Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting‎ | Proposals‎ | Archive

This is an archive of discussions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals for the month of March 2008. Please move completed March discussions to this page as they are closed, add discussion headers to each proposal showing the result, and leave incomplete discussions on the Proposals page. After March, 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.

{{Africa-rail-stub}} and {{Asia-rail-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.
While draining the swamp of {{rail-stub}} I've found that there are still 38 Africa-related articles and 39 Asia-related articles, easily enough for upmerged templates. Mexico (22) and South America (17) aren't quite there yet but worth keeping an eye on. - Dravecky (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Separate templates for all the untemplated continents (include Oceania, etc) sounds like a good move to me. Grutness...wha? 09:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Done! I've created templates and, where appropriate, categories for the continents (including Oceania). I've organized the existing stubs and categories appropriately and spent a fair chunk of the evening (with an hour off for "Lost") restubbing most of the articles in {{rail-stub}} to more specific stub templates, and doing general cleanup on the articles as I re-stubbed 'em. I've also listed the new templates and categories on the master list, with appropriate reformatting, too.- Dravecky (talk) 09:39, 21 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.

Category:Film book 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.
Finally bumped up to 60; creating speedily. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:29, 1 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.

Swedish film 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 template, speedy create category when 60 article threshold is met.
I propose:

This would be parallel to many similar stub templates and categories for different nations as shown at WikiProject_Stub_sorting -Smkd (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Are there 60 of 'em, though? If so, this probably is OK, on the basis of the de facto splitting by language principle (though one does wonder if there isn't significant crossover with Danish and Norwegian film, as opposed to it being an entirely distinct market). Alai (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Another option would be to add {{Scandinavia-film-stub}} / Category:Scandinavian film stubs, perhaps? Would that be preferred? Smkd (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd suggest that if we scope a stub category that way, which seems at least plausible, that we not populate it from a Scandinavia-film- template, but from upmerged Sweden-film-, Norway-film-stub, etc, templates. Or if not, then at any rate those be created and upmerged to the existing category. Of course, there's the eternal question of "which Scandinavia", though in this case it seems we should be using the 'linguistic' scope. Alai (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support {{Sweden-film-stub}}; there is a diligent Films Project connected with the category. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Definitely support the template, but upmerged into the European parent if there are fewer that 60 stubs. "Scandinavia" is just too slippery a term. If there are 60,then I support the cateegoy as well. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 13:12, 15 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.

Category:Djibouti 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.
Tricky going, but I just managed to squeak past 60 with these. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 03:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust. Might I suggest San Marino next? :) Grutness...wha? 23:50, 12 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.

Female-mixed-wrestlers-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.
{{Female-mixed-wrestlers-stub}} --Gia Primo (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Uh, what about 'em? Why would there be a need for such a stub type? There's already a number of stub types for wrestling, and we don't generally re-split by gender. Can we "look forward to" lots more articles like European Fight Club? Alai (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That'd be a strong oppose, then, lest there be any lack of clarity. Alai (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Alai. SeveroTC 19:03, 12 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.

Speedy Singers

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 speedy propose the following

as the respective templates have reached 60.Waacstats (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Clearly speediable. Alai (talk) 03:19, 13 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.

Singers pt2

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

as catscan gives +60. Waacstats (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I think this is essentially speediable. Alai (talk) 18:04, 11 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.

Category:Réunion 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.
I've been a busy little bee today. Just barely past threshold. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 05:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You have indeed. That's another speedied one. Virtually nothing left in Africa un-"country-catted" now. BIOT, Djibouti, Western Sahara - and that's the lot. Grutness...wha? 21:34, 11 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.

Category:Aruba 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.
And one more - just under the wire for today. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 21:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Another speediable one. We'll get a category for every country yet :) Good work AH! Grutness...wha? 21:38, 10 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.

Category:Qatar 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.
Me again. 70-odd, this time, I believe; in any event it's ready for prime time. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

at last - the last of the Asian countries! Speedy for that, too. Grutness...wha? 21:38, 10 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.

Category:Austrian Winter Olympic medalist 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.
{{Austria-Winter-Olympic-medalist-stub}} passes 60 Speedy? Waacstats (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support speedy SeveroTC 19:41, 10 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.

Category:Andorra 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.
Another one passes the 60 mark, courtesy of...well, courtesy of me, really. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 20:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Lordy - this one only had 25 when I last counted, late last month. Support from me - Speedied, in fact. I should do another count of the un-national-catted Euro-geo-stubs anyway, what with the Kosovo situation having changed since then. BTW, I note that two of those Andorra geo-stubs, Anyos and Anyós, need merging. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Ach, thanks - I'm a little rusty in my dotage. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 04:16, 10 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.

Category:Taiwanese company 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 cat reached over 60 stubs, it's now 105. Propose for speedy creation. {{Taiwan-company-stub}}. Jkj115 01:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Go for it. Nice work. Alai (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support speedy SeveroTC 19:41, 10 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.

