Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive19

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting | Proposals

Proposals, October 2005

edit

Academic-bio-stub subcategories

edit

There are just under 1200 {{academic-bio-stub}} articles. It needs to be subdivided. Here are my proposed subcategories.

  • acad-agri-bio-stub (Agriculture)
  • acad-acct-bio-stub (Accounting)
  • acad-econ-bio-stub (Economics)
  • acad-edu-bio-stub (Education)
  • acad-engin-bio-stub (Interdisciplinary)
  • acad-lang-bio-stub (Foreign Langue/Linguist)
  • acad-reli-bio-stub (Religion)
  • acad-manage-bio-stub (Management)
  • acad-mkt-bio-stub (Marketing)
  • acad-interdisc-bio-stub (Interdisiplinary Studies)
  • acad-women-bio-stub (Women's Studies)
  • acad-polisci-bio-stub (Political Science) (cf. {{polisci-bio-stub}} --Thorsen 09:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • acad-psych-bio-stub (Psychology)
  • acad-soc-bio-stub (Sociology)

I like the idea, but not the names! Why not {{agri-academicbio-stub}} +c? Grutness...wha? 06:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't like the name, but some of these duplicate existing categories

That seems like a decent set of names and mostly avoids bunches of icky hyphens. Of course I'd still like to see 60 stubs found before creating new cats. Caerwine 07:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer something like {{educationalist-stub}} to {{pedologist}} (which sounds to me like something to do with feet! That's the problem with dropping that all-important first A in paed-). We also have {{psych-bio-stub}} for psychologists and psychiatrists already - I argued against splitting it earlier since - certainly for the early days of the discipline - the two fields overlap considerably, but perhaps now would be a reasonable time to reassess that. Grutness...wha? 11:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
doesnt look like weve got it ;)! BL kiss the lizard 18:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, for something like A._V._Williams_Jackson I should ignore the academic part of it and just label it as {{linguist-stub}}? Alison9 04:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by ignore the academic part; liguistics is an academic discipline, and the permanent "linguists" category is a sub-cat of "academics". Presumably linguist-stub should likewise be a sub-cat of academic-stub (though it isn't at present, admittedly). Also agree with Caerwine, at least approximate numbers would be nice. Alai 04:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So is this the right page to get approval for making linguist and the other existing cats a sub-cat of academics? Alison9 04:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's what being bold is for ;) but yes, making them sub cats of academic-bio-stub would be a good idea. --Mairi 04:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We will definately need theologist-stub. The focus seems to be on Islam at the moment. Alison9 04:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See also the prposed split of reli-bio-stub elsewhere on this page. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done for linguist-stub; in some other cases it may be less clear-cut whether all (or nearly all, or all notable) people in a given category are academics, so I'll be no more bold for now (but don't let me stop anyone else). Though where the permanent category already does it, it should be safe -- unless there's an on-going edit-war over that, or something. Alai 05:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, especially the sociologist-stub and historian-stub. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{theologist-stub}} has been created (prematurely no less), even tho all but one mention called it theologian-stub. --Mairi 02:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{pedagogue-stub}} has been created. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, November 2005

edit

{{reli-bio-stub}} splits

edit

This was pretty much agreed to while discussing the {{bishop-stub}} proposal, but I thought I'd re-propose it before creating since these are pretty major changes. I propose splitting {{reli-bio-stub}} as follows:

--Carabinieri 19:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, as long as {{theologist-stub}} also gets renamed to {{theologian-stub}} --Mairi 03:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
and pope-stubs waiting to be changed from papal-stub at sfd. BL kiss the lizard 04:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's happening by bot right now, and will be done within an hour ;) Mairi 05:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarification: {{theologian-stub}} will be a split of {{academic-bio-stub}} and {{reli-bio-stub}}; {{Christian-theologian-stub}} and {{Islamic-theologian-stub}} will be splits of {{theologian-stub}} and {{Christianity-bio-stub}} and {{Islam-bio-stub}} respectively, OK?--Carabinieri 17:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm sorting Category:Religious biography stubs, it's clear that {{Judaism-bio-stub}} will get enough use, so I've gone ahead and created it. It also looks like seperating out catholic clergy might reduce {{RC-stub}}, but that ought to be proposed seperately. --Mairi 01:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{sportsclub-stub}}

edit

For a few weeks now, we've got {{footyclub-stub}}. Category:Sports stubs contains many more stub articles about sports clubs (mostly basketball, ice hockey and volleyball), which leads me to propose {{sportsclub-stub}}/Category:Sports club stubs. Aecis praatpaal 21:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sports stubs are divided by sport, and this type doesn't fit into this scheme. But I think it's a good idea to have {{basketball-club-stub}}, {{icehockey-club-stub}} etc, provided there is enough stubs. Conscious 10:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{icehockey-team-stub}} already exists. Stub articles about basketball clubs can be double-stubbed sport-club-stub and hoops-stub if there are not enough articles about basketball clubs/teams for a separate template/category. Same goes for volleyball-stub (which doesn't seem to exist yet), which can be used in combination with sport-club-stub for teams/clubs, and with sport-bio-stub for players, until there are enough stubs for a separate template/category. Aecis praatpaal 11:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Singular please! I'd prefer {{sport-club-stub}} or {{sportclub-stub}} with Category:Sport club stubs. Caerwine 06:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks after the proposal, there is 1 support (Caerwine) and 1 oppose (Conscious). So there is no clear consensus either way. What do others think of this proposal? Aecis praatpaal 13:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be useful - there are at present plenty of cricket clubs or teams that would be added from Category:Cricket stubs (although I suppose those would have to be double-tagged). Plus, there are a number of sports teams that are "all-sports", at least in Europe. I would perhaps suggest {{sport-team-stub}}, however, to include things that aren't really clubs but still could be logically categorised together (see Indian women's cricket team for example) Sam Vimes 13:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. {{sport-team-stub}} → Category:Sports team stubs → Category:Sports teams looks like it would be best. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Football Bio Stubs

edit

Right now, there are about 1118 articles in American football biography stubs. That sounds like a large, large, large number which could be cut down considerably if we split the stub. Currently, the description is "this biographical article on an american football player, coach, or other figure is a stub." Well, wouldnt an american football player stub, an american football coach stub, and an american football personailty stub make sense? I'm not sure what images we could use (all this copyright documentation stuff scares me), but I DO feel that there should be a stub-split. Thoughts?jfg284 16:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no requirement that stub messages have icons, but if they do, they can't be fair use images. Caerwine 22:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Caerwine. Ther's no need for an icon. As to the split itself, splitting out the coaches and the personalities might reduce things a little, but the main problem's probably likely to remain - the players category will be big. Since I doubt a geographical split would be useful on this one, with players moving from team to team, perhaps this one could be split by era? A pre-WWII American football-player stub might reduce some of the load, for instance, and is likely to be a specialist area that certain editors would know far more about than others. A short, snappy name for it would be needed, though, since Pre-WWII-Amfootball-player-bio-stub is just a tad longwinded. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could also sort by league in which the players were most active (e.g. af2-bio-stub, nifl-bio-stub, aifl-bio-stub, etc.), or by franchise (e.g. packers-bio-stub, nygiants-bio-stub). I personally am more inclined towards the latter. Aecis praatpaal 01:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shows how little I know about American Football - I'd assumed that players transferred from club to club, like in other sports (which would make separating by franchise very difficult, I would think). Grutness...wha? 08:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • They certainly do. I believe it used to be more common for a player to spend his whole career in a single club, but it certainly doesn't seem to be the norm these days. League sounds broadly feasible to me: though wouldn't that leave a pretty huge NFL-player-stub category, all the same? (Just guessing.) Alai 08:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • They indeed do, but I assume there are many players who are notable as a player of one particular club. I see no reason to believe that American football is any different from football/soccer. George Best will always be associated with Manchester United. The same goes for sir Stanley Matthews and Stoke City. Michael Jordan will always be associated with the Chicago Bulls. Kobe Bryant will always be associated with the LA Lakers. Aecis praatpaal 10:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sir Stan with Blackpool, I hope you mean! Which gives some indication as to why this could be a problem. Played who have moved between several clubs could get many stub templates or even be subject to edit wars. Grutness...wha? 05:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is, there certainly are players that will be associated with more than one, and players who wont be associated with any. I'd say that the best way with the players would be to go position: first break it into offensive player / defensive player, they after that into offensive backfield, offensive line, defensive line, and secondary, if need be. basically, i'm saying position would be the best.

Alright then. I'll go ahead and start on Quarterback, Wide Reciever, and Linebacker. I don't really have an image, so i'll just stick with the wilson football image that's in there now. Thanks for the input.jfg284 17:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note there's supposed to be a seven day discussion period, i.e. waiting until the 19th before doing any actual creation. Also, the suggestion was "quarterback-stub", not "quarterbackbio-stub". Alai 18:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's also now {{Widereceiverbio-stub}}; I'd move it, but I think the capitalization needs to be discussed abit more first - do we want {{WideReceiver-stub}} as proposed, or {{Widereceiver-stub}} as originally created, given that it's not a proper noun and the article is at wide receiver? --Mairi 05:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
dammit. i never know when exactly i'm supposed to do stuff. my bad, it seemed like a consensus had been met supporting the stubs so i made them according to naming conventions (i first created them at quarterback, widereceiver and linebacker, but then tacked bio on there to follow conventions. should i re-tag the "a"s that ive moved back to am. football bio stub, or what?

jfg284 06:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jfg: No, don't bother, just hang your head penitently for a while. :) It's better to wait, though, to avoid needlessly tagging things with templates that then become redirects due to later moves. So far as I know, there's no convention to include "bio" in all sub-cats of bio-stub, just where it's logically needed. Typical patterns are "<job>-stub", where <job> would only logically refer to a person, or "<field or nation>-bio-stub", to clarify that it's not for other things in <field> or <nation>.
On Mairi's question: I don't know if we're yet completely consistent about this -- much less having an actual convention! -- but the recent trend seems to be to use CamelCase for all references, regardless of original caps, so I'd suggest WideReceiver-stub. The alternative would be wide-receiver-stub, which fits the pattern of many existing types, but seems to be somewhat less trendy. Alai 04:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so what should they be? Quarterback-stub, WideReceiver-Stub, and Linebacker-stub? Those three to start? Or should we also add a RunningBack-stub? i think that would significantly decrease the amount of football stubs, and its logical to me.jfg284 you were saying? 13:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify status on this thread: The following now exist: {{quarterback-stub}}, {{widereceiver-stub}}, and {{linebacker-stub}}. I've done some sorting, but in the time it's taken to start sorting, Category:American football biography stubs has grown to fill another page! I'm also seeing a lot of biographies that do not fit one of the three newly created categories. I recommend adding four more:
We'll probably need to discuss name structure on the latter two. I've used the "Amfoot" prefix found in the parent stub {{Amfootbio-stub}}, but that doesn't mean there isn't a better option. --EncycloPetey 15:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Songs stubs by categories

edit

Like

Not sure who wrote this, but it's a thought. Another possible split would be {{nonenglish-song-stub}} for songs in foreign languages. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming they're of sufficient size, the original 4 sound like good ideas. I don't care for {{nonenglish-song-stub}} as it doesn't fit well with the other categories. For one thing, it'd only cover vocal songs, which I don't think is too useful for editors. It also cuts across genres that include songs in both english and other languages (classical compositions, rock, and potential categories such as celtic music). Something like {{worldmusic-song-stub}} might be useful, if there was a non-vague term for it... --Mairi 21:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've been bold. I hope it's all right. By the way, I used {{world-music-song-stub}} instead. Smmurphy(Talk) 07:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OneTwo more basic ones are needed I think: {{pop-song-stub}}, {{rap-song-stub}}. Do I need to wait another week to add it? Others such as for folk, electronica, polka, and chamber music can wait for now, we'll see how small {{song-stub}} can get from just these, I guess. Smmurphy(Talk) 07:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On top of this, some subcategories could be further subcatagorized in two ways: chronologically - for instance {{1970s-rock-song-stub}}, {{1980s-rock-song-stub}}, {{1990s-rock-song-stub}}, {{2000s-rock-song-stub}}, and by band - {{beatles-song-stub}}. Also, there seem to be two types of popular music songs, one could be called {{pop-standard-stub}}, or something to denote the song came before about 1964 (the year the eight track was created) or were recorded famously by multiple artists, and the other {{pop-song-stub}} for more recent creations. The reason for this split is that the older songs tended not to be connected to one musician as more recent songs. Other subcategories that could get close to the requirements (would have 30-50 articles) include Madonna, Blondie, and Rammstein songs, jazz songs, anime related and video game related songs, folk songs and electronica songs. It seems that country and show tune songs might be too small, although a folk-country category would easily be large enough. Would {{folk-country-song-stub}} be an ok name? If it becomes clear that show tunes will indeed be fairly small, they could be sent over to theatre stubs or even musical (not yet in existance) or broadway stubs. this addition was made by me, Smmurphy(Talk) at 15:23 on 11 December 2005
Make that {{hip-hop-song-stub}} rather than {{rap-song-stub}} since the stub category would have Category:Hip hop songs as it's non stub parent. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can see from whats not red what is now created. I'm still on the fence about beatles song stub and {{blondie-song-stub}}, and if I ever get things sorted we can see if country song stub is still too small. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not there yet, but eventually pop songs could be split further, something like {{1990s-pop-song-stub}} and {{2000s-pop-song-stub}} (I'm estimating each will be in the 50-100 article range). That will cover bubblegum pop which is going to make up the bulk of the category. earlier than that, pop music wasn't as clear of a genre, with pop consisting alternately of rock, disco, funk, and r&b. Smmurphy(Talk) 07:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, {{electronic-song-stub}} and {{punk-song-stub}} have been created. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be a lot of hymns which don't fit as anthems or world music, so I think that {{hymn-stub}} would be nice. I think song parantage is right, because they are not all christian, but religion could be the parent, too, i guess. There are some carols, too, but I don't know if they count as hymns. These could fit under some sort of folk song stub, but I wouldn't consider Veni, Veni, Emmanuel a folk song, while I would consider it a carol and a hymn, OTOH, jingle bells is not really a hymn, but is a folk song and a carol. BTW, without carols, I don't think folk song stub would be big enough. So my question is: where do carols go, or do they just sit in song stub? Smmurphy(Talk) 20:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any other band will get past 50 stubs, but {{madonna-song-stub}} certainly will. Also, should madonna and the beatles have pop song stubs as parents? Smmurphy(Talk) 02:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{sportbio-stub}} census

edit

Okay, I've finished checking Category:Sportspeople stubs (~1550 stubs), and the following look splittable:

I'd welcome advice on all the above names, although I've kept "bio" in all of them as they will often include coaches, owners, broadcasters etc. as well as athletes. Creating all of the above would take the category down to ~1000 stubs.

Other possibilities... Swimming could also be expanded to "aquatics", with the addition of diving, synchronized swimming and water polo (total 118). There are also 246 auto racing bio stubs, but I'm not sure how to split these - there may be enough to create separate bio stubs for F1, NASCAR and Champ Car.

