Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive11

Proposals, September 2005 edit

Splits of ({{Academic-bio-stub}} and ({{Reli-bio-stub}} edit

Looking for outsize profession-stub categories, I've found these two, both now north of 800 stubs. If we split on country lines, it's likely to help with US-bio-stub; OTOH, splitting respectively by discipline (possibly) and religion (almost certainly) may actually be more attractive options. Canvassing opinions either way. Alai 01:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been randomly surfing through {{reli-bio-stub}}, aselectly clicking on links, and I've come across many stubs about bishops. So I would like to bring up the possibility of {{bishop-stub}}. Aecis 15:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +bishop +"This biography of a religious figure is a stub" " resulted in 92 hits. Googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +archbishop +"This biography of a religious figure is a stub" " gave me 83 hits. Googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +bishop +archbishop +"This biography of a religious figure is a stub" "(to check for doubles with the two earlier queries) brought about 32 hits. This group of religious biographies has enough stub articles for a stub template and stub category, so I would like to officially propose {{bishop-stub}} and Category:Bishop stubs. Aecis 20:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, names like Christian-bio-stub and Moslem-bio-stub would be best, but that doesn't specify that the bios are of people specifically connected to the church, so they're terms probably better avoided. 32 is a little thin - how about widening the bishop category a little and making it Clergy-stub, for all Christian clergy - bishops, priests, archbishops, etc? Also, would an Imam-stub for the Moslem equivalent be useful? Grutness...wha? 00:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are 32 doubles in the queries. This means that there are 60 unique bishop hits and 51 unique archbishop hits. This means that the bishop stub category will contain at least 111 articles. Aecis 08:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps name them Christian-relibio-stub and Muslim-relibio-stub, to make it more clear that they're still religious biographies? Clergy-stub also sounds like a good idea. --Mairi 18:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a {{Germany-academic-bio-stub}} down below to assist with sorting out {{Germany-bio-stub}}. Caerwine 02:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Communication stub edit

Proposal by Rauh 03:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I propose a stub for topics on communication field of research and science. Many stubs that would fall in this category are assigned to psychology, political, linguistics etc. when the main research effort is done by communication scholars and publshed on communication journals. This spread of topics on other discipline stubs makes it hard for people who know the communication research domain to fill out these articles.

Some examples:

Rauh 03:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that this would be very well-defined. In particular, none of the above articles have a common permanent category, or category parent in common; surely proposing that would be a logical first step? Alai 03:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is well defined since all of the above appear in any introduction to communication course or book, plus a lot of other related material. I was also following the logic of having psychology stubs, sociology stubs, etc. However, I can see your point on getting them under a category first. Still, I think that some would go under the existing comm theory category, others under communication category. I was thinking that the stub would provide a central place for all of those. What do you suggest that I do? Rauh 13:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I haven't seen in this discussion, is a proposed template and matching category. So here is my proposal (or rather, my processing of the discussion above): {{com-sci-stub}} / Category:Communication science stubs. What I also haven't heard is an indication of how many articles would fit into this category. I don't think it will be hard to make this reach the threshold, but it's best to be on the safe side. Aecis 15:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the proposed template and category is interesting but it might need to be more general than that since a lot of communication research or studies are not scientific but humanistic (e.g. symbolic interactionism) and such, although it becomes somewhat blurred with Linguistics. Communication science might be a better defined domain.

Is there any guideline to creating a count of articles that would fit in that category? There is a Communication basic topics page that cover many of the articles that would fit in there. The Communication studies article might also be informative. Can you please inform me a little more on how to compile this list/count? Rauh 22:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comm-sci-stub would be better that com-sci-stub, otherwise there'll be confusion with computer science. Actually, communication-sci-stub would be better yet, though probably not really necessary. ISTR there is already a com-stub, though (linking to Category:Telecommunications stubs). It sounds also like some of the stubs you're thinking of are alreadly listed as socio-stubs (Category:sociology stubs) and ling-stubs (Category:linguistics stubs). The best way to compile a count would be to go through the relevant stub categories that might have some of these articles and see what you can find. If there were 50 or more, then a separate stub type would definitely be viable. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comm-stubs or comm-sci-stubs, of course. One of the reasons that I suggested the comm-stubs was exactly because many of the articles that would fall under this category are scattered around in Category:Telecommunications stubs, Category:sociology stubs, Category:linguistics stubs, Category:psychology stubs and Category:political stubs. But because these are communication topics they are less likely to be filled out by people checking those stub lists. I will go through them and compile a list of candidates to the new stub. Rauh 01:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After going through all the above stub categories here is a list of articles appropriate for a comm-stub or a comm-sci-stub:

Rauh 02:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To return to my "well-definedness" point; the thing is, none of the [originally] cited articles are in any pre-existing permanent communications category, and several of them are in distinct permanent categories. What I didn't realize at the time, however, was that there already in fact is a Category:Communication (which would be one obvious place to start looking for perm-catted stubs). If what's being proposed is the stub counterpart of that, then fair enough (subject to a "viability count"), but I'm personally still not at all clear what the precise scope actually is, and I'm dubious about how consistently applied and "stable" the permanent category actually is. That is, are the majority of the articles with the intended scope already in that category, and if not, would catting them that way be clearly defined, generally agreed, and uncontroverial? If the overlap with media studies, linguistics, sociology, etc, is too high, or too debatable, then this may be more trouble than it's worth. Alai 17:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Made the above comment last night, didn't notice the resultant edit conflict. Some additional thoughts:) Thanks for doing the detailed count-down, Rauh. However, I still have concerns: Looking at a number of that list, it seems that this is more of a "cross-stubbing" than a stub-sorting proposal; the majority already have entirely reasonable-looking stub tags (and some already have two such); many already have permanent categories not included in the communications category hierarchy. Thus I think in a lot of these cases, adding "comm-stub" would be proposing significant additional category overlap, and restubbing them as such, category "drift". Mind you, I've never been a fan of the only one (or only two) stub tags notion, so that's not necessarily a bad thing as such, at least if the additional tagging is really likely to get those articles significant extra attention from "communications" people, rather than "linguistics" people, etc. Alai 17:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alai, I can certainly understand your point and I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised that such a controversy runs inside communication research as well. Since communication is a "universalist" topic present in a lot of disciplines it becames difficult to categorize topics as "just" communication. Even definitions of such that most researchers agree are hard to come by. However, you must agree that there is certainly such a concept as "communication" and that there is a related field of study of "communication" and a more specific subdomain of "communication science" that takes as its subject matter the concept we are debating here. Social psychology and sociology suffer of the same problem on many domains. The fact that some pages are currently categorized under certain categories does not make that categorization right. I believe that the above pages would most correctly be categorized under communication studies (or science for most). With possible a second categorization with the topic of communication in consideration (e.g. Politics for Agenda Setting, possibly).

Having said that, my point in suggesting the creation of a communications stub is that I firmly believe that editors who search a psychology (or politics, sociology, etc.) stub list will be less likely to fill out the above topics compared to editors who search a communications stub. The topics listed above are central to communication research but periferical to these other domains. I think that the goal here is to have these stubs filled out and getting them on a comm stub list might help in that process.

One final argument that I have is that as I have been roaming through communication cateogory and communication research topics I have noticed that it is not well covered. There are inumerous topics that could be added. Most of the pages are of very bad quality and obviously edited by, alas, people with psychology and sociology background. My project is also to edit this content area somewhat and the stub, I hope, will help me get some more people involved in the process. Maybe I should start this the other way around and starting working on the topics and come back later for the stub, but since there are plenty of pages for this list I'd rather advance the process. Rauh 02:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to support this, on the basis of the central/peripheral "acid test" you suggest. I'm not sure stub categories are much of a way in and of themselves of attracting editors out of a blue sky -- maybe you should look at a WikiProject:Communications? (Or Comm. Sci.) Certainly they're a facility for editors that are already so inclined. Good luck with your doubtless upcoming clashes with psychologists and sociologists -- alas. :) Alai 04:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More splits in mil-stub hierarchy edit

{{US-navy-stub}}. There's at least 200 US Navy ship stubs in {{mil-ship-stub}}, alone. (An immediate sub-cat of which would be another possibility; {{US-mil-ship-stub}}?)
{{US-mil-bio-stub}}. In one case I found myself triple-stubbing something as {{US-bio-stub}}, {{US-mil-stub}}, and {{mil-bio-stub}}, which is getting into set theory gone mad territory. And mil-bio-stub has about 920 stubs, so itself is in need of a split.
{{UK-mil-stub}}. Haven't done a count, but looks certain to be viable.
{{Germany-mil-stub}}. Lots of historical stuff (or should these be going into WW2 categories and such like?).

There are probably other feasible sub-cats that could be split out, these seem by eyeball to be the most pressing for starters. Alai 19:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a bit wary of the triple-hyphened ones, though I can see them coming in time (and we've got US-midwest-geo-stub and the like, so there is a precedent). US-mil-ship-stub could be quite useful, though.

The UK and Germany categories are definitely good ideas, although also note that there is Nazi-stub. I can't remember the exact parameters for it, but it could well include all WWII Germany articles. And, as you said, there is a WWII-stub.

As for US-mil-bio-stub, US-bio-stub and mil-bio-stub is probably enough for now - and no bio articles should get US-mil-stub (which isn't for people - people shouldn't be in any categories other than bio or occupation!) Grutness...wha? 03:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, thanks. The triple-hyphens are pretty ugly-looking, yeah, if anyone has any better names, fire away. Even without the triple-stubbing, though, the "US-mil-bio-stub" (in some form) one looks almost an inevitability, given the numbers. Alai 05:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-mil-stub}} created, and (partially) populated. Now has "adopted" {{RAF-stub}} as a sub-cat. Alai 02:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{US-bcast-stub}} edit

Now about 1000 stubs. Split out the radio stations and the TV stations? Alai 09:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of {{UK-tv-channel-stub}} edit

I'd like to create this template to aid in the improvement of articles about British television channels as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject British TV channels. Currently most articles are tagged as {{UK-bcast-stub}} or {{TV-stub}}. This template would move them into a single category, which would then categorise as a subcategory of the categories linked to by both of these.