Category:Sportspeople stubs by nationality

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 cat is a mixture of national and continental level subcats. Propose, for consistency:

And possibly stub templates {{NorthAm-sport-bio-stub}} and {{Oceania-sport-bio-stub}}, although I'm not sure they're needed. SeveroTC 18:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support categories; I'd personally not bother with the templates, though. Alai (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support categories - and strong support for the oceania template, which is long overdue - I could quite easily find a reasonable number of oceania-sport-bio-stubs without much effort (and indeed will do so, at User: Grutness/Oceania sport bio-stubs). The category would also be a good parent for things like Fiji-rugbyunion-bio-stub. Less support for the N.A. one, though - given that Canada, the US and Mexico already have templates, we'd probably be better off with {{Caribbean-sport-bio-stub}} and {{CentralAm-sport-bio-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 03:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So:

SeveroTC 09:46, 8 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.

Category:United States Olympic medalist 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.
This cat contains over 500 articles, and I have identified a further 500 articles which are stubs of US Olympic medalists but not tagged with this stub template. There already exists a US Winter medalist category. I have two different ideas about splitting this category down. First, it could be done by sport. Second, it could be done by year of first medal won. Alternatively, it could be left alone, but it is huge. SeveroTC 18:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I'd be inclined to go with sport, since there's likely to be less double-stubbing -- indeed, it may reduce same, if they're already tagged with a <sport>-bio-stub. But either seems essentially OK. Alai (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I think by sport would be more obvious than by first medal. Waacstats (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

To start with then:

There's 700 articles in Category:United States sportspeople stubs so I'll look at cutting that up a bit as well. SeveroTC 09:33, 15 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.

Vehicle simulation games

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 vehicle-simulation-videogame-stub.

There are almost 400 stubs in the Category:Simulation video game stubs. It's been difficult to clean up that mess. But it's not so much a problem of quantity as it is a problem of QUALITY. There are really several different types of games lumped together in the "simulation" category. There's a lot of vehicle simulation games there, as opposed to other simulation games like government simulations and city-building games. Experts on vehicle sims versus experts on construction/management sims are generally two different kinds of people. Pulling out vehicle sims out of the larger category would make the entire mess much more manageable.
I propose:
I'm willing to discuss this further, if necessary. (And please, judge my proposal on its own merits, ignoring my anonymity.) 65.93.222.5 (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to compromise on the naming, to meet the guidelines. Are there any other concerns or objections? (I believe that any others would be surmountable.) 65.93.222.5 (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me - an upmerged template until we know exactly how many this would cover though (we can always split it out once we know there are 60 of them). Grutness...wha? 23:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
How do you suggest I go about identifying those 60 articles? I think I could find them easily, but I'm not sure what to do with them when I find them. I'd tag them with the new stub, except it doesn't exist yet. This process is new for me. 65.93.222.5 (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Given Severo's comment below, a separate category and template look viable. For future reference, what you'd normally do would be to make just the stub template, but leave it upmerged (i.e., linking back to the parent category Category:Simulation video game stubs). Once there were 60 articles tagged with it (which can be checked via "what links here" in the toolbox to the left of the editing window), then a separate category could be proposed/made. BTW, Caerwine's right about what the name for the template should be, even though it's a pretty long name. The category name you proposed (Category:Vehicle simulation game stubs) looks fine. Grutness...wha? 11:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
There are 70 articles already tagged with {{simulation-videogame-stub}} in the recursive Category:Vehicle simulation games, so support cat in addition to template. SeveroTC 09:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, guys. One more question. How were you able to filter out the 70 or so simulation stub articles in the Vehicle Simulation Category? (Or, vice versa, the 70 or so vehicle simulations in the list of simulation stubs?) 65.93.222.5 (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I used the List Comparer facility of AutoWikiBrowser to give me a two lists: first of all articles that transclude the stub template {{simulation-videogame-stub}}, and; second of all articles in the category tree of Category:Vehicle simulation games. AWB then compares the two and is able to tell me which articles are in both lists. This isn't a perfect way of doing things as the articles have to be both tagged using the particular stub template and be categorised correctly. However, in this case, it has established the viability of a category so has been nevertheless effective. I can supply the list of the articles if you like. SeveroTC 16:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd definitely appreciate that list of articles. Also, how can I get the template created so I can start tagging that list of articles you provide me? Is the stub template something I create myself? I figured it was an admin thing, hence this proposals page. 65.93.222.5 (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not an admin thing - the proposal page is simply to stem the proliferation of useless stub types. But now I'm thoroughly confused. I just created the template for you, went to link it to a category, and found that the category and another stub template for this already existed! Not sure what's going on, but we now have {{Vehicle-simulation-videogame-stub}}, per the parent stub type, and {{Vehicle-simulation-game-stub}}, per the permcat name. Not sure why the permcat name drops the word video from this category, since both its parent and child types use it, but it means we currently have two templates. Which should be kept as the correct name? Grutness...wha? 00:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
{{Vehicle-simulation-videogame-stub}} should be kept as we're dealing with just video games here and it is part of the Category:Video game stubs heierarchy. Besides, there are non-videogame vehicle simulation games such as Car Wars, though I doubt we have many stub articles on them. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I blew it. I created a {{vehicle-simulation-game-stub}}. Personally, I'm a minimalist, and I don't think the "video" part is necessary. I've also started tagging something like 25 stubs articles with this template. But if anyone feels strongly enough about the other name, I'm willing to compromise, and do the painful work all over again. 65.95.142.28 (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It's necessary. Beyond the naming guidelines for stub templates, which would generally call for basing the name off of its ancestor, {{videogame-stub}}, there's the fact that we went through a major renaming of these stubs about a year or so ago with major input from WikiProject Video games when that project renamed itself from Computer and video games to come to a decision to use *-videogame-stub for the stub templates that would be within the field of interest of that project. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:40, 5 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.

