Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/September 2006 completed

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

This is an archive page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub Sorting. Please move completed September discussions to this page as they occur, add discussion headers to each proposal showing the result, and leave any incomplete discussions on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals page for now.

Those who create a stub template/cat should be responsible for moving the discussion here. Any unresolved or rejected types can be migrated by consensus on the proposals page after a reasonable amount of time.

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

Discussion headers: {{sfp create}}, {{sfp nocreate}}, {{sfp other}} (for no consensus), or {{sfp top}} for customized result description (use {{sfp top|result}})
Discussion footer: {{sfd bottom}}

September 2006

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.

As a substub of RC Church stubs. I think many of more than 300 encyclicals are worth of mention. --Brand спойт 10:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

comment ambiguous name. Monni 11:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

{{Encyclical-stub}}? Brand спойт 11:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

well... atleast it is less ambiguous, but next question is what is the permanent (non-stub) category. Monni 11:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose unless there's evidence for actual numerical viability. Given that Category:Papal Encyclicals has 54 articles, many of them non-stubs (and many of them non-encyclicals), this sounds a lot like redlink-sorting. Consider rescoping this to all of Category:Catholic theology and doctrine, as I believe there's already a standing proposal to do. Alai 17:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Caution - sounds a lot like abbreviation for an "encyclopedia" Goldenrowley 03:47, 13 September 2006 (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 over 350 sharks species, and a lot of them on wikipedia are still only stubs, so this stub and stub category would work with the Sharks wikiproject to bring them up to a better standard. There is a fish-stub already but since there are about 25,000 fishes this seems quite a broad stub category. --chris_huh 17:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds plausible, but could you get a more specific count of how many existing stubs there are? Aelfthrytha 17:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what we are currently looking at at the project. I will try and get a number for you --chris_huh 17:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a number: 58. (Based on fish-stubs also under Category:Sharks.) That's plenty given the wikiproject, but the template name should be {{shark-stub}} (and the category name, Category:shark stubs). I've altered the heading accordingly. Alai 18:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to put that up, beat me to it, oh well. Also, there is a List of sharks which gives an idea to how many there are, plus how many stubs that will soon be created since most of the species will start as just a stub. --chris_huh 18:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but the point of stub sorting is existing articles. Redlinks don't categorise so well... Alai 19:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, what i meant, and probably didn't make so clear, is that these articles will all be started and become stubs soon, so that number of 58 will increase rapidly quite soon. --chris_huh 19:53, 5 September 2006 (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.

Sao Tome geo-stub, plus ten more template-only 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.

This fortnight's swing-past of the geo-stubs indicates only one country which has reached threshold for a split, and - to keep it in line with the non-geo name - it should be at {{SaoTomePrincipe-geo-stub}} (possibly with a redirect from {{SaoTome-geo-stub}}).

I'd also like to propose using the "Alai solution" on a few more countries, creating several nation-specific geo-stub templates and directing them (for now) to their continent/region categories and country-specific non-geo categories. I propose doing that with those countries with 45 or more geo-stubs. Those countries are:

{{Cambodia-geo-stub}} (→ Southeast Asia geography stubs)
{{Seychelles-geo-stub}} (→ East Africa geography stubs)
{{Comoros-geo-stub}} (→ Southern Africa geography stubs)
{{Marshalls-geo-stub}} (→ Oceania geography stubs)
{{NewCaledonia-geo-stub}} (→ Oceania geography stubs)
{{Laos-geo-stub}} (→ Southeast Asia geography stubs)
{{Niger-geo-stub}} (→ West Africa geography stubs)
{{EastTimor-geo-stub}} (→ Southeast Asia geography stubs)
{{Gambia-geo-stub}} (→ West Africa geography stubs)
{{Vanuatu-geo-stub}} (→ Oceania geography stubs)

Any objections or suggestions? Grutness...wha? 05:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

PS - the reason I chose 45 was simply to get an even 10 to split, and so as not to make too much work in one go. That will leave 65 "countries" or varying descriptions still without geo-stubs, some of which are straightforward enough to deal with in the same way whenever they are proposed, others of which will need more serious debate. Grutness...wha? 05:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Eponymous support, I suppose! Alai 15:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Support - with regret that I won't be able to help sort them because of another trip. Aelfthrytha 17:21, 5 September 2006 (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.

{{euro-film-stub}} / Category:European film stubs

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

The result of the debate was do not create.
Ernst Stavro Blofeld asked for this one, so I'm proposing it on his behalf. We already have {{France-film-stub}}, {{Italy-film-stub}}, and {{UK-film-stub}}, but this could cover the German, Romanian, Dutch, Polish and other worthy European contributions. I'll count 'em up. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, except that under {{film-stub}} I only count 37 articles that would qualify. Maybe not. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

But there are definitely plenty more in the many sub-categories of film-stub.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 00:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I searched down to a depth of 3, which would (presumably) include drama-film-stub, comedy-film-stub, etc., for anything categorized by country - Romanian films, Polish films, etc. If anyone can come up with a larger list, please do so. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 04:05, 3 September 2006 (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.

{{weather-stub}} vs. {{climate-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 as revised & upmerge cat.
Unfortunately, I did not see this page before I created the weather-stub template and started modifying articles, but it is definately needed. Climatology and meteorology can overlap for many articles, but currently there are many articles marked as climatology/meteorology stubs when they clearly have nothing to do with climatology. This stub marker would be very useful, especially for specific weather events. Runningonbrains 21:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that the category for {{climate-stub}} is Category:Climatology - Meteorology stubs, so the overlap is by definition total. This would require renaming and scoping both, one to be about weather and meteorology, and one to be about climate, only, if that can be done cleanly. Alai 22:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The overlap would be a difficult one to sort out. I suggest that it may be too difficult to exactly define two separate categories and that weather-stub should probably become a redirect to climate-stub (or vice versa). Grutness...wha? 23:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me make my argument a little more clear. Currently, weather events, such as, say, a blizzard, or a strong tornado, are marked with {{climate-stub}}. A specific weather event really has nothing to do with climatology, and really isnt meteorology (the study of weather) either, but just what it is: a weather event.

If a comprimise is needed, I could change {{weather-stub}} to say something like "This article about a specific weather event is a stub"...and so on.

As for the requirement of 50 stubs which fall under the umbrella, I went through the climate stubs category quickly and found at least 39, and I'm sure there are at least 50 out there. -Runningonbrains 05:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's neither clearer, nor a compromise. The distinction between "meteorology" and "weather events" is not helpful, and doesn't correspond to the existing (permanent) categories. This needs to be changed so that either: {{weather-stub}} feeds into Category:meteorology stubs, {{climate-stub}} feeds into Category:climatology stubs, and Category:Climatology - Meteorology stubs is deleted; or so that both feed into Category:Climatology - Meteorology stubs -- which is quite clearly intended to include within its scope "weather events". Given the weak populability, I'm inclined to say the latter. Either way, Category:Weather - Meteorology stubs needs to go. Alai 06:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me being a wikinoob, but I really don't understand why this is not a good thing. We have stub categories like Category:Algeria stubs, but then under that, we have Category:Algeria geography stubs, a more specific category for a certain aspect of algeria. In the same way, I'm proposing a stub category specifically for weather event stubs. {{climate-stub}} could stay exactly how it is...no modification of current categories would be needed. Is this possible/a good idea, and if not, why? -Runningonbrains 18:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it we do have {{hurricane-stub}} for extreme wind events. Are many of those 39 covered by that? If carefully worded to make it clear that individual weather events are what is mean by weather-stub (which should probably more correctly then be weatherevent-stub), it might be viable at least as a separate template within the same category for now, until such time as there are enough for a separate category. I agree with Alai about the deletion of the almost duplicate category that's there though. Grutness...wha? 23:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, these are non-tropical cyclone events. The whole reason I bring this up is because I'm working with a few others on re-starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology which has been quite dead for awhile. I've already come upon a few other stubs that could qualify under this new template, and I would go ahead and move the new template to weather-event-stub or something like that if needed. -Runningonbrains 02:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I could change Category:Weather - Meteorology stubs to Category:Weather event stubs. -Runningonbrains 02:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that there's a Category:Weather events, that would be in principle well-scoped. Are there 60 stubs fitting that description? Alai 03:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I went back through quickly...there are at least 60, probably more than 100. -Runningonbrains 04:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, good enough for me. This still leaves an awkwardly-named parent, corresponding to no permanent category, but one step at a time... Alai 05:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, just to be clear, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to change {{weather-stub}} to feed into Category:Weather event stubs, then put up Category:Weather - Meteorology stubs for deletion. Is this good? -Runningonbrains 05:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. As you're the only contributor, if you're agreeable it can be deleted immediately once empty, without the SFD paraphenalia. Alai 15:38, 5 September 2006 (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.

I have just created a WikiProject for stagecraft and there are well over 30 articles about stagecraft. Therefore I would like to have a stub to add to articles about stagecraft.Lekogm 03:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, sounds plausible. Why not call the template just {{stagecraft-stub}}, though? Alai 04:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hrm. More and more bluelinks at this proposal all the time... Alai 04:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  - I feel as though at some point theater project may eventually asorb us, as stagecraft is part of theater, and therefore I thought naming the stub in their style would be apropriate. As for the creation of the stub already, I got a little over zealous before reading the rules about creating a stub and I apologise for that.Lekogm 21:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    - No harm done. I've no strong feelings either way, but the template namespace doesn't have to be quite so strictly hierarchical (otherwise we'd end up with some very long tags -- I mean, even longer than we actually have). Alai 00:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
      - I have been thinking about it for a few days, and I agree that calling this Stub {{stagecraft-theat-stub}} is silly, therefore I think {{stagecraft-stub}} would be a better name and would like to opt for that. --Lekogm 20:49, 11 September 2006 (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 a substub of Greece stubs and European Buildings and Structure stubs. I think many of more than 70 articles belong to that stubs. --User:KRBN 02:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Support, if you're in the right ballpark on size. Alai 01:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Support as Alai. Greece was always one which looked like a likely split off from the Euro-struct-stub (Sweden, Netherlands, and Norway were also inching up towards the threshold at the time I stopped doing regular counts of this category). Grutness...wha? 06:36, 7 September 2006 (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.

{{north-California-geo-stub}} and rename of {{California-south-geo-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create templates by county, and category by regions where at least 60 articles.

First of all, there are almost 800 articles in {{California-geo-stub}}, so sorting is necesary. We already have a stub for southern california, so it makes sense there should be one on northern california too. As for the other part of my proposal, I just want to rename {{California-south-geo-stub}} to {{south-California-geo-stub}}. It seems like a better name, but I'm not sure if moving stub cats is possible. If not, then I think we should have {{California-north-geo-stub}} to go with {{California-south-geo-stub}}. --Daniel Olsen 22:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem with the rename: technically it should go to SFD(R), but if you don't want the old template deleted and all the articles moved over, just be bold and do it, at least if there's a modicum of support for this at the Wikiproject. OTOH, the new type seems to me to be problematic, as Northern California seems to be very variable, if not to say very un-, in its definition. So far as I understand it (which isn't very...) there's no universally-applied system of districting in CA, so really only the counties are clearly defined and recognisable. Can I suggest "templatising" by county, but as these will be seriously undersized in the main, feeding them into larger common categories? So say Category:Bay Area geography stubs, Category:Sacramento Valley geography stubs, Category:San Joaquin Valley geography stubs, and whatever other identifiable regions that can defined in terms of a list of counties, and would pass the threshold of 60. Alai 15:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- A redirect would be my choice over a whole complicated delete and move. You are correct about there being no clear cut definitions for NorCal/SoCal, but anything above (and in) the Bay Area is definitely considered NorCal, and anything south of the Techapis is considered southern, with everything inbetween usually considered Central. This is coming from a Californian born and raised, and the articles about the three regions. Category:Northern California geography stubs encompasses Category:Bay Area geography stubs and Category:Sacramento Valley geography stubs, along with anything else not covered by those. We probably need a Category:Central California Stubs category as well, which would be the parent of Category:San Joaquin Valley geography stubs and anything else in the area. I would ask the folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject California what they think of that, but that project is dead/dying, so I'll leave it up to you in this project. Yea or nay?--Daniel Olsen 00:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  - Central California isn't even an article, it's a disambiguation page (whereas Northern California is merely a rather ambiguous article). I'd still prefer smaller (so we don't have to be splitting them again sooner than is necessary), more clearly scoped categories per my suggestions, but anything that's relatively well-understood, and is definable (and is explicitly defined) in terms of a concrete list of counties (and ideally with a template for each county) is acceptable, for my money. Alai 01:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    - Would a {{LosAngeles-geo-stub}} reduce some pressure on these categories? (Yeah, I know that's south, but I suspect a lot of the problem is under-sorting) Grutness...wha? 01:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
      - I don't think a Los Angeles cat would help, because then you have to deal with whether you're talking about the US Census Bureau definition of the city, LA county, or the Greater Los Angeles Area. The Greater Area includes everything in the southern california except for two counties, so it's a little redundant in my opinion. --Daniel Olsen 05:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
        I'd suggest the county, myself, if viable. Alai 05:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    - I was just suggesting that we have categories just as small as yours, but also 3 parent categories for california that will catch things that don't fall into any of the smaller ones. I think for sorting through 800ish articles that it would be easier to sort them into 3 first, and then into smaller ones. This is my first time trying to work in the stub sorting project, you probably know the process better: how many subcategories each stub cat should have, etc. --Daniel Olsen 05:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
      - Ah, I'd misunderstood on that first point, then. There's no particular criteria for how many subcats there should be: all 58 counties individually would be feasible, were they large enough (which obviously they're not); just north and south, or north and south and central have the definitional problems I mentioned; other alleged districts or regions may be somewhat arbitrary. {I notice that the contents of Category:regions of California are a little thin.) Sorting three ways, and then additional ways afterwards is just more work all 'round, due to wholesale double-handling. Or rather, two ways, since the SoCals are already split, so you're really saying 'split the Northern Californias (by one definition) into the Northerns (by another definition) and the Centrals. From an "efficiency" point of view, splitting about a 800 article category about 10-12 equal-sized ways would be "best", but what's a natural sudivision, what's convenient for editors, and what corresponds to existing categorisation is more reasonable and useful. Alai 05:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
        The Northern California article is very ambiguous on the definition of northern California, but it's always been my understanding that the bay area up was northern california. If you'd rather not make a line to work with, that's fine. So far we've come up with:

We could also throw in:

That should knock out enough of them to depopulate the Category:California stubs a bit. --Daniel Olsen 06:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting there's any ambiguity as regards SF, it's more to do with whether "Northern" means "everything but Southern", or not. Your suggestions are fine with me, if as I say above, they're each definable in a recognisable manner as a set of counties. Alai 06:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Bay Area" and "North Coast" will probably need a bit of disambiguating in the category and template names - a lot of places have north coasts (I instantly thought of Queensland), and though bay Area is fairly obvious it might still be a bit vague. Grutness...wha? 06:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That's true, both article and permanent category are at Category:San Francisco Bay Area. Alai 08:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! I'm just so used to saying just "bay area". I meant San Francisco Bay Area stubs and California north coast stubs. As for lists of counties, I'll work on including a clear definiton of which counties are included when making the stubs. --Daniel Olsen 23:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I live in Bay Area and North of the Bay. How about using these shorter and very well known abbreviations?

~~{{{{tl|No-Cal-geo-stub}}~~ but I'd agree with proposal if this abbreviation is not standard

{{So-Cal-geo-stub}} ditto

Onto your proposed categories of northern California:

Category:San Francisco Bay Area geography stubs strong agree very well defined region.
Category:Sacramento Valley geography stubs strong agree
Category:Sierra Nevada geography stubs agree, but it's both north or south, will do South and North versions?
Category:Mojave Desert geography stubs ? Off topic. That's in South Cal. -
Category:North Coast geography stubs disagree but instead: Anything north of Bay Area is either in the regions of Napa-Sonoma Wine Region, Trinity Alps Region or Shasta Region. Goldenrowley 02:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of No-cal, NorCal is what I've always heard. The stub categories I was suggesting would be for throughout California, not just Norcal. Way way way up there I was originally going for Norcal, but the proposal has evolved into trying to find a good number of stubs to divide California into. As for your split of north coast, do you think there'd be enough stubs for those categories to be worth it? I picked North coast because it's easily definable and expansive enough to be populated with a good number of articles. --Daniel Olsen 03:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Ok on Mojave Desert then. On North Coast: Well, California does not have a North Coast it has a West Coast. You might call it Coastal counties, but it covers only towns on Highway 1 and its pretty slim region. I dont think you'd find 60 stubs there above Bay Area, but if you do, ok to think of it as its own thing. Goldenrowley 07:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

California North Coast characterises said region as being five counties, which might struggle to hit 60, but isn't likely to be a million miles away. Let's try and stick to generally recognised regions reather than trying to invent our own. Alai 08:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

How about the 'Northern Pacific' region then? I beleive it can extend further inland and cover more counties than the towns right on the coast. I believe this comes from the railroad routes to mean the north and west quadrant of California. Daniel you are absolutely right on 'Norcal' abbreviation so I crossed out my No-Cal idea. Goldenrowley 23:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds a little artificial: is it a term that has a generally accepted definition? However, I don't much mind stretching the point a bit if we keep it strictly as a "proto-container category", i.e. fed only from by-county templates. Alai 00:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes at least here in North California we'd know what it means, see article named Northwestern Pacific Railroad, it would be the NW quadrant of California. - Oh and look at this (sorry late breaking research) it lead me to the definition of the whole region as the Redwood Empire. 02:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Northern Pacific does seem a little forced, but I like the Redwood Empire idea. --Daniel Olsen 05:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so revised list:

{{Calif-bay-area-stub}}/Category:Bay Area geography stubs

(Santa Cruz County, California omitted, see San_Francisco_Bay_Area#Santa_Cruz.)

{{Sacramento-valley-stub}}/Category:Sacramento Valley geography stubs

(Solano County, California is claimed by the Sacramento Valley article, but it is more fitting in the Bay Area stubs, as it does border the bay and without it there would be a large gap.)

{{San-Joaquin-Valley-stub}}/Category:San Joaquin Valley geography stubs

{{Sierra-Nevada-stub}}/Category:Sierra Nevada geography stubs

~~{{Mojave-Desert-stub}}/Category:Mojave Desert geography stubs~~ (too much overlap with other categories, mostly southern california)

{{Redwood-Empire-stub}}/Category:Redwood Empire geography stubs

(seems a bit small)

{{California-south-geo-stub}}→{{Southern-Calif-stub}}/Category:Southern California geography stubs

Imperial County, California
Los Angeles County, California
Orange County, California
Riverside County, California
San Bernardino County, California
San Diego County, California
Ventura County, California
Kern County, California (southernmost portions)
Santa Barbara County, California (southernmost portions)

What do you think? --Daniel Olsen 05:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose regional templates: see my suggestion above for per-county templatisation. Grutness will only want to delete these in a year or two, so let's not "train" people to use them. I thought that the Redwood Empire was supposed to cover seven counties: did the rest get "overlapped"? It's unlikely to be viable, so suggest that, and any others totalling <60, is left upmerged to the parent. Alai 07:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- So if I understand your proposal correctly, each county gets a {{Calif-xxxx-county-stub}} template of their own, which all add articles to a regional Category:Yyyy stubs? Redwood Empire overlapped with 3 counties from Bay Area, so they were taken off. It does seem pretty small, killing it would be no big problem. --Daniel Olsen 07:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  - Exactly right. I don't think the "Calif-" prefix would be necessary, unless it's outrageously ambiguous and confusing without, and the "-county" may or may not be, on a case by case basis. I'd suggest {{OrangeCounty-geo-stub}}, {{SanFrancisco-geo-stub}}, etc. Alai 08:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    - Orange County has to be disambiguated because there are multiple Orange Counties (Florida, New York, etc). ^Blank ^Verse 09:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    - One big problem is that Northern California counties are much smaller than Southern California counties. Except for a few SoCal counties such as Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties, plus possibly a couple of Bay Area counties, I doubt that many California counties will have more than a dozen to two dozen geo stubs. ^Blank^Verse 09:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      - Hence the suggestion of merging to regions, for the time being. Or back into the parent, if those end up too small too. I'd have thought that OC-CA was sufficiently the best-known to get first dibs on the unqualified name (will all apologies to various Teutels), but if not doing so would make the other states jealous, {{OrangeCountyCA-geo-stub}} would be OK with me. Alai 10:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Some comments from an editor who cam over from the notice posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California (which I also copied to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Southern California, which the more active of the two main California WikiProjects):

I just looked at Category:California stubs, and there are a large number of the articles in the main California stub category that need to be moved to a geo stub category. There are also quite a few articles that could go into Category:California buildings and structures stubs
My guess is that somewhere between 10-15% of the articles in Category:California geography stubs are Southern California geo stubs, but I won't start recategorizing those until this discussion is concluded.
There should probably be a California-bio-stub added for the non-politicians.
It also looks like there are probably enough articles for a California-govt-stub to take state-level government and politics articles
What do people think about a California-museum and zoos-stub (as a subset of category:California buildings and structures stubs?)
Because of the amount of ambiguity over what is "Los Angeles" (which is one of the factors that makes the article at Los Angeles, California such a mess), absolutely DO NOT name a stub LosAngeles-geo-stub. The Southern California geo stubs could be further subdivided by county (at least Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties), and LosAngelesCounty-geo-stub (or something similar to match whatever the current stub-naming guidelines) would be appropriate.
The list of suggested regions is missing the California Central Coast: Santa Cruz County, California, Monterey County, California, San Luis Obispo County, Californiaand Santa Barbara County, California.
^Blank ^Verse 09:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- The -bio-stub is a dodgy proposition, since while there are undoubtedly people notable primarily in connection with CA, there's likely to be huge "tag creep" onto everyone born in the state, who's played college football there, acted in a Hollywood movie, etc, etc. The -gov-stub sounds like a good idea. -museum-stub and -zoo-stub I'd have no objection to if there's the numbers, but as Category:California buildings and structures stubs is still modest in size, I don't see any pressing need. At any rate, those should really be factored out into separate proposals for clarity: this out is already rather long. {{LosAngelesCounty-geo-stub}} is fine by me, if the ambiguity is that great, and natives don't mind the typing... Alai 10:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  - More fun to type will be the {{California-OrangeCounty-geo-stub}} (and {{NewYork-OrangeCounty-geo-stub}}, {{Florida-OrangeCounty-geo-stub}}, + 5 more!). ^Blank ^Verse 12:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I just sorted Category:Zoo stubs and there's probably not enough for a {{US-zoo-stub}}, let alone a {{California-zoo-stub}}. There's only 14 articles in Category:Zoos in California. {{California-museum-stub}} might work, depending on whether you double stub with {{US-art-museum-stub}}. --Usgnus 22:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Some comments on the above:

I'm against the idea of a california-bio-stub, for the same reason as other state/region-specific bio-stubs - people move around too much.
a california-struct-stub is a great idea, as has been suggested before. This could be used to double-stub US-museum-stubs and the like which wouldn't reach threshold for separate california-specific stubs (although california-museum-stub might be close aif done as usgnus suggests). The same solution is possible with Californiasubregion-geo-stub (however they will be named) and US-zoo-stub.
It's highly unlikely that too many counties if any will need their own stub types - that's very probably overkill.
Whichever of "North Coast" and "Northern Pacific" is used it will need disambiguating with the word California. "North Copast" and "Northern pacific" on their own are far too general in their possible application. Attu is northern Pacific; Cairns and Ullapool are North Coast.

Grutness...wha? 01:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

On 2, note that {{California-struct-stub}} already exists. On 3: if you're a betting man, put me down in your book for "highly inevitable". Bear in mind that the regions are fairly arbitrary, so that counties would be preferable as soon as they're viable. That it hasn't happened already seems to be evidence that, surprisingly, we have more extensive coverage of Switzerland than of a US state with about 3-4 times its population (or that most of the CA articles are already non-stubs?). We wouldn't want to be accused of being systematically biased against California now, would we? (Stranger things have happened, though.) Alai 17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The low count for California stubs is based on several factors: 1) Many Cali articles, even ones on long defunct nightclubs, for example, are way beyond stub size. 2) Someone went through and sytematically removed the geo-stubs from all Ram-Bot generated articles, even if they only had a paragraph of text beyond the Geography and Demographics sections. I've added the geo-stubs back to some of the stubby SoCal cities, but haven't worried about the rest. Most of the California census-designated places are probably still stubs. 3) I keep finding crappy little substubs on California topics created by new and anon editors which have no stub tags, no categories, etc.

FYI: Many of the smaller Northern California counties have less than two dozen total communities in them, so even if you added in stubby articles on peaks and parks and historical sites, you'll never get up to the number of stubs usually required for stub creation. There's one county that has, if I remember correctly, only two incorporated cities, and a half-dozen CDPs. ^Blank ^Verse 13:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

keep -geo-stub end ;) everything else pretty much in line with any suitable size permcat. Monni 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Since this discussion is pretty quiet, if there are no objections I'm going to add a stub type for each county, which point to their respective regions as defined above. If I'm allowed to close this now, please let me know. --Daniel Olsen 03:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. Geo- templates for each county and categories for each region (as long as it has 60+ articles). Any county that has 60+ articles can have its own category. --Usgnus 03:31, 15 September 2006 (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.

Local History stubs

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

The result of the debate was do not create.
As Wikipedia grows, more content beyond the scope of say, Britannica, is being added by providers with local knowledge. Some of this content may score low on notability. Is there a need for more consistency?

As a starter, I propose a UK Local History stub.