For the record, the next few sports are:

  • field hockey (51)
  • canoe/kayak (40)
  • weightlifting (39)
  • skiing (39)
  • rowing (36)
  • cycling (36)

Article lists on my sandbox. sjorford mmmmm 22:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to expanding to {{Swimmingbio-stub}} to {{aquaticsbio-stub}}, how about a {{boatsportbio-stub}} or the like to get canoeists, kayakers, rowers, and yachters? Even without the yachters that would 76 stubs by your census. Caerwine 23:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of minor points here - 1) what was ma-stub changed to was it martial arts or martial art? whichever, there should be some consistency with the bio name. 2) I take it that skatingbio would be a subcat of the wintersportsbio. 3) Personally, I'd like to keep the yachting and the rowing/canoeing/kayaking separate, though the latter three could probably be combined. I know there's a bias here (I come from a country which just about has these as a national sport nowadays), but I don't think there's enough crossover for the same group of editors to be involved. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC) (PS - "yachters"?)[reply]
Well, I didn't want to use the term sailors as that would include people who engage in non-sport sailing, and yachers seemed preferable to yachtists, yacht geeks, yachtspersons. Caerwine 03:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They're called "yachties" here, but that might be a NZ-only thing. Although I'm not keen on the term, sailboat-bio-stub might do if it ever gets big enough - it could include windsurfers as well that way. Grutness...wha? 04:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only 51 in field hockey? As a former field hockey player, I'll get that one above the threshold asap ;) Aecis praatpaal 21:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing has 16 stubs, although I'm not convinced about a merged {{boatsportbio-stub}} either - as far as I know there isn't any significant overlap between those sports (apart from canoe and kayak). ma-stub seems to now be {{martialart-stub}}, so {{martialartbio-stub}} would presumably be the best name for that (I've now put the full list of martial arts stubs on my sandbox). Indeed, skatingbio-stub should be a subcat of wintersportbio-stub, as should {{icehockey-player-stub}} (which is due a rename, but that's another matter). sjorford mmmmm 21:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Will archerybio-stub be a child of martialbio-stub? After all, archery (aka kyudo) is one of the martial arts. Caerwine 03:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't feel like it, as archery doesn't equal kyudo. Conscious 07:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with conscious. If you included that, you'd have to include javelin throuwers as well, which would look very strange in martial arts. You might want to consier boxing and wrestling in there, though. Grutness...wha? 04:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A propos {{tennisbio-stub}}: {{tennis-stub}} already has approximately 300 biographical articles, so {{tennisbio-stub}} would have close to 400 articles. Tennis is perhaps the biggest sport without a bio-stub category. Should be created ASAP... GregorB 21:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
TYeah, that looks a very strong contender. Grutness...wha? 04:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved two field hockey players from {{sport-stub}} to {{sport-bio-stub}}. Were they already in the 51 you mentioned, Sjorford, or are they #52 and #53? Aecis praatpaal 22:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got my spreadsheets in front of me right now, but I'll post the full list of hockey articles tonight. sjorford mmmmm 13:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update

edit

I've created some of the above, and the totals for some of the other sports are now:

  • Auto racing: 251 (created, being populated)
  • Swimming: 110 (done) (Aquatics: 176)
  • Gymnastics: 76 (done)
  • Martial arts: 74 (created, being populated)
  • Field hockey: 73 (done)
  • Cycling: 73 (done)

All of these look pretty safe to split off. sjorford (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further updates - hockey now has 89, so I'll split off {{fieldhockeybio-stub}} shortly. Water polo has grown to 86 on its own, many of which are hiding in Olympic stubs. That could be a separate subcategory of {{aquatics-stub}}, although it would seem odd to split that off and and not {{swimming-stub}}...but doing both would leave {{aquatics-stub}} with only 42 stubs (diving and synchronised swimming). Comments etc.? sjorford (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further furtherness - there seems to be a {{diving-stub}} already, but for underwater diving rather than platform diving. Should these two be separated, and if so should this stub type be renamed? sjorford (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I wasn't planning to get involved in this until the biosciences were fully under control, but... How about a {{watersport-stub}} and {{watersportbio-stub}} for all water sports, except for those children that have sufficient numbers to warrant splitting off? The name would be generic enough to include swimming, rowing, surfing, and sailing.
Since well more than the requisite week has passed, I'm creating a template and category for {{autoracingbio-stub}}. --EncycloPetey 11:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about watersport-stub - that sounds like an artificial grouping of sports to me. The various winter sports and aquatic sports at least have common organisations grouping them together (the Winter Olympics and FINA respectively). For now, I think creating {{swimmingbio-stub}} and {{waterpolobio-stub}} should be enough. sjorford (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario-geo-stub

edit

Ontario-geo-stub has ~1000 articles already. I have looked into the content of 20 or so of the matching articles and thought about how Ontario is divided up (I live in Ontario), and I think an appropriate split (50-150 articles per proposed subcategory) would be:

  • Eastern Ontario-related geographical stubs (e-ontario-geo-stub)
  • Northeastern Ontario-related geographical stubs (ne-ontario-geo-stub)
  • Southern Ontario-related geographical stubs (se-ontario-geo-stub)
    • Toronto-related geographical stubs (toronto-geo-stub)
  • South Central-Ontario-related geographical stubs (s-c-ontario-geo-stub)
  • Southwestern Ontario-related geographical stubs (sw-ontario-geo-stub)
  • Western Ontario-related geographical stubs (w-ontario-geo-stub)

I do not know how to design stub templates, and the instructions seem confusing. Would someone else be kind enough to design them? --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 09:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, but a few points first:
  1. How is Ontario actually divided - I mean the place itself? Are the categories you've suggested a reflection of how it's normally divided, and are there well-known boundaries 9or are people likely to argue about where Eastern Ontario ends and Northeastern Ontario starts?
  2. We're trying to get rid of the "-related's in category names, and you don't need any other hyphens there.
  3. The template names probably need a bit of work - the ones you suggested are a bit less than optimal.
  4. There is a Toronto WikiProject, so a city-specific geo-stub's not a bad idea.

If points 1 and 3 can be cleared up then I doubt you'll get many objections, but (as normal0 we'll give it a week to see what stirs up. Grutness...wha? 10:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario is rather confusing when trying to subdivide, as it has a a variety of different first order-subdivisions, and the boundaries haven't been stable. That said, I think the following should work as an acceptible split of Ontario, if not as ambitious as unforgettableid's proposal:

In that case, I'd suggest starting with NOntario, Toronto, and Ottawa, and seeing how much that cuts the main category down to. If it's still too big, then it'll be one to revisit - but hopefully just removing those three will cut it down quite a lot. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the proposal to split Ontario-geo-stub, although I don't know Ontario well enough to assess which way of splitting is best. However, I would advice you to use e.g. "Northern Ontario geography stubs", instead of geographical. Aecis praatpaal 00:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, where to start...alright, Ottawa already has an {{Ottawa-stub}}, which contains geo stubs among other articles. (It should probably be renamed, but that's another discussion.) Toronto itself has a large number of neighbourhoods, but not enough stubs to require its own category, unless we consider the Greater Toronto Area. This will whittle the list down significantly, but may make future splits a tad more difficult (see below).

Ontario is typically divided into four areas, which don't have geopolitical divisions. They are:

  • Northern Ontario, which is relatively sparse compared to all the others; it includes all districts
  • Eastern Ontario, which includes Ottawa
  • Central Ontario, which extends from Peel Region in the west, to Durham in the east, and Simcoe in the north; this includes Toronto
  • Southwestern Ontario, everything west, north and south of Peel Region and southwest of Georgian Bay

These areas are generally well known in Ontario, and probably Canada. The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is generally a large component of Central Ontario, but excludes some portions of it, and (depending on who you ask) may include parts of Southwestern Ontario. This is why I say it'll create problems in the future.

I propose we split as follows:

The first two should absorb nearly two thirds of the stubs between them; if there's a need, the latter two can be created in the future (this will be likely, since there are at least 600 more locations without articles at all). I wouldn't be opposed to a {{Toronto-geo-stub}}, which would be populated from entries in the list of neighbourhoods in Toronto, but I don't think it's necessary. The one problem is that the usage Central Ontario is far less common than Greater Toronto; we could use {{GreaterToronto-geo-stub}}, define the boundaries in the cat (see notes above), and exclude locations that are in Central Ontario but not in the GTA (ie - leave them as {{Ontario-geo-stub}}). Mindmatrix 01:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that'd leave us with too few categories. Sharper category divisions (they say) means more people will improve on stubs they know more about. People can look for Ontario-geo-stubs about cities near where they live. I believe four is far too few categories. --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 04:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that someone above mentions it, I think there should be a {gta-stub} type as well. Conjecture: As implied? above, The GTA is perhaps more familiar a concept to people than Southern Ontario. --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 04:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to agree with subdivisions, but this is going to take some explanation:

Northern Ontario: I'd favour a single Northern Ontario stub; having separate stubs for Northeastern and Northwestern is largely unnecessary at the present time. The number of articles just isn't there to warrant two separate stub cats. But the boundary between Northern and Southern is as clean and straightforward as an unofficial boundary can possibly be. I also disagree with Mindmatrix on the timing; I think we may as well do it now, sort the articles and get it over with.
Southern Ontario: This is a grouping that's rarely used by itself; it's almost always further subdivided into Eastern, Western, Central and the Greater Toronto Area (and Niagara Region, which isn't considered part of any of the above.) But the problem is that since these are all unofficial, there's no real agreement on precisely where the boundaries of each region are.
A lot of places are straightforward: London is incontrovertibly in Western, Kingston is obviously in Eastern. But depending on who you ask, Guelph and Brantford could be either Western or Central. A lot of people think that Hamilton is part of the GTA -- it isn't, in reality, but in most people's minds it's not part of Western or Central, because it's "in the GTA". (And a lot of those who don't lump it with the GTA tend to put it on the Niagara "none of the above" bus instead.) And Belleville is generally considered Eastern, but by the generally understood definition Eastern begins where Lake Ontario ends and the St. Lawrence River starts...and Belleville is actually west of that point, which means that by definition it's in Central. And as I already mentioned, Niagara isn't considered to be within any of the compass-point-subregions; it's just Niagara (or Golden Horseshoe, if necessary, but certainly not Western or Central or GTA...which leaves no stub category available for it.)

Bottom line, I'd have to agree with Caerwine: distinguishing Northern from Southern is entirely unproblematic, but subdividing Southern is a bigger can of fuzzy-edged worms than Wikipedia wants to open. So this would be my suggestion:

  1. Northern Ontario geo-stub
  2. Southern Ontario geo-stub (MINUS Ottawa/Toronto)
  3. use the general Ottawa-stub and Toronto-stub for stuff specific to those cities, rather than special geo-stubs. (Although AFAIK the Toronto-stub would need to be created.)

I'm not really sure how else this could be done, given the too-high potential for fuzziness that I noted above. Bearcat 10:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, I don't think splitting in that fashion will do much to reduce the target category. {{Ottawa-stub}} is already populated, and would acquire only a few dozen articles at most from {{Ontario-geo-stub}}. There are about 100 Toronto (not GTA) stubs and 150 Northern Ontario stubs at most - for a grand total of 300 or so, which would still leave 700 in {{Ontario-geo-stub}} (there's no need to re-stub them to {{SouthernOntario-geo-stub}}, since that creates more work for no additional benefit). We all seem to agree that {{NorthernOntario-geo-stub}} will be created, so we'd have:
As Grutness says, let's start on these then. I'm certain we'll need another split though. Mindmatrix 16:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care where we put the divisions, as long as there are enough of them. We're just organizing the stub tree, not adding permanent category markers to the bottoms of articles, Will people really care that much about which stub tag an article gets? And, most importantly, if the purpose of stub sorting is to encourage people to expand stubs, and there are ~1000 Ontario-geo-stubs, wouldn't it make more sense to make more categories than that so that people could look at a list of stubs near where they live? Cheers, --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 21:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that someone will have to do all the re-stubbing, and in this case it will need to be done on a case-by-case basis. That's a lot of work. Also, 200 stubs is only one page in a category listing, so that's not a bad max target to aim for. I do agree we need more splits though, so how's this:
That should make each category contain less than 200 articles, while reducing the load on {{Ontario-geo-stub}} to less than two pages. Mindmatrix 20:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an excellent compromise. --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 21:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Airport-stub}}

edit

There are currently 1,180 articles in Category:Airport stubs. I would like to propose the same division as with {{Airline-stub}}: {{asia-airport-stub}}, {{euro-airport-stub}}, {{US-airport-stub}}, {{NorthAm-airport-stub}}, {{SouthAm-airport-stub}}, {{Oceania-airport-stub}} and {{Africa-airport-stub}}, provided they reach the threshold (which for many of them doesn't seem to be a problem). Aecis praatpaal 23:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created {{asia-airport-stub}}, {{euro-airport-stub}}, {{US-airport-stub}} and {{NorthAm-airport-stub}}. I will wait with the other three until I know how many stubs the four newly created templates will draw from the main stub category. Aecis praatpaal 21:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The stubsorting of Category:Airport stubs is finished, and this is the final tally:

  • Airport stubs - 79 articles
    • Asian airport stubs - 71 articles
    • European airport stubs - 85 articles
    • North American airport stubs - 79 articles
      • Canadian airport stubs - 573 articles
      • United States airport stubs - 365 articles

This means that the sorting is finished for now. This proposal can now be logged and archived. Aecis praatpaal 23:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More film stubs needed

edit

The Category:Film stubs category is still very overpopulated, and while some sub-cats have been added, there are many that still don't fit into any of them, so i propose:

Apologies for any bad code in my edit, I am not good at it. Jdcooper 14:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not certain about the latter, but the former should be {{sf-film-stub}} to parallel {{sf-stub}}. {{Western-film-stub}} for the cowboy and Indian films, and {{war-film-stub}} should also be quite servicible and easily defined catgories. Caerwine 18:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I afree with Caerwine - "scifi" is an insult to true believers! Would be useful though, as would western and war stubs. Thriller/action could cause some problems, so I'd leave that for now, see if we can come up with clearer category break-downs. Oh, and your code was fine! Grutness...wha? 23:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of the broad and nebulous {{action-film-stub}}, how about {{martialarts-film-stub}}? There also ought to be plenty of police/detective films, but I can't come up with a reasonably short stub name for that. -- EncycloPetey 05:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just discovered three new film stubs, including {{HK-film-stub}} and {{India-film-stub}}. What about an over-arching {{Asia-film-stub}} to include Chinese, Japanese, and Korean films in addition to these two as children? --EncycloPetey 08:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{Asia-film-stub}} would be useful, and would get populated pretty fast, since a lot of the films in at least the Korean films and Japanese films categories are stubs. Someone already made the {{Western-film-stub}}, but at the moment it puts the films in the drama film stubs category. If that one's being kept (and I think it should, Westerns are a very unambiguous categorization), you should create the correct category for it. (I'd do it but I don't know if this discussion has reached a concensus on it.) - Bobet 12:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is on-going, but if you'll note the dates on the various comments, most of them are less then a day old. Procedure is to take at least a week to discuss an issue and reach consensus before taking action to create new stubs. Since there are lots of proposals floating around about how to break up the 21 pages of the film stubs, the discussion may take longer than the minimum of one week. --EncycloPetey 14:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a browse through the Category:Film stubs category, and have come up with three new stubs that look reasonably viable:

as well as four others that are plausible:

Those last four will need someone to investigate further as to whether there are really enough existing film stubs of the appropriate genre to populate them. --EncycloPetey 09:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well here goes on those seven stubs
Taking a look at the other *-book-stub templates {{bio-film-stub}}, {{fantasy-film-stub}} and {{crime-film-stub}} would likely also be useful parallels. Caerwine 18:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created {{war-film-stub}} and {{sf-film-stub}} and given {{Western-film-stub}} its proper category and a still from The Great Train Robbery as its icon. I held off on the later suggestions of EncycloPetey and myself because a full week hadn't yet passed. At this point I'm leaning towards creating {{bio-film-stub}}, {{child-film-stub}}, {{crime-film-stub}}, {{fantasy-film-stub}}, {tl|musical-film-stub}}, and {{silent-film-stub}} once the requisite week has passed. {{Hist-film-stub}} has possibilities, but while looking at the film genres in Category:Films by genre, I was inspired by a possible solution to the {{hist-book-stub}} problem which I will be presenting in to SFD, and if adopted would mean that the stub should be created as {{period-film-stub}} instead. I'll add the three new stubs to the stub list once Mairibot finishes recatting the Western-film-stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry but I already added the science fiction one to the list, and I've started adding films to it, terribly sorry about that. I think a horror one would be good too, it could be further subcategorised if needed, but there are a lot of horror stubs there. --Cooksey 21:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So how about that {{Asia-film-stub}} that was proposed a week ago? Googling around (site:wikipedia.org "Japanese films"+stub) shows it would get over a 100 films listed in it from the Japanese films alone (so a {{Japan-film-stub}} might be useful too). - Bobet 01:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more like a reason to create a {{Japan-film-stub}} instead of a {{Asia-film-stub}}. country level stubs are generally more useful than continent level stubs because they eliminate double stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looking around some more, if the {{Japan-film-stub}} was added, I don't think there'd be 50 stubs for the other countries combined (around 20 Korean film stubs would be the next biggest group, and after that, basically nothing). So if that's preferable, I'd be all for it. - Bobet 03:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the seven I promised and {{Japan-film-stub}} as well. The stub type for period/historical film stubs I intend to wait until the SFD for renaming the related book stub is settled to create. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about also adding {{film-org-stub}} for Organizations and their Awards? --EncycloPetey 03:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a {{romance-film-stub}}? A {{thriller-film-stub}} would also be useful, since it doesn't fit neatly into horror or drama, but {{action-film-stub}} is definately the most necessary here. Kerowyn 03:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, December 2005

edit

{{US-hotel-stub}}

edit

Many of the buildings listed under {{US-struct-stub}} are hotels. That category is 8 pages and could use more subs. If not under US, then maybe just a general {{hotel-stub}} stub.--MrCalifornia 07:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is getting to splitting point. The question is, whether to split by type of structure or by state. I slightly favour by state, since at least then everything can be covered by 51 categories. Splitting by building type, though, makes some sense too, and there are already some tentative splits of this form (Stadium, mast, and church). Anyone have any thoughts either way? Grutness...wha? 11:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the state split. Again, an average person is more likely to know about local buildings than about all US hotels. (I can imagine some exceptions, though :) And this category is far beyond the splitting point. Conscious 13:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since we don't have even a {{hotel-stub}} I can't say that I favor a {{US-hotel-stub}}. Also in each of the cases of functional sub cats of {{struct-stub}} we had an identifiable group of editors who were interested in the subject. That's less likely in case of hotels. With rare exceptions, hotels are going be buildings of intense but purely local interest. There should be a few states that enough stubs in {{US-struct-stub}} to support a state level split. Caerwine 15:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a {{hotel-corp-stub}}, but I don't know how appropriate that is. Aecis praatpaal 18:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, really - that name was deliberately chosen to make it clear that it was for the corporations, notfor the hotels themselves. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In relation to a point made above, about structures such as churches, there is a category already existing. Shouldn't these be placed in {{church-stub}}. I support the category rather than state split, it seems more relevant - a hotel in California has more in common with a hotel in Idaho than with a stadium in California. Lupinewulf 12:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

splits of {{politician-stub}}

edit

I propose splitting the politicians by continents first to make further splitting easier and to cut down this stub category:

--Carabinieri 14:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not! Let's first exhaust the potential country level splits. If and only if that should prove insufficent should we try continent wide splits. The continent wide bio categories are not in any danger of being overlarge, while there are quite a few country level ones that are. {{Germany-politician-stub}} and {{Italy-politician-stub}} should both be definitly viable, yet they don't exist. Create those two and then resort Category:Politician stubs while counting the ones that don't fit into an existing sub type. Caerwine 15:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See what can be done at the country level first. Once those are cut out, it should be clear whether continental cuts are needed. Africa, I suspect, will be useful, and possibly SouthAm. Not so sure about the others. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be easier to split by continents first and then go onto splitting by countries.--Carabinieri 10:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It's what we've been doing with geographical articles, so why not do it with biographical articles as well? Aecis praatpaal 10:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, fair enough. I'm fairly ambivalent about it either way. It'll mean re-stubbing a lot of the articles twice, but you've got a point. Caerwine, any specific reason for your concerns? If we do the Germany and Italy splits at the same time as the continental ones, will that allay them? Grutness...wha? 12:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly a concern that the stub list is getting too freaking long. If continent level stubs are needed in addition to country level ones to bring Category:Politician stubs out of the verylarge status I have no objections, but I would really like to see if we could do without them if possible. If it must be done, leave {{CentralAm-politician-stub}} and {{MEast-politican-stub}} out of the mix for now. With only 7 countries, Central America should get at most 413 stubs if perversely every country has 59 stubs. Similarly, I'd rather leave the Middle East in Asia unless Asia-politician-stub gets too large. Caerwine 01:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about Central America; I'll add that to the list now.--Carabinieri 22:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and carribean. and grutness and me in oceania! BL kiss the lizard 22:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a tally of politician stubs (5 from the top of each column = 240 out of total 3175). There are several countries that seem splittable now:

  • Germany (12 stubs counted/159 estimated)
  • Republic of Ireland (8/106)
  • Finland (7/93)
  • Switzerland (7/93)
  • Poland (6/79)

There are also several coutries that are probably splittable, the estimation is rather rough.

By region (excluding coutries already named):

  • Africa (39/516)
    • includes Liberia (4/53) and South Africa (4/53)
  • Asia (40/529) (35/463)
    • includes Iraq (5/66) and Japan (5/66)
    • Middle Eastern countries combined: (20/265) (including Iraq)
  • Caribbean (7/93)
  • Central America (13/172)
    • includes Nicaragua (5/66) and Honduras (4/53)
  • Europe (57/754)
    • includes Croatia (5/66), Serbia and Montenegro (5/66, or 4/53 if you want just Serbia), Austria (4/53) and Ukraine (4/53)
  • Oceania (7/93)
  • South America (13/172)
    • includes Argentina (5/66)

Conscious 08:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, {{Japan-politician-stub}} seems to exist aleady. BTW, there are some 400 stubs in the main category that aren't sorted into existent subcats. Conscious 09:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So I propose the following hierarchy:

{{CentralAm-politician-stub}} and {{SouthAm-politician-stub}} may be useful too, but these stub can as well be left in the main category. Also, subcategories for other countries mentioned may be viable too, as there are probably some stubs about politicians that are marked with national tags but not {{politician-stub}}. Conscious 19:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be cool, if the people sorting this category would also double-stub the politicians with the national stub tags, as far as that is possible. This will make further splits easier and is also more practical since people who will expand stubs are more likely to know something about politicians from the country they live in or know a lot about.--Carabinieri 20:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With the numbers given above, I'll reluctantly support the {{Africa-politician-stub}}, {{Asia-politician-stub}}, and {tl|Euro-politician-stub}}, tho I hope we can do away with them at some point. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not also create {{CentralAm-politician-stub}}, {{SouthAm-politician-stub}}, and {{MEast-politician-stub}}? This is the way {{bio-stub}} is split. It has always been the policy of WP:WSS to make the stub categories as specific as possible while maintaining a certain but never quite defined minimum of stubs in each category. There is a good reason for this, that is that the point of the project is to allow people to find stubs they would be interested in expanding as easily as possible. Why change this policy when it comes to politician stubs? We can't suddenly say that the list of stubs has gotten too long and we need to stop creating new ones as these become viable.--Carabinieri 14:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because the stub list is too long now and the only virture those three possess is the elimination of some double stubbing. (Not all, as those which are for politicans in countries that have enough stubs to make a bio stub category, but not a politician stub categiry viable will continue to be needing a double stub.) Double stubbing is far from the most pressing problem this project faces right now. That problem is bringing stub categories down to the <800 or lower range. It's why I've reluctantly supported the African, Asian, and European continent wide splits of politican-stub, as the numbers above by Conscious indicate that they are necessary at this time to achieve that goal for {{politician-stub}}. The other three aren't, and I strongly doubt if {{CentralAm-politician-stub}} in particular ever will be. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A question - why has the proposed hierarchy got HongKong-gov-stub rather than HongKong-politician-stub? Wouldn't it make more sense to keep things consistent? Grutness...wha? 11:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's actually Hong-Kong-gov-stub and it exists already. And it's not really a subtype of {{politician-stub}} but Category:Politician stubs text suggests to mark HK politicians with {{Hong-Kong-gov-stub}} (and indeed some of them are). Something probably must be done with that. Conscious 11:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{poli-stub}} (politics)

edit

Note that {{poli-stub}} has a similar problem as {{politician-stub}}: there are just a few subcategories, apparently created ad-hoc, but no continent-wide (or country) categories, making the main category rather large. I propose to introduce templates like {{euro-poli-stub}} etc. --IByte 15:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politics stubs is definitely very large and in need of help. However, it isn't even fully sorted among the existing sub types. Until that is done, I'm going to be opposed to a continent wide stub type here. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Denmark-politician-stub}}

edit
Comment. I think it's about time to start considering {{Spain-politician-stub}}, {{Hungary-politician-stub}}, {{Romania-politician-stub}}, {{Austria-politician-stub}} and {{Portugal-politician-stub}} as well. I've been through A-G in {{politician-stub}}, and these countries pop up frequently, however I haven't made a definite count yet. But especially Romania, Hungary, and Spain seem to be rather well represented. Just for the record: must every single country be listed here and wait eight days even if the country meets the required 60 {{politician-stub}}s? Or is it enough simply to find 60 stubs relating to e.g. Romanian politicians, and then create the relevant stub? --Valentinian 02:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the "pro-forma" type seem to be split after far less than a week, but it's still worth proposing them first just in case there are some unforeseen problems with them. Purely personally, I'd say that for types where there's a recognised precedent (such as country-politician-stub with more than 60 articles), any problems would be spotted within a day or two - so as far as I'm concerned, propose, but the wait after proposal could be only a couple of days. Whether others here would agree or not is another matter! Grutness...wha? 03:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

splits of {{UK-politician-stub}}

edit

I propose splitting the UK politicians stubs by nationality, to cut down this huge, and growing, stub category:

There are 1123 articles in {{UK-politician-stub}}. And it is growing all the time, for example many Scottish MSPs do not even have an article initiated yet, and lots of Scottish politician stubs have not been categorised here yet, but to {{Scotland-bio-stub}} instead, or not stubbed at all. I propose that we split it into:

Given the rough rule of thumb that about 10% of most British things will be Scottish, 5% Welsh and 3% Northern Ireland, then I guesstimate that the new cats would have approximately the following number of articles:

  • Eng: 930
  • NI: 30
  • Scot: 110
  • Wales:60

As the one thing that Northern Ireland exceeds the rest of the UK at producing is politics (that was an attempt at humour) I do not think that we need to worry overly about NI's ability to break the "60" barrier. For example, how long would the term "UK", even if only as part of a stub template, last on an article about a republican politician? ...whereas "NI" may have a better chance of actually getting used.--Mais oui! 16:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many British politicians have been active at the national level. Putting, say, Gordon Brown into a “Scotland” category could be unhelpful. Susvolans ⇔ 16:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This also still leaves us with a category pushing a thousand stubs, and breakdowns of England-politician-stub by county or region would be rather odd. I suggest we split by party instead (but NI-politician-stub is OK as they have entirely different parties and politics). Morwen - Talk 16:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Morwen - SoM 16:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We might also try to split off {{MSP-stub}} or something to catch all the MSPs and then double-stub them if they are active nationally too? That should serve purposes of Scottish politician project, whilst not implying {{England-politician-stub}}. Morwen - Talk 16:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We could indeed sort by parliament (e.g. lord-stub, common-stub, msp-stub, etc). However, I would favour sorting by party (labourbio-stub or labour-politician-stub, tory-stub, etc.) For reasons mentioned above, I disagree with sorting by nationality. Aecis praatpaal 18:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "whilst not implying {{England-politician-stub}}". What is wrong with implying that England has politicians? I would have thought that that counted as common knowledge.

Gordon Brown will not be appearing in any stub cats soon, nor anyone else within the UK government. But even if he did, are you seriously suggesting that he would not belong in {{Scot-politician-stub}} if his article were only a stub? That will be news to the fair electors of Kirkaldy.

"Many British politicians have been active at the national level" And... ? They do still come from somewhere. They do not suddenly lose their nationality when elected.

"... but NI-politician-stub is OK as they have entirely different parties and politics" So do Scotland, Wales and England.

"I disagree with sorting by nationality" Why? Nearly everything on Wikipedia is sorted by nationality, including (and especially) politicians.--Mais oui! 22:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand the reasons - the UK is still a largely non-federal system, despite the recent separation of parliaments for Scotland and Wales and the on-again-off-again Northern Ireland Assembly. As such, a politician will frequently - usually - be seen as representing the entire UK. It's a completely different system, for instance, to the US, where Bush is still known as being a former Texas governor. Ask the average Brit whereabouts the leaders of their main political parties are from and most won't be able to tell you quickly. Having said that, I slightly favour the separate nationality approach, although you'll still be left with an enormous England category, and breaking that down geographically wouldn't make much sense. I don't like the party split idea much, and I don't think that the commons-lords split is viablse since a fair number of politicians start in one and end up in the other. Might I suggest a middle way - for now simply make MSP-politician-stub and AM-politician-stub and a NI equivalent (Stormont-politician-stub?), and see how much that cuts down the main category. Once that's done we can re-assess. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support middle way That sounds reasonable to me. It won't catch the many historical politicians, nor MEPs, MPs, councillors, politicians from minor parties, nor the back-room boys, but it is a good start.--Mais oui! 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the dead ones can be assigned to the relevant stub cats. That would only leave the councillors and minor ones (presumably not many, yet) floating about in the main cat. What do people think?--Mais oui! 20:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
is AM-stub too ambiguous? and wouldnt lords-stub be almost the same as UK-noble-stub? the others look ok. BL kiss the lizard 00:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
AM-stub would be too ambiguous, I think, especially since it was previously used for AM radio stations. --Mairi 04:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy with {{NI-politician-stub}} since the NI abbreviation is hardly obvious. Perhaps {{Stormont-stub}} or {{MNIP-stub}} ?

Well, we've been using {{NI-geo-stub}} and {{NI-stub}} for quite a while with no complaints. I thought this one, aty least, was a fairly obvious abbreviation (and I live in a country with its own "NI" region) Grutness...wha? 07:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do I create them myself, or does someone do that? (I haven't created a stub before.)--Mais oui! 09:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this list is final, could they be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types please? I've sorted a few MPs but then noticed with a minor panic that these stubs aren't on the official list. --Whouk (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Need more biosci-stub segregates?

edit

The stub categories for {{ecology-stub}} and {{evolution-stub}} (along with additional aggressive sorting) have taken {{biosci-stub}} from 9 pages down to less than 500 stub articles. Do we want to sort out any more topics? I ask because it looks like the category is currently filled primarily with stubs in three disparate topics:

Along with these topics is a minority of assorted articles that are harder to classify.

On the one hand, the biosci category is down to a manageable number. On the other hand, it's a mixed bag of three very different topics with clear divisions. It's also possible that other stub articles are lying around mis-filed in other stub categories. I'd be willing to bet there are a substantial number of articles on genes and genetics lurking in {{cellbio-stub}} and {{biochem-stub}}, for example. So what do people think? --EncycloPetey 15:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have a {{geneticist-stub}}, I'd say that a {{genetics-stub}} would be natural counterpart. I'm neutral on the other two stubs, but neither proposed name is good. "-bio-" indicates biography not biology under our current stub scheme and {{development-stub}} is too ambiguous. Caerwine 16:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note:{{geneticist-stub}} refers to geneticists and evolutionary biologists.--Carabinieri 22:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just got into WPSS. My area of expertise/interest in particular is biosciences, as I'm currently studying microbiology, which incorporates aspects of many different areas of biological sciences. I definitely think this section would benefit from more sub-categories.
  • I suggest that genetics should definitely have its own category {{genetics-stub}}.
  • As for reproductive biology, perhaps the name {{reprobio-stub}}? (I'm new to this, please take my suggestions with a pinch of salt!)
  • If {{development-stub}} is too ambiguous, then perhaps {{devbio-stub}}? (I.e. developmental biology). In the latter two cases I suggested the suffix bio-stub be added after an abbreviated form of reproductive and developmental. This would be consistent with the already existing template {{Cellbio-stub}}. Mushintalk 01:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{Cellbio-stub}} is an exception to the guidelines because it predates the guidelines being drawn up and no one's taken the effort to make it fit the guidelines. Frankly, I don't see what's wrong with {{cell-biology-stub}}, {{developmental-biology-stub}}, and {{reproductive-biology-stub}}, but if absolutely must use an abbreviation here, it should be "biol" and "bio". Caerwine Caerwhine 23:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I dislike stub names that are longer than the stubs themselves, though I can understand the problems inherent in using abbreviations, especially where bio/biol is concerned. I think I prefer:
However, that's only a savings of three letters, so it's not a strong preference on my part. --EncycloPetey 00:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{genetics-stub}} seems to be the only one where the name has no controversy. IT's been a week, so Ill create that one and leve the other two to percolate for now. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With no further debate, I've created {{developmental-biology-stub}}, in part because I'm finding articles in anatomy and medicine that should really go here. --EncycloPetey 05:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{activist-stub}}

edit

{{Activist-stub}} is growing rapidly (in part as I restub US-bio-stub) and I see some fairly obvious splits that should keep things from growing too large.

