Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive21

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting‎ | Proposals

Proposals, February 2006 edit

Japanese Mythology Stub edit

{{Japan-myth-stub}}

At the Japanese Mythology Project, we've been marking these with a combination of {{Japan-stub}} and {{Asia-myth-stub}}. There are more that 60 articles that could take this stub, and it is associated with a WikiProject. MikeDockery 05:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excellent plan, then. Alai 06:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it would be very useful to the WikiProject. --日本穣 19:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • sounds good to me. Grutness...wha? 23:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be a definite boon to the project.--み使い Mitsukai 04:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: {{water-stub}} to {{water-transport-stub}} edit

Or {{water-trans-stub}}.

The current stub is confusing, and doesn't allow for a possible water stub. --Singkong2005 02:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - although I doubt we'd actually need a stub about water. The name does look like it needs a change. That's probably better handled at WP:SFD than here, though (although the same people will probably see it, by and large). Grutness...wha? 04:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:SFD is for deletions...? Anyway, it hasn't provoked much interest, so I'll leave it for now. --Singkong2005 08:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing an International development stub edit

I created the appropriate technology stub, {{ap-tech-stub}}, before realizing there was an approval process. I'm now proposing a stub for International development related articles. How's {{Int-dev-stub}}?

These would include:

  1. Ceramic water filter
  2. Dutch brick
  3. Engineers Without Borders
  4. Engineers Without Borders (Canada)
  5. Engineers Without Borders (USA)
  6. Engineers Without Borders (UK)
  7. Engineers Without Borders (Australia)
  8. Engineers Without Borders (Belgium)
  9. National Center for Appropriate Technology
  10. Wind-up radio
  11. Cloth filter
  12. Spring box
  13. Phase-change incubator
  14. VLOM (pumps)
  15. Solar water disinfection
  16. Orangi Pilot Project
  17. Kamal Kar
  18. Jhai Foundation
  19. List of appropriate technology organizations
  20. Blue Future Filters Inc
  21. El Centro Integrado de Technologia Appropriada (CITA)
  22. APACE VFEG
  23. Appropriate Technology Africa
  24. Centre for Appropriate Technology (Australia)
  25. Centre for Appropriate Technology
  26. Intermediate technology
  27. Hassan Fathy
  28. MIT IDEAS Competition
  29. and maybe EDAT
  30. Rainwater harvesting
  31. Smokeless and wood conserving stoves
  32. Sandy Cairncross
  33. Ralf Hotchkiss
  34. BIPU
  35. Vertical kiln
  36. Pot-in-pot refrigerator
  37. the redlinks on Centre for Appropriate Technology
  38. Kamal Kar
  39. Akhtar Hameed Khan
  40. Development as Freedom
  41. Aid effectiveness
  42. Underdevelopment
  43. Development economics
  44. Development studies
  45. Roundabout PlayPump

More from articles from Category:Appropriate technology, and Category:Development & their subcategories would be suitable, but I'm currently in a slow net cafe in a country town...

I don't think there's any other comparable stub that will serve this purpose. {{Sustainability-stub}} is probably the closest, but that is a different focus. A few of the articles do have different stubs on them already (e.g. Development studies) but International development is more specific. The appropriate technology stub will be deleted. --Singkong2005 02:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recall your earlier stub, further down the page. I must admit it's an area I know nothing about, but it does look like there would be enough stubs. I'm not too fussed on the name, though - surely there'd be something less ambiguous looking that "int-dev-stub", even if only intl-dev-stub". Anyone come up with a better name? Grutness...wha? 04:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, {{Intl-dev-stub}} is better, so I'll support that unless there's a better suggestion again. --Singkong2005 04:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that still seems a bit unclear, so I'll create it as {{International-dev-stub}}. --Singkong2005 04:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The closest correspondong permanent category seems to be Category:development. Shouldn't we be following that: {{development-stub}}, Category:development stubs? Alai 04:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point. However, compare the articles Development & International development. I think International development would be a better category name then Development, except that I would assume that category names are better if they're short. Also, I find {{International-dev-stub}} has less ambiguity. Besides which, it's already been created.
If a name change is proposed and accepted, I'll accept that, of course. :--Singkong2005 07:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: {{US-stadium-stub}} to {{US-arena-stub}} edit