Suggested text:

This article on a British television channel is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 12:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced you're going to get 50 or more stubs in that category. At the moment, British broadcasting stations are covered by UK-bcast-stub, which has under 350 stubs, most of which are radio stations. I doubt if there are more that 20 UK TV station stubs in there, so a separate category seems unnecessary. The again, if some of them are incorrectly marked with TV-stub, and there is a wikiproject, and there's talk above of splittng up US-bcast-stub... hmm. Anyone? (Nice icon, BTW) Grutness...wha? 13:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a good chance it could get to 50, (I haven't actually counted) as if you look in Category:British television channels there is a fair few articles there, and many, if not more than half are stubs all tagged differently, some untagged. Plus many more will be added (look at all the red links on List of British television channels). Cheers about the icon ;) MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 16:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Activism Stubs edit

--naught101 01:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC) there are plenty of pages on vaious types of activism, I would suggest that these go under politics. I'm not sure if activists should also go under activism, or have its own stub type. I will come back and add the numbers that I can find for each type, and there are probably more type that these. I would suggest among others:[reply]

(I slightly reorganised the above, since they're easier to debate in one load) I strongly doubt you're going to find more that 60 stubs for each of these - and several of these are already well covered by other stub types ({{LGBT-stub}} and {{fem-stub}}, for instance). Tentatively I'd support one overall {{activism-stub}} and a separate {{activist-stub}}, although in each case you may be very much in danger of the same sort of POV issues with those templates as with the recently declined terrorist-stub. Grutness...wha? 09:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would definately find an {{activist-stub}} for political activists as a daughter category of {{poli-bio-stub}} useful. There are already several activists in that category.--Carabinieri 20:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starting off with just {{activism-stub}} and {{activist-stub}} sounds like a good idea. Atleast the POV issues would be less than terrorist-stub, I'd hope. Also, "queer" is offensive to some, so that name would be less than desirable. --Mairi 00:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{gmc-lang-stub}}, {{rom-lang-stub}}, {{ii-lang-stub}} edit

I'd also like to reduce the load of {{ie-lang-stub}} by creating stub categories for the Germanic languages, the Romance languages, and the Indo-Iranian languages. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical about the need for these, and whether there are enough for all 3, as {{ie-lang-stub}} only has 198 stubs. --Mairi 23:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I don't see the need to split the Indo European stubs. Only if there were a WikiProject associated with one of the proposed subtypes could I see the desirability at this point. Caerwine 00:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with looking only at {{ie-lang-stub}} is that there are still a whole lot of Indo-European languages in {{lang-stub}}, and most of them are Romance, Germanic, or Indo-Iranian. I am confident that if {{gmc-lang-stub}}, {{rom-lang-stub}}, and {{ii-lang-stub}} get implemented, there will be at least 60 articles listed in each of those as well as in the parent {{ie-lang-stub}}. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just stubsorted B and C of Category:Language stubs, and Category:Indo-European language stubs is already up to 209 from 198. If I go all the way to the end of Category:Language stubs, there will probably be over 250 articles in Category:Indo-European language stubs. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture or Fad stubs edit

moved to correct place on page Grutness...wha?

You will have to excuse my ignorance; I am a newbie at all of this. I have taken an interest in Pop culture and Fads and categorizing and creating articles for these categories. I think a fad or pop culture stub would be appropriate. Obviously a pop culture stub would cover the fad one too, so probably the better choice. Here are a few that I've picked out, but I've run across many short articles, and plan on at creating more stubs as well. I realize that some of these articles have other categories, but I feel a pop culture stub could create a more appropriate response for many of the articles. For example, you can put pet rock under toys, but people interested in pet rocks would more than likely be so due to its pop culture impact. Yes? no? I don't know how to make a stub either. So if Yea, then maybe one of you oldtimer wizzes can do that for me. If not, I will look it up :D

(Wrinehart 07:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Mmmm. this one might get to 50 stubs - and for the life of me I can't think of what other stub would be used for them. So tentatively, I'd support it. Grutness...wha? 11:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note, I only began categorizing fads under pop culture by decade two nights ago. Since then there have been at least two other folks categorizing this way as well. I think the stub could expand the pop culture area of Wikipedia. :) (Wrinehart 01:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I don't believe this is a necessary stub category. There already is a {{culture-stub}}. And there are plenty of other categories (fashion, games, food, dance, toys, vocabulary, music) that would cover most anything falling into "popular culture". Also, to my mind, several of the articles listed here, while slight, hold their own as articles, not stubs, and are best left in their current categories. J. Van Meter 02:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You do not believe there would be a significant number of people interested in Pop Culture type articles specifically, and want to expand on these? Culture is a very broad area, whereas a pop culture stub would cover a large variety of topics and is still nowhere near as specific as some of the proposed stubs I've seen. Wrinehart 03:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are "interested in Pop Culture type articles." But we don't judge or approve stub template proposals by the number of interested users. So far, only 7 articles have been mentioned that could use this stub. I'm not asking you to name every single article that could possibly use this template, but what I haven't heard in this discussion is an indication of how many pop culture or fad stub articles Wikipedia currently has. Will this stub template/category reach the threshold of roughly 50 to 60 articles? Aecis 13:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-navy-stub}} vs. {{US-mil-ship-stub}}; {{RN-ship-stub}} edit

Already proposed above, and no strident objections, but I haven't gotten around to doing either, or indeed actually deciding which. I'd be inclined to go with the latter, simply because it'll be a pretty large category in and of itself, without throwing in "other" US Naval stubs besides, and to preserve them within the current sub-tree (well, sub-dag, actually, but...) of the hierarchy they're in at present: {{mil-ship-stub}}, which itself is over 700 stubsworth. Similarly, there are more than enough for "Royal Navy ship stubs" -- in fact, there's plenty for two categories, should anyone prefer to have {{HMS-ship-stub}} and {{RFA-ship-stub}}. Alai 20:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going for stubs with abbreviations for specific branches of military, could use {{USN-ship-stub}}. Do any other branches of the US military have ships, besides Navy and Coast Guard? What about for the British military? --Mairi 21:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The US Army has some ships of its own for transporting its stuff from one place to another without having to depend upon the good graces of the navy, and it operated the riverine warcraft for a during the early part of the US Civil War before the Navy took those vessels over. Caerwine 23:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the extra hyphen, I think I'd feel happier with US-mil-ship-stub and UK-mil-ship-stub. It has the advantage that if we needed to split further it could be done by understandable names - I don't want to have to look up the name of the Chinese or Russian navy every time I find an article that needs stubbing, for instance. Grutness...wha? 22:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went with Grutness's names for these. I hestitate to sort the RFAs in with the HMSs, though: they're both rather lengthy to simply lump them back in together. Perhaps {{UK-aux-ship-stub}} as a sub-cat? Alai 03:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created UK-aux-ship-stub too; part-populated. Alai 03:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ghana-stub}} edit