Thegn 08:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We'll probably have to split the UK-hist-stubs fairly soon (there's over 500), but I don't think "local vs. non-local" would be a good axis. By topic, by era, or by nation/subregion would be more plausible. Alai 09:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I see much/most local history as town history is being folded into the Town articles as subsections to flesh the town article out a bit. Thus, I agree with Alai's suggestion on sorting history stubs by era and big regions.Goldenrowley 23:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. - Any history could, conceivably, be local history. Because of that, the scope of this stub is far too vague. If a particular area's history stubs were to be further subdivided, local history stubs could be created - but only for specific areas, not for general local history. Aelfthrytha 18:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose by Aelfthrytha. I have a bad feeling about this one. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:01, 11 September 2006 (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 {{US-struct-stub}} on geographic lines

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 creation of stub templates for each state along the pattern of {{state-struct-stub}} with the exception of Georgia (which will be {{GeorgiaUS-struct-stub}} of course). All of these templates will feed in to four geographic regions (midwest, northeast, south, west) along the patterns of other US splits until they threshhold. This can (as usual) save future work and confusion. Regardless, some kind of split is needed because the category has crossed the 1,000 stubs barrier. Aelfthrytha 06:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My otherwise fairly warm support for this is qualified by my uncertainty about what we're doing in general with regard to "arbitrary subdivision" categories. If we're planning on creating then subsequently dumping "US-west-struct-stub", etc, then I'm going to have to make that conditional on: the creation of a template for every constituent state of that region; and that we "advertise" those templates in a list on the category page, instead of the single feeder template on the {{Stub Category}} model. Perhaps we shouldn't even create the region template at all. Alai 16:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That was my plan, along the same pattern & execution of {{US-school-stub}}'s split. Aelfthrytha 16:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have no problem "containerizing" the regional categories. I've taken the regional templates off of the to do page until we know whether we want to create them at all. --CComMack (tc) 17:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Containerising's pretty much what's been done with the regional geo-stub categories. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC) (Oh, and that's support, BTW) Grutness...wha? 00:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Having created several of these, I'd have to say that's not really the case. Look at, e.g. Category:Southern United States road stubs. If it's semi-containerised after the fact that's fair enough. Alai 01:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If that's replying to my comment, then it's exactly what's been done to the American regional geo-stub categories (which is what I referred to). Have a look at Category:Western United States geography stubs for one such. My comment made no mention of whether this was the initial staus of the category - I just said that it was what had been done to them. Grutness...wha? 02:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Which only because the case after the states were all split out into sub-categories. And my point is we need consistency, horizontally across different stub type hierarchies, and over time in how we handle these. Alai 02:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly my point too. We need consistency, and some have been containerised - it makes no sense not to containerise others which are effectively parallel in form. Since the regional geo-stub categories have been containerised, it makes sense for struct-stubs to be dealt with in the same way. As to whether it was "after the fact" or not, Fingers-of-Pyrex first proposed the regions with the view that they were to be until such time as separate categories were possible, which is it was hardly after the fact, as (s)he pointed out when the regional geo-stub templates were deleted in January. As FoP stated then: The following geo stubs and categories were created as an intermediary step when splitting the mammoth US-geo-stub category. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement as to what to do in this case (so we should probably cease discussing it here at some point), but in disagreement as to what "made sense" to do in the past. What's "after the fact" is (to reiterate) starting out with a regional template, and not all of state templates, and ending up with all of the state templates, IIRC only when each of those categories were created, and a since-deleted regional template. If we're aiming to do the same here, we should do as suggested above, and not play "bait and switch" with regional templates, as has been done in the past. Alai 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Support state templates and regional categories, as proposed initially. --Usgnus 17:30, 8 September 2006 (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.

Vale of Glamorgan geography 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, upmerge cat..
Propose creation of stub template of Vale of Glamorgan related geography articles. It will be a sub category of the Wales-geo-stub stub category. Editors from the Vale of Glamorgan intended to expand the topic significantly. Suggest name be Template:ValeOfGlamorgan-geo-stub. Yes I absolutely agree. I personally live in Barry in the Vale of Glamorgan and probably with my latest editions should over 50. See my Penmark, Llantwit Major Beach and Gileston articles. If not I fully intend to expand so stub category is a MUST. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How many articles would qualify? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I can count 30 existing articles tagged with {{Wales-geo-stub}} that are also under Category:Vale of Glamorgan. Not enough for a separate stub category, plenty for an upmerged template. Alai 20:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to suggest that all 22 welsh county templates are made - it'd be easy after that to work out which ones are at the stage of needing separate categories. 30 isn't enough yet, but if there is going to be rapid growth it wouldn't be too long before one is needed for ValeofGlamorgan-geo-stub (preferably small "o", as in the article, but a redirect from the capital O isn't a bad idea). Grutness...wha? 23:56, 2 September 2006 (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.

{{field-hockey-stub}} and {{ice-hockey-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 field-hockey, possible send hockey- to SFR for rename to ice-hockey-.
Currently {{hockey-stub}} has been appropriated by the ice hockey version. We need a split on the lines of {{footy-stub}} and {{Amfootbio-stub}}. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me, at least if {{field-hockey-stub}} is viable as a separate type. This should go to SFD (AKA SFR) for {{ice-hockey-stub}}, though, just to keep everything above board, unless you're just proposing an additional template. (I for one am not going to bot all those templates over from one to the other, and then have the ice-ists yelp about it afterwards.) Alai 01:37, 4 September 2006 (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 Swiss canton locations

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 lack of regularity in the category names is per the permcats. Alai 00:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

support Monni 16:46, 12 September 2006 (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.

Two more Chinese provinces

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

The result of the debate was create.

This parent is obviously growing fast, as I de-oversized it quite recently, but on the bright side, so's the amount of categorisation. Alai 00:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Support, naturally. Aelfthrytha 18:28, 11 September 2006 (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.

Chennai-geo-stub

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

The result of the debate was create.

Category:Chennai geography stubs 54

I can find nothing conclusively over threshold at all, but I'll float this one as it may be viable "on a recount", and the parent (Tamil Nadu geos) is over-sized. Alai 00:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

support as per previously established consensus or what ever on borderline cases. Monni 16:42, 12 September 2006 (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.

NSW protected area 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:New South Wales protected area stubs 151

All I can find from the NSW geos, aside from some undersorted Sydneys, the only existing split. (The next level down seems to be too smallfor splits to be viable anytime soon.) Alai 00:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. Aelfthrytha 18:28, 11 September 2006 (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:Scottish school 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.
There's 63 of these, and the (UK-) parent is oversized again. Alai 01:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Support --Usgnus 17:25, 8 September 2006 (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.
Parents are oversized; a search reveals plenty of these to work with (preliminary total 121; not all of these will fall into this, but it's a good margin, and I didn't even check for English, Welsh, Scottish, a search in UK-bio, etc.) Crystallina 02:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think was was mooted a while ago, so may be speediable. At any rate, support. Alai 08:29, 10 September 2006 (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.

{{AU-stub}}/Category:African Union 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 AfricanUnion-stub.
Whoops. So I already made this... figured I'd list it to do damage control. Sorry. This runs parallel to {{EU-stub}}, etc. and there is an associated WikiProject that I'm in the middle of making. Looks like I got ahead of myself. Most AU articles are stubs, and several {{Africa-stub}}s are really AU-stubs. I've already listed a couple dozen without trying, my guess is that there are over five dozen, as there are several members of the Pan-African Parliament with short articles to their name. Note: This was already discussed earlier. Again, a thousand apologies if I screwed up something, but what's done is done, c'est la vie, and so on. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 09:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Good news The good news is, I've filled up the category a lot. And even if that's bad news, it can be fixed with AWB pretty easily. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 10:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it certainly seems to be plenty viable, given the large numbers of Pan-African Parliament members, as you note. Don't much like the template name, though: I realize you're paralleling EU, but while that's a redirect to the desired target, AU is a lengthy disambiguation page. (My first thoughts would have been Australia, and Astronomical Unit.) But even if that's bad news, it can be fixed by bot. :) Alai 16:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
rename Monni 16:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
What then? "AfricanUnion-stub?" -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's what I had in mind. If you've no objection, we could even "speedy" that. Alai 16:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  - Aight Let's do it. If it doesn't get fixed before I get home, I'll use AWB to fix it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
a stub category exists already: Category:African trade union stubs. Is there any difference that I am just not catching here, between the Africa Trade Union category and your new Africa Union category? Goldenrowley 23:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- A big difference. The African Union is the successor to the OAU - a federation of the countries in Africa similar to the EU. African trade unions are labour organisations, like other trade unions worldwise. Support, BTW, but with AfricanUnion-stub, not AU-stub. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

support AfricanUnion-stub and categoryGoldenrowley 03:44, 13 September 2006 (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.

{{Turtle-stub}}/Category:Turtle 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.
Not desperately needed as {{reptile-stub}} only contains just over 250 stubs, but would get 77 articles according StubSense.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 10:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If there are 77 turtle articles I support Goldenrowley 22:22, 13 September 2006 (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.

{{art-history-stub}} with Category:Art history stubs, and {{art-materials-stub}} with Category:Art materials 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 as revised by Goldenrowley.
Hi I am suggesting these new stub ideas because there's about a 1000 things with the generic art-stub. I can work on chiseling that down, if the proposal passes . Goldenrowley 05:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On the first: the permcat is Category:art history, so I'd suggest dropping the "theory". Looks to be more than viable. On the second: looks potentially too narrow, I can only find 24 in the permcat. Are there many more elsewhere? Alai 06:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

--Certainly I could can begin with just making 'art history' at first and then I can keep a little tally of the other ideas on my work sheet Goldenrowley 03:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In case these are helpful, here's some counts of art-stubs per permanent category hierarchy membership. They'd have to be checked for false positives, though:
- Category:Works of art 76
- Category:Art genres 67
- Category:Brands 63
- Category:Industrial design 60
- Category:Artistic techniques 58
- Category:Medieval art 58
- Category:Renaissance art 58
- Category:Modern art 56
- Category:Art exhibitions 53
Of course, there's bound to also be more stubs that are uncategorised/undercategorised. Hope that's of some help. Alai 04:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- - Very nice, thanks! Looking at this list, how about ~~(1) [art genres] i.e. regional styles, things like impressionism, cubism, etc., all the "isms"~~ and (2) [art history] 05:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    - I'd be especially careful of that one, as there's likely to be inflation caused by "by genre" subcats, that wouldn't appropriately go in an art-genre-stub. I can upload per-cat lists if people want to check them by hand, and look for more. Alai 07:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  - That was me goldenrowley, I think a lot of 'genre' articles might be miscategorized under painting and scultpure, the harder part is separting history from genre, as writing often combines the two. As the art categories for stubs go, the topics favor painting and sculpture but not for example mixed media or drawing. Goldenrowley 15:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    - I just struck materials (can't find that many), theory (too narrow and elite) and genre. How about "art-history-stub" and "art-style-stub" ? Goldenrowley 20:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      - ...or "art-movement-stub"? I like the idea of a separate artwork-stub, BTW - I think it might reduce the main stub cat by quite a bit. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

supporting the art-movement-style idea it looks large enough to fill. final versions: {{art-history-stub}} Category:Art history stubs and {{art-movement-stub}} Category:Art movements stubs Goldenrowley 16:08, 13 September 2006 (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.

Scottish 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.
Quite a lot of double-stubbing, and seemingly 76 on the basis of permcat membership of those just on the (oversized) Scotland-bio-stub. Alai 10:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Support ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. --Usgnus 17:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Support, looks logical split. Monni 04:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. Makes sense. Nauticashades 15:15, 18 September 2006 (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.