Including the pros and cons in the last three mirrors what we already do with {{crime-bio-stub}} which includes both criminals and their victims. So what do you all think? Caerwine 01:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Carabinieri 16:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine stubs

edit
moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting

I'm not formally a participant of this project, but I noticed that there is a notice in Category:Medicine stubs that the category is becoming too large. If someone could create Category:Medical organization stubs (or something similar) and its associated template, I could move a bunch of professional organizations and hospitals into it. Thanks! Edwardian 07:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Category:Diseases stubs. Edwardian 07:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
support both {{med-org-stub}} and {{disease-stub}}. This will leave in items like medical practices and developmental disorders, among other topics. --EncycloPetey 14:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about {{med-inst-stub}} for medical institutions which would include medical universities, colleges; they're not really organizations.--Carabinieri 21:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support {{med-org-stub}} and {{disease-stub}} - medicine is too large a topic as it is. Mushintalk 03:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Turkey-bio-stub}}

edit

There are currently 66 {{bio-stub}}s in {{Turkey-stub}}.--Carabinieri 22:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Valentinian 21:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Proteobacteria-stub}} and possibly {{Firmicute-stub}}

edit

I have counted a total of 123 existing and newly-tagged {{bacteria-stub}}s in Category:Proteobacteria, which is a sub-category of Category:Bacteria. Therefore I propose that {{Proteobacteria-stub}} should be made into a sub-category of {{bacteria-stub}}. There are also 51 {{bacteria-stub}}s in Category:Firmicutes, but is this considered too small? There are currently 268 {{bacteria-stub}}s in total, so the creation of one or both of these categories would still leave Category:Bacteria stubs well populated. Mushintalk 00:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{psychologist-stub}}

edit

I don't know if it's been formally proposed before...it's listed above as a possible split of academic bio stubs. Might also be a possible sub-cat of medical biography stubs. I stopped counting after 75 candidates. --Etacar11 01:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I suggest that this includes psychiatrists too. Category:Psychology stubs also contains biographies among other things. Conscious 09:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disgree with including psychiatrists in this stub. While there is overlap at the clinical level, psychologists and psychiatrists are two different beasts and there is zero overlap between research psychologists and research psychiatrists and the researchers are likely going to be the bulk of the stub entries, not the clinicians. I would not make this a sub cat of the medical biographies, tho a {{psychiatrist-stub}} if viable, would be. Caerwine Caerwhine 10:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested including the psychiarists because both psychology and psychiatry stubs are under {{psych-stub}}. AFAIK, this was done because it's hard for a non-specialist to tell whether it's one or another. If the persons are easy to distinguish, let them be in different categories. I don't really mind either way. Conscious 16:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Material-stub}}

edit

The {{Material-stub}} points to the material (disambiguation) page (approximately 120 links). I would like to propose that the material-stub be further defined, and material-stub becomes a parent stub of the various items that are defined as materials. For example {{Textile-material-stub}}, {{Construction-material-stub}}, {{Polymer-material-stub}}, etc. -- Kaiserb 02:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Materials stubs has only 132 articles, so it doesn't need splitting. Perhaps the scope could be more clearly defined, but it's parent category is also called Category:Materials, so it matches that (and presumably has a similar scope). Also, {{Polymer-stub}} already exists. --Mairi 03:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Further definition is the goal not necessarily splitting. and the {{Polymer-stub}} is for Polymer science not really materials. --Kaiserb 05:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of the now 128 stubs in material-stub, exactly half, 64 are of various textiles. There are categories that are far more urgently in need of a split, but with those numbers I could suppport the creation of a {{textile-stub}}. None of the other types of materials have anywhere near enough stubs for even a Wikiproject stub (30) let alone a regular stub so that is the only one I could support at this time. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a {{textiles-stub}} on the discovery discussion (stating creation in Sept but no items) that could be used and later renamed to suit any substub it would be placed in. --Kaiserb 18:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "further definition"? Conscious 09:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many things could be know and materials. There are construction materials, plastics, chemicals, textiles, raw materials etc. all under {{Material-stub}}. These materail stubs could be classified into their various fields (construction, textiles, plastics, etc) thereby using some empty stubs, creating a few new ones, and pointing them all to a relivant page rather than material. This further classification may help with other WP wanting to finish out stubs for a particular field (textiles for example). --Kaiserb 18:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there should be a category for Material Science, which is different than just talking about materials. For example, I think the stubs on crazing and Fracture Toughness would make a lot more sense in a material science category.--Tkemp 20:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's alerady relatively easy to find the material you want, because there are not many stubs in this category. And materials science stubs should be marked with {{physics-stub}}, I think. Conscious 07:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone object to the removing of the link to material, which is a disambiguation page, from the template while this discussion continues? It would certainly help in cleaning up the the links to the Material page. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 21:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-radio-station-stub}}

edit

I propose {{US-radio-station-stub}} to be in a subcategory of both {{US-bcast-stub}} and {{radio-station-stub}}. There are many US radio station stub articles using each of these two templates, and it would be good to consolidate them into one category. More than half the stub articles in Category:United States broadcasting stubs are radio stations, and there are far more there than there currently are in Category:Radio station stubs. DHowell 05:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, just wait the full seven days. If we already had nation based splits of the stations, I'd wink wink nudge nudge if this one were created early, but best give anyone who might object to splitting on this basis instead of some other. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Having waited much more than the required 7 days, I have gone ahead and created the template {{US-radio-station-stub}} and Category:United States radio station stubs. Populating it is another matter. I don't know if someone wants to make a bot to do it or if it will just get done manually, eventually. DHowell 00:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splits of {{writer-stub}}

edit

Previous efforts to split writers by anything other than nationality have not met with favor, but the large size of {{US-writer-stub}} suggests that unless there are an awful lot of misstubbed articles there, we may need to rethink that stance. This is a semi-proposal. I don't have the numbers compiled to indicate whether this split is even viable or if would help to usefully split the American writers stubs that at present are the largest concern. However, I would like to guage the reaction of others to see if it would be worth doing such a census before undertaking the effort.

  • {{academic-writer-stub}} Persons whose notable writing is about non-scientific academic topics.
  • {{sci-writer-stub}} Persons whose notable writing is about scientific topics.
  • {{diarist-stub}} Persons whose notable writing is a diary r chronicle that is used as a primary source material by academics.

This avoids the previously rejected poet/playwright/novelist type splits that concerned fiction writers. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the large size (8 pages now) of {{US-writer-stub}} is the problem, isn't it better to split only this category? Category:American writers offers a choice of 43 possible subcategories. Conscious 10:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. If we create a {{US-diarist-stub}} for example, it would be nice to also have a {{diarist-stub}}. Also, such subject level splits might allow us to do away with the continent level {{Euro-writer-stub}} and the like without causing {{writer-stub}} to grow too large. I've grown to dislike the use of continent level stubs for biography articles, tho I realize that it is a personal quirk. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that although there are perhaps 100 or more writers from Mexico and South America, particularly Brazil, there is no stub by nationality for these writers. Although the idea of supporting writers into the three aforementioned categories would definitely help literature experts, I believe that the creation of {{Mexico-writer-stub}} and {{Brazil-writer-stub}} would certainly reduce the number of writers now confined to the broad area of {{writer-stub}}. Also, sorting by the nature of the authors' works may best be done through literature stubs, not writer stubs; this would show origin of author and topic. In addition, although I am not certain this a major problem, some may be including the Mexican authors under the US stub which would make the creation of stubs for the countries beneath the US helpful to theproblem.--Emersoni 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Emersoni 17:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Military Analyst Stub

edit

My latest project has been upgrading Wikipedia's military history entries. I have created a page for Lynn Montross, and kicked around a few other pages. I noticed that Wikipedia only has a stub for Military History, but is rather short on other military related topics, such as military technology, and such. I particular, I just created a stub for Harry Summers, who is a military analyst/writer, but not a military historian. There are some, such as Dupuy & Dupuy who are both analyst and historians, and some such as R. Adm. William Rodgers or Lynn Montross, who are only military historians. Obviously, I am proposing here a stub for military analyst to separate the group from military historians. GestaltG

Well, the first question is how many stubs are we talking about? 60 is the generally recognized minimum for a new stub type around here. The second is would you mind if I hijack your idea and add {{mil-writer-stub}} to my proposed split of the writer stubs above or are you thinking something more along the lines of a possible {{mil-journalist-stub}} (tho we haven't been splitting journalists by subject area)? Just thinking out loud here, so I'm not favoring or disfavoring anything at this time. Caerwine Caerwhine 10:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a plan to make mil-journalist-stub, would it be better as war-correspondent-stub? That's the more usually heard name, and ISTR the parent category name, too. Grutness...wha? 23:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking of limiting the scope to those reporting on just fighting militaries as opposed to all militaries. Sounds like a case where having a redirect from an alternate name is likely appropriate. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{International-law-stub}} & Category:International law stubs

edit

From the discoveries page. With all the treaties floating around in the history stubs, having enough stubs is not an issue for this stub. However, I was thinking that we might wish to also add a {{int-law-stub}} redirect to parallel {{int-org-stub}}. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

split {{Engineer-stub}}

edit

I propose splitting the engineer stubs (most of which are bios) into stubs paralleling pre-existing categories in Category:Engineers. I would suggest not creating them all at once, but only as stubs were found to put in each one. (Although creating them all at once would also work.) Category:Engineer stubs has between 500 and 600 entries now, and actually has more than the non-stub version. Sorted stubs should probably also be simultaneously placed in the correct subcat of Category:Engineers. --ssd 18:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first split has just been made (but not yet fully sorted) {{US-engineer-stub}} → Category:American engineers → Category:Engineers by nationality → Category:Engineers. It was proposed a week ago and received only favorable comment. I'm not opposed top further splits by nationality or subject area, provided that the recommended 60 stub minimum for a new stub type can be shown. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

add {{bridge-stub}} under {{struct-stub}}

edit

As a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges, I would like to create a stub specific to bridge articles. There are several conventions being used on bridge related stubs such as {{Architecture-stub}}, {{struct-stub}}, and {{US-road-stub}}. It's logical place would be under buildings and structures. A bridge stub category would help to identify tasks for the Wikiproject. Cacophony 20:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly should be enough stubs for such a type so that isn't a problem, but the template name is. It's too ambiguous. Indeed, my first thought before I saw struct-stub being mentioned was that someone was proposing a stub to join {{poker-stub}} under {{card-game-stub}}. I'd suggest using {{bridge-struct-stub}} instead, but I'll be the first to say that it's not very euphonious. A better alternative would be nice if possible. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
how about {{span-stub}}? BL kiss the lizard 05:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about that one. Span is a disambig, of which only one link is related to bridges: span (architecture). So I'm not sure that one is intuitive and unambiguous enough. Aecis praatpaal 09:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reorganized contract bridge articles, and categorized them (Category:Bridge). Lot of articles have attached currently non-exisiting {{bridge-stub}}; I did not delete those references though, in the hope that it will be created soon (as the number of articles is around 40 by now). So, what's your suggestion to resolve this (still potential) name clash? Duja 10:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to follow the naming convention currently in use it would be {{bridges-stub}}. That is consistent with Category:Bridges for bridges and Category:Bridge for Bridge (card game). Cacophony 19:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
sounds ok. im a bit worried about the bridge-stub on the card articles tho. theytll need nulledits anyway and i would think bridge-game-stub would be better for that. BL kiss the lizard 01:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, since we use the singular in the categories so the stub category for bridges shouldn't be Category:Bridges stubs. Let me suggest the following:
{{bridge-struct-stub}} → Category:Bridge (structure) stubs
{{bridge-game-stub}} → Category:Bridge (card game) stubs
With a possible redirect from {{bridges-stub}} to the former for those who insist on brevity, tho I don't like it too much. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caerwine's solution sounds like a good one. I agree with BL about the null-edit problem, too - I hope those articles are also stubbed with something more substantial! Grutness...wha? 03:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with it too. I'm currently watching all bridge articles so I'll take care about null edits when the time comes (just remind me if I forget). Duja 10:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the plan then, to move Cat:Bridges to Category:Bridge (structure), or just create {{bridge-struct-stub}} under Cat:Bridges? Cacophony 03:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming no complaints are registered, {{bridge-struct-stub}} would feed into Category:Bridge (structure) stubs which would have Category:Bridges as its non-stub parent category. If the name of the non-stub category were to be changed it have to be done by WP:CFD not WP:SFD. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll stress again though that I'd like bridge-struct-stubs to be double stubbed with their location (e.g., US-struct-stub) too, since a lot of editors will be hunting based on location. Grutness...wha? 05:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Re bridge (game) stubs: a version which I like slightly more than {{bridge-game-stub}} would be {{contract-bridge-stub}}. Grutness & Caerwine, please decide. Duja
Should I take the blessing for creating it (one of) when sufficient number of articles arises, as granted? (I can think of creating at least 50 contract bridge stubs myself). Duja 12:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I don't know much about the game, but I was under the impression that contract bridge was just the most popular form of the game of bridge. What about duplicate bridge? Or have I got confused? Grutness...wha? 12:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You got confused. Today, "contract bridge" is a synonym with "bridge" and duplicate bridge is one type of competition (rubber bridge being the other). There is indeed also the ancient form of the game (auction bridge) but it can be ignored, being pretty much dead. Actually, "bridge" is far more used as term than "contract bridge", but it can lead to ambiguities in Wikipedia environment (as you see). Duja 13:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind a {{contract-bridge-stub}} as a redirect, but since the non-stub category includes other varieties, I can't see making it the main stub or narrowing the scope since there is no corresponding category for contract bridge only. (Nor shopuld there be in my opinion.) Caerwine Caerwhine 23:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Czech-stub}} with two redirects

edit

From the Czech it out! discussion below:

Create a {{Czech-stub}} → Category:Czech Republic stubs → Category:Czech Republic.

Create redirect {{Czechia-stub}} → {{Czech-stub}}.
Create redirect {{CzechRepublic-stub}} → {{Czech-stub}}.