I've come across some 70 stubs that would be able to use this stub, scattered over a wide variety of Africa related stub categories. Probably more, especially since compared to some people, I'm conservative when it comes to applying country level stubs. Most of these do not have {Africa-stub}, but rather one of its sub types, so it won't help that much with trimming that cat, but that cat isn't in need of serious surgey at the moment anyway. Caerwine 21:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's also been a lot of growth recently in the Ghana geo-stubs (which went from 30 two weeks ago to 70 now) - it could well be worth proposing a geo-stub for it too, especially given the size of AfricaW-geo-stub. The one problem with Ghana-stub is that there are two distinct and unrelated places: modern Ghana and ancient Ghana (which was approximately modern Mauritania to Chad). Would Ghana-stub deal with both? Grutness...wha? 00:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was counting just the modern Ghana, which means I would have been more selective if you count also includes ancient Ghana. By my count there are only about 45 Ghana geo stubs and I completed that census just a day ago. Were all those stubs in {AfricaW-geo-stub}? Caerwine 03:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Ghana's stub population, as I said, is growing fast! Grutness...wha? 04:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See compromise suggestion under Sudan-stub, below. Grutness...wha? 06:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, October 2005 edit

{{Tanzania-stub}} edit

A total of 78 stubs found of which 55 are geo stubs. There's enough to support either this or {{Tanzania-geo-stub}} but not both, and since {AfricaE-geo-stub} is not in need of splitting, I'd prefer to go with the general stub instead of the geo-stub. Caerwine 03:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see comment below. Grutness...wha? 04:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Sudan-stub}} edit

A total of 83 stubs found of which 62 are geo stubs. There's enough to support either this or {{Sudan-geo-stub}} but not both, and since {AfricaN-geo-stub} is not in need of splitting, I'd prefer to go with the general stub instead of the geo-stub. Caerwine 03:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little unsure about all this. Personally, I hate having separate country-stubs without country-geo-stubs, because I seem to spend almost my entire time on wikipedia replacing geo-stub templates from people who think that because there's a Eucovia-stub but no Eucovia-geo-stub they can replace the existing Asia-geo-stub with an existing non-geo template... which means we never get to find out whether a Eucovia-geo-stub template is needed. Take the case for Tanzania, above - there are 78 stubs in total, of which 55 are geo-stubs. 55 isn't enough for a separate geo-stub category, but some well-meaning sorter is bound to remove the AfricaE-geo-stub template from these articles if tanzania-stub is made, so we won't find out when a further 20 or so stubs take tanzania over the threshold for a geo-stub. What's more, since the geo-stub categories and the country-stub categories work in parallel, what you're actually saying is that there are 21 stubs suitable for Sudan-stub if geo-stubs are excluded. for that reason, I oppose the creation of both of these, especially since with 67 geo-stubs, Sudan is a country I've already mentioned as a potential candidate for its own geo-stub. Grutness...wha? 04:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise situation might be to break Africa-stub up in the same way that Africa-geo-stub is broken up - into the five regions. Thatw ould allow all the non-geo-stubs of Tanzania, Kenya, etc, to get a slightly more specific AfricaE-stub, for instance. It would make sense, because the coutlres of several of the countries in each region do overlap to some extent. Grutness...wha? 04:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's really a matter of which is the lesser of two evils. Ideally, if we have an {XYZ-geo-stub} we'd have also have an {XYZ-stub} to be its parent in addition to {XY-geo-stub}. So the question is, is the lack of proper parenting worse than having to double stub with {XYZ-stub} and {XY-geo-stub}? Perhaps we should lower the stub threshold for parent stub types? Caerwine 19:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. That's definitely possible. My main beef is with having XYZ-stub but not XYZ-geo-stub, since XY-geo-stubs tend to get replaced rather than there being double-stubbing. Which makes it difficult to work out when a new geo-stub category is worthwhile. Having said that, there are now significant numbers of geo-stub categories - more countries have them than don't. Also, there is a certain amount of cultural overlap with many of these countries, especially ones like Kenya and Tanzania which have spent considerable parts of their recent history linked into a larger federation. Ideally, I think the ultimate situation would be for all countries to have both XY-stub and XY-geo-stub categories. The only problem are those where there's clearly little call for both. (Yeah, I know - I've simply restated the problem rather than offering any solutions) Grutness...wha? 09:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{book-stub}} substub proposals edit