Universities by US state

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.
Every now and again we get an unproposed stub type forr a speecific US university, despite our previously stated intention to split these by state, per school stubs. It's about time we actually got round to doing something about this and created templates for individual university-state combinations, along the lines of {{Illinois-university-stub}} or {{California-university-stub}}. I'd like to popose the creation of all the missing templates (I think there are about 45 needed), plus categories for any that reach the 60-stub level. At the samee time, it'll probably be worth looking at any stray split-by-indivvidual-university types, to see whether they're really justified. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support, and go Bears! Her Pegship (tis herself) 14:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, good plan. And if it's indeed that clearly our previously stated intention, speedy. We might seriously consider upmerging to USCB regional categories if that looks sensible given the numbers. Alai (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Update with stats: There are six current state-university-stub templates, each with its own category:

  • Illinois - 45 stubs
  • Virginia - 11 stubs
  • Oklahoma - 52 stubs
  • North Carolina - 30 stubs
  • Georgia - 165 stubs
  • California - 35 stubs

There are a further 1700 US-university stubs, so the average is well over 30 per state, though there are also a fair few Puerto Rico ones, by the look of it.

There are also a small handful of university-specific stub templates (four of them, to be precise):

  • UGeorgia (which has its own category and 130 stubs seems fine at first glance, but the vast majority of articles using it are bio-stubs, which arguably shouldn't use it. Remove them from the mix, and you'releft with just 30 stubs.
  • UTexas at Austin looks OK at 90 stubs, but it looks like it should cover the whole of the University of Texas, if the template name is anything to go by (UTexas). It also consists largely of bio-stubs, which arguably shouldn't be in there anyway. Take them away and you're down to about 20 stubs.
  • UOklahoma-stub and OKState-stub are used on 44 stubs and one stub respectively, both upmerged into the Oklahoma category. The UOklahoma one seems viable at first, but yet again there are problems with a preponderance of bio-stubs. There seems little point in the OKState one.

Once the templates are made, we may have to have a close look at these university-specific stubs, and also some of those smaller existing state categories. Grutness...wha? 23:06, 13 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.

Category:Midi-Pyrénées geography stubs by département

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.

Straightforward, huge, propose to speedy these. Someone's been very busy with French places: expect a lot more to come. Alai (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yow. I make that some 3200 stubs. Split away, and the sooner the better! Grutness...wha? 00:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I refer you to the recent update to WP:WSS/T... Alai (talk) 01:09, 16 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.

French regions, the rest

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.

  • Rhône-Alpes geography stubs
  • Lorraine geography stubs
  • Picardie geography stubs
  • Aquitaine geography stubs
  • Bourgogne geography stubs
  • Champagne-Ardenne geography stubs
  • Région Centre geography stubs
  • Franche-Comté geography stubs
  • Languedoc-Roussillon geography stubs
  • Pays-de-la-Loire geography stubs
  • Auvergne geography stubs
  • Bretagne geography stubs
  • Haute-Normandie geography stubs
  • Poitou-Charentes geography stubs
  • Alsace geography stubs
  • Île-de-France geography stubs
  • Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur geography stubs

In each of these cases, splitting's now required; in each case, by department seems to be viable (or at least partially viable). Propose speedying these too, by pattern and precedent. Alai (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Support speedy and would splitting the Limousin region (751) be worthwhile as I think it would be the last unsplit mainland region. Waacstats (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
PS while in France. Speedy Category:Orne geography stubs as it has template with over 250 articles in Basse-Normandie. Waacstats (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Concur. If anyone is feeling especially thorough, it's clearly time to 'templatise' all the remaining departments. (The above will get us a good deal of the way, though.) Alai (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
We have a template name clash here, with {{Loire-geo-stub}}. This was in use to populate Category:Pays-de-la-Loire geography stubs (some of the region-level template names were a little on the terse side). However, the article for the Loire department is simply at Loire, so that's logically what its populating template should be called. I've moved the regional template, and if there are no objections I'll "repurpose" the Loire- redirect to be the populating template for Category:Loire geography stubs, once the region's been emptied to its constituent departments (or renamed to the new expanded template name). Alai (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I should have said, the rest of the oversized regions, that is. I think that leaves only Category:Limousin geography stubs and Category:Corsica geography stubs, which are not oversized, but are viably splittable. Might as well do those too, for symmetry. Alai (talk) 19:32, 24 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 speedy

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:Canadian medical biography stubs as {{Canada-med-bio-stub}} has crept over 60 and both stub parents are oversized. Waacstats (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy. SeveroTC 00:57, 20 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.

Category:Russian mathematician 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.
{{Russia-mathematician-stub}} is over 60 and russian people stubs is oversize. Waacstats (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy! Alai (talk) 02:11, 19 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.