If this should meet with your approval, I'll then proceed with creating it and sending the Czech biography and geography stubs to SFD so that they match the stub and two redirect pattern here. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Create a stub related to Jainism (Religion), so that all the smaller article related to jainism can be tagged. Use http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Jainism_logo.png as the Logo, any other logo can be used as well as long as it is related to Jainism and does not lead to confusion. Chirags 18:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chirags, welcome to the project. We usually use 60 stub articles as a minimum for new stub templates. So could you give us an indication of how many stubs there are about Jainism? If there are enough, I see no reason not to support {{jainism-stub}}. Aecis praatpaal 19:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{British-newspaper-stub}} or {{UK-newspaper-stub}}

edit

There seems to be a fair few stubs pertaining to British/United Kingdom newspapers (The Caithness Courier, Sheffield Star, Sheffield Telegraph, Sunderland Echo) e.t.c. Personally I think that {{UK-newspaper-stub}} would be best but I would like to hear others' opinions. GracieLizzie 20:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Sudan-stub}}

edit

Currently at least 58 stubs (see User:Carabinieri/Sudan) and necessary as parent for {{Sudan-geo-stub}}--Carabinieri 22:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

58s close enough that i dont mind either way (60-65 is the usual threshhold), but its not 'necessary' since lots of places with geostubs dont have non geostubs. BL kiss the lizard 00:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With 'necessary' I meant prefferable.--Carabinieri 18:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a reasonable split. Be sure that - if done - you list the new stub on the Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Canada-airport-stub}}

edit

I'm now busy moving articles from Category:Airport stubs to the newly created daughters. Just about every stub that gets the {{NorthAm-airport-stub}} tag is a Canadian airport. Judging from the subcategories of Category:Airports in Canada, this proposed new template should easily reach the threshold. I'm not sure what that will mean for {{NorthAm-airport-stub}} though. I think that it will end up just below the threshold, but because it plays a role in creating some form of hierarchy (parent --> continental daughters --> national granddaughters), I see no need to send that one to SFD. Aecis praatpaal 23:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how small it ends up being. If it's small enough, I could see sending the template to SFD while keeping Category:North American airport stubs as a collector category as we have done for other stub types. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've manually checked every North American, Central American or Caribbean country category other than Mexico, the US and Canada for stubs. Mexico was too much to check manually, so I've relied on an unreliable Google test. According to that test, there are 22 Mexican airport stubs. There definitely are 18 stubs for the other countries combined. This means that Category:North American airport stubs (if the consensus on the SFD of the continental airline stub categories is to rename those, I will send this category and its siblings to SFD for renaming as well) without Canada would contain at least 40 articles. Would that be enough to escape deletion? Aecis praatpaal 21:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With 40 stubs and two child stubs, I know I wouldn't bother trying to delete it. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Canada-airport-stub}} / Category:Canadian airport stubs created. Category can be nominated for renaming depending on the result of the cfr on the airline counterparts. Aecis praatpaal 18:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Physics-stub}} again

edit

After recent splits Category:Physics stubs is still too large. I propose two more subtypes to reduce the category size:

Suggestions about template names welcome. Conscious 11:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{classicalmechanics-stub}} and {{fluiddynamics-stub}} have been created and populated. Conscious 17:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty contest winner stubs

edit

While soring through the US bio stubs I've encountered quite a few stubs for whom the claim to notability is that she was Miss <name of state> of <year>. I think there are enough these that a stub for beauty contest winners would be useful, I just can't think of a good name for the stub. {{beauty-bio-stub}} could be construed as a stub for people in the cosmetics industry. Any ideas that would be both unambiguous and suscinct? Caerwine Caerwhine 01:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not put those into {{model-stub}}? That's what I always do when I encounter such stubs.--Carabinieri 13:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because I wasn't thinking of them as models, tho I see that Category:Models is one of three parents Category:Beauty pageant contestants. The other is Category:Entertainers, so I suppose, double stubbing them with {{model-stub}} and {{entertainer-stub}} would be appropriate for now. Still, I suspect there are more than 60 of these stubs. When you consider that between Miss USA and Miss America alone, there's the potential for over 100 stubs each year, I'm surprised I haven't come across more. Model-stub isn't in critical need of a split, so I'll leave this for now, but hope that someone can come up with a better solution when we need to split the pageant winners off from the others. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit wary of this one. Beauty in itself is pov, and because it is, it opens the category to deliberate vandalism and to unintentional mistagging. That means that the category could quickly become unmanageable, unmaintainable and unworkable. Aecis praatpaal 16:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Beauty is pov, but beauty contests, pageants, aren't! :-) How about {{pageant-winner-stub}} or {{pageant-contestant-stub}} or {{beauty-contest-winner-stub}}?
GRuban 16:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what category I'm thinking of...

edit

...but something fairly generic, and yet specific, in a way, is needed for such articles as: Searching, Stationary policy, and Systemic shock, all of which are about very generic ideas, that can apply to many different very specific types of systems and/or organizations. This is not the first time I've run into such articles, but it's the first time I've seen three at once beginning with the same letter, and it's the first time I've seen them bounced back into Category:Stubs after being categorized as {{vocab-stub}}s, which is obviously sub-optimal, but seemed the best thing around, to more than one stub-sorter. Any suggestions? -GTBacchus(talk) 08:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps these articles should be speedily expanded beyond stub status? I see what you mean about the generic quality of these articles, and it may simply be a result of an article stub being too vague and unfocussed, rather than a need for a new stub category. Perhaps we could have a page where such articles get listed with a request for speedy expansion? --EncycloPetey 03:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See also User:Uncle G's comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. Grutness...wha? 05:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting {{India-geo-stub}}

edit

I had earlier suggested on 19th October 2005 as follows:
I have a suggestion. Currently, all India related geo stubs are bunched together and the page is gradually becoming unwieldy and simply a long list of places in alphabetical order. I think if these stubs are re-organized in state-wise sub-stubs (like the existing ones: {{TamilNadu-geo-stub}} and {{Kerala-geo-stub}}), the page will have a lot of value-addition. I may also add that without coming here, I added two more such sub-stubs: {{Jharkhand-geo-stub}} and {{Bihar-geo-stub}}. Mairi pointed out the significance of proposing creation of sub-stubs here for valuable comments and observations of other users. I think that all India related geo-stubs may be split into state-wise stubs for better organization/ indexing of all India related geo-stubs. Thus, there will ultimately be as many India geo sub-stubs as are states in India – for example: {{Gujarat-geo-stub}}, {{UttarPradesh-geo-stub}} and so on. This will make the work of user/s interested in developing geo-stubs of a particular state of India, and I may repeat shall surely be a value addition to India-geo-stubs page. I invite suggestions and further comments.
Now, I would request for comments for creating {{UttarPradesh-geo-stub}}, which is an Indian state with a population of 166,052,859 (2001). Thanks. --Bhadani 08:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support if there are 60 stubs (Google search [1] yields 99 hits, but some of them are irrelevant). BTW, {{Gujarat-geo-stub}} is only on 2 articles. Conscious 10:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also saw that - something will have to be done about {{Gujarat-geo-stub}} - I will create sufficient number of stubs (smiles) or/ and try to sort the relevant stubs from India-geo-stubs. Thanks for your interest in the matter. --Bhadani 16:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is okay to create different geo stub for each state. along with that we should add more articles related to that state. Chirags 18:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support the splitting of any state that has reached the 60 stub mark -but not the others. There's no point in splitting the smaller ones if its unclear whether there will be plenty of stubs. To use an analogy with US states, California has been split because it had over 60 stubs, but Delaware currently has five stubs, so there's no point in splitting it. Grutness...wha? 23:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mairi's pointed out on the discovery page that there is also {{AndhraPradesh-geo-stub}} now... is this part of the proposed split? Grutness...wha? 09:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think unless there are sufficient number of stubs, at least more than 60, there is no point in splitting the stub, and my comments about {{Gujarat-geo-stub}} was in a lighter vein, though there may be more than 60 Gujarat-geo-stub (if India-geo-stubs are re-classified), but I am not sure. However, I am sure of geo-stubs for Uttar Pradesh - they must be more than 60. --Bhadani 16:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK... the way to do this is to start by splitting those where we're sure there are 60+. In doing that, it'll soon become fairly clear which others are at the splittable level too. The other option is to literally go through everything in Category:India geography stubs and count up what is where (which is what I do to see which country-geo-stubs need splitting), and keep the list of what is there as a checklist for later splits. That method's hard work, but makes things a lot easier in the long run. Do UttarPradesh-geo-stub, and AndhraPradesh-geo-stub and Gujarat-geo-stub (since they've been created). There are a couple already existing (TamilNadu-geo-stub's one, i think). Those will empty things out a little and make it a bit clearer whether there are more (e.g., Rajasthan or Maharashtra) that can be split. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed, and certainly you have shown the right way. Thanks. --Bhadani 11:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

European footballers

edit

Category:European football biography stubs is 7 pages long. I propose creating the subtypes that will allow to bring it down to ~700 level:

Conscious 19:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to six of them, but I have a question about the seventh: does "Ireland" here include both the republic and N.I.? They are different nations in terms of soccer, so I'm not sure they should be combined into one stub. Grutness...wha? 05:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's only Republic of Ireland. Does it need to be clarified in the template and category name? Conscious 08:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. The template name's fine, but mention the republic in the wording. And I'd make the category "Republic of Ireland football..." as well (unfortunately there isn't an easy adjectival form that differentiates). If it's just the RoI I've no objection to this split either. Grutness...wha? 09:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After these splits, there are 767 stubs left in the main category. It will probably reach 800 in a few weeks. So while I'm at it, I propose

Conscious 10:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These have been created, along with two others :( Conscious 06:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few stubs more in {{Turkey-stub}}) and made the Turkish stub category of 61 stubs. As mentioned by Conscious, I made two categories below 60 stubs before realising the process of proposing:
Please let me know if I should recategorize them to {{Euro-footybio-stub}}. Furthermore, I browsed the Category:Dutch footballers and found so many stub-worthy articles, that I made:
Poulsen 17:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through Category:Portuguese footballers, I propose:

Poulsen 18:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to this one. Conscious 07:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Five more splits from {{plant-stub}}

edit

I've been working through the Category:Plant stubs to sort as many as possible into the newly created {{tree-stub}}, {{grass-stub}}, and {{orchid-stub}}. Now that I'm about halfway through, it seems to me that even after I've finished, there will still be at least six pages of stubs left in this large category. Based on the large numbers of certain plant groups I'm seeing, the following additional stubs should be created:

Each of these categories will easily contain 60 articles, and some would have more than 100 on a quick sift. --EncycloPetey 03:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I won't doubt your numbers since you've been doing the heavy sifting here, however, I must object to the proposed abbreviation for Euphorbiaceae as I can't imagine that it would be at all intuitive. Make it {{euphorbiaceae-stub}} and if you must have a shorter version {{spurge-stub}} from the "common" name of the family would seem appropriate. I put "common" in quotes as I've never heard of them, but them I'm neither a botanist nor a gardener. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The term "spurge" is just one common name for the family, and not the one that first comes to mind for me (as a botanist trained in systematics), so I don't think that would be an appropriate choice. Part of the reason for this is that "spurge" reflects a rather Euro-centric view of the family. More plants in the family are tropical cactus-looking plants than are spurge-like weeds. In my experience, the term "euphorb" is fairly standard among botanists (at least in the US), and it qualifies as a name in its own right. However, I don't know if the same holds true for non-botanists or people in other parts of the world. If others concur with your objection, then I would prefer {{euphorbiaceae-stub}} as an alternative over {{spurge-stub}}. --EncycloPetey 05:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Euphorb gets less than one percent of the hits that euphorbia gets on Google, along with Google asking if you meant the latter when you serach for the former. Granted, ~12,000 hits isn't chicken feed but its not common except possibly amongst botanists. However, articles that are specialized enough to be of interest only to botanists probably belong on Wikispecies, not Wikipedia. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting {{anatomy-stub}}

edit

Since the listing of anatomy stubs is now to 5 pages, how about separating:

  • {{muscle-stub}} - for articles on muscles and muscle function
  • {{circulatory-stub}} - for articles on the heart, arteries, veins
  • {{eye-stub}} - for articles about optical anatomy

This should take care of about 2 or 3 pages of stubs. --EncycloPetey 04:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UK-struct-stubs again

edit

I'm busily going through UK-struct-stub, sifting out the Scottish and London ones, and even once they're all gone it's going to be a pretty sizable category. What I've noticed going through them is that a very large number of these stubs are from Liverpool. I'd like to propose a {{Merseyside-struct-stub}}, which I think would reduce the main UK category by 20-25%. The problem with this, of course, is that it might open the doors to a whole host of county-struct-stubs, so it may need a bit of though... Grutness...wha? 07:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If all of them or a large part of those buildings and structures are in Liverpool, then won't {{Liverpool-struct-stub}} suffice? AFAICT, it´s less ambiguous and more established than {{Merseyside-struct-stub}}. Aecis praatpaal 11:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merseyside isn't ambiguous at all. There is already a {{Merseyside-geo-stub}}, it would make sense to use the same system for splitting both geo-stub and struct-stubs. And there are a few (not many) from Sefton, Knowsley, St Helens and the Wirral popping up. Morwen - Talk 15:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that Merseyside is not ambiguous. Ambiguous on second thought is not the word I was looking for. I guess the pivotal issue is how Liverpool and Merseyside stack up to each other. If there are 99 "Liverpool-struct"'s and 1 "Merseyside-struct", I think it would be better to leave the Merseyside-struct in UK-struct and move the rest to Liverpool-struct. On the other hand, it might be best to follow the subcategorization of UK-geo-stub. Aecis praatpaal 17:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think its very unlikely that any of the other 4 boroughs will have >60 stubs, so if we don't put them all together they are doomed to staying in the parent category forever. I noticed quite a lot of things that could go in {{WestMidlands-struct-stub}} too, so we might make that. Curiously not as many that could go in {{Manchester-struct-stub}} - the Liverpool ones appear to have been made systematically. But yeah, I don't see that we'd need to split out the shire counties individually for a long time...

Morwen - Talk 00:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Well, I made ones for Merseyside, West Midlands, and Wales. Turned out the Merseyside one easily reached threshold (150 stubs), though neither of the other two did (both were close, with around 50 stubs each, so they may well reach threshold soon). There are now almost exactly 500 stubs in the main UK category, so I don't think we need to split any further yet. If we did, the biggest group would be a combined Yorkshire-struct-stub (like we had for a while with the geo-stubs). That would account for probably 90-100 of the remaining stubs. Grutness...wha? 12:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Atlanta-stub}}

edit

I created this stub template before realizing I needed to bring it here for discussion first. I already began tagging the numerous stubs categorized under Category: Atlanta neighborhoods and Category: Atlanta landmarks. Several of these stubs had already been categorized with {{GeorgiaUS-geo-stub}}. I think that an Atlanta stub will better serve these articles. Examples of city stubs already in place are: {{NYC-stub}} and {{Chicago-stub}}. My proposal is to put the category Category:Atlanta-related stubs as a subcategory of Category:Georgia (U.S. state) geography stubs. --t-bte288-c 19:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(ignoring other issues) the category ought to be Category:Atlanta stubs. But if you want a subcategory of Category:Georgia (U.S. state) geography stubs, for just places (which would include neighborhoods but not most landmarks), then it should be {{Atlanta-geo-stub}} and Category:Atlanta geography stubs. --Mairi 03:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All fine with me. (I'll make Atlanta-stub a redirect to Atlanta-geo-stub and have it point the cat. Category:Atlanta geography stubs. Are there other issues?--t-bte288-c 05:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need. given that {{GeorgiaUS-geo-stub}} has less than 100 articles stubbed with it at present. to separate out an {{Atlanta-geo-stub}}. Go ahead and keep {{Atlanta-stub}} for now, but fix the category to be Category:Atlanta stubs without the "-related". (We're in the middle of removing "-related" from all stub categories.) You'll need to restub the atricles once you've done that for them to show up in the category. Any geographical stubs, such as for the neighborhoods should be double subbed with both {{Atlanta-stub}} and {{GeorgiaUS-geo-stub}}. Keep in mind that if this stub doesn't meet the usual minimum threshhold (60 stubs) it'll likely get sent to SFD in a month or three, but since it's already created and the template follows the naming guidelines, I don't see any reason to not give it a chance to prosper once the category problem has been fixed. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Road stubs...

edit

Well I'm ready to create more road stubs... but the FL, NY. and... some other state's discussion got archived in Archive15. Could it be pulled out? I'll be using the hyphenated version, with -stub as the ending. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say just reference it as you already have and proceed normally. I archived it as it seemed to have bogged down to total inaction following the SFD mess and it had been more than a month since the last comment. (Tho I do need to write the Archive 15 summary on the Archive page.) Caerwine Caerwhine 05:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks... I'll do it after I finish tagging the U.S. Highways. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created {{Florida-State-Road-stub}}. The rest will follow shortly. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crafts-stub

edit

{{crafts-stub}} A general category used in life is "arts and crafts". Art-stub seems to impress images of only painting, drawing and sculpture. Many crafts are textile art, but there is a large number that is not. Therefore, I propose a craft stub. This could cover textile art and practices such as sewing, embriodery, quilting, millinery. It could also cover other crafts such as fimo sculpture, jewelry-making, knitting, crocheting, decoupage, and related concepts. Another slightly different interpretation of the term is an area skilled workmanship. For example, in this context, it could be used for crafts such as cabinet making and wood-carving related entries (such as veiner, v-tool, carving knife, fishtail, palm tools, parting tool...).