Two ideas:

create a {{fiction-stub}} to at least separate out fiction novels that don't fit into existing fiction stubs like {{Hist-book-stub}} or {{sf-book-stub}}. I think a {{lit-book-stub}} for classic literature would also help; even though literature vs fiction is a POV thing, it's only a stub categorization question rather than a matter of article content.
break down book stubs by author nationality - at least substubs for US, UK, Russia, France, Italy, Germany, Latin America, Japan, China, and Africa. We could create more nationality substubs as needed. Not only would this clean up the category, but a user with particular interest in, say, German literature could more easily find a whole set of stubs to expand. | Keithlaw 16:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ISTR we've actually gone the other way on the first idea - isn't there a nonfiction-book-stub? If so, then by default all the other should be fiction books. As to author nationality, it's a good idea in theory, but I think it may need a little more work. I suspect it's a little more complicated than simply categorising by author's nationality. The nationality of an author doesn't automatically tell you what nationality the book relates to: Why should Bill Bryson's book on Australia be categorised under US authored books, for instance? Grutness...wha? 00:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't speak for Keithlaw, but I think on the 1st point he's saying that if we could separate new fiction from classics. All that would need to be done is to make a 'classics-book-stub' and leave the fiction-stub as it is. I'm new to editing, but would this be a problem? A classic would be defined as a classic if someone put it there and no one had major objections. Plus it would just be for stubs, not necessarily an authoritative canonical judgment. I know that I would be primarily interested in working in this category since I like what is traditionally considered classics, and will likely ignore newer books and leave them to be categorized by those that are interested. It just seems like there's a rough 50-50 split between these two categories, and this would help. As to the second point, I think I'd need to hear more discussion.--JECompton 04:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - JECompton, you did a pretty good job of speaking for me after all. That was a big part of what I had in mind - further subdividing the fiction that's left in book-stub. Classics jumped out at me for two reasons. One, it's an area of interest to me and it's a big part of what I read (sounds like you're the same way). Two, I would bet that a lot of visitors to Wikipedia are looking for info on classics; for example, students looking for info to help them write book reports or essays. As for Grutness' objection on nationalities, I was only talking about applying those substubs to fiction. Bryson's book on Australia would go into the nonfiction stub. For example, Stendhal's The Charterhouse of Parma is considered French literature, even though most of the novel takes place in Italy. | Keithlaw 14:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm... perhaps agaiin it's a case of working in the other direction - breaking out a classics-book-stub first and seeing what's left. I'm willing to be swayed by others here who have done more work on this category, though, and I'm a little worried that "classics' could be somewhat POV. ISTR User:DESiegel and user:*Kat* were doing most of the work on the book stubs, but I'm not sure whether either is still part of this wikiproject (it may be worth putting a note on their user pages, though, see if they've got any suggestions) Grutness...wha? 13:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Grutness, I agree with you that classics vs non-classics is POV, but if it's just for stub-sorting, it shouldn't be a big deal because in theory that's not permanent. Besides, if better stub-sorting means more stubs get expanded, I'll take that benefit over any detriment from POV in stub identification. | Keithlaw 14:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a sort through the book stubs. There were an fair number of undersorted or missorted stubs, correcting those brought the total to just a little over 800 book stubs. If anthologoes of short stories go in the proposed {{story-stub}} then this cat will easily go below 800 stubs. Rather than what's been proposed, I think what's needed is one more genre-based stub. A stub for the spy/techno-thrillers would easily get over the 60-stub limit, the only problem is what to call it? Caerwine 16:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "suspense-book-stub?" But back to the point, my goal in this proposal wasn't so much getting the category under 800 but making it easier for would-be editors to find stubs they want to expand. Just because the category is down to 750 stubs doesn't mean I'm going to browse it, but a classic-lit-stub category with 100 stubs isn't so intimidating. | Keithlaw 17:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I counted 32 current book-stubs that would qualify for classic-lit-stub using a very conservative selection process. If I was a little less conservative - including more 20th century novels - the total would be about 55. | Keithlaw 04:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So the need isn't that dire, and although it's only for stub-sorting, I see minor (or major) discussions coming up as to the question of what is classical and what isn't; but I like the idea of the {{suspense-book-stub}} or something to the effect of a [[tl|darkwave-book-stub}}, maybe also to include the beloved Ctulhu-stuff :) Lectonar 11:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, someone proposed a {{Cthulhu-stub}} a few months back (it'll be in the archive somewhere). I found about 60 stubs it would suit, but the propsal was rejected. perhaps it's time to revisit it? Grutness...wha? 06:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I'm all for a spy-book-stub or something like that. 'Suspense' seems a bit ambiguous to me--it seems to connote light horror or intense action, or perhaps even psychopathic thriller. I'm not even sure all spy novels necessarily rely on suspense. Is spy-book-stub too exclusive against the techno side? Also, I'm glad to hear about the short story stub--I hadn't thought of that, but was annoyed by the many of those that were a pain. As to the classical stub, If it's not too many, I guess no worries. If there does seem to be an overwhelming number of Booker, Nobel, and canonical books, I would be for this separation.--JECompton 04:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two literature stubs edit

While resorting misplaced stubs that were in {{book-stub}} there were two types of stubs that I sent back to {{lit-stub}} for now that I think are deserving of their own stubs:

{{fict-geo-stub}} Stub articles about fictional places. Between the ones already in {{lit-stub}} and others to be found in Category:Fictional locations and its numerous subcategries, there are easily 60 stubs that would go in here.
{{essay-stub}} The nonfictional counterpart to the {{story-stub}} for short pieces of nonfiction writing.