Abkhazia stubs

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

The result of the debate was do not create.
I propose creation of a template for Abkhazia-related stubs. Here is the image that I intend to use: Óðinn 21:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an indication of how many articles would use such a template? If it reaches the threshold, a further point of discussion would be: will this stub become be a daughter of {{georgia-stub}}? Aecis ^Apple ^knocker ^Flophouse 21:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Around 30. Óðinn 21:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

For what reason? There seems to be no size-based rationale, given the size of the parent. Oppose, per below, with size-related knobs on. Alai 21:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree - see the comments under TRNC below, and note the comment at the top of the page about the size guidelines for stub splits to be really useful. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely a strong pro-separatist POV, especially the image which was copied from radical separatist web site. Completely opposed to this nonsense. Ldingley 22:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the stub, as long as the image is changed and {{Georgia-stub}} is added into articles along with it (to be neutral). —Khoi khoi 01:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Khoi. I'm afraid Óðinn's suggestion is more politically motivated rather than dictated by necessity.--Kober 04:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per Grutness (and my comments to Cyprus-stub). Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 08:33, 21 September 2006 (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 do not create.
I created this stub template before discovering that I was supposed to propose its creation here first. I apologize. Feel free to delete or blank while the proposal is being discussed. Anyway, I couldn't find a stub template for articles related with the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Applying {{Cyprus-stub}} to those articles is likely inaccurate. I checked a few TRNC stubs and none contained a stub template referring to their location.--Hús ö nd 20:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This will have to be renamed, at the very least. I saw this in the page history, and thought "I wonder what on earth the TRNC is?". Why would use of {{Cyprus-stub}} be inaccurate? "Cyprus" correctly describes the whole island. As an unrecognised entity, I'm inclined to oppose this, per our general practice of dragging stub-sorting into POV disputes. The Cyprus stubs aren't currently in numerical need of splitting, so I'd tend to think we should leave this one alone for now. Alai 21:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just on numerical viability, I counted about 30 TRNC-related stubs in the under {{Cyprus-stub}} at first glance. I would imagine that it could be numerically viable if it is eventually deemed appropriate. Without counting, I would imagine a TRNC (or whatever variation is decided upon)-geo stub could be in order as well.--Thomas.macmillan 21:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Alai. The term "Cyprus" also refers to the island as a whole, not just to the Republic of Cyprus. If there are pov issues, they should be solved by "neutralizing" this template, not by creating a parallel template. Any split of Category:Cyprus geography stubs should go by subdivisions. In the case of Cyprus, this would be the six districts: Famagusta, Kyrenia, Larnaca, Limassol, Nicosia and Paphos. Aecis ^Apple ^knocker ^Flophouse 21:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree also. We try to steer clear of disputed territories in stub types and make a more all-encompassing type where necessary. Thus we have a cyprus-stub which relates to the whole island, and is not big enough to need splitting. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

TRNC=Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Well, I cannot predict how many stubs would find this template adequate. But I presume that it would be reasonable to have it so that Turkish cypriot users become aware of the existence of these stubs and be willing to expand them. I am reluctant to accept the argument that this template should be rejected for its POV nature. This country is recognized by at least one UN member (Turkey) and that should suffice to thwart any POV allegations. Besides, Taiwan has a stub template {{Taiwan-stub}} despite falling pretty much in the same category of unrecognition.--Hús ö nd 23:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the perception that the legitimacy of this state is "Turkish POV" (official view of the Turkish state and otherwise) is exactly the problem, not the solution. Taiwan has its own "issues", but the RoC has much wider recognition (24 states vs. 1 (and it's exactly one, btw, rather than "at least one"), and historically many more, before the PRC started bludgeoning countries and international organisations on an "it's them or us" basis), and there's a much stronger "sorting" rationale for a Taiwan tree, since for example the China-geo-stubs are oversized, unless split by province. (Technically the RoC and Taiwan province don't precisely correspond, but if you squint at them a little, they're close enough, and as with definitions of provincial and otherwise definitions of "Tibet", can be dealt with by double-stubbing.) Alai 13:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I believe this was a bad idea. "Cyprus" is a term covering the whole island, and this category is in no need of splitting (no pun intended). We still have a nice NASA image if people feel that the image should be changed. If Cyprus-geo-stub one day needs to be split is should be according to the island's six districts (and yes, I know the "TRNC" has transferred three settlements from Larnaca District to Nicosia District, but let's deal with that one later). I'm not exceedingly thrilled about Taiwan-stub either but the Republic of China was for many years *the* internationally recognized government of China and more than 20 nations still hold this view. On the other hand, the North Cyprus is recognized by exactly 1 nation which also militarily occupies this region. I wouldn't like to see templates for Artsakh, Chechnya or any other hotspot either. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 08:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to point something out on the topic of disputed places receving stub templates, Category:Transnistria stubs also exists. As it is not independent and only recognized by 1 country, is this a stub worth of deletion? It has 121 stubs, perhaps it should be brought under Moldova-stub? --Thomas.macmillan 18:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Transnistria is *not* recognized at all - even by Russia. The template was created out of process, and the SFD debate was - hmm, controversial - to say the least. I still think it was a very bad idea. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 18:52, 22 September 2006 (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.

{{art-mixed-media-stub}} and Category:art mixed media 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 discussion tabled.
I am getting ready to sort the overloaded art issues with some subcategories and so looked and saw lots of baskets,woodwork, some glass,some metal, and other artsy-crafty things. Alternatively we could call it simply a {{crafts-stub}} and subcategory. Goldenrowley 19:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a Category:crafts, a Category:arts and crafts, but no Category:mixed media, or Category:art media media (which would be a highly awkward phrase at the best of times), or indeed Category:mixed media art. It's not obvious to me which of the above are synonymous, but obviously I'd have the standard preferences for something that's clearly scoped, corresponds to a permcats, and passes the numeric threshold. Alai 15:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Mixed media" is standard lingo in USA at least Goldenrowley 20:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to table this discussion because I have a better idea, which I will propose with today's date. Goldenrowley 01:05, 21 September 2006 (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:American television actor stubs -- split by dob?

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.
I won't claim this is a perfect solution; fortunately, this isn't Wikiproject Perfect Solutions. There's not a lot else available by way of viable splits; decade of notability would possibly be more useful, but is also more problematic, apt to -- yet more -- multi-stubbing, and impossible to do any way other than by hand. If we went this way, each category from the 30s to the 90s would be viable, would be readily automatable, and would get rid of 831 in total from the parent, de-oversizing it at a stroke. Presumably most of the rest would be sortable to these too, they're just DOB-missing at present. Alai 05:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

oppose, permcat is splitted by genre. Monni 04:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Um, Category:American television actors is not really "split" at all, which is the whole problem. Alai 05:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  - As this page isn't about splitting permanent categories, it is irrelevant in how many "pieces" the permanent category is splitted... split in two is as much split as split in three or more... Maybe you should start "Wikiproject Perfect Solutions" which would try to establish consensus on this kind of issues. If you want to overturn my vote, best choice is to do something with the two existing permanent categories and then retry with stub category split. Monni 11:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    - Let us begin by observing that this isn't a "vote", it's a discussion: it's not necessary that anything be "overturned", but it would be nice if your position in said discussion aligned with the facts. Firstly, unless Category:George Carlin, Category:Mouseketeers and Category:William Shatner count as "genres", there's exactly one subcat of the above permcat that exists on those lines. If you're suggesting that the US-tv-actors be split by genre, it would be helpful if you'd suggest what those should be, rather than simply opposing and presenting no workable alternative, while the category grows ever-larger. Secondly, it's by no means unprecedented for us to create "intersection (stub) categories" between existing permcats, which themselves have no single permcat parent: for example, we have Category:2000s hip hop album stubs, but not Category:2000s hip hop albums (but there is a Category:hip hop albums and a Category:2000s albums). Alai 18:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
      - I wasn't suggesting anything, just implying that if there is atleast one existing subcategory that isn't named by a person, but some generic type, it should be either deleted or respected. We all are here to find the consensus of which of the possibly many alternatives is the best. I also could not find any mention of count of how many stubs there is that would belong to the single "generic type" subcategory that there already is under the permanent category... So... to sum it up... there was not enough information represented to justify this current proposal as being the best possible solution. Monni 18:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
DOB means date of birth, right? If I were stubbing, its a little hard to guess if the stub does not already say, an actress's age. I can imagine trying to put her in a category thinking she's in her 60s when she's only in her 50's, then her fan club coming after us. Browsing if you do not know ages would take longer than the alpha list. I do support making some sense with some subcategories though. what about by award winners, such a stub for emmy winners? Goldenrowley 23:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Right. I suggest this largely only because the majority of them are indeed already categorised by DOB. How useful it'd be as a split may indeed be questionable, but it's at least likely to be marginally useful for people working with actors of a certain "era". I suspect an award-based stub is likely to be less useful, on the same basis (even if viable, of which I'm not at all sure). Alai 04:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok if its already done I don't mind, maybe I was just paranoid of actress rebelling that we advertise their ages. Have you already considered splitting actor and actresses as the easy split ? Goldenrowley 16:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, I meant that the "born in" permcats already exist, and are well-populated. A split by gender had crossed my mind, but would produce two pretty large subcats, so isn't ideal in that respect. I'll go with that if people would be more favourable, though... Alai 16:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  - What's the counts for genders... without and with splitting out soap opera actors? I think there is enough stubs for splitting out soap opera actors. Monni 16:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would assume 50/50 for gender. Perhaps another easy/natural group would be the non-actors and actresses on TV who could be called news reporters and reality show or game show people. so 1 actors, 2 actress, 3 news reporters, 4 reality show people --- soap seems like a good split too Goldenrowley 20:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  - I second this proposal, but I'm not sure if splitting by sex is a good idea. I think the best way to split this category would be to go by genre: e.g. US-soapopera-tv-actor-stub, US-comedy-tv-actor-stub, US-action-tv-actor-stub and US-horror-tv-actor-stub. I'm not sure how workable these stubs would be. Aecis ^Apple ^knocker ^Flophouse 20:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - There was some discussion recently about splitting by gender, wherein the consensus was to not split actor categories by gender. When I find the discussion I'll post the link; meanwhile, just a heads-up. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Here it is: Gender, race and sexuality categorization. Since the permcats are unlikely to split by gender any time soon, as an alternative, how about by genre: American television comedy actors, American television drama actors, etc? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  - I am fine with either the first proposal of DOB now that I know it is not ground breaking, or the genres mentioned to date if enough stubs exist, or by actor/actress. I dont think they care if we call them an actor or actress,but the policy tells us not to do it by gender and I am cool with the reasoning. Thanks. Goldenrowley 03:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    - By genre is the most intuitive type of split, but is going to be difficult to apply to actors other than those that are either known only for a very small number of roles, or who're "stereotyped" to a particular genre. There may be less categorisation by gender than I first thought: there's Category:men and Category:women, and some occupation-based splits, but not for the actors. (Isn't WP marvelously consistent, as ever.) I'd provide counts on that basis, but my offline db is "between dumps" at the moment. (Likewise for any possible genre splits, but these are lacking in existing permcats, and would need careful filtering by hand in any event.) Alai 03:55, 22 September 2006 (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 167 bat/myotis articles in {{mammal-stub}} out of 573. A new sub-category fits in with existing ones, and will make it easier for people who are interested in bats.. Eug 12:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Alai 17:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense to me as well Goldenrowley 05:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. Ditto. Nauticashades 15:26, 18 September 2006 (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.

Sex-stub icons

The pair of images for sex-related stubs is a pair of symbols representing male and female. In light of the fact that articles such as Anal eroticism are in this category, perhaps this is inappropriate. Sex (even between two people) is a broad area that, like it or not, includes homosexual and intersexed individuals to name even two examples. This choice of symbols caught my eye as an example of heteronormativity that has no place in an objective encyclopedia. I suggest simply removing the images until a suitible replacement has been found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.249.20 (talk • contribs)

Well, since "sex-stub" simply refers to the two sexes, and doesn't necessarily indicate sexual activity of any sort ("sex" is not synonymous with sexual activity), all that symbol is doing is indicating the two sexes. How it can be assumed to be "heteronormative" to indicate that there are two different sexes is a mystery me. In any case, the symbol for heterosexuality is two interlinked symbols, one male and one female. These two symbols are deliberately not interlinked, because there is no intention to indicate heterosexuality on this template. Grutness...wha? 07:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more accurate to have a {{gender-stub}}. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Gender is different than sex. See in particular Gender#Social category. -- SCZenz 20:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, yeah, I know, which is why I suggested it. This would separate stub articles about sex acts or technique from those having to do with gender issues. Just a thought. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you guys read the Category:Sex stubs page? It looks to me like all, or at least 90% of those articles are about sexual activity or sexual acts between two people. If the stub category really just contains articles 'about the two sexes', then that would be different, and I'd agree, the symbols need not be changed. If however the stubs pertain to sexuality, which it appears to me at least that they do, then sexuality ought not to be symbolized only by a pair of male and female symbols. Your point about them not being interlinked is interesting, but to me, when I saw the two symbols as they were representing articles about sexuality, the message was clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.249.20 (talk • contribs)

More discussion at the Village Pump. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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:Iranian military stubs would have 49, just on double-stubbing. I'd imagine another 11 wouldn't be impossible to come by. Alai 09:58, 13 September 2006 (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.