It's established that {{US-struct-stub}} is overpopulated and there are an awful lot of arenas/centers in there. I've gone through a lot of them and I have yet to encounter an arena that was not used at one point or another as a stadium. (Most of the stubs, in fact, mention the sports usages prominently. It'd make more sense to me to have it be a section for general arenas. If it gets too large stadiums could always be split off the arena section. Crystallina 03:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. I don't see that that would need a rename (and you'd also need to rename stadium-stub at the same time if you did). The main reason those sports arenas aren't marked with US-stadium-stub yet is that it's a very new template and we haven't got round to sorting it yet. In any case, to rename it to US-arena-stub would be misleading, because it's only sports arenas that you want to cover, not theatrical ones - and as you say, all sports arenas are or were stadia. Grutness...wha? 05:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by the purpose of this suggestion. Is there an implied rescope to beyond "sports venues", or are you suggesting "arena" is a better/more inclusive term? Currently population is going to be what was double-stubbed with stadium-stub and US-struct-, including for example Peaks Ice Arena. Doubtless very incomplete, as G. says; cat is indeed <48 hours old, and hasn't even made it off this page as a proposal yet... Alai 06:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the arenas covered are multi-purpose arenas, but the vast majority of the articles then go on to mention that they are home to this sports team, their history with sports. The categories follow suit, listing them only under sports categories. This would put them more comfortably in the sports venue section - but they're not stadiums, they're multi-purpose arenas. Does this make sense? I hope it does. The rename would just make it a bit more clear for people looking for stubs. Crystallina 13:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is making things less clear. What's your definition of an "arena"? I think we should be sorting these things by primary use; if they're primarily sports venue they're sorted as stadia, if primarily music venues, or primarily conferences centres, then create stub types to suit. And as Grutness says, let's also try and keep some consistency with the parent -struct- type. Alai 18:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My definition is whatever the article says it is. The problem comes with articles where it isn't clear what the primary use is unless you're personally familiar. I have no idea what the Toledo Sports Arena, for instance, is primarily used for; judging by the name I assumed it was sports, but the article also outright stated it was also a concert hall (and categorized it as such). I put it in stadium stubs anyway, but hesitantly. Crystallina 05:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My question is, how you define an arena for the purposes of scoping an "arena" stub type? If the proposal is, a category for things called "arena", I'm by no means in favour. That'd be a bit like creating a subtype for "Centres". If it's to include something broader, I still don't understand exactly what. Alai 06:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article: arena is a good start: "An arena is an enclosed area, often circular or oval-shaped, designed to showcase theater, musical performances, or sporting events." Crystallina 03:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too broad. Given that the stadia category is not small already, and likely to get to get larger when sorted to properly, it'd be counterproductive to expand its scope to be even bigger. Rescoping the already oversized {{stadium-stub}} would be a disaster, while if one doesn't, the two are no longer consistent as subcat and supercat. Propose separate types for non-primarily-sporting venues, please. Alai 04:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. My question is, then, do articles in the general pattern and form of Centrum Arena get moved into stadium stubs or stay where they are? Crystallina 12:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say yes, it appears to be primarily a sports arena, if the (admittedly very brief) text and categorisation is anything to go by. Admittedly indoor "arenas" may get fuzzier than outdoor stadia, they may be an early candidate to split off into a sub-cat... Alai 17:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Germany-school-stub}} edit

If there aren't enough German schools school stubs to go around, then we could always annex {{Netherlands-school-stub}} and rename the thing {{Europe-school-stub}}. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is perhaps a good reason for proposing and counting first, and creating later, no? At any rate, support in principle whichever of the above passes threshold; not especially urgent though, parent is only three pages. Alai 23:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-midwest-university-stub}}; {{US-northeast-university-stub}}; {{US-south-university-stub}}; {{US-west-university-stub}} edit

Over 1000 US-uni-stubs, which is plenty for a regional split, but not likely to be enough for more than a handful of individual states. Alai 18:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems rather arbitrary. Where do you draw the line? I'd prefer splitting off the larger states first. Crystallina 03:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Happily, as with the categories mentioned below, I don't have to, as the United States Census Bureau get paid the big bucks to. This is really just for convenience, though, not definitiveness. But I'm also in favour of splitting off any states with > 60. Alai 03:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
also splitting by the regions (which are standard and weve used them before) is a good way of finding out which states are big enough for their own splits. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{mac-soft-stub}} edit

Stub for articles relating to Macintosh software. There is an all branching {{mac-stub}} as well. This is currently used for mac software at the moment, but would be better used for hardware and Apple software instead. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there less than 200 stubs (ie. one page) in Category:Macintosh stubs, is this a worthwhile split? What is the proportion of stubs in this category that are software? --TheParanoidOne 15:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say more than half would move to this stub, and a bunch from {{software-stub}} would be moved as well. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not much moved by splitting medium-sized categories, but if this latter claim about said bunch is true, go for it. Though, how big a "bunch"? Confusingly, that's already a sub-cat, though, and the category page text implies that Macintosh software stubs already should be sorted there... Alai 04:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-midwest-road-stub}}; {{US-northeast-road-stub}}; {{US-south-road-stub}}; {{US-west-road-stub}} edit

I previously proposed these over four months ago. Reasons still stand: parent is quite large, but by-state splits would be well below threshold. Several existing splits are well below threshold. Scopes to be as per Category:Midwestern US geography stubs, Category:Northeastern US geography stubs, Category:Southern US geography stubs and Category:Western US geography stubs. Alai 07:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should only split the parent category though. The individual state stubs that exist need to remain. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this should be used to split the parent catagory yes - and also to take any stubs in the individual state xcatagories if those cats arent big enough to be useful. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although eventually these stubs will be rendered useless when we have all 50 state highway stubs. I also don't want this to be opening the door to further deletion of state highway stubs. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually all stub types ought to be rendered redundant, that's the whole point. (And in the case of at least the major roads, it should be in theory doable, as -- unlike people! -- they're not being produced faster than mortal man can keep up with...) Alai 04:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-midwest-school-stub}}; {{US-northeast-school-stub}}; {{US-south-school-stub}}; {{US-west-school-stub}} edit

On the same basis as above, for much the same reason. As noted on SFD, the per-state categories have all been created, many are (even more horribly than above) undersized. Alai 07:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No template / Category:United States stubs Category:States of the United States stubs? edit

Strange one, I know, but we have a large number of "top level" stub types for US states, which should logically be grouped together. Actually, we have an oddly large number of top-level categories, many of them very "shallow" in terms of further sub-categorisation (if any). Alai 06:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hrm, think I may have changed my mind about this one. :) This may be a plausible idea anyway, as a statewise container, but the problem here seems just to be "lack of proper parenting". Alai 06:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{programming-stub}} edit