Comments? Caerwine 16:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely support a fictional locations stub - quite a few of these turn up in the geo-stub category. Given that the main category is called Fictional locations, though, perhaps {{fict-location-stub}} would be a better name? That would allow for fictional buildings, planets, and the like, which don't really count in the normal run of geography stubs. Grutness...wha? 09:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree--{{fict-location-stub}} sounds much more suggestive of what it is... --JECompton 03:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created {{fict-location-stub}}, and redirected the odd existing {{fictionalplace-stub}} to there. --Mairi 18:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia-stub edit

I've been having a discussion with someone who is busily sorting out the Catalan articles on Wikipedia, and he's keen for there to be a separate Catalonia-stub, to be used as a secondary stub with Spain-bio-stub and Spain-geo-stub. The Spanish stub categories overall are a little on the thin side, but I think it should be possible to get close to 100 stubs in a Catalonia category quite easily. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks ok to me. Catalonias got a distinct culture and there will be probably enough stubs. BL Lacertae 09:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll do it --Joan sense nick 23:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

German bio stubs edit

I was sorting through {{Germany-bio-stub}} to see if there were wnough for a German actor stub and as long a was going through those 700 or so stubs, I also checked to see if there were any other groups wotrh sorting out. Here's what I'd like to propose:

88 stubs {{Germany-academic-bio-stub}} (Includes categories that have split out from {{academic-bio-stub}} such as {{historian-stub}}, so this won't do much to eliminate double stubbing, but it will help thin out {{Germany-bio-stub}}.
61 stubs {{Germany-scientist-stub}} (See comments above.) About another 10 or so if this includes {{med-bio-stub}} where those stubs are for their research instead of their practice of medicine.
61 stubs {{Germany-actor-stub}} Mostly these just have {{Germany-bio-stub}} and {{actor-stub}} so this will cut down on the doublestubbing a good deal. These three cats will enable {{Germany-bio-stub}} to be trimmed down to the <500 level. Caerwine 02:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and create {{Germany-actor-stub}} now, but with {{Germany-academic-bio-stub}} and {{Germany-scientist-stub}} both breaking some slightly new ground, I'd really like some feedback before creating those. Caerwine 22:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, I was thinking about a Polish-scientist-stub as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Writer Stubs edit

earler discussion on this subject is now archived. This has been moved further down the page to prevent accidental archiving

I just sorted through Ireland, and found 69 writer stubs in {{Ireland-bio-stub}}, so I'll create the split in a few days barring any objections. I'll get to Norway, Poland, Russia, and Sweden as time allows. Caerwine 18:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished sorting Norway. I found only 53 writer stubs. Caerwine 01:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished Poland, enough to justify writers and several other stub sub types, see below for details. Caerwine 19:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished a census of Russia bio stubs, I found enough to justify writers and two other sub types, see below. Caerwine 06:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished sorting Sweden and found 73 writer stubs in the Sweden bio's so I'll create it in a week or so barring objections. Caerwine 05:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy stub edit

moved from immediately under the message saying "don't put proposals here"

read Category talk:Comedy for the message. (unsigned comment from anon)

FWIW, the proposal there simply says "We should make a comedy stub." (In other words, the suggestion that we should look there is longer than simply repeating the proposal would have been!)

Stubs are split by type of medium, so there would need to be one for comedy books, another for comedy television, one for comedy films, one for comedians... (BTW, some of these already exist: {{comedy-film-stub}} and {{comedian-stub}}). A pure and simple {{comedy-stub}} doesn't fit in very well with the stub hierarchy. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Comedy-stub}} has been created by an anon user, despite the objection here. --Mairi

Split of party-stub edit

While thinking about party-stub (see above, and also the proposal for the renaming of its category at sfd), I realised that it may well be time to consider splitting this one. Currently page 1 of the category doesn't get to the end of the letter B. While I realise that there are currently two sub-cats (Communist parties and Liberal parties), I can't help but wonder whether a better way of splitting this (at the risk of sounding like a one-trick pony) is by country and/or continent. I wouldn't be at all surprised if people know the political parties of a particular country better than they would know - say - Christian-Democrat parties worldwide. So I'd like to propose a rough tally followed by a division based on continent first, plus any countries that seem to have large numbers of parties. Any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 07:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sounds ok. would you star with just by continent or would some countries also be broke out at the same time? BL Lacertae 09:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Continent would be an easy place to start, and it would sort things out quite a lot and most countries wouldn't get near threshold anyway. In fact, after a quick look through I'd like to propose:

All of which should easily reach 100 stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To that I'm adding {{SouthAm-party-stub}}. I'm going through Category:Political party stubs; now I'm at C, and there are already over 50 of them. Conscious 10:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splits of {{biologist-stub}} edit

I propose creating {{zoologist-stub}} and {{botanist-stub}} as splits of {{biologist-stub}}. Most of the biologist stubs are explicitaly named either as either zoologists or botanists or one of their sub-disciplins (Herpetology, Mammalogy, e.g.). I don't have exact numbers but I'm sure there will be well over 100 of each, since there are over 800 biologists and a large number of them belong to one of these categories.--Carabinieri 16:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. I've done a lot of sorting on the scientist stubs. And a lot of the biologists might fit into the medical bio stub category, too. --Etacar11 16:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leery of actively moving stubs into {{med-bio-stub}}. That stub type has several distinct types of stubs that while they do all relate to medicine, don't have much else in common. There are medical researchers, medical practioners who treated famous people (successfully or not), founders of hospitals or medical societies, people whose claim to fame is the first known person afflicted with some ailment, and those who volunteered to be in a medical experiment. Perhaps we should separate out the medical researchers from the others as a sub type of {{biologist-stub}} that would also be a sub type of {{med-bio-stub}}. I haven't done a detailed census of the group, just noted the diversity of med-bio stubs as I've done other bio stub censuses. Caerwine 06:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a point. I was referring to the medical researchers...might be good to have a sub stub for that. --Etacar11 18:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poland bio stubs split edit

Came across three new stub types that would each get over 60 stubs from {{Poland-bio-stub}}.