Here are some non-existant or short existing articles that this stub would be appropriate for (as per instructions at top of page). Some terms/links were acquired from a page I did major editing on (sewing), but were in place before I did that.

chinese frog, toggle, eye (sewing), heading (sewing), blanket stitch, feather stitch, buttonhole stitch, hemming stitch, padding stitch, running stitch, sailmakers stitch, slip stitch, stretch stitch, straight stitch, topstitch, whipstitch, basting stitch, backtack, tailor's chalk, tracing paper, Holbein stitch, brazilian embroidery, serger, serging, Entrelac, slip-stitch colour, double knitting, tambour hooks, crocheters, dress-making, Ribbon embroidery, Pergamano, toy-making, Spirelli, wood firing, once-fired

n.b. depending on how some of these articles get explained, the tool-stub may also be appropriate. However, there is the concept of explaining what a specific tool is (tool-stub), and distinctly, detailing its use in the applied craft (crafts-stub). --Kat 09:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a concept, this one sounds reasonably good, but where do you see it fitting into the stub and category heirarchy? Category:Crafts or Category:Arts and crafts? Also, are you viewing this as fitting under Category:Culture stubs directly or under Category:Art stubs? Caerwine Caerwhine 11:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My head is going to "asplode". I am so confused. I am getting so twisted around with category vs template vs stub... Ideally what I would like to see is an arts stub and a crafts stub (but "arts and crafts" should not exist (redunancy), or if it does, people shouldn't be allowed to use "arts and crafts"). I just looked now and noticed the Arts and Crafts category is a subcategory of... the Category:Crafts. What's up with that (it's like: first came the branch... then the tree...)? The insanity goes on from there. This whole stub, category etc. thing is exceptionally messy... oh whattdya know, there is a cleanup project... From what I understand, {{crafts-stub}} should be a subcategory of Category:Crafts? --Kat 18:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
what do we do with lace stub? that would be a reasonably similar thing i think. BL kiss the lizard 04:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right now that is in Crafts->Arts and Crafts->Textile Arts->Lace->Lace-stubs (and there are articles listed in there... though there appear to be people fixing that area up...) I'm guessing it should stay where it is? Other things around it definitely need re-organization, but not that itself.--Kat 18:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're getting a little confused because there are two separate types of category - standard ones and stub ones. With stub categories they keep to a tree (at WP:WSS/ST) which more or less tries to parallel the main categories. So more to the point, lace-stub is currently listed under "Other culture" in the stub type list, along with things like fashion-stub. Following on from that thought, Crafts would probably best form a separate heading under culture, with lace stub as a subcategory of it. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The latest ready-to-split geo-stubs

edit

Two more countries and another US state have passed threshold and are ready to split. I'd like to propose:

Grutness...wha? 09:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corporation stubs

edit

Category:Corporation stubs currently has a large category warning. I am in the process of going through and attempting to recategorize the generic Corp stub to more specific stubs. As I am doing so, I am noticing that there are some rather large categories that seem to be missing. I would like to propose the following:

* {{computer-corp-stub}} - This stub will be for computer and software related corporations. Examples: Actional Corporation, Adaptive Portugal, Airgo Networks

Epolk 18:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the computer and software related corporations, we already have {{ict-corp-stub}}, although that might need renaming (through {{sfr-t}} and {{sfr-c}}). In stub names, computer is usually abbreviated to compu, so that would be {{compu-corp-stub}}. Do you have any indication of how many articles would be covered by the four stubs you proposed? Do you think they can reach the threshold of 60 articles? Anyway, good luck in sorting out Category:Corporation stubs. I know from experience that it's an extremely difficult category to sort. It's where I started sorting stubs. I hope you can do a better job at it than I did. Aecis praatpaal 22:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I didn't know about the {{ict-corp-stub}}. I will add that one to the list on the corp stub page and remove it from my proposal list. As for the 60 threshold, I am sure that the manufacturing stub can meet that, probably just in letters A-C. Chemicals, I'm not so sure of. It might be best to lump under petroleum and alter that stub to reflect chemical companies as well as petroleum. Transportation, so far, might no meet the 60 limit. Epolk 23:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Series of Unfortunate Events stubs

edit

Wikipedia:WikiProject A Series of Unfortunate Events has been started recently, and since many A Series of Unfortunate Events articles are stubby and not easily covered by existing stub templates. For examples see much of the category:Lemony Snicket and associated article. smurrayinchester(User), (Ho Ho Ho!) 20:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you can get 60 stubs? thats the threshold used for creation. id also suggest calling it {{LemonySnicket-stub}} since {{ASeriesOfUnfortunateEvents-stub}} is too wordy and something like {{ASOUE-stub}} would be too ambiguous. if you can get to 60 stubs then sure, wait a week and then make it. BL kiss the lizard 21:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ASUE is a widely used abbreviation among A Series of Unfortunate Events fans. --Celestianpower háblame 22:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We can certainly get 30 easily, and it is a WikiProject, which I believe lowers the needed boundaries. smurrayinchester(User), (Ho Ho Ho!) 21:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that means there's 30 stubs already, it sounds fine to me. I'd rather have it called {{LemonySnicket-stub}} tho, so it's more obvious to most people (I wouldn't terribly mind {{ASUE-stub}} as a redirect, as it's a fairly unique, altho opaque, abbreviation). It looks like it already exists as {{ASUE-stub}} / Category:A Series of Unfortunate Events stubs... --Mairi 22:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean that the redirect can be kept then? --Celestianpower háblame 09:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer not to, myself, but I could be swayed. It's worth noting that ASUE is a disambiguation page, which doesn't make for confidence as far as the redirect's name is concerned, but the other things listed there aren't really the sort of things we'd have stubs for. Grutness...wha? 10:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
erm... you do know that ASUE is a German ecology organisation, don't you? I've no problem with there being a stub, but I'd definitely prefer to see it moved to LemonySnicket-stub. If you've already got 30 stubs, then it looks like it'll be well used. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's been moved. smurrayinchester(User), (Ho Ho Ho!) 06:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I personally am not inclined to believe this book series needs its own stub template. How many other book series have their own stub templates? Earthsea certainly hasn't, and it's got six books. Has Narnia? Has Harry Potter? Has the Lord of the Rings? — JIP | Talk 21:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Potter has, and there is a Tolkien stub which is to all intents and purposes a LoTR stub. Without an active project, I certainly wouldn't consider this one worthwhile, but there is an active project. If there was a Narnia project, or Earthsea project (or Belgariad project, for that matter), then they'd be worth considering too, but not until that time. The project's the difference. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charitable organization {{org-stub}} sub-cat

edit

Organization stubs is huge, and contains a large category warning. One possible sub-category is charitable organizations: {{charity-stub}}. This would be defined as not-for-profit organizations (international or regional) that pursue primarily philanthropic missions. Specifically excluded would be, for instance, political organizations that receive donations to pursue political and/or lobbying goals (that could be another sub-cat, or could just be put into {{politics-stub}}. --Bk0 (Talk) 21:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick informal glance through the As of the org-stub category show dozens of candidates, depending somewhat on exact definition (note that I wouldn't include organizations that fund scientific research, but probably would include orgs that distribute university scholarships). I feel safe in estimating that a significant percentage of org-stubs could be moved to this sub-cat. --Bk0 (Talk) 22:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've stubbed a few of these things myself, and yes, it would be useful. But I agree with Aecis about the name. it's for organisations so, charity-org-stub's a better name. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Created. --Bk0 (Talk) 15:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Software-stub for Category:Computer and video game stubs

edit
I've come across a lot of stubs in the CVG category that cannot be put into any of the existing ones. Most of them are articles pertaining to computer code and game engines, such as Famicom BASIC and DromEd. I propose a new stub category called {{software-cvg-stub}} or something similar. Thunderbrand 06:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should probably be {{cvg-software-stub}} to parallel {{compu-software-stub}}. While we have stubs of both the *-cvg-stub and cvg-*-stub, the former are with one execption that I plan on taking to SFD shortly all stubs that deal with a specific genre of CVG, and as far as I know there is no software genre, altho I suppose Core War would fall into that category. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be {{cvg-soft-stub}} to parallel {{compu-soft-stub}}. — JIP | Talk 13:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be a category with subcategories for "corporation", "culture", "fictional element", "hardware", "musician", "software", "specialist", and "website" subcategory stubs

{{spider-stub}} or {{arachnid-stub}}

edit

Category:Invertebrate stubs is starting to get fairly large, and a pretty high proportion of the stubs there are about spiders. The use of {{arachnid-stub}} instead of {{spider-stub}} has the advantage of also including other, related taxa, like mites, ticks, harvestmen and scorpions, but the disadvantage of being more technical. --Stemonitis 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel a stub is necessary, then I recommend {{arachnid-stub}} over {{spider-stub}}. However, there are only 233 invertebrate stubs. I don't see this as a place where an additional stub type would be of real benefit. --EncycloPetey 07:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{asteroid-stub}}

edit

Category:Asteroid stubs is perpetually enormous (950+ at present) and really ready for splitting. It suffers to an extent from the fact that it remains somewhat unclear what an ideal non-stub article would look like in many cases: there's often very little to say about a lump of rock other than how big it is, where it orbits, and who found it, so should articles that supply such information in a table form but otherwise have one line of text be considered stubs? It's also poorly named, because it has tended to include all kinds of minor planets, which is generally treated as an umbrella term for both asteroids proper—rocky bodies in the inner solar system—and icy bodies in the outer solar system, generally known as trans-Neptunian objects and centaurs.

Here's a starting suggestion for a new rubric:

Category:Minor planet stubs would be a generally non-used catchall (the actual stub template needn't be created, if that's the preference here), and its four subcategories ought to split the current membership of asteroid-stubs relatively evenly from an eyeballed check, something like 300-400-150-100, respectively. Picking the appropriate one of the three asteroid templates can be done reasonably easy by a nonexpert by looking at the orbital radius (inside the belt, in the belt, or outside the belt) and not getting into the technicalities of Hirayami families and planet-crossing groups and so on.

I'm mildly unclear on what capitalization format is preferred for the templates themselves, so I'm at your mercy there. Any thoughts? The Tom 18:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation is as per proper nouns. If it's trans-Neptunian objects then theoretically it would be tNo - although you're right that TNO "feels" better. You're right that this is a big category and could probably do with a split, and I bow to your better knowledge of the Solar System than me, but would {{Kuiper-stub}} be a better name for that template? Grutness...wha? 23:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
TNOs and similar bodies
Nomenclature for these faraway hunks of ice [hereafter FHoI :)] is a real mess, even within the scientific community. Properly speaking, only a subset of FHoI are in the Kuiper belt; those ones, however, tend to be the best known, and many scientists tend to adhere to the theory that all FHoI formed in the Kuiper belt originally but a fair number of them subsequently got smacked into different orbits. This leads to FHoI not in the Kuiper belt region (which is fairly precisely defined) sometimes getting labeled "Kuiper belt objects," and sometimes not. Throw in the fact that there's an ongoing academic hissyfit over whether Kuiper deserves credit for discovering his belt (and so some academics use "Edgeworth-Kuiper belt" or "Edgeworth belt" or avoid it altogether "The Gulf" style) as well as American/Commonwealth spelling issues over the scattered dis(c/k) and there's a real mess. At right is the nomenclature and nesting structure we've been sticking to on Wikipedia thus far.
As for the capitalisation issue, thanks for the clarification. I still say stick with {{centaurTNO-stub}}, then, as "TNO" all-caps tends to be used ubitiquously in the literature, rather than the full name or a mixed-case version. I was actually also curious about where the hyphens are supposed to go in the template names: names in the format "xx yy" or "xx and yy" stay as xxyy, with hyphens only linking to clarification words like "-bio" or "-geo", right?
Final Q, and possibly getting a little cart-before-horsey here, but is there any sort of bot support likely to be available for this convert? Considering most of the articles are already listed in one of the subcats of Category:Asteroid groups and families, would it be possible for somebody smarter than I instruct their faithful servant to pick which of the templates to replace {{asteroid-stub}} with based on how it's filed there? The Tom 04:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While we haven't done so before, it'd be trivial for me to have User:Mairibot to go thru a category, and replace {{asteroid-stub}} with the appropriate specific stub type. Could also replace ones that're still tagged with {{astro-stub}} easily enough. --Mairi 05:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Minor planet stubs is fine, altho {{minplan-stub}} sounds like it should be a subtype of {{1984-stub}} to me. However, I'm not certain that there are enough stubs for a {{centaurTNO-stub}}. It certainly won't reach 60 form just bot restubbing as there are less that 60 stubs in those two cats. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's move {{minplan-stub}} to {{minorplanet-stub}}. That abbreviation saves only 4 letters, and makes a name a little ambiguous. Conscious 08:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One comment I didn't notice before - hyphenation. Two hyphens are used when something is split in two different ways (so we get India-geo-stub, which is both an India-stub and a geo-stub), or when something generically named is split to be something more specific. For that reason there'd definitely be nothing wrong with {{belt-asteroid-stub}} +c, since they're further splits of {{asteroid-stub}}, though it's probably better to keep it consistent with {{centaurTNO-stub}} and the like and keep it to one hyphen. I agree that minorplanet-stub is a better name than minplan-stub, BTW. Grutness...wha? 09:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no. This split failed miserably. Here's what it resulted in:

Instead of one oversized category, we've got one oversized and four undersized. (Stubs in the only properly sized category are probably there only due to the lack of information.) We could have done with {{beltasteroid-stub}} only, really. Sad but Conscious 16:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A clear indication of why at least a rough count of stubs is good before a split. I must admit I would have expected more near-earth objects, and no doubt the number of TNOs will incrase quickly as they are being discovered at a fair rate of knots. Is it worth merging minorplanet-stub and asteroid-stub? Grutness...wha? 23:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, to be totally frank I'm feeling more than a little sheepish about how things are looking after the dust has settled. I had done far too small a random sampling before coming up with the system I proposed, and overlooked the vast number of Main Belt asteroids that weren't in any particular group category but just in the root of Category:Main Belt asteroids. I was also pretty sure there was at least 100 worthy of {{innerasteroid-stub}}, but was going more on the total number of Near Earth Asteroid articles (which is quite significant) rather than the number of stubs (which is, er, 20-something). Indeed, it seems the holy-crap-this-might-kill-us-all crew have made sure that a lot of pokey little rocks (that would be ordinarily have only managed to merit stubs if they were elsewhere in the solar system) are instead three or four paragraph bits sans-stub-tag. The Tom 02:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four more genre splits of {{US-band-stub}}

edit

{{US-band-stub}} is currently sitting at 5 pages. I've identified 4 more genre stub categories that all have at least 60 articles. I'm proposing:

{{US-RnB-band-stub}} and {{US-pop-band-stub}} already exist and are listed in WP:WSS/D and I propose that we keep both stub templates, renaming {{US-RnB-band-stub}} to {{US-R&B-band-stub}}. --Bruce1ee 08:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A week has passed and I've created the above stub templates and categories. I created {{US-singing-band-stub}} as {{US-singing-group-stub}} which I think is more appropriate. I'll ask Mairi if he could use Mairibot to rename {{US-RnB-band-stub}} to {{US-R&B-band-stub}} to bring it in line with Category:United States R&B musical group stubs. --Bruce1ee 09:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{D&D-stub}} break out of {{rpg-stub}}

edit

The Category:RPG_stubs, for stubs related to Role-playing games, has 272 entries, and is getting unmanageable. About 40% of these are concerned with Dungeons & Dragons. That would be over 100. Proposed, creation of {{D&D-stub}} to separate out those just for D&D.