There are a lot of articles related to programming, which currently are (incorrectly) tagged as {{comp-sci-stub}}, because they don't fall under {{soft-eng-stub}} or {{compu-lang-stub}}. —Ruud 01:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little unclear what the intended scope is, exactly. Can you define, or exemplify, what relates to "programming", but to none of "Computer science", "software engineering", or "programming languages"? Alai 03:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blind programming, class invariant and conditional loop to name a few. —Ruud 17:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of which fall outside the above categories, AFAICS. (One might quibble as to which they're best categorised as.) These types aren't oversized, and this would tend to increase category-confusion, rather than decrease it. Alai 17:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will use {{soft-eng-stub}} in that case. —Ruud 17:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I believe this is inappropriate, as are the other two. —Ruud 17:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Slovenia-bio-stub}} edit

There's around 40 articles in {{Slovenia-stub}} which would fit into -bio-stub. And our project woul benefit from eary creation of the template (to avoid restubing) since we'll surely collect required 60 articles in a week or two. But, if you think that eary creation is not justified, fine, we'll wait. What say you? --Dijxtra 19:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what say me? me say you should have put this at the top of the page :) 40 with a wikiproject sounds ok to me. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad. I thought this project had newer-to-the-bottom ordering, but it obiously doesn't. Sorry. :-\ --Dijxtra 22:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We used to until recently, so highly understandable. Alai 23:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A WPJ on the Former Yugoslavia in general sounds a little non-specific to give too much play to the "but there's a project" argument (US roads and its many, many stub types springs to mind), but 40 isn't horrendous. Certainly create it if it really is seen to be growing in a week's time. Alai 22:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

create (or move cooking-tool-stub to) food-utensil-stub edit

Much more stubs concerning food related accessories (forks, knives, ...) could be classified rather as Food utensils than as cooking tools, the latter can go into the former category, but not vice versa. I think a "food-utensil-stub" deserves its existence at least as much as the cooking-tool-stub (and since the more appropriate is missing, many things are classified as cooking_tools but aren't related to cooking but rather to eating). — MFH:Talk 21:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ive moved this to the top of the page since its more about making a new than anything else. food utensil sounds like a good idea to me btw. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Philippines-bio-stub}} / Category:Filipino people stubs edit

To hold several existing categories that would logically be subcats, and quite a few presorted stubs with the existing, category-free template. [1] Alai 03:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well that's interesting! It looks like User:Exec8 created the template in December - without a dedicated category. Given that there are about 35 stubs that use it, I'd create the category ASAP and start null-editing right away, then go over and have a quiet word with Exec8! Grutness...wha? 04:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37 articles and three subcategories... Pretty healthy start for a category seven minutes old! Alai 05:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Byzantine-stub}} edit

A group of articles relating to the Eastern Roman Empire ("Byzantine Empire") and its three successor states are covered pretty badly by the existing stubs. I've currently found 64 stubs that would benefit from this category, without adding the relevant patriarchs to the list. Similar stubs already exist for Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt, and the Ottoman Empire. --Valentinian (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created and populated. --Valentinian (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Your-country-here-film-stub}} edit

I see that {{drama-film-stub}} is taking on a life of its own (9 pages!) and will soon be moving out on its own and contributing to Wikipedia *g* ...Drama is such a broad genre it becomes a catch-all. Would it be appropriate (as I see with {{HK-film-stub}} and {{Japan-film-stub}}) to create more "country" film stubs to siphon off some of these? Maybe {{France-film-stub}}, {{Australia-film-stub}}, {{Italy-film-stub}}? These would be sub-cats of {{film-stub}}. I can come up with specific countries after a survey of the titles. Her Pegship 22:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. theoretically these should be done the same way as other "two-dimension" splits, with double stubbing by country of origin and by genre. One problem, though, with all this is the multinational nature of a lot of movies (was Lord of the Rings a New Zealand film, for instance? It was financed in the US, the lead actors were mainly US, the major behind it was US...). Could be useful, though. Do a count and then come back, we'll see where to go from there. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more about the country that "produced" it, rather than the country where it was filmed. This way we avoid calling it "Non-American-film-stub" which is not only cumbersome but sounds kind of uppity. *g* Since (I hope) all these stubs will become articles someday with "real" categories, this is a temporary measure. More soon - Her Pegship 02:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was fun and educational. There are <gulp> 1,750 articles in the "drama-film-stub" category. Also, here are the number of articles in the top 10 Wikipedia "films by country" cats (completely unscientific survey, done by counting):

  • British films 580
  • Japanese films 288 (stub cat exists already)
  • French films 256
  • Indian films 213 (stub cat exists already)
  • Hong Kong films 157 (stub cat exists already)
  • Australian films 141
  • Italian films 130
  • Korean films 128 (stub cat exists already)
  • Canadian films 127
  • German films 88

Obviously this doesn't indicate future "population", but it's one way of determining the next few stub cats (British, French, Aussie, Italian, Canadian, and German). Re the criteria for inclusion - some of these categories are defined as "filmed in [country]", some as "produced in [country]", some as "concerning [country]"...you get the idea. Just food for thought. Any suggestions? Her Pegship 04:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I would categorise them based on 'produced by'. If some film is a co-production between two (I would guess rather rarely three) countries it could get into both categories AdamSmithee 07:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I misread your sig as Alan Smithee, which was a bit worrying under the circumstances :) Whatever, I'd definitely support UK-film-stub, France-film-stub, Australia-film-stub, Italy-film-stub, Canada-film-stub and Germany-film-stub based on that, with the caveat about double-stubbing with genre. Others can wait until they reach the usual 65 or so threshold. Grutness...wha? 09:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
whoop whoop pull up :)! I misread that poll as being the number of stubs. It is worth doing a straw poll of the stub category, maybe seeing where the first three films in each category column come from. That way it From that it should be possible to work out approximately how many stubs there are from specific countries. any that look like they'll have over 65 stubs are definitely works splitting off (probably UK and France, and possibly Australia and Italy). Grutness...wha? 00:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okey dokey, I'm on it. Her Pegship 05:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics, part deux. Some of the "drama-film-stubs" already had a "country" category assigned, so I did a quick compilation. Here's the result:

  • Drama-film-stubs which are also in Category:British films - 105
  • Drama-film-stubs which are also in Category:French films - 65
  • Drama-film-stubs which are also in Category:Italian films - 34
  • Drama-film-stubs which are also in Category:Australian films - 28
  • Drama-film-stubs which are also in Category:Canadian films - 25
  • Drama-film-stubs which are also ino Category:German films - 22

If you extrapolate from this, even the smallest of these (Germany, 22) being a bit less than 10% of the 280 films I checked, I think we have a case for each of the above countries to become proud owners of film stub tags. What say? Her Pegship 08:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC) (it's 12:30 AM and I am reeling off to bed...)[reply]

Here's some more stats, using [2] (sorry for not remembering it earlier, it might have saved you some trouble) to find films that are in a stub category and in the 'by country' category:
  • 274 British films are also stubs
  • 144 French films are also stubs
  • 89 Canadian films are also stubs
  • 82 Australian films are also stubs
  • 66 Italian films are also stubs
  • 39 German films are also stubs
So I'd Support British, French, Canadian, Australian and Italian film stubs, while the amount of German films falls a bit short (I didn't check for how many short articles aren't tagged as stubs). - Bobet 12:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I note that about 123 stubs are double-tagged as comedy and as drama. (See stats here.) While this would be "viable", it sounds more like a case of people being a bit over-templating-prone. Similarly, Category:American_film_actor_stubs and Category:American_television_actor_stubs overlap to the tune of 205 articles, which really does defeat the purpose of this split in the first place (I believe I mooted this as a likely problem at the time). Alai 18:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the words of Westley (The Princess Bride), "Why didn't you list that among our assets in the first place?" <g> Now I know, I'll use those tools. Her Pegship 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I see that now someone has placed all the articles under drama-film-stubs under the "*" heading. And it's down to 2 pages! Is there something afoot? Can I help? Her Pegship 03:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated comment - I notice that someone closed a <div> tag in the {{drama-film-stub}} template. I'm wondering if that may have caused a change in how the articles are sorted under Category:Drama film stubs, specifically that they are now out of order, all filed under "*". I don't know enough about wiki markup to guess. Obviously the </div> tag was necessary...please educate. Thanks Her Pegship 03:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was this edit which caused everything to be sorted under *. I have reverted and am starting null edits on all articles to make sure they are ordered correctly. --TheParanoidOne 06:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, oops. That was me. Sorry for the false alarm, and thanks to TheParanoidOne. Her Pegship 11:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the bottom line? May we have a {{France-film-stub}} and a {{Italy-film-stub}}, at least? Her Pegship 00:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounded like yes to me. Alai 01:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{France-film-stub}} and {{Italy-film-stub}} created and populated. Her Pegship 22:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Canada-viceroy-stub}} edit

I know there are a lot of Canadian viceroys that are stubs. It would be part of this category Category:Viceroys. --YUL89YYZ 21:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to quantify "a lot"? --TheParanoidOne 23:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About 16 in Category:Governors of New France, a bunch of others in different provincial/colonial sub categories, and many more to come as the provincial Lieutenant-Governor categories get filled out.Luigizanasi 00:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Canada alone, here are the numbers (this doesn't included the other Commonwealth countries).

The above is about 69 not including the following:

So about 90 or so stubs.

--YUL89YYZ 00:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • id support canada-viceroy-stub. there are viceroys in other countrys too and it could get confused if you have aussie and nz governor generals in there as well. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great idea, I have renamed the stub to your idea. --YUL89YYZ 14:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{ap-tech-stub}} edit

Oops, I created this stub before realizing there was an approval process.

Articles so far using this stub are:

  1. Ceramic water filter
  2. Dutch brick
  3. Engineers Without Borders
  4. Engineers Without Borders (Canada)
  5. Engineers Without Borders (USA)
  6. Engineers Without Borders (UK)
  7. Engineers Without Borders (Australia)
  8. Engineers Without Borders (Belgium)
  9. National Center for Appropriate Technology
  10. Wind-up radio
  11. others to be added include: Cloth filter
  12. Spring box
  13. Phase-change incubator
  14. VLOM (pumps)
  15. Solar water disinfection
  16. Orangi Pilot Project
  17. Kamal Kar
  18. Jhai Foundation
  19. List of appropriate technology organizations
  20. Blue Future Filters Inc
  21. El Centro Integrado de Technologia Appropriada (CITA)
  22. APACE VFEG
  23. Appropriate Technology Africa
  24. Centre for Appropriate Technology (Australia)
  25. Centre for Appropriate Technology
  26. Intermediate technology
  27. Hassan Fathy
  28. MIT IDEAS Competition
  29. and maybe EDAT
  30. Rainwater harvesting
  31. Smokeless and wood conserving stoves
  32. and yet to be created: Sandy Cairncross
  33. Ralf Hotchkiss
  34. BIPU
  35. Vertical kiln
  36. Pot-in-pot refrigerator
  37. the redlinks on Centre for Appropriate Technology

More from articles from Category:Appropriate technology & its subcategories would be suitable, but I'm currently in a slow net cafe in a country town... I expect this to grow, as this topic is my main area of focus, and I often add new articles.

I realise it's on the low side, but there's no other comparable stub that will serve this purpose.