{{Poland-mil-bio-stub}} 91 stubs
{{Poland-noble-stub}} 201 stubs
{{Poland-writer-stub}} 104 stubs

Absent any objections, I'll create them in about a week. Caerwine 20:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support all these. I earlier suggested US-mil-bio-stub, to which there was muted protest. I'd suggest we go ahead with such splits by country, as and when viable. Alai 06:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I suspect that UK-mil-bio-stub, and similar for France and Germany, won't be far behind. Grutness...wha? 08:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created all three just now and added them to the list. Now all that needs to be done is to populate them. Caerwine 05:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Populating as we speak, but please also consider {{Germany-noble-stub}} requested below.Staffelde 20:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Population from {{Poland-bio-stub}} complete, bringing the cat down from <700 to <400. Caerwine 04:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

european writer stubs edit

I counted the european writer stubs. Here are all the countries that received over 30 stubs:

Ireland (60)
Russia (41)
Poland (40)
Croatia (38)
Sweden (31)
Norway (31)

Caerwine counted 104 Polish writers by going through the Poland-bios. This means that these numbers might be much lower than the actual number of stub that would fit into a writer stub category for that particular country. Therefore I propose creating {{Ireland-writer-stub}}, {{Russia-writer-stub}}, and {{Poland-writer-stub}} (that has however already been proposed above).--Carabinieri 11:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to Ireland, Poland, and Russia. In fact the first two have been found to have 60 stubs and I just finished Russia, and will be proposing Russia-writer and two others below. I've counted Norway, and there are not enough for that country. I was going to count Sweden next, but I could do Croatia first if people want. Caerwine 06:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think it is unlikely that these would get more than 60 stubs, the Czech Republic had 26 stubs, the Netherlands 24, and Hungary 21.--Carabinieri 16:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found 73 writer stubs for Sweden, which was surprising as there are only a little over 300 stubs plus two sub types in Sweden. Caerwine 05:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{mountain-stub}} edit

This should be created. It is a valid stub, and could be used in articles. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 20:21, 15 October 2005 (CDT)}

I gather that the working idea is for any mountain to be classified under Geo-stubs by location; e.g., a stub about a mountain in Indonesia would go under {{Indonesia-geo-stub}}. GTBacchus 01:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No to Mountain-stub, for exactly the reason GTBacchus says. We've already deleted hill-stub and river-stub (which were created without being proposed) - these go directly against the stub hierarchy and are explicitly given as examples of bad splits of geo-stub at WP:STUB#New_stub_categories. Grutness...wha? 05:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about categories, but stubs should be categorized both by location and type. Now, mountain/hill/river stub look to me more like a natural spinoff of structure-stub, actually, so what do you think about categorizing them there? We may also create a more general category like natural-structure-stub. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are not enough of them per country for the most part for individual categories for them (e.g., Germany-mountain-stub) - over 80% of geo-stubs are for villages and towns. As for categorising them as struct-stubs, the parent category Category:Buildings and structures is for human-made edifices, not for natural features like mountains, so that's a pretty bad idea. In any case, the vast majority of geo-=stub categories are small enough that it's easy for editors to pick out any specific features from them. We're now at the stage where very few - if any - geo-stub subcategories have over 1000 stubs, and most have under 200. And since the overwhelming majority of editors are more likely to know about places of all kinds within their own region than, say, lakes all over the world, it makes far more sense to split things by location. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{fort-stub}}; {{mil-rank-stub}} edit

Feasible country-based splits of {{mil-stub}} are getting a bit thin on the ground, but here's a couple of pretty clearly defined sub-categories. Fortifications and bases are certainly over "viability" level; ranks are there or thereabouts, if we include things that are technically posts and appointments, which I think is the intuitive thing to do anyway. Alai 03:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm. Forts are a little problematical for the same reason as mountains (above) - a lot of them are listed simply as geographic locations. In this one case, though, it might be a reasonable exception to the rule. Ranks though would make perfect sense. Grutness...wha? 05:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike "mountain-" though, I'm not proposing a wholly new stub-cross-categorisation, but a sub-category of {{mil-stub}}, and hence a sort of an existing (and still oversized) stub-cat. (That being where I found 'em; there may of course be more besides.) A lot of them are already double-stubbed as location-geo-stubs too, that much is true. Alai 17:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are a huge number of these in the varius geo-stub categories. There must be more of them double-stubbed than i thought! Grutness...wha? 23:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not consistently double-stubbed, or anything shocking like that... There's about 100 in the mil-stub hierarchy, though. (Not all of them actual pieces of geography.) Alai 01:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created mil-rank-stub, sorted the mil-stub ones (that I had a note of, at least). Slightly early, tsk-tsk. I'll hold off for a little longer on forts, given Grutness's caveat, but I'll go ahead tomorrow or so if there are no further obs. Alai 18:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created fort-; currently populating from the mil-stub sub-tree. Someone might want to have a look to see what's double-stubbable from other categories. Alai 20:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russia bio stubs edit

I just finished a census of the Russian bio stubs and found three potential sub types:

{{Russia-politician-stub}} 65 stubs
{{Russia-writer-stub}} 71 stubs

and possibly

{{Russia-mil-bio-stub}} 55 stubs, plus another 35 stubs if the cosmonaut stubs are included here.