Classical music ensemble group band orchestra and other 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 no consensus.
Hi, we talked a little bit about this last month, and I was wondering if anyone had any good ideas for naming a stub for a generic classical music group other than {{Classical-music-group-stub}}. {{Classical-band-stub}} would mostly fit into what already exists, except band can be a specific grouping just like orchestra. {{Classical-ensemble-stub}} would be a better name, but might me less intuitive. Any thoughts? --Amazzing5 15:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps create the template at {{Classical-ensemble-stub}}, with a redirect at the other two? Alai 17:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Support: I think {{classical-ensemble-stub}} is correct and fairly easy to pick up, aka intuitive Goldenrowley 23:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. --Amazzing5 01:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Another question, for ensembles already tagged with things like {{Denmark-band-stub}}, should they be double tagged with both the country-band-stub and the classical-ensemble-stub? --Amazzing5 22:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Check a dictionary, small groups are ensembles. I cannot recall exactly how many max. Big groups with a wide range of drums, woodwinds, etc are band. Goldenrowley 05:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
So is this (which I notice has been created already) supposed to rescope and replace Category:orchestra stubs, or be in addition to it? Are there enough articles for the two separately? Alai 16:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- comment To me, looks case of reparenting stub category. Monni 17:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  - - Back now with the count: this Wikipedia article Musical ensemble defines an ensemble as 5 or less people, anything else would be either a band or an orchestra. So its going to be either or, not both. However, the 5 person rule seems a little rigid I'd think an ensemble can be up to about 10 people before it is big enough for an orchestra... Goldenrowley 19:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      - I don't see that article as implying that, and orchestra begins "An orchestra is a musical ensemble...". In any case, the category is Category:classical music group stubs, which seems plenty inclusive enough. Unless there's a large swathe of unsorted stubs someplace, I think we need to merge these. Alai 20:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

IN that case, I support using ensemble as the most inclusive Goldenrowley 20:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

From a more reputable source:
The French word ensemble (‘together’ or ‘the whole’) gained musical currency through the expression morceau d’ensemble, meaning a piece in which everyone plays or sings. From the mid-18th century ‘ensemble’ also denoted the precision with which a group peformed, a usage appropriated by other languages. In modern operatic terminology, ‘ensemble’ denotes a musical number involving anything from two singers to the whole cast (and in German ‘das Ensemble’ also means the singing personnel of an opera house). In instrumental music German usage tends to restrict the term to light music for small groups or to the performing groups themselves, and English applies it loosely to any instrumental group, sometimes to orchestras (but not usually to the music played).

-- ELISABETH COOK: 'Ensemble', Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy (Accessed [13 September 2006]), <http://www.grovemusic.com>

So for the other part, Alai voted support on the orchestra stub last month as an ensemble and orchestra category much like the originally existing US orchestra stub that is for both ensemble and orchestra. Since it didn't have a parent category, I thought it should have one. If you don't think that both classical music groups and orchestras have enough stubs to fill them, then the US orchestras could be moved up into the parent category, giving it more than enough stubs. --Amazzing5 13:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I almost forgot. My original question was: should articles already stubbed with country-band-stub keep that stub when the classical-stub is added (ie. should they be double-stubbed)? --Amazzing5 14:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you have a clear understanding on what I (!)voted on last month, you're a better man than I. :) I'd suggest upmerging the orchestra-stub and US-orchestra-stubs if there's not going to be at least close to threshold in both those, and the parents. But as I think I did say before, I do think they should be double-stubbed in that manner, yes. Alai 01:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

double stubbing no please not, unless something spans more than one upper category, I thought you proposed ensemble because you needed to stub generic classical music group that are neither bands nor orchestras. Goldenrowley 17:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well ... I see we don't have a consensus on this. First let me see if I can remove some confusion. All three stubs are now over the 60-limit (so that issue is now over). Before creating the ensemble-stub and orchestra-stub, there were no stubs for any type of classical group except US-orchestras (I personally think allowing that was a bad idea since it didn't have a good parent category). The ensemble-stub is for general classical music groups. The band-stubs are not for the classical definition of band. They are for any music group. Therefore, the ensemble-stub is a sub-category of the band-stub. The (for example) {{Canada-band-stub}} is for any musical group in canada and therefore gives different information than {{Classical-ensemble-stub}} which only tells you that it is some kind of classical group. Here is a specific question: should an aritcle on a string quartet already stubbed with {{Canada-band-stub}} be changed to {{Classical-ensemble-stub}} or be stubbed with both? What about one already stubbed with {{Canada-stub}} --Amazzing5 20:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Should{{Canada-band-stub}} be changed to {{Classical-ensemble-stub}}?" Those are like 2 parent categories to me, in that case I'd personally double stub to keep the feet in the Canada categories as well as the classical music parent categories. I would change any classical ensembles marked simply with the {{canada-stub}} to either a canada-band-stub or canada-musician-stub depending on how the musicians present themselves. This is my humble opinion. Goldenrowley 04:40, 15 September 2006 (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.
For journals, books, paphlets, etc. There are plenty sitting in Category:Mathematics_stubs, which is far too big. --Tango 12:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Plenty being roughly how many? Alai 13:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics Stubs goes over 5 pages, so I haven't counted. I'd guess 20-30 with journals alone, and probably as many again for other types of publication. Could easilly be more - i've only looked at the first page of maths stubs and checked Category:Mathematical journals with stubsense. --Tango 13:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. As the most recent sorter of Category:Non-fiction book stubs and Category:Science book stubs, I guarantee at least 30 or more math books. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:21, 21 September 2006 (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 suprising this one doesn't already exist. Again, there are plenty marked as generic maths stubs. --Tango 12:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds plausible, though most are probably tagged with {{statistics-stub}}, the distinction being a fairly subtle one for the non-expert. Alai 13:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There are 215 stats stubs, and that's not including the dozens still marked as generic maths stubs, so putting all stats and probability stubs in one category is going to make it quite large. --Tango 13:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Probability is usually a distinct subject/topic from Statistics, and I think a new stub is a good idea provided that there are enough articles to fit the idea. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 22:15, 25 September 2006 (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 Central Asia material was recently split, but Turkmenistan had too little material back then, so this was the only nation that remained in Category:Central Asia stubs. We now have 69 articles in this category with the vast majority relating to Turkmenistan (I counted at least 50 around a month ago). Let's create the template, and add the category as soon as it breaks 60. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 08:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Strongly support template, weakly support category. Alai 12:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. This makes sense. NauticaShades^(talk) 16:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support. --Thomas.macmillan 19:29, 22 September 2006 (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.
Does not exist and currently music related stub land in {{India-culture-stub}} IrfanAli 16:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If this is viably-sized, and helps gets rid of said uselessly-broadly-scoped "culture" type, then fair enough. How many candidate stubs? Alai 17:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Around 25 I would say, looking at the {{India-culture-stub}} and {{India-stub}}. More would follow when I have a look at the other stubs. IrfanAli 17:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's a little low, unfortunately. The stub guidelines recommend 60. But by all means keep looking... Alai 17:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  - Oh, there are easily above 60. Category:Indian music is the right place to look. Most of the articles under the cat and its sub cats are stubs -- Lost^(talk) 18:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    - Looks plausible to me: [1]. (Obviously the bio-stubs shouldn't have this type applied, though.) Alai 19:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      - That's a cool tool! -- Lost^(talk) 19:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Great tool Alai ! So now we do have sufficient subs in the proposed template. IrfanAli 20:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we have more than 60 stubs, and hence we should have this stub-cat for better management. --Bhadani 14:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - If the scope includes stubs of Indian singers like Anup Jalota and other stubs I'm guessing the number would skyrocket above 60 in a second.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The scope would NOT include singers as they have their own stub type: {{India-singer-stub}} ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:34, 28 September 2006 (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.

Law Stubs

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

The result of the debate was do not create.
I propose stubs for lawyer regulation, professional responsibility law, attorney grievance processes with integrity, attorney duty to courts and third parties, attorney/client collusion to defraud, legislation to regulate lawyers, and the culture of the legal system in the U.S.A. 19 September, 2006

What sort of numbers of stubs are we talking in each, and what would be the parent categories? I take it these all relate to US law, by the wording of the proposed split - and US-law-stub is hardly in need of further splitting at the moment (there are fewer than 400 stubs) - and virtually none of those seem to relate directly to the topics you mention. For that reason I'd tend to oppose unless you can show good reasons for such a split. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I suggest put some of these issues together as regulations, but not lawyer regulation thats exactly where the mixup seems to be. lawyers don't write the regulations they come from state, fed and regulatory agencies. Goldenrowley 20:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. As there are not that many, I think there seems to be a phrasing problem on the existing law-stub stub only, I remember having trouble with stub sorting legal pages. I see a steady stream of stubs are coming through just to explain legal terminology and contractual language, where I thought the existing law stub was a shade off. I think I'd like to see a basic "legal-stub" . For the others, well I don't know the intent really. I think lawyer regulation is the same as legislation to regulate lawyers. The other words are not entirely POV neutral. A neutral category might be like "ethics" instead of "collusion to defraud" and "historic court cases" instead of 'lawyer regulation" . Goldenrowley 06:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. and don't forget to put your name on proposals.

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:Canadian film stubs / {{Canada-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.
At least 100 scattered among the film stubs. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work, support! Goldenrowley 06:29, 23 September 2006 (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 sports biography subcats

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 shock development, the Nordic countries have a lot of winter sportspeople. The above counts are based on double-stubbing alone, remarkably. Alai 11:35, 22 September 2006 (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 retail 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 parent, the retailer stubs, are already oversized. (Cough-cough.) Unsurprisingly, a US split looks easily viable: 208, and that's with what's clearly massive undercatting by country. Alai 11:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Support of the split Goldenrowley 06:17, 23 September 2006 (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.

{{decorative-art-stub}} and Category:decorative arts 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 am still sorting the art categories and came up with a viable new category, forget mixed media and crafts for the time being what I am seeing are decorative arts. Here is the Wikipedia definition: " The decorative arts are traditionally defined as ornamental and functional works in ceramic, wood, glass, metal, or textile. The field includes ceramics, furniture, furnishings, interior design, and architecture. The decorative arts are often categorized in opposition to the "fine arts", namely, painting, drawing, photography, and large-scale sculpture." --- This is EXACTLY the stubs I see remaining in visual arts (except for architecture which has its own stubs already). Also, if there are not enough ceramics for a stub (yet) the ceramics and pottery can go in here too. Plus I can envision 5 tidy sub-sections in the future to propose, once the category fills up and grows: "ceramic, wood, glass, metal, or textile" Goldenrowley 01:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, problematic due to lack of any corresponding permcat. Alai 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- - the perm cat exists and is called: Category:Decorative_art Goldenrowley 16:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    - Sorry, my bad. Likely population? Alai 16:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Its likely to peak 100 Goldenrowley 19:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC) - That's a Yes Goldenrowley 20:14, 23 September 2006 (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.

{{ceramics-stub}} and category: Category:ceramics 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 am sorting the art categories, and coming across an abundand amount of pottery and ceramics issues under the art-stub area, with others elsewhere. I am thinking that this will be a subcategory to art just like painting and sculpture and (proposed) mixed media. If approved of course. Goldenrowley 20:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks marginal to me. [2]. Alai 20:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok 30 'ceramics' stubs would be marginal... but there are also over 100 'pottery' stubs: Pottery stubs Goldenrowley 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- There's some stubsense ass-backwardness here, as ceramics is the more inclusive of the two. From the last db dump, I count 42 such art-stubs, vs. 39 "pottery". So sounds like that would be viable of some of the above "miscs" were added in. Alai 13:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe because I've been in the section so much what I see are ceramics, porcelain, clay-made pottery, fine china and clayware. I propose Ceramics is a viable categoy. while I cnanot be certain there seems to be between 60 to 140 which is thresh-hold Goldenrowley 16:01, 21 September 2006 (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 55 German organization stubs listed here, more could easily be found.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 20:11, 17 September 2006 (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.
According to StubSense, there are about 68 Texan stadium stubs, although one has been become a featured article (!) since last the toolserver was updated. These are set to be double-stubbed with {{US-stadium-stub}} and {{Texas-struct-stub}} as per the split of the US-structs, but I figured I should bring this here and save myself some editing work. --CComMack (tc) 00:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In the db dump of the 5th, there were actually 82 of these. Support -- as a redirect to {{Texas-sports-venue-stub}}. If we can't split the venues by type, let's at least name them according to the intended scope, per the corresponding permcats. SFR the rest to match. I'm surprised I missed this one as a possible split -- must be developing hysterical blindness after earlier tilts at this particular windmill. Alai 01:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it seems we've procrastinated about this long enough that several subcats by state are now viable:
Category:New York sports venue stubs 99
Category:Texas sports venue stubs 82
Category:California sports venue stubs 70
Category:Florida sports venue stubs 67
Category:Illinois sports venue stubs 54

Categorisation seems to be excellent, so I doubt these are undercounts (excepting those not in the stub type at all), so the last one isn't technically doable yet. Alai 04:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, I like. Minor question: should the templates be named Foo-sports-venue-stub or Foo-sportsvenue-stub? (I feel like I've asked this before, but I still don't have a good grip on when we hyphenate and when we agglutinate.) (Oh, and support all, if it wasn't clear.) --CComMack (tc) 18:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Subtle one. It's murky enough that redirects are probably a good plan, regardless. I'd argue, at least faintly, for the extra hyphen, partly as that's what I've already done with {{France-sports-venue-stub}}, and also because there's potentially a hierarchy here: we might create a general {{US-venue-stub}} as a supercat of {{US-sports-venue-stub}} for buildings that are "public venues" in general: typically things that are combinations and permutations of both sports and music. Did we ever create any of the once-proposed {{music-venue-stub}} hierarchy? Ah, one preview later, I see we did! That's further precedent, at least. Alai 18:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --CComMack (tc) 19:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, we've got music-venue-stub, so sports-venue-stub would make sense as a match for it. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 18 September 2006 (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 double-stubbing alone, Category:United States television journalist stubs would have 51; I suspect there's many more around besides. Alai 09:55, 13 September 2006 (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.