--Singkong2005 02:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • most of these are already covered by sustainability-stub. and most people wouldnt have a clue what an ap was. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They only have a secondary relationship to sustainability (some not at all). They're more related to international development, which doesn't have a stub. I would suggest that Category:Appropriate technology stubs should be made a subcategory of Category:Sustainability stubs and Category:Technology stubs.
Re "ap": that can easily be changed to "approp" or "appropriate" if it's thought necessary. --Singkong2005 02:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
appropriate-tech-stub would probably be better. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this, the people interested in editing these will often also be interested in International development issues. Perhaps I should withdraw this proposal, and put up a proposal for an International development stub? (e.g. {{Intdev-stub}}. I haven't looked much, but at least these could be added to the list:
  1. Kamal Kar
  2. Akhtar Hameed Khan
  3. Development as Freedom
--Singkong2005 05:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Health-stub}} edit

{{Health-stub}} currently exists as a redirect to {{Medicine-stub}}. However, I feel a seperate stub is needed for Category:Health, which exists two-levels higher than Category:Medicine.

Medicine and its stub is concerned with "the branch of health science and the sector of public life concerned with maintaining human health or restoring it through the treatment of disease and injury. It is both an area of knowledge – a science – of body systems, their diseases and treatment – and the applied practice of that knowledge."

Health is distinct from medicine, as defined in its article: "Health is a term that refers to a combination of the absence of illness, the ability to cope with everyday activities, physical fitness, and high quality of life...The most widely accepted definition is that of the World Health Organization (WHO). It states that 'health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity' (WHO, 1946). In more recent years, this statement has been modified to include the ability to lead a 'socially and economically productive life.'...Health is maintained through the science of medicine, but can also be improved by individual effort."

I believe the following articles merit a stub of the scope described in health:

  1. Active Living
  2. Afghan Ministry of Health
  3. Bloomberg School of Public Health
  4. Body burden
  5. Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating
  6. Canadian Association of Food Banks
  7. Canadian Blood Services
  8. Chief Public Health Officer
  9. Community health
  10. Community Health Services and Facilities Act
  11. Disability-adjusted life years
  12. Discovery Health
  13. Ecological health
  14. Eeyeekalduk
  15. Environmental, Safety and Health Communication
  16. Food bank
  17. Global health
  18. Harvard School of Public Health
  19. Health Check
  20. Health education
  21. Health effect
  22. Health promotion
  23. Health reform
  24. Health in Eritrea
  25. Health observatory
  26. Health Resources and Services Administration
  27. Healthy city
  28. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
  29. Human weight
  30. Illness
  31. Jurong Health Connect
  32. Ministry of Health (Singapore)
  33. Ministry of Health Promotion (Ontario)
  34. Ministry of Public Health (Netherlands)
  35. Ministry of the Interior and Health of Denmark
  36. Office of Public Health and Science
  37. Organic feeding disorders
  38. Our Bodies, Ourselves
  39. Pan American Health Organization
  40. Personal, Social and Health Education
  41. Population health
  42. Public Health - Seattle & King County
  43. Public Health Agency of Canada
  44. Public health centres in Japan
  45. Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act
  46. Public health law
  47. Red ribbon week
  48. Right to health
  49. School of Rural Public Health (SRPH)
  50. Section 330
  51. Sedentary lifestyle
  52. Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005
  53. Social determinants of health
  54. The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization
  55. Underserved
  56. Women's health
  57. World Federation for Mental Health
  58. World Health Assembly
  59. World Health Day
  60. World Mental Health Day
  61. World No Tobacco Day
  62. World Tuberculosis Day

--Kurieeto 13:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objections, and now that a week has passed, I've created the stub and added it to the main stub list. Kurieeto 00:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further splitting of {{Germany-geo-stub}} edit

German geographical stubs now stretch to 7 pages (>1200 stubs), with two Bundesländer separated out. By extrapolating from those beginning with B, I reckon at least five other Bundesländer could reach the 60-stub mark. I would therefore propose {{NorthRhineWestphalia-geo-stub}} (>300 stubs), {{Thuringia-geo-stub}} (c. 150 stubs), {{LowerSaxony-geo-stub}} (c. 150 stubs), {{RhinelandPalatinate-geo-stub}} (c. 100 stubs) and {{Hesse-geo-stub}} (c. 70 stubs). I know the names are unwieldy, but they are at least consistent with the existing {{Bavaria-geo-stub}} and {{BadenWurttemberg-geo-stub}}. --Stemonitis 11:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sounds fine to me - the names are unwieldy, but you can blame the Germans for that :) Seriously though, I don't know how we'd go about shortening them and still making it clear what the name of the template is to anyone guessing the name. And they're not a lot longer than things like WesternAustralia-geo-stub. Grutness...wha? 12:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. IMHO we need to be consistant, besides, we need to be able to distinguish between Lower Saxony, Saxony, and Saxony-Anhalt. The name problem is the only downside I can see to the dissolution of Prussia in 1945 :-) --Valentinian 14:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split Prussia^WSupport. Create remainder as and when. Was hoping someone'd do a count, given the size of the parent: thanks, Stemonitis. Alai 02:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought someone was (not me, though - I'm doing enough geo-counts as it is!) I had a feeling that whoever did the original splits (Bavaria, etc) had been counting Germany. Grutness...wha? 06:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and categories created, and in the process of being populated. --Stemonitis 08:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. One oversized stub category down... about 95 to go. Alai 18:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{recreation-stub}}/{{hobby-stub}} edit