Please note, there already is a {{Dragonlance-stub}} stub, and Dragonlance is a Dungeons and Dragons world. So {{Dragonlance-stub}} should probably become a subcategory of {{D&D-stub}}. But I don't feel strongly about that part of it, I just want to be able to separate D&D from non-D&D RPG stub articles. GRuban 19:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ive moved this up the page where it belongs. 272 isnt nearly large enough to be unmanagable (600 stubs would be borderline unmanagable). id favour replacing dragonlance-stub (which was never proposed that i know of) with D&D-stub since we probably need a D&D stub but i doubt theres much need of a dragonlance stub thats seperate from it. BL kiss the lizard 23:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a mere newbie, I would with all humility propose that any list that doesn't fit on one page (>200) would be noticeably less useful than one that did (<200). I understand that 60 is considered the boundary requirement for a new stub category, surely (~40% x 272 ~= 112+) is over that boundary.
As for the Dragonlance rename, I can see your point from a high level. However, from a practicality point of view, I'd like to keep {{Dragonlance-stub}} separate, just as a subcategory. I don't know who proposed it or made it or how, I'm relatively new here, it was here when I got here. First, because there are already a large number of articles in it, and there are, presumably, people interested primarily in Dragonlance stub enhancement, and not just D&D stub enchancement. Second, because from my estimate, {{D&D-stub}} would already have over 100 articles, throwing more into it wouldn't help. But, most importantly, I'm probably going to be the one doing the work sorting RPG-stubs and D&D-stubs, and, frankly, I'm not that enthused about doing the Dragonlance-stub work. Subcategorying it would be editing one page, I can do that, but changing all 50+ Dragonlance pages would probably be rather low on my list of things I'd like to do. GRuban 16:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
yeah makes sense. the 600 idea is becuase weve already got over 1000 stub types even with not having split everything with over 2000 stubs. if we split everything with 200+ instead of 600+...well its already difficult to keep track. but this one might work. wait until a few more people comment. but who says youd need to change the dragonlance stubs? were stub sorters - thats what we do! BL kiss the lizard 22:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Week passed, category and template made, working on sorting. GRuban 21:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{diplomat-stub}}

edit

While sorting through the US bio stubs I've come across certain groups that I haven't been able to assign satisfactory stubs to. Diplomats are one such category, and while there is a degree of overlap with politicians, not all diplomats are politicians in the sense of having gone out and sought votes. I've largely been tagging various ambassadors with {{poli-bio-stub}} but I don't think its the optimal place for them. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Political relative stub

edit

While sorting through the US bio stubs I've come across certain groups that I haven't been able to assign satisfactory stubs to. People who notable for being related to a politician are one such category, Outside the nobility (which by definition includes relatives), politics is one of those rare fields where relatives receive a good deal of notability just by being a relative. I don't have a good name for this proposed stub type, but it would be viable. I've been placing them in {{poli-bio-stub}} so if we can't vome up with a clear name this one can back burner this one. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{settler-stub}}

edit

While sorting through the US bio stubs I've come across certain groups that I haven't been able to assign satisfactory stubs to. Unlike the previous two stubs I've proposed, I haven't been able to these people to a particular stub type. These stub articles typically begin "John Doe helped found the town of Arwedairyet, Fivenessee." or "Jane Roe came over on the Mustfruit." Caerwine Caerwhine 20:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US Government Agency Stub

edit

I have created the United States Government Agencies Wiki Project There is no stub, at the moment that this plethora of articles can fall in, according to a LSU project, there are 1174 different government agencies, now granted about 400 of these or so are things, like civil rights compliance board and accounting for each agency and such. Though, this plethora of articles need a stub category CuBiXcRaYfIsH 21:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A stub more exclusive to the project

CuBiXcRaYfIsH 20:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US-agency-stub, perhaps, making it clear in the wording of both the template and category that it's for government agencies? Grutness...wha? 01:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split {{India-bio-stub}}

edit

Having the following stubs under Indian people stubs can trim the category.

--Pamri • Talk 16:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree in general terms, there are a few minor niggles I have with this. Firstly a couple of the names - we use the one "k" form of Sikhism, and India-Cricketbio-stub would have a small "c". Second, the scope of one or two of the categories - the two religion-based ones are a definite problem unless you mean people who are best known for their religion rather than anything else, in which case they'd probably be better as something like Hindu-theologian-stub and Sikh-theologian-stub or similar. If it's simply for people who are Hindus or Sikhs then it's going to cut across other categories (this is the sort of reason why the earlier discussions are still going on!). Indian-entertainer-stub might be a tricky one to define, too. Those three categories might need some thought, then, but other than that, if you can find 60 stubs in any of the other categories, I've no objections at all, and given the size of India-bio-stub, you probably can find that many. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, it would be hard to find that many articles, if we split the religious bios into specific categories. The Hinduism-bio-stub & Sikhism-bio-stub are for Hindu/Sikh religious figures (Saints, theologians,etc.,), quite similar to {{Christianity-bio-stub}}. We can later think of split it into specific groups, when we have a large number of a articles. Indian-entertainer-stub would cover TV anchors, comedians, dancers, music directors,etc., --Pamri • Talk 04:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's made clear they're for religious figures in the wording of the template and category, there shouldn't be any problem. The problem would only be if - for example - an article on someone like Harbhajan Singh was given {{Sikhism-bio-stub}}. He is a Sikh, but not a religious figure. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, It will be similarly worded to {{Christianity-bio-stub}}. I guess, any other miscategorization can be checked. --Pamri • Talk 06:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If {{Hinduism-bio-stub}} and {{Sikhism-bio-stub}} are under {{India-bio-stub}}, does this imply that all Hinduists and Sikhists are Indians? And I think that {{India-singer-stub}} and {{India-actor-stub}} should be subtypes of {{India-entertainer-stub}}. Conscious 10:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the religious figures of both denominations do come from India, but its not necessary for them to come under {{India-bio-stub}}. --Pamri • Talk 12:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the idea of splitting it into religious bio stubs. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If a stub about an Indian is tagged with, say, Hinduism-bio-stub, should India-bio-stub be preserved? If yes, this won't help shortening India-bio-stub, if no, Hinduism-bio-stub should be a subtype of India-bio-stub. Conscious 06:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The idea reflects a need and should be implemented. Nitpicks: Club related stubs together; eg., one stub that encompasses "singers" and "entertainers" may well suffice, and could perhaps be worded "culture/arts/somethingelse" rather than entertainers -- anyway, film already boasts a separate bio-stub. Also, all the names could be abbreviated: even the 'bio' can generally be dropped; try "indo-sport" for size (only an idea) -- I definitely agree with Nichalp on the religion parameter. ImpuMozhi 08:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative suggestion: what about {{India-reli-bio-stub}} instead of {{Hinduism-bio-stub}} and {{Sikhism-bio-stub}}, with the wording of "Indian religious figure"? Conscious 09:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egypt

edit

None of the Egyptian related stubs have been categorized. I am proposing the following new categories:

Suggested by: Yorktown1776 20:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to the names, that would be {{Egypt-struct-stub}}, {{Egypt-myth-stub}} or {{Ancient-Egypt-myth-stub}}, and {{Egypt-mil-stub}}. {{Egypt-bio-stub}} apparently already exists. Could you give us an indication of the number of articles for each stub? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 20:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we talking Ancient Egypt (as in the header) or Egypt (as in the proposal)? Category:Ancient Egypt stubs only has some 350 articles, so a big split isn't really needed. We laready have {{Egypt-bio-stub}}, which is for both ancient and modern Egypt (in the same way that Greece-bio-stub is for both ancient and modern Greece). There are certainly nowhere near enough stubs for an Egypt-struct-stub (not Egypt-building-stub!) - there were 12 last time I checked Category:Buildings and structures stubs, so unless someone has been hiding them somewhere else...). And I'm not really convinced we need a separate military stub for Egypt either (if we did, it would be Egypt-mil-stub, BTW). {{Egyptian-myth-stub}} sounds fine, though, and might well be very useful. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian military stubs has been removed. The category was to small and would have been insufficent. As for the other 3, there are several Ancient Egyptian mythology related stubs. In addition the Ancient Egypt stubs page lists some 70 unnamed pyramids in the Valley of the Kings. Finally there are dozens of minor pharaohs that could be sorted into {{Ancient-Egypt-bio-stub}}

...but which should be sorted using {{Egypt-bio-stub}} Grutness...wha? 03:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-law-stub}}

edit

There is a significant amount of law-stubs that are US specific. It would make life better to have its own stub. There is already a Canada-law-stub and an Australia-law-stub so I don't think it would be much of a stretch. PullUpYourSocks 18:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Rome

edit

There are a large amount of unsorted Ancient Roman stubs. After reviewing I propose the creation of 3 new stub categories.

  • {{Template:Ancient-Roman-mil-stub}} - Would cover all Roman battles, wars, weapons, and military related topics. There are over 100 articles that would fall under this.

By the standards of the stub sorting project, 340 stubs is not a large amount, tho that doesn't mean that it can't be split where a reasonable split exists.

The first would be {{Ancient-Rome-mil-stub}} as we generally use Rome and not Roman in stub template names and if the quantity of existing stubs is as you say, I would have no objections, providing you wait the customary week this time so that you can get input from others.

The second one is a definite NO. To begin with, even if we were to use such as stub, {{Ancient-Rome-geo-stub}} would be the stub template's name. Secondly, we do not separate locations based on history, but on the current occupier only. Doing otherwise would lead to excessive numbers of stub templates being applied to individual articles.

{{Ancient-Rome-law-stub}} would be acceptible providing you can find 60 stubs. I find that doubtful. With Roman law being a foundation of much of western law, most topics that have their genesis in Roman law would be applicable elsewhere to such an extent that the stub would belong in {{law-stub}} and not {{Ancient-Rome-law-stub}}. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I will take them into consideration. Yorktown1776 21:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I basically agree with Caerwine's points. the geo-stub is a no - places are always stubbed with the modern territorial authority. Ancient Roman provinces and the like are generally double-stubbed with the modern place's stub plus Ancient-Rome-stub (Gallia Aquitania, for instance, has both Ancient-Rome-stub for the Roman Empire and France-geo-stub for its modern country). The law-stub would be dependant on the number of stubs. The mil-stub is much more likely though - let's face it, the Roman Empire was noted for its military might. Some of the articles that could be stubbed with this would need to be double-stubbed where appropriate, though. If Gladius was a stub, for instance, it would get both Ancient-Rome-mil-stub and weapon-stub. Grutness...wha? 04:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{NZ-geo-stub}} splits

edit

There are apparently 5 pages of NZ-geo-stub articles, which need to be broken down into smaller categories. New Zealand has 17 administrative units that could be used as a basis for subcategories: Auckland, Bay of Plenty, Canterbury, Chatham Islands, Gisborne, Hawke's Bay, Manawatu-Wanganui, Marlborough, Nelson, Northland, Otago, Southland, Taranaki, Tasman, Waikato, Wellington, West Coast (see under "Primary Subdivisions": http://www.statoids.com/unz.html). These administrative names are in common use and are instantly recognisable to the average New Zealander.

There are also 27 "tourism" regions (http://www.newzealand.com/travel/destinations/), which are too detailed, I think, and which leave out the Chathams. Another possible breakdown would be North Island/South Island/Other, but since there is quite a bit of geography in NZ (despite its size), I think they would be too broad. There are also 4-6 "traditional" provincial areas, but these are no longer in use (and would probably cause some offence if they were used).

How do people think about the 17 administrative units as a basis? Trxi 11:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a NZer, I feel that's overkill (and this is coming as someone who probably created close to 200 of those stubs!). A simple N.I./S.I. split would be the best option, as far as I'm concerned, and wouldn't leave that many places outstanding - especially if offshore places were included in with the rest of their provinces. New Zealand has a lot of geographical stubs, but the people here travel around a lot, so anyone's as likely to know about places outside their region but in the same island as places within their region. Another possibility - though a bit more arbitrary - would be to divide it into four broad regions: Southern SI (Otago & Southland), Northern SI (Canterbury, Westland, Nelson, Marlborough), Southern North Island (Wellington, Manawatu, Hawkes Bay, Taranaki, Wanganui, Central Plateau) and Northern NI (Gisborne, BoP, Auckland, Waikato, Northland). Grutness...wha? 00:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I was thinking that something like you've suggested, four "regions" all up, would be another way to go. I am/was mildly leery of "inventing" new regional areas, since we don't want non-NZers to think that they are real administrative divisions. I think just NI and SI are a wee bit too broad. But using neutral names like NNI, SNI, NSI and SSI should reduce any potential confusion. I also like your idea of using the actual regions as the means of defining these divisions - if in future there is some justification for finer detail, it's easy enough to make the real regions subsets of the arbitrary ones. Trxi 05:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A case could be made for having a fifth category, just for the Auckland region. It's got 1/3 of the country's population and (understandably) a lot of the towns and the like, so it could survive as a separate category. As far as the NNI, SNI, NSI, SSI split, the South Island splits quite nicely - people in the south tend to think of "North/South of the Waitaki River", so there's little problem there. The NI's a bit more difficult, although - with the exception of the Central Plateau - everything falls relatively well into the two sections. BTW, I'm having a small look through some of those stubs, see if there are any which can be easily expanded. Grutness...wha? 05:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-mil-stub}} splits

edit

The military stub category has 4 pages of articles and I think it would be easy to add some new categories here. I was thinking of somethign along the following lines.

Jabencarsey 21:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the naming you suggest is a little non-standard:

I doubt whether any of these four would have 60 stubs, especially the military computer graphics one (are there any articles on this?) In every case, if needed, the M of mil and the S of stub would be lower case. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, Ha. While I don't know if there are 60 stubs about the United States Coast Guard, the example of the {{RAF-stub}} is worth looking at here. That would give us:
The reserves are usually considered as part of their parent branch rather than separately, so I wouldn't support a stub for them.
The forts, camps, navy bases, air force bases, etc. should get {{US-mil-base-stub}} and/or {{US-mil-geo-stub}}.
The operations should go into the existing {{US-mil-hist-stub}}.
The only real problem here (besides a possible lack of 60 stubs in some cases) is that {{USA-stub}} is definitely potentially ambiguous. (The U.S. Government tries to resolve the problem by using U.S.A. for the nation and USA for the army, but the rest of the world tends to not use the USGPO Style Guide). Caerwine Caerwhine 21:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why US-mil-base-stub when we have {{fort-stub}} for military bases in general? And thanks for telling me what CG stood for, I'd never have guessed that in a million years! Didn't realise it was part of the military in the US (it's a branch of the police here). I'd definitely go with USArmy-stub, USNavy-stub, USMarines-stub and USCoastGuard-stub. USAF is unambiguous enough though. Grutness...wha? 23:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Coast Guard is semi-military over here. In peacetime, it's a vagabond group that has at various times been assigned to the departments of the Treasury, Transportation, and lately Homeland Security, but in war time it can get transfered over to the DoD either in part or in whole to help our blue-water Navy deal with brown-water situations, since the USN doesn't like doing coasts or anything that requires small ships. Since forts are always military bases but not the reverse, I think of {{mil-base-stub}} as more inclusive that the admittedly shorter {{fort-stub}}. Might be worth adding it as a redirect, but considering that we don't have 60 stubs in {{fort-stub}} at the moment, I don't think we need to worry at this time about a {{US-fort-stub}} or {{US-mil-base-stub}}, no matter what the name should be. As for the branch stubs, the abbreviations I proposed are all extremely standard over here, so anyone with a minimal knowledge of the U.S. military should have no difficulty with them, except for {{USA-stub}} due to the other use of that TLA. I can see going with {{USArmy-stub}} for that one because of that and {{USNavy-stub}} as a redirect for {{USN-stub}} for stub sorters not familiar with the military. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-radio-station-stub}}

edit

For the same reasons given for the creation of {{US-radio-station-stub}} (above) – there are over 60 UK radio station articles in Category:United Kingdom broadcasting stubs – I propose {{UK-radio-station-stub}} to be in a subcategory of both {{UK-bcast-stub}} and {{radio-station-stub}}. --Marknew 10:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussions

edit

Category renaming: American foo stubs to either US foo stubs

edit

Moved from the general proposals.