Category:Japanese politician 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.
Unfortunatly there are no perm cats for by legislature or party splits so as at 799articles I propose a split by Decade of birth. templates along the lines of {{Japan-politician-1960s-stub}} and categories for those over 60 along the lines ofCategory:Japanese politician, 1960s birth stubs. Stubsense shows that 1930s-1960s are all viable. Waacstats (talk) 14:11, 20 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.

Category:United Kingdom motorcycle sport biography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Speedy as {{UK-motorcycle-sport-bio-stub}} has passed 60. SeveroTC 10:53, 22 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.

Category:United States sportspeople 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.
Two more upmerged sport-specific templates, around 40 articles for each:

SeveroTC 10:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support and matching cats if they turn out to be over 60. Waacstats (talk) 01:52, 23 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.

Category:Sweden 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.
Oversized. In theory, we're splitting these by county (the modern-day subdivisions). On the ground, many of the articles are only categorised by province (the old subdivs), and lack infoboxes, or any other useful infoformation as to modern county. We could try some "lumping", otherwise we're kinda looking for a brave volunteer to do it the hard way... Alai (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support by county, and I'll get out my shovel as long as I'm not alone. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • We now have permcats for each county; maybe that will help with CatScan. Off to hand-sort for now. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, and I'll help if there's any way to tell what county they are. Aelfthrytha (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Update: At least two of the templates have reached threshold. I'd like to create all the templates but have run into the fact that almost all the counties of Sweden have the same name as one of the (now-historical) provinces, such as Blekinge, Blekinge County, Dalarna, Dalarna County, etc. BUT they don't always have the same boundaries. Should I still create them as Blekinge-geo-stub, with the scope note specifying that it's for the county? Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes. Alai (talk) 19:13, 3 April 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.

Category:Japanese clan 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.
Category:Japanese history stubs is oversize and according to catscan 70 could take a {{Japan-clan-stub}}. Waacstats (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We could also do with a Category:Japanese royalty stubs / {{Japan-royal-stub}} to take out a further 60+. Waacstats (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
And one final possibility is Category:Japanese era stubs / {{Japan-era-stub}} (215 according to catscan). Waacstats (talk) 14:37, 27 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.

Split of Category:artist 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.
Oversized, however {{India-artist-stub}} has been cajooled up to 61 articles. Speedy create Category:Indian artist stubs? Waacstats (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Very much so. Alai (talk) 10:27, 28 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.

split of Category:BBC Television 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.
Oversized propose the following

figures per catscan. Waacstats (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support SeveroTC 14:31, 31 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.

split of Category:Norwegian people stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Both these are viable by existing templates

Speedy? Waacstats (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. Alai (talk) 15:53, 30 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.

split of Category:United States sportspeople 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.
American sportspeople is over 700 one sport with atleast 60 stubs is volleyball so I 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.

Canadian model stubs - Yet another speedy?

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.
{{Canada-model-stub}} is over 60 so we need Category:Canadian model stubs. Waacstats (talk) 16:42, 28 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.

Split of Category:Naval ship 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.
Very close to 800 the following are viable according to catscan

Waacstats (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support SeveroTC 14:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy both. I spent some time and was able to put about 80 stubs in existing sub-cats and strongly believe we could also use {{Euro-mil-ship-stub}} Category:European naval ship stubs. I don't have the exact count but between Sweden, Germany, Finland, and the rest of Europe this is well over the required 60. Sadly, New Zealand only clocked in at 49 and the CSA at 45. - Dravecky (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer we didn't create a {{euro-mil-ship-stub}} template, just upmerged by-country templates. Alai (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Then I'll withdraw that part. The category is still acceptable, yes? - Dravecky (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Absolutely. Alai (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, all taken care of and a few upmerged templates created to feed Category:European naval ship stubs plus a very thorough by-hand vetting of the 800ish articles for proper stubbing has drained it to about 340 or so. I still don't know what to do with the Confederate stubs but that's a discussion for a later time. - Dravecky (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • At the risk of crossing the beams: assuming there's <60 of these, perhaps an upmerged template feeding into the US type? (Which it might be necessary to slightly tweak the wording of.) Alai (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll bring it up in a week or so. Norway, too. - Dravecky (talk) 09:55, 8 April 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.

Split of Category:American Civil War 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.
Oversized and 500+ are for units so propose {{AmericanCivilWar-unit-stub}} and Category:American Civil War unit stubs. Waacstats (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support SeveroTC 14:31, 31 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.