This would go somewhere under leisure on WP:WSS/ST. I'm about to add a second water park to {{corp-stub}}, and I know I've seen dozens of articles that I would like to have tagged as recreation, or even a general {{leisure-stub}}, like stubs about hobbies like knitting, or stamp collecting, they probably end up with {{culture-stub}} as it is now. I think {{recreation-stub}} or {{leisure-stub}} would fill up nicely. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give us some idea of approximately how many articles you have located which would come under this category please? Thor Malmjursson 12:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

water parks should go under {{ride-stub}} which is for amusement parks. most recreation stubs would fit into other categories. dont know that this one would be needed. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 18:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BL's right - water parks go under ride-stub. There was actually a suggestion a while back to split ride stub into rides (using ride-stub) and amusement parks (with a new stub type) (I think it was actually a suggestion at the discovery page when we found Themepark-stub). As to other leisure activities, a hobby-stub might be very useful (there is a philately-stub, BTW). Would that cope with most of the stubs you're talking about, or are there a lot of others that wouldn't be covered by hobbies or amusement parks? Grutness...wha? 22:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, all the waterpark stubs are in {{ride-stub}} now, thanks for that. Anyway, I think {{hobby-stub}} is just the thing. Where are most of the hobby stubs hiding now, I wonder? Probably in general {{culture-stub}}, which is huge. I'm sorry, I don't have a count ready. Perhaps this proposal was premature; feel free to delete it or whatever. I don't know where all the hobby stubs are hiding now, but I'm certain I run into them regularly in Category:Stubs. I'll start keeping a list... Adventure recreation - there's one from just yesterday. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably a few markked with craft-stub. Grutness...wha? 12:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Liberia-geo-stub}}, plus two other geo-stubs edit

Liberia has reached the threshold for the creation of a separate geo-stub. There are approximately 80 articles that deal with the country's administrative divisions. --Acntx 11:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone must have been busy! There were only 38 geo-stubs from Liberia two weeks ago! I'm actually hoping to do the next full tally over the next two or three days - if there are as many as you say then Liberia will definitely be worth splitting. Grutness...wha? 12:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The tally done, I can confirm that your estimate was on the low side! There are now 104 Liberia geography stubs - definitely worth splitting. Two other places have reached the 65-stub threshold as well, so I'll add them to the proposal:
  • Greenland-geo-stub (currently categorised with Denmark, and with 66 stubs)
  • Yemen-geo-stub (73 stubs)
Grutness...wha? 10:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About time Greenland got over the threshold. The Danish/Greenlandic stub is a bit odd. Valentinian 19:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoological medicine stubs (modified) edit

Having looked through a large amount of stub categories and categories relating to animals, I have found no stubs at the moment relating to Veterinary treatment / Zoological medicine. I would like to propose:

This suggestion has been modified in response to a suggestion from user Grutness. One single category and stub. I have articles I am making which are Veterinary stubs, but presently just tagged with stubs relating to the animal, rather than the real purpose of the article. Thor Malmjursson 13:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion How about:

--Mais oui! 01:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I like that idea. That could work - even a basic stub like that would serve better than categorising stubs by animal! Thor Malmjursson 02:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Thor's Pet Yack[reply]
  • Oppose - Hang on a minute... why are you proposing stub templates and categories when there are no stubs? The top of the page clearly lays it out - stub types are proposed when it's obvious there are enough stubs to split from an existing category. Counts of zero, two and zero don't reach the 50-60 threshold, even if combined (if you can find 50-60 in total, then one stub type may be a reasonable idea, but if there are only a couple, it's not really viable). As to vet-bio-stub, are there 50 stubs for that? And how unambiguous a word is "vet"? In some countries it means someone who served in a war! Grutness...wha? 08:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • changing comments as per updated situation below. Grutness...wha? 22:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep your hair on. I was only thinking aloud: no need to get irate. I hand't realised that there were no articles, in which case: Oppose.--Mais oui! 13:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
S'aright - sorry if I sounded frantic - it was just that there were some supports already and no-one had mentioned the lack of stubs. If enough stubs can be found for one category, it may well be a good thing, but three is a bit much - and the name will need thinking about (how about zoology-med-stub?) Grutness...wha? 00:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness, I admit I didn't read it all properly, but I have found a nice little wikitool called Cat Scan, which is helping me number the articles I think suitable for this stub list. So far, I have 19 in total, and I am looking for more. See here for what I have found so far. I also agree with the fact that using vet could be very confusing, for the reason you mentioned. I would be prepared to go with zoology-med-stub. Hope I haven't caused too much bad feeling, I am still getting used to how to do thing like this, since I don't do a lot of them! Thor Malmjursson 01:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC) Thor's pet yack[reply]
  • Oppose as per the above. --Valentinian 14:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Support modified proposal. --Valentinian 07:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Response I have noticed that some items in the Category:Veterinary medicine are stubs, listed in the Category:Anatomy_stubs , which is only for human anatomy, not veterinary. Is there any way of cross referencing categories, so I can query how many articles in the anatomy stubs section, appear listed in Animal anatomy, or in other veterinary categories? It would speed up the counting process. Thor Malmjursson 22:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information - The request for stub has now been modified following Grutness' suggestion. As at 00:21, 19th Feb 06, there are now 51 articles on this list. Thor Malmjursson 00:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I support this - if there's fifty stubs now it looks like it will be a viable category (although I'd remove one of the "medicine"s from the proposed name :) Grutness...wha? 22:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support modified proposal which calls for inclusion of zootomy stubs (animal anatomy). This could be further expanded to include non-human physiology stubs as well if there is not a more suitable category for these. (commentary provided on request) User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There isn't another more suitable category for animal anatomy/physiology. Plant anatomy and physiology gets files under {{botany-stub}}, but there is no corresponding category for animal anatomy, physiology, and disease. --EncycloPetey 05:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final - 7 days have now passed since the original proposal for this stub was placed, I have 4 supports and 1 oppose. If there is no further dissent against the stub and supporting category being created, I will proceed in 24 hours to create and complete this stub. Thanks for your comments and your patience. Thor Malmjursson 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Thor's pet yack[reply]