I'm not certain if we should include cosmonaut stubs in the mil-bio-stubs, since technically they are not notable for what they did militarily, and since Russia-bio will be at <400 without splitting out the mil-bio stubs, it's not all that urgent a split for Russia. Caerwine 06:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support from me (especially now that I've tidied up the typos in your proposal ;) Grutness...wha? 07:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against including cosmonauts in the mil-stub, they should be included in {{astronaut-stub}}.--Carabinieri 18:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If cosomonauts were included it would be to change the existing double stub of {{Russia-bio-stub}} {{astronaut-stub}} into the double stub of {{Russia-mil-bio-stub}} and {{astronaut-stub}}. I'm definitely not proposing dropping the {{astronaut-stub}} from their bios. As I've said, I'm neutral enough on the idea that I'm not in favor of either doing or not doing that, but it had enough internal logic that I thought it ought to be proposed. Caerwine 01:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Russia-mil-bio-; of the 29 from mil-bio-stub, 13 are not tagged as Russia-bios, so that'll make 68, not counting the cosmonauts. Alai 05:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other stub-related discussions edit

Australian cities edit

User:Mairi mentioned problems with Melbourne stub categories at WP:WSS/D, and its something shared by all the Aussie cities. Currently there are a slew of incorrectly named templates and several which could do with combining for the sake of economy. Unfortunately (or fortunately), they also have WikiProjects of their own, so any changes will need to be coordinated with them. Currently, we have the following:

{{Adelaide transport stub}} - 26 articles
{{Adelstub}} - 29 articles
{{adelaide suburb stub}} - 31 articles
{{Canberra-stub}} - 62 articles
{{Canberra suburb stub}} - 109 articles
{{melstub}} - 502 articles
{{mel-suburb-stub}} - 11 articles
{{Hobstub}} - unused
{{Sydney suburb stub}} - 331 articles

no stubs for Perth or Brisbane

What I would propose - subject to comments from the various WikiProjects - is the following revamp:

combining Adelaide�s three stub types into {{Adelaide-stub}} - there is no need for three categoiries this small when a combined stub would contain less than 100 stubs. It would also be far easier for WikiProject members to work on one category than have three separate ones.
Keeping {{canberra-stub}}, but renaming {{canberra suburb stub}} as {{Canberra-geo-stub}} and allowing it to cover the entirety of A.C.T. (there are a handful of non-suburb geo-stubs from ACT)
Renaming {{Melstub}} and {{Mel-suburb-stub}} as {{Melbourne-stub}} and {{Melbourne-geo-stub}} - also going through Melstub�s category and moving all the suburbs to the other category! There are over 100 of them in there!
Renaming {{Sydney suburb stub}} to {{Sydney-geo-stub}}.
Hobstub has never been used, and google suggests that there are probably only 20 or 30 stubs relating to Hobart in total. it is currently listed for deletion at WP:SFD. if it looks like it will be useful at some stage it can be recreated then (with a better name) - Perth-stub, Brisbane-stub and a separate Sydney-stub may also be viable at some stage (if requested here).
A separate Australia-struct-stub - as proposed further up the page - looks incresingly viable.

Grutness...wha? 01:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch, Grutness - these could certainly do with standardising. I agree on all counts except for deleting the Hobart category, as it's sure to grow, and I don't see the point of leaving it without a stub category. However, renaming it to something more standard would help, too. Ambi 02:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree mostly. I'm fine with retiring {{adelstub}} and {{adelaide transport stub}} into an {{adelaide-stub}}, but I would like {{adelaide suburb stub}} retained, even if it means being renamed {{adelaide-geo-stub}}. It is only underpopulated because there hasn't yet been a concerted effort at creating suburb stubs, as with the other cities, but this is bound to happen at one point or another.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from a Canberra perspective I agree and think standardising these stub types accross Australia would be useful. I also don't think we should be removing the Hobart stub just because it isn't in use yet. Martyman 03:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with the Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra changes. Keeping some form of Hobart stub seems good so as to have a sensible naming scheme already in place. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 04:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to go through all the Hobart stubs and tag them with whichever stub name is officially decided - {{Hobart-stub}}, by the looks of things? -- Chuq 04:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Grutness throughout. Since it looks like there'll be a lack of consensus to delete the allegedly highly useful hobstub, can I suggest that failing this it be urgently: renamed; given a well-formed category; and actually populated with something like a number of stubs rising to a "viable even given the existence of a WikiProject" level? Having such categories around just in case they'll be useful one day pretty much runs a coach and four through the whole point of keeping stub categories reasonably organised, and more to the point, useful for attracting a critical mass of collectively interested editors. (Oops, forgot to "save" this after leaving browser window open -- thanks Chuq, I think that'd be a plan alright.) Alai 11:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would Hobart be better served by a {{Tasmania-stub}} category, and would any of the other cities be served by state-based categories? Susvolans ? 12:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, although the wikiproject is specifically for Hobart. Note too that a Tasmania-geo-stub is quite likely to be created sometime soon - there are over 120 Tasmania-geo-stubs, but the Australia-geo-stub category is currently only at around 300 stubs after the recent removal of those for the four largest states (in terms of stub numbers). Grutness...wha? 12:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... this has been quiet for a few days, so I'll start moving them one or two at a time to SFD for official renaming. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with Canberra stub changes--User:AYArktos | Talk 09:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add support or otherwise at WP:SFD. Hopefully after all the discussion here there shouldn't be any major opposition to the changes. Grutness...wha? 09:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - the Hobart, Canberra and Adelaide changes have gone ahead. I'll take the others to SFD now. Grutness...wha? 07:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]