Category:National Register of Historic Places 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 regional cats as proposed; indiv state cats to use "Foo Registered Historic Place stubs".
Oversized. No state appears to have 60 articles so I propose splitting by the usual 4 areas using the upmerged state templates. so we need

Waacstats (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. You're probably right that we don't need an explicit "United States". Alai (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
First sort the about 350-odd stubs that have the base {{NHRP-stub}} and recheck to see if any state has the necessary 60 stubs. Only if after doing that we still have over 800 NHRP stubs that aren't in a state category should we go for the regional categories. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
As it happens, it looks as if Pennsylvania is viable, on the basis of the recent db dump data. But I still support the regional cats, since that'd still leave the parent distinctly large. Alai (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support both state-specific templates and regional cats. There are quite a few simply marked with geo- or struct-stub types too (I tried to add a Texas-NRHP-stub to something last week, and was surprised that the template didn't exist). Grutness...wha? 03:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    • BTW, note the related article I've just added at SFD - I don't think we need to be splitting out individual city-NRHP templates! Grutness...wha? 03:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • All states now have a templates, the remaing (<20) stubs are for general NRHP or are for places outside of the USA (Guam, USVI etc). AS far as I can tell only Category:Pennsylvania National Register of Historic Places stubs and Category:South Carolina National Register of Historic Places stubs would be over 60 which would still leave us with over 800 articles. So I propose adding these two categories to the proposal. Waacstats (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sure you can speedy those, and support the original proposal as well. Her Pegship (tis herself) 13:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ack! I just discovered whist doing the two speedies myself that for some reason the state level stubs have been using the format Category:Pennsylvania Registered Historic Place stubs (which her Pegshipfullness had created) whilst I had created Category:Pennsylvania National Register of Historic Places stubs and Category:South Carolina National Register of Historic Places stubs. Should we consider changing the existing stub categories to use teh longer name or should I just send the two cats I created to speedy delete and create Category:South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs instead. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"places" is right - it's still only one register, so it would be the correct singular. Grutness...wha? 23:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Lemming-like, I followed the format that existed before my efforts. Off to sfd with them...Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree: the existing categories make more sense, and more closely correspond to the permcats. Those latter don't use "National", and as they don't use the original "NRHP" phrase in full, normal "singularisation" rules would then apply. (Each stub is about one place, not about one register.) Alai (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Using that logic, we also need to change Category:United States geography stubs to Category:United State geography stubs. We'd also need to have Category:Olympic Game stubs. There is no such thing as the National Register of Historic Place, so it is not a valid singular form. The stubs refer to the National Register of Historic Places (of which there is only one, so it is singular) albeit they are each about an individual place. Grutness...wha? 22:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Eh, no, that would be misapplying some completely different logic. To repeat: Each stub is about one place, not about one register. The permcat names do not use the phrase "National Register of Historic Places", so once again, "preserving" such usage is a non-issue. Alai (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
My feeling is that given the permcats use initial capitals (Places) then Registered Historic Places is some sort of (semi)official phrase and therefore we should go with Places. Waacstats (talk) 11:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The official phrase is National Register of Historic Places, and the by-state permcats are simply using a chopped up version of that. The "Registered Historic Places" of Category:Registered Historic Places in Ohio, etc, doesn't seem to be even quasi-official (no more or less than is "Registered Historic Place"). If one wants to use the official term, one should first do so in the permcats; that the permcats don't, suggests to me that they're chosen to avoid excessively tortured usage (which we should likewise do, by not double-pluralising). Alai (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the original discussion didn't address the plural/non-plural issue, so we should nail it down now. The NRHP website doesn't use a blanket term for all types of properties on its register; there are subcategories of National Historic Landmarks, National Heritage Areas, and National Parks. I don't think anyone wants to start breaking down the NRHP stubs that far (yet!), so I suggest we go with the flow and use State of Foo Registered Historic Place stubs as initially used. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
We probably will need the more specific breakdown before much longer -- we already have a form of it for Florida. (In which case, we lack the by-state parent. Hrm.) Though there's also the issue of breaking down by county or region, vs. by type... Alai (talk) 08:19, 29 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.

Category:Croatia 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.
701 stubs. I propose creating three stub categories for each of the historical regions of Croatia that the counties are grouped into, and merging into those categories county level stub templates for each county. Aelfthrytha (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What would said historic regions be? Do we have articles of them? Alai (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
They are described at Counties of Croatia halfway down the page next to the animated country map. Aelfthrytha (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. That seems to split a couple a counties in half, but close enough for jazz/government work/stub cat lumping. Support. Alai (talk) 06:39, 27 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.

{{Antarctica-stub}}/ Category:Antarctica stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Believe it or not, we don't have a pure and simple Antarctica stub. We do have a geo-stub, which is currently a dumping ground for non-geographic items like expeditions and climatological features of the continent. While struggling to get close to 60 stubs, this would make a very useful parent cat, and Antarctica-geo-stub is getting a bit too big (it's also undersorted - a lot of the stubs could be marked with subantarctic-geo-stub, but that's another matter). Grutness...wha? 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be consistent with my own (admittedly casual) observation of the Ant-geos, when they made it unto the oversized list. Support. Alai (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Support for all those reasons and an only semi-rational need for a "complete" set of continent-level stub categories. - Dravecky (talk) 02:02, 25 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.

Category:English musician stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Template had been on to do since nov 06 now has over 60 articlces from oversized Category:English people stubs. obviously there are plenty more under British musician stubs if anyone is interested. Waacstats (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Support the former, fairly deeply uninterested in the latter. :) Alai (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm doing the latter, Category:British musician stubs is quite large and this cat takes about 200 articles out of it. SeveroTC 20:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Trouble is, you'll end up with another that's 90% as large, and we'll be back to looking for means to re-split it. So the payoff of benefit for the effort involved seems small. By genre and/or by instrument is probably ultimately more useful. Alai (talk) 21:53, 31 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.