Two more nationality band stubs edit

Another pass through {{band-stub}} has revealed enough stub articles to populate two more nationality band stub categories. I'm proposing:

--Bruce1ee 09:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

– I've created {{France-band-stub}} & {{Netherlands-band-stub}}. --Bruce1ee 10:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{arcade-stub}} edit

All branching stub for arcade games (cabinet, pinball, etc) much in the way that {{cvg-stub}} is for video games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Would help out sorting the CVG stubs. Thunderbrand 17:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to Support It would help if you could tell us how many articles would be going into this stub if it was created... Thor Malmjursson 18:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The kinda-inactive Arcade game Project has a very incomplete list of stubs here but it's only been editted twice since April '05. There are a lot more out there. Nifboy 19:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Created. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Jewish-hist-bio-stub}} edit

Surprised it hasn't been created earlier. This would help sorting out {{Jewish-hist-stub}}. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not that J-h-stub actually needs sorting out: it's less than one page. At a glance this looks potentially viable, but is far from urgent. Alai 18:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • also, we've been deliberately avoiding the combination of hist and bio in the past, and also deliberately avoiding splitting the bio-stubs by religion (although I'll admit that the Jewish faith is a difficult case, given the inextricable religious and ethnic combination in that particular case). A very similar stub type proposal was rejected late last year, in fact. Grutness...wha? 23:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that neither {{Jewish-hist-stub}} or {{Judaism-bio-stub}} are large, this doesn't seem necessary. And splitting out historical bios (whatever exactly that may mean) seems undesirable. Mairi 03:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-company-stub}} edit

Having created a couple of stubs for UK companies in the past week (Blue Arrow and Mowlem), I was surprised to find there wasn't a specific stub category. --ajn (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because most of the split is primarily by type of business rather than location (easier given the number of multinationals around). We haven't been too strict on this, though, and there are one or two country-company-stub types. A UK-company-stub wouldn't be out of place, though - although I suggest waiting until the current naming debate for such stubs is done (probably about a week) - currently they are all in the form xx-corp-stub, but there's a proposal to change them all to xx-company-stub, due to the technical differences between a company and a corporation. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the sense of that (although there are still a few companies confined to one country). There's also no obvious category for construction and civil engineering (which Mowlem would fit into). I'd seen the proposal about company/corporation (hence the wording of this proposal), so I'll hold off until that's settled. --ajn (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{construction-company-stub}} edit

As discussed above, there's no obvious place for construction companies to go (e.g. Mowlem, Costain, Balfour Beatty). All of these are currently stubs. Or perhaps "civil-engineering-stub"? --ajn (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-artist-stub}} edit