British Columbia school subcats

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, these have not merely been split out from Canada-school-stub, but are already oversized. Someone want to get AfDing? Alternatively, the following subcats seem to be viable:

Not only are those each clearly and separately viable: that's just on double-stubbing. Alternatively, we could split the high schools and the elementary schools. Alai 09:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. --Usgnus 23:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Although the above Greater Vancouver Regional District is mature, permanent categories for other regional districts in B.C. are in the process of being created and populated. This should allow further splitting by regional districts for school and geography stubs. --Usgnus 14:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent. I doubt these will be necessary for "de-oversizing" purposes in the short term, so I will refrain from cracking the whip to complete this by the next db dump. :) (Let's face it, it's a better being than I that has the slightest notion of when that is, anyway.) Alai 15:06, 15 September 2006 (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 physics subtypes

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 up to five pages again. I hadn't realized we don't have a thermodynamics stub type, and at Wikiproject Physics it was pointed out that the "atomic" stubs would be more usually grouped in this manner, which is also how the permcats go. In addition to the above candidates, rescoping, renaming and some resorting Category:nuclear and atomic physics stubs to just be the nuclears would presumably be indicated. Alai 08:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

- in support Goldenrowley 23:23, 15 September 2006 (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.

Swahili stubs

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

The result of the debate was do not create.
Due to the need of creating more Swahili-related articles, i created {{Swahili-stub}}. Please comment. -- Szvest 23:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, my first comment is that you should have proposed it here first, rather than creating it then coming here. My second comment is that Swahili relates to both a language group and a ethnicity. if it is intended to be used for both it crosses the established hierarchy, and separately, both already have well-established stubs. The language is already covered by one of the language stubs, which are divided by language family, and the ethnicity is already covered as well, by an african ethnicity stub. My third comment is that stub templates are not created in order to generate more stubs. They are created once it is established that a need for them exists - that is, when there are already a lot of stubs which can use them. As such, this isn't a particularly useful stub to have. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
On top of that, I counted only 23 articles in Category:Swahili and its daughters (Category:Swahili being the non-stub parent). Will this stub reach the threshold? Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive} 23:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments guys. My only reason for creating it is that Swahili articles are increasing lately and most of them are real stubs. -- Szvest 13:49, 27 September 2006 (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.

Bahrain

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 a lot of Bahrain-related stubs. My list is now up to 115, but there are still more. I also propose {{Bahrain-geo-stub}} and {{Bahrain-bio-stub}}, but without category, because the list includes plenty of bio's and geo's.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 16:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Um... you have noticed that I proposed {{Bahrain-geo-stub}} two days ago, heven't you? Grutness...wha? 04:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I read it, but then forgot about. My total count is now up to 127, by the way.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 14:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Support, anyhow. There will be a few more if you add in any geo-stubs I know of that you might not. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 27 September 2006 (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.
StubSense says 55 stubs, parent is oversized, I suspect there is possibility of some false positives and undersorting, so I'm suggesting just template until we get to the threshold. Monni 15:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess StubSense was a lot behind as I found 113 stubs, and so created category too. Monni 16:21, 2 October 2006 (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 latest geo-count - new templates, but no only one new category

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 just done the latest geo-stub count, and no more countries have made it to the 65-stub mark, so I'm instead proposing the next few countries to have their own templates feeding back into continental/regional categories. These are for countries which have 40 or more stubs that don't have their own templates yet:

{{Haiti-geo-stub}} → Category:Caribbean geography stubs
{{Bahrain-geo-stub}} → Category:Middle East geography stubs
{{Kuwait-geo-stub}} → Category:Middle East geography stubs
{{Burundi-geo-stub}} → Category:Central Africa geography stubs (or East Africa, depending on current official status)
{{Mauritius-geo-stub}} → Category:Southern Africa geography stubs

That would leave just 60 mostly tiny countries and controversial/disputed areas untemplated. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Update and correction - I've managed to get Cambodia up to 65 geo-stubs - it already has a separate template, so splittng out the category less than a minute's effort. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Very good, support. Goldenrowley 06:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Support, but feed Burundi into East(ern) Africa, if we ever hope to make these congruent with the UN regions, as against any of the other miscellaneous definitions of African regions/ad hoc descriptors. Alai 08:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Having a separate template will make any shifts like that much quicker and easier. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 28 September 2006 (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.

{{Ohio-road-stub}}/Category:Ohio road 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.
There are over 30 of these in {{US-road-stub}}, and WP:OHSH exists. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. Alai 18:49, 2 October 2006 (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.

Irish peers, or Irish nobles in general; with a view to tackling the UK-nobles in general

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 split by peerage.
UK-noble-stub has been quietly growing to seven pages, and previous attempts at a big-bang solution were less tha clear-cut. A sensible first step might be to split off the Irish (or often, "Irish") peers: I count 97 UK-noble-stubs in the Category:Peers of Ireland hierarchy. This might make later splits easier to name, since describing the above as "British", or of the "UK" is apt to cause head-scratching. We could call this either {{Ireland-noble-stub}}, to thereby include other random sorts of noble, or {{Ireland-peer-stub}}, to be specific to the above. If we go with the latter, we might want to follow up with {{GB-peer-stub}}, {{UK-peer-stub}} and {{Scotland-peer-stub}}, all of which would be amply viable. (The last is a redirect at present.) Alternatively, the original suggestion of baronet-, UK-baron, UK-viscount-, UK-earl-. UK-marquis- and UK-duke would all be over threshold. (Actually, so would several splits by source and rank at the same time, but that's to really complicate matters.) Alai 04:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Support split by peerage. I like this, as it is a clearly scoped division with permcat parents. For that reason, though, we should probably insist on {{Ireland-peer-stub}}, etc., to avoid future conflict with regards to what Alai delicately refers to as "Irish" peers. --CComMack (tc) 18:15, 15 September 2006 (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.

English cricket bio subcats

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 English international cricketer stubs.
Parent is now five pages. There seems to be little in the way of batter/bowler categories, and the wicket-keepers don't seem to be viable. Here's a number of possibilities:

Obviously I suggest we split by one of county, era, or form of cricket, in about that order of preference. Alai 13:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a hard one. We removed batsman/bowler/all-rounder categories because there isn't a clear line as to which one a player belongs to. Counties might work for older cricketers, but modern cricketers often play for several different counties during their careers. Test vs ODI doesn't work at all, because almost all modern international cricketers play for both. That leaves era, but of course people cross arbitrary date boundaries too. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Stubs don't need to be as precise as proper categories. I guess the question is which subcategories are most liekly to be actually used by people looking to expand the articles? Maybe counties, or international players and then different counties, or eras? JPD (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

But we don't want someone to be in several stub cats, surely? Or am I wrong? Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't want more than one to be the norm, in cases like this (for a stub type that already encapsulates both nationality and occupation), and ideally not more than two or three very often at all. There's no corresponding permcat, but it did occur to me that a single Category:English international cricketer stubs might be more useful than either (or both) of the separate Test/ODI types. I'm not sure how much overlap there is by county on the stubs in question; I might do a more extensive analysis if there's some tentative support for that route. (I'd imagine it's potentially a useful split, since editors may often be more knowledgeable about their local/favoured county, and the players thereof.) Alai 16:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, your final assumption may not be true. Cricket is unusual in that many fans only follow international cricket, not domestic cricket. I could tell you which domestic team each of the England football team play for, but not which domestic team each of the cricket team play for, even though I follow cricket more than football.

That's not to say that county may not be the right division though, if there is little overlap. My guess is that "English international cricketer stubs" would be almost as large as "English cricketer stubs", but some statistics on that might be interesting too.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I was only suggesting it would "often" be true, not invariably. Well, a first order approximation would be that it's at least 370 stubs, and theoretically anything up to 484, from the above numbers. Of course, neither estimate allows for possible undercategorisation, one would have to count that by hand. Alai 20:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, it turns out to be closer to the former figure: 390 distinct stubs between the Test and ODI cats. Therefore, there's enough non-ODI test players for a stub type for those, but not enough for non-Test ODI players (only 20), as well as the "generic international" type. Alai 21:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather a lot of present-day cricketers have played for more than one county: this was less common in earlier years, though by no means uncommon. So there would be likely duplication in whatever is done. (A good example is David Smith, who would appear in your four most populous divisions above!). I think, though, that if we can stomach multiple stub cats then going with the counties is the logical way for non-international cricketers, and possibly for the international ones too: Stephen may not follow county cricket, but a lot of the English cricket project participants do, and some of us follow county cricket in preference to international cricket, so the sorting job can be done. This problem is going to get worse before it gets better: one splendid editor is assiduously creating biographies for all Worcestershire cricketers and I think he wrote somewhere recently that he had reached only about a quarter of the way through. So the 119 stubs that are already there could easily grow rather quickly, though one might hope some will become fully-fledged articles. Johnlp 23:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd think that era might be an easier split though with cricket players can have long careers (especially in the early days of the sport). How would splitting out the pre-WWII cricketers as well as the 18th century ones (18th? what about 19th?). Grutness...wha? 00:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That might work. To get roughly equal sub-divisons in terms of number of players, perhaps something along these lines might be considered:

career began prior to 1914 (ie before WW1)
career began after 1914 and before 1939 (between the wars)
career began after 1939 and before 1960
career begain after 1960 and before 1980
career began after 1980

Though finding suitable stub names for those might be tricky JH 09:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:English cricketers debuting between xxxx and xxxx stubs is my best bet for era name, even though it's convoluted.

The international-non-international split ought to come first though. From the editor perspective (i.e. that someone with interests is supposed to find stubs easily) this divides between the international followers and county followers. Sam Vimes | Address me 11:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sam that the international/non-international split is the first one to do. The difficulty with then doing it on a time basis rather than a team basis is that that information isn't always contained within the articles, whereas the teams are available through the existing categories.

I'm also concerned that if we do something now, we shouldn't put ourselves in a position where we have to revisit it in a few months' or even years' time. So the scale of the stub-categories that could, in time, be created by this method shouldn't be underestimated. I've done a rough count on one county, Gloucestershire, and reckon there are 275 pre-First World War first-class cricketers there; multiply that by eight for the other counties with as long a first-class history (ie back to about 1870) and then add in half as many again for the counties with shorter first-class histories, and, even when you take out the non-stub cricketers (such as WG, EM and GF Grace), you probably have more than 3000 stubs in the one category. (The other time periods are less heavy, but still not small.) Using teams at least gives us a starting point of 18 stub-categories rather than five, so further division should be unnecessary. Johnlp 21:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am presumably the editor mentioned by Johnlp above as "assiduously creating biographies for all Worcestershire cricketers". With regard to numbers, I have found 493 cricketers who have played first-class and/or List A cricket for Worcestershire (only a small handful are List A-only men); the list can be seen at User:Loganberry/Worcs. As can be seen from all the redlinks there, there's a long way to go. I'm currently having a break from those to work on a couple of specific articles, but I do intend to carry on in a while.

As far as how to split the stubs is concerned, the international/non-international split makes sense, but beyond that I'm much more uncertain. I rather feel that using teams would be asking for trouble, partly because so many people have played for multiple clubs (as an extreme but not impossible example, what do you do with someone who played twice for Lancashire, twice for Kent, twice for MCC and twice for London County?) and partly because - especially in the early days - there have been a lot more than 18 first-class teams, some of which (eg London County and MCC) are really too notable to be ignored. Loganberry (Talk) 21:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

exactly the reasons why I suspect that era is a more useful split. I know that the good Dr. WG played for 45 years, but few other players manage more than 20, so at most they'd be in two eras even it we didn't stipulate "debuted in". Grutness...wha? 04:57, 25 September 2006 (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.