Category:Water sports stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Propose {{water-sports-bio-stub}} upmerged, around 40 of the 100 articles in above cat are biography articles. SeveroTC 10:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support and relevent cat if it proves to reach 60. Waacstats (talk) 01:55, 23 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.

Category:English auto racing biography stubs/{{england-autoracing-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.
Prevent double tagging in around 94 articles. No other UK division reaches 20 articles. SeveroTC 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Slightly bizarre, but if the English nationalists (some of them often seemingly to be Scots nationalists engaging in some sort of unionist ju-jitsu) insist, I suppose we have to facilitate them. Support. Alai (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised Scotland hadn't got to this split first, to be honest. Many of the UK's best known racers have been Scots. BTW, is this name in line with the permcats? It's called motor racing in the UK. Grutness...wha? 22:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It'd be a subcat of the stub category Category:United Kingdom auto racing biography stubs so if we wanted to use motor racing we'd need to take that one to SFD as well. The permcats are slightly differently named: Category:British racecar drivers, Category:English racecar drivers, Category:Latvian racecar drivers etc. I was also surprised about Scotland. SeveroTC 00:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully, the best-known ones aren't stubs any more! I'd support renaming the existing stub cats to follow the permcats, and adding redirects to cover the variations in naming. Alai (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This is difficult because motorsports governing body, the FIA, only recognises Britain as a nationality for entrants. The current consensus that the Motorsport Wikiprojects' members have come to, is to follow the FIA and classify drivers as being British not English/Scottish/Welsh/NIrish. Breaking the consensus for a stub category title could open the floodgates for edit warring and would cause inconsistency. AlexJ (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Then the Category:English racecar drivers, Category:Northern Irish racecar drivers, Category:Scottish racecar drivers and Category:Welsh racecar drivers permcats need to be taken to Categories for Discussion: there are significant numbers of articles within these categories which suggest the concensus taken at WikiProject Motorsport is not strong. You can only expect stub categories to follow the permanent categories. In this sense, the "floodgates" are already open. SeveroTC 20:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, then that's something that may need addressing. A point that may also be relevant is that the stub category is "auto racing biography stubs" while the permcats are "racecar drivers". There are people that are in the stub category (e.g. team principal Nick Wirth) that aren't drivers. AlexJ (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
well, that's the intention - it saves us having tiny stub categories for other people connected with the sport, but keeps them where interested editor an find them - it's the way most sports bio stubs are organised. My initial comment wasn't that it needed to be moved to racecar driver stubs, just that the term "Auto racing", which is perfetly acceptable in the US, is not used in the UK - and as such, Foo motor racing bio stubs might be a better name where that term is more widely accepted (the UK, Australia, NZ, and probably S Africa). It's simply another "render unto Caesar" case, and - given that we don't entirely reflect the permcats here for the reasons I've mentioned - shouldn't need huge changes across the board. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
One point to note is that the terms "motor racing" and "auto racing" aren't interchangeable: "motor racing" includes motorcycle racing, whereas "auto racing" does not. And "motorsport" is different again, as it also includes non-racing motorised sport, such as Freestyle Motocross and drifting. DH85868993 (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Alex, if it's inappropriate for the drivers to be identified by their constituent country (as opposed to merely largely pointless and somewhat annoying, as I would generally claim), then they shouldn't have existing {{England-bio-stub}}, {{England-sport-bio-stub}}, etc on them, either. That they do suggests there's something for a tendency for some people to want to add them on such a basis. Since the whole point of stub-sorting is to avoid such general categories getting endlessly larger, re-splitting on such a basis (and re-combining the double-stubbing) is almost inevitable (unless the CC types start being removed systematically -- or at least, slightly more systematically than they're being added). It doesn't really matter if FIA recognises these "nationalities": WP is not bound to follow "official" definitions (though it may be the way to go, all other things being equal). As Grutness says, the "drivers" permcat being generalised to "biography stubs" is fairly standard practice, for purposes of inclusivity. DH85868993 (can I call you 85868993 for short?) you make a very good point about the scoping of the sport terms. (Though motor sport and motor racing both redirect to auto racing, so so much for such nuances in the article space!) There is an all-inclusive Category:motorsport, so we could always follow that scoping for stub hierarchy, starting with Category:motorsport biography stubs, with parallel splits/refinements by country and by particular sport... Alai (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Part of the issue here is proof. How do you prove that someone is English (Welsh, Scottish, NIrish etc etc), and that it is appropriate to apply the category to them? You can prove their place of birth, but that's not necessarily the same thing (see Kevin Pietersen). Passports don't do it either, because they only exist for the UK as a whole. For sportspeople you can also prove which country they competed for. So for football, and most sports, you can identify 'English' sportsmen and women fairly easily, they're the ones that compete for England. Motorsport though happens to work on the basis of passport nationality, hence the preference for using UK for all home nations drivers, it's provable and it's what happens in the real world for this sport.
Regarding your point about the other England bio categories Alai, motorsport may just have to be inconsistent with the other sport cats here. 4u1e (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you need to take your issue to Categories for discussion. In the medium-term, you will need to make sure that none of the articles are then labelled as Category:English sportspeople or {{England-sport-bio-stub}} and so on, and to ensure the lede refers to the subject as British not English etc. SeveroTC 17:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, what is the issue that I'm taking to Categories for discussion? I thought this discussion was about the potential creation of a new category. I'm pointing out some reasons why that might not be a good idea. Are we saying that this discussion is now finished (presumably with a decision not to create the new category)? I'm confused! 4u1e (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
If there is consensus not to split UK drivers into home nation, then you need to take Category:English racecar drivers, Category:Northern Irish racecar drivers, Category:Scottish racecar drivers and Category:Welsh racecar drivers to categories for discussion so that a discussion into their deletion can occur. If it's decided that these categories shouldn't exist, then separate stub types are very unlikely to be created. If the categories remain, separate stub types are likely to be created. SeveroTC 19:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think Severo sums the basics of this up quite nicely. If there are English (etc) permcats, etc, and people are already tagging such articles with England- stub types, citing FIA (whose practice, as I say, by no means binds our own) in order to say that there couldn't possibly be English motor sports stub types, since how would anyone ever know such a person was English... aside, that is, from the existing categorisation, and stub-tagging, would seem a little Canute-like. It's not (just) a matter of consistency, but of practicality: it reduces the utility of stub types if they're allowed to grow indefinitely. Thus, if the {{England-bio-stub}} type becomes increasingly full of motorsports people, then telling us that "no motor sports person is officially English" doesn't butter many parsnips. The issues are not fundamentally different than with Category:English actor stubs, Category:English writer stubs, etc: those have no "officially English" status either. Marginal cases aren't really a problem, since those can remain tagged with the UK- type. (As can anything already not using an England- template, for all I care, in fact.) Alai (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm proposing going forward with this now. The English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish permcats aren't being dealt with and numerous articles are double tagged. SeveroTC 20:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I emphatically agree. The objectors have failed to address the nature of the status quo, in either action or debate. Alai (talk) 22:17, 7 April 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.

