respectability. Splitting would be numerically infeasible, and have significant POV issues. Alai (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Only seven articles transclude {{Privateer-stub}}. I will support this when the number of articles reaches 60. SeveroTC 16:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Another Euro Olympic

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.
Create upmerged {{Austria-Olympic-medalist-stub}} (over 35 articles). {{Euro-Olympic-medalist-stub}} will transclude in around 125 articles I think with this and the impending Turkey template. SeveroTC 01:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC) (Edited 02:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.
Some ones been busy as the following templates have passed 60, propose the relevent cats

Waacstats (talk) 23:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.
This should mostly complete recent work on this category. Propose:

SeveroTC 22:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • support all but not to sure about the Oceania template, there appears to be only one medalist from Oceania not from NZ/Aus, but like you said it would comlete the set so I'm not opposed to it. Waacstats (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Winter Olympics

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.
Create:

At over 400 articles in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Winter Olympic medalist stubs, I may be coming back with some more :) SeveroTC 12:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 as United Kingdom foo stubs and United States foo stubs.
Current category is over 450 articles, so propose:

SeveroTC 16:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Return of the living plant 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.
These are all speedy creations that follow the established pattern of segregating new plant stubs. All have more than 60 stubs waiting to be shifted from the parent category as stated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Under ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Apiales stubs:

Under ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Asteraceae stubs:

Under ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Magnoliales stubs:

Under ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sapindales stubs:

Under ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Palm stubs:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.
{{England-musician-stub}}, to match the Scottish musicians sub-cat-stub in the British musicians category - plus the British musicians stub is very big.

Borntolose5948 (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.
Propose:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 two new sub-categories:

I have made numbered lists of potential candidates here. --Paul A (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 as revised.
Current category has over 800 articles, so I propose two sub-categories:

I acknowledge the existence of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United States bassist stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:British bassist stubs, but submit that these are vaguely-defined, and that the numbers exist to justify clearly-named bass-guitar-specific categories. --Paul A (talk) 06:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this whole area needs to be looked at, given the numbers. if separate categories are to be set up, then some change to the templates is neede (certainly the X-bassist-stub types will need to be changed since the term bassist applies to both bass guitarist and double bass player. That need a more thorough proposal than simply suggesting new categories. Until that is done, please don't empty categories that are in use! Grutness...wha? 00:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think given this and the above proposal A set up similar to the following would seem reasonable

Waacstats (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • You acknowledge the existence of those categories largely by emptying them, it would seem. So far as I can see, they're not defined at all "vaguely", but rather, "inclusively". Unless there's some compelling reason this is unsatisfactory, I suggest reverting to said earlier state. Alai (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • First up, I apologise for pre-emptively emptying the bassist-stub categories; it was the wrong thing to do, but by the time I realised that it was done, and it didn't seem worth the effort to go and put them all back again. (I can and will if you want me to, though.) Second, I don't agree about "inclusively", which implies that some purpose is served or some useful information encapsulated by lumping all-things-called-"bassist" together; it seems to me, rather, that it muddies and confuses things without offering any advantage except that it saves the writer the bother of being unambiguous. I might also note that what got me started on this in the first place was noticing that, over in the non-stub categories, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Bass guitarists and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Double-bassists are held separate, and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Bassists exists only as a disambiguation category. --Paul A (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It's only two edits to restore them, it seems, unless you've also been changing over the usages to something else. By inclusively I simply mean "(well-)defined in an inclusive manner", not (necessarily) that it's useful, or the most useful. The template follows exactly the scope of the article bassist, so I think that much is pretty much beyond question. On the utility question: I could see that both ways. In musical genre terms, one might argue that the more marked split is between the "bowers" and the "pluckers" (or non-bowers, somewhat more precisely), for example. Unless there's a clear-cut case for change, the current set-up does at least have the merit of finessing the naming issue. Alai (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • No, when I get stupidly enthusiastic, I don't mess around with half-measures. Obviously it wouldn't have made sense to put the double-bassist stubs in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Bass guitarist stubs, so I re-stub-noticed all of them before I redirected the bassist-stub notices. (I did keep a list of them, at least: see above, in the double-bassist-stub proposal.) --Paul A (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah, right, I see. Since reverting the template edits would therefore just give us duplicate "bass guitarist" and "bassist" types with in effect exactly the same scope, I'll take the latter to SFD, and if there's tacit or otherwise acceptance of this, then go ahead with the by-country split (which is now edging into "urgent" territory, since the merger has shoved it over 800). Alai (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support all per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 motorcycle-company-stub; do not create defunct type.
{{motorcycle-company-stub}}, to cover Harley Davidson & others... Also {{defunct-motorcycle-company-stub}}, to cover Rikuo & others...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trekphiler (talk • contribs)

Couldn't think of a moto maker stubbish enough offhand... For "defunct", I'm thinking of the {{defunct-auto-company-stub}} (whatever its exact format) I seem to recall seeing, which doesn't seem country-specific. (If it doesn't exist, add it, too?) Trekphiler (talk) 07:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Brazil Roman Catholic diocese 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.
{{Brazil-RC-diocese-stub}}

Brazil has the most Roman Catholic dioceses in all of South America (212 diocese + 41 archdioceses). We may want to consider separating them out as a grouping all their own.

  • No problem with a template upmerged to the above south american category and brazil stubs but unless a large number of articles are created/tagged as stubs then hold off on category as I can only find about 6 currently existing stubs. Waacstats (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Scholar-stub types

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 as foo-studies-bio-stub, upmerged templates only.
The following idea emerged during the recent SFD for CAsia-studies-stub.

We have numerous stub types for experts in various fields of study, such as astronomer-stub, mathematician-stub, and the like. Where an academic or other expert's field of study is one country or region, however, there often isn't a specific name that can be used (there are rare exceptions like Sinologists, but these are, as I said, rare exceptions). As such, it might be worth considering a series of stub types for experts on places, in the form {{region/country-scholar-stub}}. I've used the term "scholar", as it includes both academics and non-academic experts (such as political advisers, military experts, etc). It also makes it clear that it is different from the country-academic-stub types, which is for academics from or working in a particular country, rather than those that are experts on that country.

I haven't done a count-up, but the following seem reasonable as upmerged templates at least, and (given the original SFD) in the case of Central Asia - which has a WP Central Asian studies - a category may well be worthwhile:

Thoughts are welcome on any of the above, as are suggestions for further possible templates. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not certain that *-scholar-stub is an obvious term. An alternative would be *-areastudies-bio-stub. It's verbose but more specific and makes it clear that these are not just synonyms for *-academic-bio-stub. OTOH, area studies implies a multi-disciplinary approach, while I think we could use something that would incorporate mono-disciplinarians. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The reason I used the term scholar is that it does separate it from academic, and also it's quite natural to talk of an expert in a subject being a scholar of it. The definition given at Scholar#Scholars perfectly describes the types of people for whom these stub types would be used. The only alternative name I could think of was X-expert-stub, but that sounded worse, to my mind. X-areastudies-bio-stub sounds far less natural to my ears that X-scholar-stub. Grutness...wha? 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 as revised.
‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Bat stubs has nearly 550 stubs in it. Many of these (including 4 of the first 10) belong to the family Pteropodidae, members of which are commonly known by a number of names, including fruit bat. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If the other subcats are anything to go by, that would be {{Fruit-bat-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Pteropodidae stubs. Yes to the template, and yes to the category if it can be shown there are 60 stubs (soulds like there should be). Grutness...wha? 09:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/February_2008&oldid=1089907291"