Splitting of European track and field athletics biographies

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 recently been adding athletes and have found a number of possible splits on the European athletes (currently 800+ articles) I would like to propose {{France-athletics-bio-stub}} and Category:France track and field athletics biography stubs (currently 68 articles) I would also like to propose some templates to feed into {{Euro-athletics-bio-stub}} till they reach minumum number for a category
{{Greece-athletics-bio-stub}} - 59 articles
{{Italy-athletics-bio-stub}} - 56 articles
{{Spain-athletics-bio-stub}} - 56 articles
~~{{Norway-athletics-bio-stub}}~~ {{Poland-athletics-bio-stub}} - 50 articles (see below)
{{Sweden-athletics-bio-stub}} - 41 articles
{{Hungary-athletics-bio-stub}} - 41 articles
Finally I have a question regarding a number of soviet athletes, there are currently 127 of these in the category would it be correct to put these in one group as they all competed for USSR or would they eventually go in the successor nation stub categories if created.Waacstats 21:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If these athletes received notability representing the Soviet Union, I think they should be categorized separately if possible, e.g. {{ussr-athletics-bio-stub}}. They have an article as athletes, and their nationality as athletes was that of the Soviet Union. In a later stage there might also be enough articles for a {{gdr-athletics-bio-stub}}. Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive} 23:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just noticed that I miss read by table when proposing these Norway only has 20 athletes, Poland has 50 so strike {{Norway-athletics-bio-stub}} and replace with {{Poland-athletics-bio-stub}}Waacstats 14:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've edited it. I hope you don't mind my editing your comment. Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive} 14:12, 28 September 2006 (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 57 articles about trade unions from the Caribbean, virtually all of which are stubs. So I propose creating only a template feeding into {{Caribbean-stub}} and {{trade-union-stub}}.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 21:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This would definitely be a useful development although not without some dificulties in drawing clear lines of distinction. But I am sure that is not a new problem. At the moment, the choices are north or south american stubs neither of which is properly appropriate to the Caribbean. - Dave Smith

Dave and others have been very active on these articles - I think it's a useful stub class, and is likely to see a lot of usage. Guettarda 10:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

When can we use this stub? - Dave Smith 02:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion period lasts a week minimum... So if there's no objections you can make it on Oct 1. BTW, as to the "clear lines of distinction", if you're taking geographically, then it'd be useful if you could use the same boundaries for Caribbean used for Caribbean-stub, Caribbean-geo-stub, etc (i.e., including all the islands out to the Bahamas and Turks & Caicos and also including the places which are technically part of/territories of France, the UK and Netherlands, but excluding all the mainland countries such as Guyana, and also excluding Bermuda). Grutness...wha? 23:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

On the "clear lines of distinction" issue ... what I had in mind were countries like Guyana, Suriname and Belize in particular who are on the South American mainland but considered part of the Caribbean trade union movement. For instance, they all affiliate to the Caribbean Congress of Labour. Seeing as this is a Caribbean trade union stub, would it not make sense to recognise the same boundries used by the Caribbean trade union movement? The same goes for Bermuda. - Dave Smith 09:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmm. It probably would. This is almost identical (in reverse) to the problems over the proposed but not made Latin America stub (there it was the exclusion of Belize and Guyana). In this instance it probably would make some sense, though I'd suggest that double-stubbing the stubs affected with SouthAm-union-stub, CentralAm-union-stub etc, and/or country-specific stubs like Guyana-stub and Bermuda-stub, is a reasonable compromise. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think double stubbing solution would give the best of both worlds. Unless there are any major objections, my instincts are to go with that. - Dave Smith 02:24, 30 September 2006 (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 found 58 people just looking through the stubs through K.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 18:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Support ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:48, 26 September 2006 (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.

Islam 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 Islam-stub category has over 4 pages. Looking at it I propose the following two splits: {{Quran-stub}} (with redirects from {{Koran-stub}} and {{Qur'an-stub}}) and {{Islam-org-stub}}. The former would contain Sura and so on, i.e. articles related strictly to the book and not secondary literature, e.g., which would go in {{Islam-book-stub}}. StubSense finds 123 stubs Category:Qur'an including 119 {{Islam-stub}}s. For the latter, StubSense finds 267 stubs but surely includes a lot of false positives; I do believe it will reach threshold, however. BTW, I just noticed there is no {{reli-org-stub}}, surely that one would be helpful.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 23:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed a while ago that the Islam stub had too many articles, and so I strongly support. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 22:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Is everyone ok with a {{reli-org-stub}} as well?--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 21:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

All three sound sensible to me. Alai 15:29, 1 October 2006 (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.

Parachuting 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 as revised.
There's a lack of coverage of Parachuting (particularly European) on Wikipedia. As a Skydiver myself I'm intending on adding and editing parachtuign articles. I'd therefore like to create a Parachuting Stub --Rehnn83 17:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose StubSense lists only 22 stubs under Category:Parachuting [3] ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- What about Category:Air sports stubs and an upmerged template for the time being? [4] Alai 15:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'd accept Category:Air sports stubs --Rehnn83 07:40, 3 October 2006 (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.

{{Germany-road-stub}}/Category:German road 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.
There are well over 70 German roads in {{Euro-road-stub}}.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 23:37, 22 September 2006 (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.

Splitting Alberta 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 split out "Parks in Alberta".
At 4 pages (663 articles), Category:Alberta geography stubs could do with a split. But what would be a reasonable way to split this province? By census division? Or by Census Metropolitan Area? The largest split by city would be {{calgary-geo-stub}} at 48 Alberta-geo-stubs [5]. Does anyone have an alternative? Aecis ^Apple ^knocker ^Flophouse 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We split BC by taking out the protected areas and having them separate - would the same work for Alberta? Grutness...wha? 23:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A quick google search gives 36 hits, so I'm not sure that'd work. Aecis ^Apple ^knocker ^Flophouse 22:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There's 94 in Category:Parks in Alberta, almost all of them "Provincial Park"s, so I'd imagine they're protected areas, on the basis of advice from the protected area wikiproject about similar splits carried out earlier. Short of a Alberta-mountain-stub, there doesn't seem to be a lot of other alternatives at present, possibly due to very little sorting to cats like Category:Counties and municipal districts of Alberta, as well as the non-huge nature of the parent. I do count 55 under Category:Calgary, though. Alai 09:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! There are 71 stubs in Category:Parks in Alberta and daughters [6]. That option has potential. Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive} 10:12, 28 September 2006 (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.

Cricket ground 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.
There are 62 stubs on cricket grounds and cricket stadiums in Category:Cricket stubs (see User:Aecis/Stub_tallying#.7B.7Bcricket-ground-stub.7D.7D). I therefore propose {{cricket-ground-stub}}/Category:Cricket ground stubs, as a daughter of Category:Cricket stubs and Category:Sports venue stubs. Aecis ^Apple ^knocker ^Flophouse 21:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Support - easy either way, but I wonder whether these should be at cricket-venue-stub, to keep consistency with the stub parent. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"Cricket venue" sounds odd to me, so I prefer "ground". Stephen Turner (Talk) 00:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The non-stub parent would be Category:Cricket grounds. Aecis ^Apple ^knocker ^Flophouse 22:16, 23 September 2006 (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.

European buildings and structures stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
The following countries should get their own struct-stub types:

Denmark ([7])
Ireland ([8])
Norway ([9])
Russia ([10])
Spain ([11])
Sweden ([12])

I included all countries with over 120 hits on StubSense, in order to take false positives into account. Romania has 39 {{Metro-stub}}s (pretty much all subway stations), 22 {{Euro-stadium-stub}}s, 9 {{Euro-struct-stub}}s, and 3 {{Euro-airport-stub}}s; the Netherlands have 37 {{Euro-stadium-stub}}s, 17 {{Euro-struct-stub}}s, 12 {{Museum-stub}}s, 6 {{Mast-stub}}s, and 4 {{Euro-airport-stub}}s; so they both should also get struct-stub types.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 15:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Support all. Sweden was pretty close when I was counting struct-stubs (which i stopped doing a couple of months back), and that was just in the main euro-struct category and ignoring the church/stadium/etc subcats. Note that the Ireland one should be for the Republic only, or - as with the geo-stubs - with NI as a subcat of both it and the UK equivalent. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. Goldenrowley 06:05, 23 September 2006 (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:Marvel Comics supervillain 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 as villain.
The Marvel type is oversized; Category:Marvel Comics character stubs would be ueber-viable, and in fact seems too large to be a sensible first step. This was suggested at the wikiproject, and would certainly be viable, as a first step. Alai 14:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Marvel Comics villain stubs has been suggested as an alternative, to avoid making a distinction.--HKMarksCANDY IS A FOOD GROUPTALK♦CONTRIBS 18:33, 23 September 2006 (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.

Teacher 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 no consensus.
I propose stubs for teaching catagories

Care to be more specific? Grutness...wha? 05:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

comment by standard guidelines for naming, permanent category for this stub would be Category:Teachers which by the way is listed in WP:CFR. Monni 07:27, 23 September 2006 (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.

Splitting Category:Castile-La Mancha geography stubs: Cuenca and Albacete

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.
At 336 stubs, Category:Castile-La Mancha geography stubs comes close to a split. Afaik, there is no precedent for splitting Spanish subdivisions, so I suggest splitting by province. {{Cuenca-geo-stub}} (73 articles) and {{albacete-geo-stub}} (59) have already reached the threshold or are close enough to it to warrant creation. {{CiudadReal-geo-stub}} probably comes close as well, but I haven't yet been through that one. Aecis ^Apple ^knocker ^Flophouse 22:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

For future reference: The provinces of Guadalajara and Toledo in Castile-La Mancha are nowhere near the threshold for creation yet. But if they reach that threshold, what would be the naming format? Would it be e.g. Guadalajara-geo-stub, GuadalajaraES-geo-stub, Guadalajara-spain-geo-stub, Guadalajaraspain-geo-stub, or another form? The same goes for Toledo. Aecis ^Apple ^knocker ^Flophouse 21:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

GuadalajaraES would make most sense, since it would parallel GeorgiaUS-geo-stub and whatever the Belgium/Netherlands confusing one is (Utrecht?) Grutness...wha? 23:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

{{LimburgNL-geo-stub}} Aecis ^Apple ^knocker ^Flophouse 23:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Good question. There's some precedent for {{GuadalajaraES-geo-stub}}, but it's hardly something we have a very stable or mature "rule" for. I can think of some weakish arguments for {{Guadalajara-geo-stub}} based on "priority" reasons, but the scope for confusion is a bit too large. Alai 00:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, as a random sample of one (i.e., me) I didn't even know there was a Guadalajara in Spain. It instantly meant Mexico to me. Grutness...wha? 12:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I will create and populate the following categories tomorrow:

Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive} 22:01, 2 October 2006 (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.

Geology subcats

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 needed, and mind the spelling....

These all correspond to top-level subcats of Category:geology, but there might be signifcant overlap lower down the DAG. At any rate, consider this a shopping list of alternatives, rather than a comprehesive to-do list. Alai 05:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be vulcanology? I agree to this in principle, BTW - and I believe it has been suggested before, back when the glaciology stubs were split off a couple of months back. Geomorphology could also probably be further split by something for palaeogeography (though exactly how that would be worded and what parents it would have are open to quesion). Grutness...wha? 05:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- "u" is the spelling I'd use, but not where the permcat and article are. I deliberately didn't look further down than the top level, as the categories get "over-inclusive" if one goes too deep. But looking down to depth 3, I note that 56 stubs fall under Category:Paleozoic, and 134 under Category:Phanerozoic, so something like Category:paleozoic geology stubs and/or Category:phanerozoic geology stubs might be feasible. Alai 05:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

- - I was wondering about palaeogeography because I keep running into geo-stubs like River Bytham, which would probably be better served by something like that than by their current country-specific stubs. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

- - - Yes, I take your point, that sorting is pretty woeful. Without a corresponding permcat, though, I have no idea where to start looking for them... Alai 06:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  - Well, there's Category:Historical geology, which seems to cover that sort of thing... Grutness...wha? 07:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    - Oh, and there's indeed a Category:paleogeography, which I'd assumed from your comments there wasn't. It seems that there's 46 geology-stubs under either of those, very possibly a significant undercount if as you say you keep finding them elsewhere. Alai 07:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  - Yeah - I didn't notice it earlier because I'm used to the UK spelling and the cat uses US spelling. Such is Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 23:01, 14 September 2006 (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.

{{airfield-stub}} and Category:Airfield 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 rescope/rename per Alai.
There are a number of airfeilds which qualify as stubs, so I would like to see a new stub category and type for them. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 12:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Would said number be in line with the stub guidelines, i.e. 60 or more? Alai 17:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
At the moment, airfields use the various airport-stubs, which are supposed to cover both airports and airfields, and to be honest I'm not sure that splitting these two related types of place will really help anyone too much, especially since - particularly in the thrid world - there often isn't a big difference between the two things. I'd be far happier to see airports/strips divided into countries (which has already started to happen) than to see them split into two separate categories by type. Grutness...wha? 05:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Said coverage is a bit subliminal, then: Category:airport stubs has Category:airports as a perm parent (not it's parent, Category:airfields), links in its scoping text to airport, and has a template that's likewise named and linked. Alai 06:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  - hmmm. Perhaps a simple official rescoping of the stub categories concerned would do the trick? I do see problems if these are separated out - partly because airport stubs are largely sorted by location - we'd need a similar hierarchy for airfield stubs immediately if this goes ahead as proposed. Not that that's a major hassle, just a much larger proposal. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    - If that's the intent and/or the existing contents, then yes, off to SFD for a rename and rescope. (Either to Category:airfield stubs or to Category:airport and airfield stubs.) Or at the least, change the scoping text. Alai 03:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      - support rescope / rename Monni 16:52, 12 September 2006 (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.

Boxing bios split

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.

{{Africa-boxing-bio-stub}} / Category:African boxing biography stubs - 64
{{Asia-boxing-bio-stub}} / Category:Asian boxing biography stubs - 85
{{Caribbean-boxing-bio-stub}} / Category:Caribbean boxing biography stubs - 64
{{Euro-boxing-bio-stub}} / Category:European boxing biography stubs - 242

Parent isn't as big as some of the ones we have floating around, but it's still fairly sizable, and by my count, this would get the parent to under 100 stubs. --fuzzy510 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. Aelfthrytha 18:38, 11 September 2006 (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.