Split of Category:asteroid 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.
ClueBotII's been busy. There are now over 6,000 articles in Category:Asteroid stubs. These are in serious need of a split, and we probably need help from the astronomy WP to know how (I'll contact them). I'd suggest splitting them according to the families in Category:Asteroid_groups_and_families, but spectral class (as at Category:Asteroid spectral classes may make more sense. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Existing splits -- apparently ignored by the bot -- use a combination of location (MB+rest) and spectral class. Alai (talk) 23:44, 21 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.

Category:Aisne geography stubs, by arrondissement

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 good news is that Category:Picardie geography stubs is now much less than a page (and could probably be almost entirely cleaned out with further re-sorting by hand, but unfortunately one of its constituent departments is now itself somewhat oversized. I suggest splitting into its five arrondissements. Many of the dept. types are going to be large, so I'd have consider a further split all 'round on a forward-looking basis, but the information just isn't in most of the articles, which are largely pico-stubs. Hopefully there won't be much additional growth, at least before someone actually starts adding significant content to the existing article... Alai (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Waacstats (talk) 10:06, 24 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.

Category:Japanese politician 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.
Unfortunatly there are no perm cats for by legislature or party splits so as at 799articles I propose a split by Decade of birth. templates along the lines of {{Japan-politician-1960s-stub}} and categories for those over 60 along the lines ofCategory:Japanese politician, 1960s birth stubs. Stubsense shows that 1930s-1960s are all viable. Waacstats (talk) 14:11, 20 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.

Category:Quebec politician 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.
Oversized the following are viable according to stubsense

There is some overlap (don't know how much) so I doubt we need all of these. Any suggestions. Waacstats (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that for Ontario we have the equivalent of the middle two. Waacstats (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I certainly hope we don'ty have a "municapal" stub for Ontario :) Support. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
don'ty? :) Waacstats (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
What's that old Murphy's law about making a typo when mentioning someone else's typo? :) Grutness...wha? 22:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I have boldly fixed the typo in the proposed template. - Dravecky (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a well-known corollary of Murphy's, otherwise known as the First Law of Spelling Flames. :) Alai (talk) 06:14, 28 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.

Cameroon-lang-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 Chadic types.
Category:Languages of Cameroon has 79 articles, virtually all stubs tagged with {{Cameroon-stub}} and {{lang-stub}}. As Cameroon is a country with over 250 langauges, there is lots of potential for growth here. Probably a good idea to make a merged {{Cameroon-lang-stub}}. — Dulcem (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not totally averse to it, but language stubs are normally split by language group, not individual country. All of those would probably be better marked with {{nc-lang-stub}} (Category:Niger-Congo language stubs). That allows for the possibility that some of those stubs aren't entirely confined to Cameroon. (On which subject, Category:Language stubs needs someone who knows about such things to go through it with a shovel). Grutness...wha? 01:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Dulcem's suggestion is attractive in that it'd get rid of a chunk of double-stubbing, but on balance Grutness's suggestion seems the better way to go, for consistency of "split axis", and to avoid potential overlap. Cranking the db handle on the lang-stubs by family, all of the following look to be viable:
  • Afro-Asiatic_languages | 242 |
  • Chadic_languages | 163 |
  • Indo-European_languages | 140 |
  • Austronesian_languages | 117 |
  • Gallo-Iberian_languages | 89 |
  • Anglo-Frisian_languages | 83 |
  • Semitic_languages | 70 |
  • Biu-Mandara_languages | 69 |
  • Central_Semitic_languages | 68 |
  • Gallo-Romance_languages | 67 |
  • Germanic_languages | 67 |
  • West_Chadic_languages | 62 |

... several of which clearly already exist as stub types, and some of which clearly overlap to a large degree. I'll let others chime in as to which look the most useful groups, but the actual re-tagging is probably automatable to a significant degree. Alai (talk) 02:55, 17 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.