We have a number of mismatched category names where stubs such as {{US-politician-stub}} have a category named like Category:American politician stubs. I counted seven categories that are like that. [There are also two American football stub categories that can probably keep their current names—Category:American football stubs ({{Amfootball-stub}}) and Category:American football biography stubs ({{Amfootbio-stub}})].The "American" in the category names should be changed to either "US" or "United States". BlankVerse ∅ 02:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a big enough topic to go at the foot of the page.. I'd prefer changing all of these and the ones starting "US" to ones starting "United States" . I'd also like to replace all the categories which start "UK" with ones starting "United Kingdom". Grutness...wha? 03:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We probably ought to go along with the consensus developed by Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American. That consensus is that if the general scheme in a category name is to use Fooian stule adjectives to indicate nationality, then American should be used to handle the indication of the United States. Following that convention would mean changing:

The preference of which way to go was made based solely on what existing stubs use, with the issue being left to be settled when there was no clear consensus outside of existing US/UK stub categories. Caerwine 05:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I was mildly against this renaming on main categories, and I'm mildly against this for the same reasons. The obvious ones - American doesn't always equate with the United States (I have, for instance, a book on the history of American painting which lists such American artists as Rivera, Kahlo, and Siqueiros), and United States is in common enough adjectival use for it to be acceptable. I'd also ask what would happen with Category:Americas geography stubs, which is a parent category for North America, South America, Central America, and the Caribbean. BL kiss the lizard 07:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That was actually me, not BL Lacertae. Emma (i.e., BL Lacertae) visited here earlier on and did some Wikiing... and didn't log off. (Sorry to reveal your name Emma!) Grutness...wha? 07:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
erg. my fault. but why tell them my name? I hate that name. BL kiss the lizard 05:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For rail ones we also need to decide whether it's Foo rail stubs or Fooian rail stubs, as there's some of both (e.g. Category:India rail stubs and Category:UK rail stubs, but Category:Japanese rail stubs and Category:Australian rail stubs). --Mairi 22:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, again, that might favour the "United States X" situation, since it's both a noun and an adjective. IOt's not only the rail stubs that are like that, either. But, as I said, it's only a mild niggle as far as I'm concerned, so I'll go with the flow on this one. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It may be both, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American has clearly ruled that when using the adjective form, American and not United States is the prefered form. If you don't want American used, then all of the categories need to be changed to use the country name and not the country adjective. Caerwine 07:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should take into account the outcome of a Category-for-deletion action; see 10 Nov 2005 CfD (look at the "Category:U.S. inventors to Category:American inventors" section). Courtland 14:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more inclined to use "United States" (as in Category:United States railroad executives) instead of "U.S." or "American"; "U.S." is less easy to type because you're bouncing on the Shift key to get it right, and "American" seems too ambiguous (does it mean US, North American, Central American or South American?). In general, I would prefer Foo over Fooian (can't type that without grinning) and acronyms without periods (as in "US" and "UK"), but that's just me. slambo 16:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself agreeing with Slambo on this. "American" has several meanings, United States has only one. Also, the term "United States" is often used as an adjective, as Grutness has indicated. But if the community consensus is to use "American" instead, then so be it. Aecis praatpaal 10:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Czech this out!

edit

We've got a slight amount of confusion over how to specify the Czech and I'd like for us to clear it up and settle on a single consistent policy. We have {{Cz-geo-stub}} with redirects {{Czech-geo-stub}} and {{Czechia-geo-stub}} feeding into Category:Czechia geography stubs which has has its non-stub parent Category:Geography of the Czech Republic. We also have {{Czech-bio-stub}} with no supporting redirects feeding into Category:Czech people stubs which has as one of its parents the non-existant Category:Czechia-related stubs. Now as much as I personally prefer using Czechia instead of the Czech Republic, it hasn't yet caught on in English and more to the point all of the regular categories in Wikipedia use the long form rather than the short form. Also, we generally use the noun form instead of the adjective to make the stub template. To straighten this all out, I'd like for us to do the following, altho will need to head to SfD for part of this:

  1. Create {{Czechia-stub}} with {{CzechRepublic-stub}} and {{Czech-stub}} as redirects feeding into Category:Czech Republic stubs. (It's a little light in the mnumber of known stubs category, but should be doable.)
  2. Reset the Czech geography stub type as follows:
    1. Rename Category:Czechia geography stubs → Category:Czech Republic geography stubs;
    2. Change {{Czechia-geo-stub}} from being a redirect into the main template feeding into Category:Czech Republic geography stubs;
    3. Delete {{Cz-geo-stub}};
    4. Add {{CzechRepublic-geo-stub}}; and
    5. Modify {{Czech-geo-stub}} to point to {{Czechia-geo-stub}}.
  3. Move {{Czech-bio-stub}} to {{Czechia-bio-stub}}, keeping the redirect and adding {{CzechRepublic-bio-stub}} as a second redirect.

This would make the Czech stubs follow a consistent pattern between themselves and our existing conventions. My reason for picking Czechia as the primary form for the template names was that it was the shorter of the two noun forms. CzechRepublic should also be avaialble as it is the noun form more commonly used in English, and Czech be justified as being that long form with the Republic dropped. Opinions? Caerwine 21:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the basics of your proposal, but there are a few things I disagree with. What it boils down to is that you choose Czechia as the main form, to which other forms should redirect. However, as you say, in English, the name Czech Republic is used for the country. I've done a small, completely unrepresentative google test. "Czech Republic" gave 129 million hits, "Czechia" only 1,7 million. Czechia redirects to Czech Republic in Wikipedia. So I think we should be consistent with that, and I'm very skeptical about using Czechia in the first place. What I would propose:
  1. Create {{CzechRepublic-stub}}, with {{Czech-stub}} and {{Cz-stub}} as redirects, all feeding into Category:Czech Republic stubs.
  2. Create {{CzechRepublic-geo-stub}}, with {{Czech-geo-stub}} and {{Cz-geo-stub}} as redirects, all feeding into Category:Czech Republic geography stubs.
  3. Create {{CzechRepublic-bio-stub}}, with {{Czech-bio-stub}} and {{Cz-bio-stub}} as redirects, all feeding into Category:Czech Republic biography stubs.
Aecis praatpaal 23:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly oppose the idea of renaming the templates. The whole reason for using "cz-geo-stub" and ""cz-stub" was because of an edit war going on over the stub template. As soon as you create one template with redirects from the other it is likely to start up again. It created a hell of a lot of work for this project several months back (check the edit histories and discussion pages around April). The compromise name was chosen deliberately because it was the only name acceptable to both sides of the debate. Mind you, the categories probably could use a rename to match the parent. Czech-bio-stub is fine, because both sides of the debate call the people from that country Czechs. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, with the edit war that I now see that CzechRepublic and Czechia would obviously stir up if either were the primary name, it would probably be best to avoid using either of those forms for the root. However, how about using Czech for the root form with Czechia and CzechRepublic as redirects? There's zero need to rename the bio stub category since those uniformly use the adjective form which is Czech no matter which form of the name you use. I want to avoid using ISO3166 abreviations if possible. Caerwine 03:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. Not entirely convinced, since Czech-geo-stub was one of the two templates being fought over. But maybe if its stressed that this is the non controversial adjectival form and CzechRepublic is one of the redirects it could work (FWIW, I don't like the ISO abbreviations either, but at leasy Cz was unlikely to be anything else). In any case, given that the battole was six months ago, hopefully no-one will want to restart it (he says with fingers crossed) Grutness...wha? 04:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly agree on the category rename. I'd like to think this would be speediable, but I guess that we'd have to at least nominate it first... Will stand mute on the templates for the time being, given the apparent problems. Alai 05:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US State-stubs

edit

It seems we are unearthing quite a few US state-stubs and sending most of them to SFD becaused there's no wikiproject. I'm beginning to wonder whether it would be more useful to keep them, given that - with the federal nature of the US - a lot of the US-stubs are specific to individual states. This was prompted by a message on my user talk page from Karmnafist blithely asking me how to add categories to two new stubs he'd created (one of them incorrectly named. Sigh). Grutness...wha? 23:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you just incorrectly named me ;-)
What Grutness is talking about is basically WP:MOS cruft. I often make redirects for mispellings such as {{New Hampshire-stub}} for {{NewHampshire-stub}}. Making stubs shouldn't be about cruft and instruction creep, they should be about "Hey, this article is a stub, and it needs to be categorized, but not everybody might know what the stub is or be willing to step out of RC mode/casual user mode to keep on trying if they capitalize something that they shouldn't or miss a dash or something". karmafist 03:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the name! It isn't MOS-cruft at all. The only people who regularly use the many varieties of stubs are either stub-sorters or people who refer to the stub list. Everyone else uses far coarser stub types, and the stubs are sorted from there. In both cases, there isn't any excuse for typing the wroing name - in fact, quite the opposite. Regular stub sorters know there are a few simple rules which keep the stub names regular; people referring to the stub list can see what the spelling is. In neither case is there any reason for a stub redirect. And anyway, redirects for templates are generally frowned on since they double the server load. But that's not the point with the current discussion. The question is - do we want to allow state-stubs for all US states, or only those with wikiprojects? Grutness...wha? 09:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There also tends to be a lot of movement of people between states. I'm slightly worried that people would start adding state stubs willy nilly to various stubs because a person spent a few years there, even if his noteworthiness was elsewhere, or not patricular to single state. If we're going to do this, I want us to nail down such "floaters" rather tightly with a rather strict and well-publicised policy on their use (i.e. a copy of the policy, not just a link to it, on every state stub category page. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Policy discussion on ignoring this page

edit

On Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:WSS/P User:karmafist has basically annouced his intention to ignore this page when creating stub types. Please visit and comment. DES (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also note Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements/Karmafist#Policy for a discussion related to stub sorting. Conscious 18:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's misuse of WP:IAR like this that makes me wish the page had never been created. BlankVerse 04:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hardly call it a misuse, he's ignoring an attempt at ownership of Wikipedia pages. If anything, Karmafist's invocation of this policy is perhaps the best example for why WP:IAR exists. —Locke Cole 04:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The best example? Do you mean there isn't a better example anywhere out there? You're either misusing the word best (which probably means you're an American) or you're a sock puppet (which is why your signature is a red link). --EncycloPetey 05:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a better example, but given that WP:IAR is about cutting through bureaucracy and red tape, this seems as good as any to me. Regarding my redlinked name, you might wanna be more thorough there and check my contribs, or my edit count. —Locke Cole 05:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There was an or in there -- I know that not everyone is a sock puppet. However, I also don't believe in using edit counts to prove anything. A person's edit count means nothing to me. Take my own edit count as an example. It is very high, but most of it is from sorting stubs, which can be done very quickly and doesn't contribute content. I have some contributions that I'm very proud of, but that's not reflected in my edit count (whcih in fact swamps out my contributions instead). So then, if on 29 Nov 2005 you declared that you were "done with Wikipedia", why are you suddenly so vocal again? --EncycloPetey 06:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because the situation resolved itself? And why is this about me all of the sudden; is there some problem with discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of this page? —Locke Cole 06:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm honestly curious. Normally, I'd take a discussion like this to your user page, but that's not really appropriate in this case, since you don't have a user page. --EncycloPetey 06:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Food and drink stubs

edit

This discussion is not about simply a new template, but about changing the use and structure of an existing stub hierarchy. Therefore I'm bringing it up in the discussions. The template {{food-stub}} currently feeds (nice choice of words there) into Category:Food and drink stubs. However, {{drink-stub}} feeds into Category:Drink stubs. Imo, it would be better to have {{food-stub}} feeding into Category:Food stubs. Category:Food and drink stubs could act as a (grand)parent for the related categories. I was thinking of this structure:

  • no template / Food and drink stubs
    • food-stub / Food stubs
      • cheese-stub / Cheese stubs
      • condiment-stub / Condiment stubs
      • confection-stub / Confectionery stubs
      • dessert-stub / Dessert stubs
      • food-corp-stub / Food corporation stubs
        • restaurant-stub / Restaurant stubs
      • fruit-stub / Fruit stubs
      • ingredient-stub / Food ingredient stubs
      • vegetable-stub / Vegetable stubs
    • drink-stub / Drink stubs
      • beer-stub / Beer and brewery stubs
      • wine-stub / Wine stubs
    • cooking-tool-stub / Cooking tool stubs
    • cuisine-stub / Cuisine stubs

A simple template change with null edits by Mairibot won't do, because many of the just under 1,600 articles currently in Category:Food and drink stubs belong in one of the daughters. This makes the mess a bit more complicated. Any thoughts on this? Aecis praatpaal 22:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since five of those stubs are brand new, we definitely need someone to slug through and sort {{food-stub}} anyway. (I'm busy at the moment with sorting {{US-bio-stub}}.) I can see where Category:Food stubs would be useful, but there are likely too many stubs which wouldn't fit into an existing child type for Category:Food and drink stubs to be without a template of its very own. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal for restructuring sounds reasonable, but why is food-corp (and restaurant) a sub-category of food-stub, while cuisine-stub is not? I would move ford-corp (and its child) up one level. Otherwise, I'd say go for it once the requisite week has passed. --EncycloPetey 03:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that food-stub should refer only to food and not to drink (ISTR that I actually suggested that when I made drink-stub). Drink-stub could well be splittable by now, too (soft-drink-stub and spirit-drink-stub, perhaps?). As to going through the list, this is exactly what WP:WSS/T was created for. Grutness...wha? 05:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about drink-corp-stub? It could ease the load on {{food-stub}}, {{drink-stub}} and {{corp-stub}}, and could act as a parent for Category:Beer and brewery stubs. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 14:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd reccomend adding a few more stub types, like bread-stub, meat-stub, packaged-foods, as well as ethnic categories, such as chinese, japanese, mexican, french, etc. Just an idea. --TexasDex 06:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hold off on that for now. The separate types of food (bread etc) might be useful, but it's worth waiting until we know how many there are likely to be (that'll be clearer once the current proposal is done). As to the ethnic split, I can understand it as an idea, but it would mean splitting the stubs on two different dimensions (e.g., Chinese confections would need to be double stubbed with both Chinese food and confectionary), so that's best handled with care, since it can lead to confusion for stub sorting. It's worth considering, though, for all that. Grutness...wha? 09:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Having two stub-categores per article isn't that bad, it's better then having multiple branching types. Even just looking at the category I can guesstimate that sub-types on bread, meat, and packaged foods will be plenty populated. --151.205.207.248 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been stub-sorting within food-stub quite a bit. I'd recommend bread-stub, meat-stub, soup-or-stew-stub (or maybe separate soup-stub and stew-stubs), and cereal-stub (there's a surprising number of breakfast cereals). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I hope this is the right place to ask. There's "condiment stubs" and "condiments". If you look the "Condiments" topic, you'll find that the "condiment stubs" category is listed in the "mu" (μ) block. Why is that? What's mu about "condiment stubs"?Mikeblas 05:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

a lot of people were complaining about the stub categories cluttering up the main part of the categories, so we decided to put them right at the end of all the subcategories by using a non-alphabetical character. A lot of recent stub categories are listed under μ, to stand for "micro" (i.e., "very small articles"). Grutness...wha? 23:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Italy-struct-stub question

edit

im busy moving stubs from euro-struct-stub to italy-struct-stub. what do i do with vatican ones? do they stay in euro because the vatican city isnt really italy, or do they get italy-struct-stub? or do we need a seperate vatican-stub for everything to do with the vatican? BL kiss the lizard 05:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

good question... I'd be inclined to put italy-struct-stub on them, but it is a separate country, so I'm not sure it's the right thing. There's about seven of them, I think. Not sure there'd be enough stubs for a general vatican-stub, but it might be the solution. Grutness...wha? 10:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with that. Italy and the Vatican City are two countries, so those buildings can only get Vatican-struct-stub. We use the same distinction with geo-stubs. Aecis praatpaal 11:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The San Marino articles have been going in Euro, not Italy, so teh same should apply to Vatican City. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ok ill leave them with euro-struct. BL kiss the lizard 23:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Occult-stub}} and {{Magic-stub}}

edit

Ok, this is rather confusing and needs sorting out. Both have Category:Magic as their only parent. That category deals with religious/occult magic, and references Magic (paranormal) for a description. Hoever, {{Magic-stub}} links to Magic (illusion) and gets used on both illusion magic and occult magic. {{Occult-stub}} links to Magic (paranormal).

Two ways I see of resolving this:

Or

I'd favor the latter, as it doesn't have any overlap between the stubs, and more encompasses more things. --Mairi 03:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also favor the latter and will support it if you bring it to SFD. As this will be a rescoping of an existing stub it has to be handled there rather than here. However, would there be any problem with adding {{magick-stub}} as a redirect for {{occult-stub}}?
  • FWIW (and speaking as a "pagan" :), I've always used these stubs in the second way. Magic means stage magic to me, magick is concerned with the occult. So I'd have no problems with changing magic-stub to link with illusion and using occult-stub for paranormal "real magic". Grutness...wha? 23:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC) (PS - happy solstice!)[reply]

{{Vocab-stub}}

edit

Lately I've had some issues regarding the proper use of the vocab stub category, and have opened an open discussion in an attempt to come to a consensus on its talk page. Please take a look there and make comments. Thank you. xaosflux Talk/CVU 01:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive19&oldid=1192872653"