US tv station subcats

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.

Assuming we continue to split by state, these are the most likely-looking candidates. (A number of Blah-affliate cats would also be feasible.) Alai 02:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

note: The California TV station stubs may be on the high side because there have been a very difficult editor who keeps adding the stub template to fully fledged articles. It's been awhile since I've gone through those articles to remove the stub templates. ^Blank ^Verse 09:35, 11 September 2006 (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.

Slovakia 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.

Skipping straight to Grutness's favourites, the five-page geography splits... (Though not necessarily his favourite Latin character set.) There's a hierarchy of Districts and Regions, so it might be desirable just to upmerge the former to the latter for the time being. (The permcats flip-flop on capitalisation, btw, I've gone for all caps here.) Alai 00:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

heh - this is some response to my "Alai solution" comments, eh? They sound good, though redirects without those pesky accents would be good too. Grutness...wha? 07:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

At least you aren't calling them "funny foreign squggles" like one very persistent Wikipedia editor who apparently wants them banned from all article titles. ^Blank ^Verse 09:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh no - I've no objection to diacriticals, and use them when writing or offline word-processing (I'm even pedantic enough to keep a lot of the ones which are becoming archaic in English, like "naïve") - but they play merry hell with some old browsers and web-editing software. Netscape in particular - which a lot of people still use regularly - glitches and fritches some of the slavic character sets. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 12 September 2006 (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.
Articles in {{India-culture-stub}} need to be further sorted, for better organization. Definately over 60 dance related article stubs present. IrfanAli 06:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. Yes {{India-culture-stub}} needs further sorting. dance -stub is needed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Support. There is need for it. - Ganeshk (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2006 (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.

Politics Stub category is very large

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 re-sort as discussed.
Yeah, so I noticed this stub category is very, very large, and would like to propose a solution. I looked at the first few pages, and it seems like all the content could be divided into "poltical term stubs" and "political event stubs" (if not historical event stubs, but deciding which political events are historical is very subjective, especially if they're recent). There's so many articles in the Politics Stub category that I frankly don't think I have the time to list all the articles that would be "political term stubs" and all the articles that would be "political event stubs". Erm, do you think this is a good idea? If not, what alternatives would you propose?
--Once in a Blue Moon 20:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Makes a certain amount of sense. The other options would be splitting by era or country, but the political terms wouldn't split as easily that way, and "country" gets problematic when dealing with historical events. Talking of which, the tem "historical" is a bad onee, since even ongoing events are part of history and therefore 'historical events". Perhaps the best solution (and the one I'd support) would be just to split out a {{poli-term-stub}} for now, and see what that leaves us with, in case the events are better split into countries or era. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, all the political terms could go under {{polisci-stub}} and the events could be split by country, which I would prefer.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 20:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  - sounds reasonable. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 6 October 2006 (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.

Utah-State-Highway-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 upmerge.
Sorry for late proposal, but I've already created the Utah State Highway stub template as it was requested on the WikiProject page. I need a final premission before I proceed to put it on articles. Michaelas10 07:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer that this be created at (or moved to) Rschen's proposal of {{Ohio-road-stub}} / Category:Ohio road stubs, which it appears to me to be more inclusive, and less enigmatic as regards to naming and scoping issues. Alai 23:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've chosen the title using the titles of other sister WikiProject stub templates, such as {{Massachusetts-State-Highway-stub}}, so I believe its standard. Michaelas10 02:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  - We do need to have another discussion over the road stubs. It's gotten to be a mess. Maybe once the NC thing is cleared up... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    - Not so much standard, as "the way they happen to be at present". In every case other than where there's already multiple stub types (such as for California), I'd favour renaming and rescoping to Blah-road-stub, on the same basis as above. Alai 15:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      - The WikiProject is Utah state highways, not Utah state roads. Maybe a rename to Utah State highway stub? Michaelas10 16:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
        Not "state roads", "roads" in general. If we're splitting US road stubs by state, there's not a lot of logic to restricting a state-based type to a particular type of road, leaving the remainder either with no place to go, or mis-sorted under the more specific type. I don't think it's unreasonable for the wikiproject to pick their way around a couple of non-state-routes (or whatever they are, exactly). (And I do think it's unreasonable for wikiprojects to be the sole determinants of stub type scopes.) But I must have been a little more feverish than I thought a couple of days ago, as I've just noticed I suggested moving Utah to Ohio. (Mormon pioneer trail in reverse, I suppose.) Anyhoo, there seems to be a distinct lack of articles to sort to this type, so unless there's a huge unsorted rump someplace, deletion, or at least upmerging, would seem to be indicated, rather than renaming. Alai 18:48, 2 October 2006 (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.

Scientific Journal to Academic Journal

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 deferred.
I've been sifting through the magazine stubs, and it would make more sense (and give more stubs a comfortable home) to change the name of the "Scientific Journal" stub category to "Academic Journals." Kryptonita 19:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that belong at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion ({{sfr-c}})? Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive} 20:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. I'm not sure. I suppose I'm proposing a new "Academic Journal" stub type under magazine stubs ("Scientific Journal" would then merge into this category?). This would capture at least 40 more stubs than Scientific Journal stub category. "Academic Journal" is a more appropriate category for periodicals like the "International Journal of Middle East Studies" or "Economic Journal", which aren't scientific, but aren't really culture or trade mags either. I'm new to wiki, so let me know if this proposal is still posted in the wrong place-- Kryptonita 20:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just created (after discussion lower down on this page) a stub type for mathematical publications - I went with all publicatons rather than just journals in order to make sure it was a big enough category. There are already over 200 scientific journal stubs, if you make that category for all journal stubs, it will need splitting, which will basically mean recreating the scientific category. There probably aren't enough journal stubs to warrant a seperate type for each subject, but there probably are enough publications in total (journals, individual papers, text books, etc.) for most major subjects to have their own publications stub type, like the one I'm currently populating for maths. --Tango 20:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just added the page "List of academic journals" , and I think there will be enough demand for both stubs.

DGG 03:57, 1 October 2006 (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.

Media-company-stub

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

The result of the debate was create.
StubSense 367 stubs just by scanning Category:Media companies to a depth of 1000 pages. While sortingCategory:Company stubs, I've often needed this stub type. But it is important to be careful not to include tv stations and newspapers in this category, only the companies that run them.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 09:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You may also exclude film production companies, which are covered by {{film-company-stub}}. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And {{newspaper-stub}} and {{publish-company-stub}}. Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive} 19:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think {{film-company-stub}} and {{publish-company-stub}} should be children of {{media-company-stub}}, while {{newspaper-stub}} should only cover the newpspapers themselves not the companies running them.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 18:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Support per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:06, 2 October 2006 (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.

Buildings and structures stubs 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.
The following daughters of Category:United States buildings and structures stubs have enough articles for a separate category. I therefore propose:

{{Arizona-struct-stub}} / Category:Arizona building and structure stubs - 91 articles [13]

{{Colorado-struct-stub}} / Category:Colorado building and structure stubs - 63 articles [14]

{{Florida-struct-stub}} / Category:Florida building and structure stubs - 163 articles [15]

{{GeorgiaUS-struct-stub}} / Category:Georgia (U.S. state) building and structure stubs - 84 articles [16]

{{Illinois-struct-stub}} / Category:Illinois building and structure stubs - 120 articles (not including Chicago) [17]

{{Chicago-struct-stub}} / Category:Chicago building and structure stubs - 68 articles [18]

{{Indiana-struct-stub}} / Category:Indiana building and structure stubs - 87 articles [19]

{{Iowa-struct-stub}} / Category:Iowa building and structure stubs - 61 articles [20]

{{Kansas-struct-stub}} / Category:Kansas building and structure stubs - 66 articles [21]

{{Kentucky-struct-stub}} / Category:Kentucky building and structure stubs - 77 articles [22]

{{Louisiana-struct-stub}} / Category:Louisiana building and structure stubs - 60 articles [23]

{{Maryland-struct-stub}} / Category:Maryland building and structure stubs - 60 articles [24]

{{Minnesota-struct-stub}} / Category:Minnesota building and structure stubs - 145 articles [25]

{{Massachusetts-struct-stub}} / Category:Massachusetts building and structure stubs - 134 articles [26]

{{Michigan-struct-stub}} / Category:Michigan building and structure stubs - 120 articles [27]

{{Missouri-struct-stub}} / Category:Missouri building and structure stubs - 84 articles [28]

{{Nevada-struct-stub}} / Category:Nevada building and structure stubs - 86 articles [29]

{{NewJersey-struct-stub}} / Category:New Jersey building and structure stubs - 81 articles [30]

{{NorthCarolina-struct-stub}} / Category:North Carolina building and structure stubs - 84 articles [31]

{{Ohio-struct-stub}} / Category:Ohio building and structure stubs - 152 articles [32]

{{Oregon-struct-stub}} / Category:Oregon building and structure stubs - 73 articles [33]

{{Pennsylvania-struct-stub}} / Category:Pennsylvania building and structure stubs - 225 articles [34]

{{Tennessee-struct-stub}} / Category:Tennessee building and structure stubs - 77 articles [35]

{{Texas-struct-stub}} / Category:Texas building and structure stubs - 176 articles[36]

{{Virginia-struct-stub}} / Category:Virginia building and structure stubs - 111 articles [37]

{{Washington-struct-stub}} / Category:Washington building and structure stubs - 84 articles [38]

{{WashingtonDC-struct-stub}} / Category:Washington, D.C. building and structure stubs - 84 articles [39]

{{Wisconsin-struct-stub}} / Category:Wisconsin building and structure stubs - 154 articles [40]

Alabama (59 articles), Mississippi (55), Philadelphia (52), South Carolina and Utah (both 46) are close to reaching the threshold. Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive} 19:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on the fantastic work. Support as listed above. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support. Nice work. NauticaShades^(talk) 11:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

*Alert: Over at Sfd there's a proposal (so far successful) to make the category names noun-singular, i.e. "Foo building and structure stub". If you create these, please change them accordingly. Cheers, Her Pegship 00:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have edited this proposal accordingly. Her Pegship 04:55, 9 October 2006 (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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/September 2006 completed

September 2006

{{Encyc-stub}}

{{Shark-stub}}

Sao Tome geo-stub, plus ten more template-only geo-stubs

{{euro-film-stub}} / Category:European film stubs

{{weather-stub}} vs. {{climate-stub}}

{{Stagecraft-theat-stub}}

{{Greece-struct-stub}}

{{north-California-geo-stub}} and rename of {{California-south-geo-stub}}

Local History stubs

Split of {{US-struct-stub}} on geographic lines

Vale of Glamorgan geography stub

{{field-hockey-stub}} and {{ice-hockey-stub}}

More Swiss canton locations

Two more Chinese provinces

Chennai-geo-stub

NSW protected area stubs

Category:Scottish school stubs

{{UK-comics-creator-stub}}

{{AU-stub}}/Category:African Union stubs

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

{{art-history-stub}} with Category:Art history stubs, and {{art-materials-stub}} with Category:Art materials stubs

Scottish musician stubs

Abkhazia stubs

{{TRNC-stub}}

{{art-mixed-media-stub}} and Category:art mixed media stubs

Category:American television actor stubs -- split by dob?

{{Bat-stub}}

Sex-stub icons

{{Iran-mil-stub}}

Classical music ensemble group band orchestra and other stubs

{{mathpublication-stub}}

{{probability-stub}}

{{Turkmenistan-stub}}

{{India-music-stub}}

Law Stubs

Category:Canadian film stubs / {{Canada-film-stub}}

Winter sports biography subcats

Category:United States retail company stubs

{{decorative-art-stub}} and Category:decorative arts stubs

{{ceramics-stub}} and category: Category:ceramics stubs

{{Germany-org-stub}}

{{Texas-stadium-stub}}

{{US-tv-journalist-stub}}

British Columbia school subcats

More physics subtypes

Swahili stubs

Bahrain

{{Malaysia-bio-stub}}

The latest geo-count - new templates, but no only one new category

{{Ohio-road-stub}}/Category:Ohio road stubs

Irish peers, or Irish nobles in general; with a view to tackling the UK-nobles in general

English cricket bio subcats

Splitting of European track and field athletics biographies

{{Caribbean-trade-union-stub}}

{{Buddhism-bio-stub}}

Islam stubs

Parachuting Stubs

{{Germany-road-stub}}/Category:German road stubs

Splitting Alberta geography stubs

Cricket ground stubs

European buildings and structures stubs

Category:Marvel Comics supervillain stubs

Teacher stubs

Splitting Category:Castile-La Mancha geography stubs: Cuenca and Albacete

Geology subcats

{{airfield-stub}} and Category:Airfield stubs

Boxing bios split

US tv station subcats

Slovakia geo stubs

{{India-dance-stub}}

Politics Stub category is very large

Utah-State-Highway-stub

Scientific Journal to Academic Journal

Media-company-stub

Buildings and structures stubs by US state