BC geos, by (broad) region

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 again, and no single Regional District seems to be viable. However, these broader regions seem to be well-defined enough to have their own articles and categories, and would each make the numerical threshold. Alai (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Support and these will be populated by official region templates? Waacstats (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
By regional district? Yes, that seems the best way to go. As if I don't have enough templates to be creating! :) Alai (talk) 15:11, 18 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.

Category:protein stubs, by chromosome (sic)

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 to come to the 7600kg elephant in the room: there's a huge number of bot-created articles tagged with this that are actually not on proteins, but on genes (that typically code for a particular protein, of course, hence the logic in so tagging them). Specifically, they're mostly categorised in the likes of Category:genes on chromosome 2, which are in the Category:genetics tree, rather than the Category:proteins one. Accordingly, I propose a series of Category:chromosome N gene stubs types, with a Category:gene stubs parent, in the existing Category:genetics stubs. I'm tempted to add "human" as a qualifier, by the permcats don't do so, so I'll resist unless there's a proposal to rename those. Alai (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support: something needs to be done to subcategorize the huge number of stubs being created and the chromosome distinction seems like the most logical solution (chr info is already computed by protein box bot so is available for most these stubs) ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 18:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Makes a lot of sense. JFW | T@lk 21:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, but I'd like to see the specification that these are on Human chromosomes. We have the potential for this same mess to happen when another organism's genes get imported by bot, since several other organisms (like yeast and corn) have had their genomes sequenced. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The ones that I looked at were, explicitly (also having the category Category:human proteins, and the text "human gene"). I can add checks for that when re-stubbing, but if you're concerned with what the bot's doing, I'd take that up with the op. If you'd like to see the permcats renamed, my immediate thought would be to support that (in Another Place). Alai (talk) 04:00, 20 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.

Divide Mexico-geo-stub into the states

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.
There are over 800 Mexico geo stubs and division by state would make these more navigable, more useful, and better sorted. There are corresponding categories for each Mexican state and the state geo-stub categories would nicely dovetail into those. So, the formal proposal would be to estabish the following:


Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • And too small: there's no possible way that more than a dozen of these could possibly be numerically viable. BTW, there's not yet over 800, so this isn't quite an "urgent case" (just yet). Suggest creation of upmerged templates for the majority of these. I can find no indication of well-defined larger regions of Mexico, so I can see no obvious "lumping" strategy to deal with the size issue. Alai (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Incidentally, I'm come across one or two off-WP sources as to "regions" of Mexico, so there could be some hope on that front. However, even splitting between around 10, some will almost certainly be undersized, so I wouldn't rush to do it that way unless there's some evidence said regions are indeed "generally accepted", to some reasonable degree. Alai (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes to the templates, but no to the categories. Upmerge them all for now - any that reach 60 stubs can be broken out once that's confirmed. Grutness...wha? 22:49, 14 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.

{{tank-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 upmerged tpl.
To serve the significant numbers (I'd say...) of tanks that aren't generalized "military vehicles". Trekphiler (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the ambiguousness of the word tank and the fairly small size (by Stub sorting standards) of Category:Military vehicle stubs (214 stubs), I can't support this. Maybe an {{armour-vehicle-stub}} (with redirect {{armor-vehicle-stub}}) if splitting by type is needed by editors. However, from the viewpoint of sorters, a nation based split with stubs such as {{US-mil-vehicle-stub}} would be more useful as even if there be only enough for upmerged templates, they'd eliminate some double stubbing. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I know we generally frown on adjectival template names, but {{armoured-vehicle-stub}} would perhaps be a more intuitive name, though I agree that splitting by nation is more useful for stub-splitters. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
We already have {{armour-stub}} (with redirect {{armor-stub}} for stubs concerning mainly personal armor, so I'd favor using the noun form on that basis alone even without the general rule, not that I'd object to using the adjective form if that proved to be the preferred form. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah - I'd forgotten about armour-stub. Yeah, okay, that makes sense. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This wouldn't be a sub-type of armour-stub, though, so such a name would be slightly inconsistent. (Vehicular armour would be, but not armoured vehicles. It's a slim difference, but they have distinct permcats...) Arguably, {{armouredvehicle-stub}} would be most strictly correct... OTOH, I'd be inclined to not bother splitting at present, and just create an upmerged {{tank-stub}}, on the grounds of obviousness of the name, rather than actual re-sorting need. Alai (talk) 05:15, 7 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/March_2008&oldid=1141484880"