There are 133 articles doubled-stubbed with {{US-bio-stub}}, and with {{artist-stub}} or some sub-type thereof. (This is probably a considerable underestimate (from "under-double-tagging"), and of course doesn't count those sub-types already split into country-specific sub-sub-types (the US-writers, etc).) Alai 06:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good - I was wondering why we have {{US-painter-stub}} and not this. Crystallina 18:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly because the arts are divided first by type of art, not by geography. There is a US-painter stub as a sub-sub category (Artist --> Painter --> US-painter). In other wortds, the art and artist categories are divided first by art form (photography, painting, architecture), then by geography. --EncycloPetey 00:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, as per the discussion below at US-sportsbio-. I think this tends to be the case partly because it's easier to see when a "bottom level" category is oversized, roughly how it should be split, and when that will or won't increase the amount of avoidable double-stubbing; as opposed to these mid-level categories, which can still be oversized (and in this case, very oversized), but where existing bottom-level categories aren't yet re-splittable by country. (But where higher-level categories are.) Personally it seems clear to me that we can't avoid these forever (or else we'll simply have oversized categories, forever), though I do think it shouldn't be done unnecessarily. If we're going to try to avoid these, we should address the likely consequences, one way or another. Alai 00:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, there is still sorting to be done under {{artist-stub}} into some of the relatively recent new stubs. There are also quite a few "modern" artists of a type that does not seem to have a name, but that seems to include quite a few American and European artists by the description of their work. I'm not sure if a name for their medium/form exists yet, but they all seem to be using electronic perfomance methods. --EncycloPetey 05:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably count as a branch of conceptual art, performance art, or installation art. I'm disappointed to see that we have a contemporary-artist-stub, since it's a term I hate, having as it does two largely contradictory meanings and signifying nothing about their art. But a conceptual-artist-stub might cover a lot of the remaining artists. Grutness...wha? 06:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However... that doesn't help at all with the key task of "getting these the heck outta US-bio-stub" -- which I've lately moved several hundred stubs out of, without in any way endangering its status as largest single stub category. Given the lack of overt support, and Grutty's concerns at sportsbio-, I'm holding off on these for the moment, but unless there's explicit objection, or ideally, a better plan on reducing the size of this... Alai 05:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose (for clarity). Creating the new stub will not eliminate double-tagging, since we will then have the proposed tag as well as the stub for individual disciplines. That is, an American illustrator would likely get tagged with the existing {{illustrator-stub}} and {{US-artist-stub}}. In addition, the proposed stub breaks with the existing convention of first subdividing artist (and art) by subdiscipline rather than by country. Was this not clear from my previous comments? --EncycloPetey 06:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope; I was actually concerned that this was apparently drifting entirely off topic, onto "misc. other things we might do with artists". As regards a material reason not to go ahead with this, still not. It will somewhat decrease double-tagging; it will never increase double-tagging. How can it possibly be bad in respect of numbers of tags? It'll decrease the size of a massively oversized category (which is kinda the point). I don't think that the precendent of splitting first on discipline rises to the level of a convention, or means we should only do so. We split other stub categories on more than one criterion where it seems appropriate to do so, and if it's not apppropriate and necessary here, I can't think where it is. As I say, counterproposals that will affect the size of US-bio-stub (for these stubs, or indeed anywhere else) keenly awaited. Alai 07:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I now understand something I didn't see before. You're coming at this issue from a standpoint of reducing {{US-bio-stub}}, whereas I'm coming at this issue from a standpoint of sorting {{artist-stub}}. If reducing {{US-bio-stub}} was the only concern here, then I'd be in favor of the proposed stub. My concern is that we will end up with biographical articles tagged as US artists regardless of medium, and thus lose much of the organization that has been in sorting the various artist subdisciplines recently. No, I don't mean articles with existing tags; I'm thinking ahead to how future stub articles will be tagged. If the point of this collaborating group is to sort stub articles, then I'm against stub categories that promote independent parallel sorting in which articles will not be grouped with realted topics. --EncycloPetey 07:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am, because sorting the artist-stubs is a nicety, whereas the US-bio-stubs are an urgent disaster area. So it's not the only concern, but surely it's the predominant one. Why is this any greater a concern than "biographical articles tagged as US people regardless of medium"? Same problem by type, smaller one by size. How can this lose organisation with regard to future stubs, which by definition aren't organised at all yet? If I understand you correctly, you're concerned that stubs will be in future only tagged with US-artist-, and not by type (too). Obviously this is not desirable, but the remedy is re-sorting of the category, to double-stub as necessary, which is going to be required in any event (and is more feasible when categories aren't 3000 strong). I don't understand what you mean by "independent parallel sorting". Alai 08:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If averting disaster is the primary motivation, then you could simply remove the {{US-bio-stub}} from all articles tagged with some form of {{artist-stub}}, couldn't you? There's no dictum that requires every biography of an American to be so tagged, and stubs are temporary sorting measures in any case.
What I mean by "independent parallel sorting" is what I think you understood me to mean -- namely, that people will tend to sort new articles either as {{US-artist-stub}} or as {{artist-stub}} (or some sub-category thereof), with the result that there will be incomplete categorization in both stubs. --EncycloPetey 16:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I couldn't; this isn't the stub unsorting project. If you'd care to nominate US-bio-stub for deletion, please go ahead, but given that it exists, why is it not appropriate that it be used on clearly applicable articles? You seem to be proceeding from the assumption that the stub categorisation must be a tree, and that one tag per article is an overriding requirement, which respectively, clearly it is not, and which would be unreasonable. And given that it's not a tree, and that splits by both nationality and occupation do in fact both exist, why are some categories to be unreasonably privileged over others?
I really had no idea that was what you meant by that phrase, but indeed, I suppose I've already dealt with the point as regard the treatment of future stubs. (In summary: finite progress, re-sorting, and eventualism.) If there are no further objections, I really don't see why I shouldn't go ahead with this, and with the US-sportbios-, below. But I'd appreciate wider input on this. Are we aiming to create stub trees? Are we serious about reducing the size of oversized categories? Or equally, about minimal size thresholds? Status quo on all of these is quite clearly not an option, as they're not consistent. Alai 18:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{dermatology-stub}} edit

Another subdivision of the overpopulated (roughly 11 pages at present) {{medicine-stub}}; I'm running into quite a few dermatology-related articles and I'm pretty sure it'll be able to hit threshold. This is a specific area of expertise and I think it'd be helpful not only to further sort the category but for people knowledgeable about dermatology to expand the articles inside. Crystallina 19:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a pretty good idea to me; as you say, this is definitely one of our 'top' categories. Alai 07:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-sportbio-stub}} edit

Another 'intersection' proposal, though not one I have actual hard numbers on. But there's for example 44 US skaters, not enough for a new specific category, but there's doubtless many similar categories, and together they're sure to be clogging up the US-peeps. Plus it'd be logical to have a super-cat for future sport-specific categories, sooner or later. Alai 03:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mmm. we complaied about the argentina-sportbio-stub not that long ago because it went against the hierarchy. I'd far prefer to keep splitting by type of sport first. Grutness...wha? 05:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The key difference being, there weren't and aren't 19 pages of Argentinian people stubs. There are 3533 articles with US-bio-, and it'll be a good deal bigger if we wait until each US-<sport>-stub hits 60 separately. They're already split by sport, anyway; the whole logic, after all, of double-stubbing is that the hierarchy, isn't. Alai 07:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: population based on double-stub counts, 148. (Not as big as I'd guessed, but every little surely helps.) Alai 06:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International university stubs edit

In light of the size of Category:University_stubs, I propose the creation of a stub category for countries with many (>30) stub articles. I'll add countries to this list as I find them, but I'd like to get working on these new categories as soon as possible. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 01:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose this as a criterion, and as a definition of "many". Parent is not oversized; at least two of these are inherently undersized, and will never hit the usual creation threshold of 60. Especially oppose splitting off the Scottish ones, which would be correctly sorted with the rest of the UK (and which is <1 page currently). Alai 02:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • would willingly support splits of any with >60, but >30 is a bit on the thin side. As far as South Africa is concerned, a separate {{Africa-university-stub}} might be a good intermediate measure, since I suspect there are at least 60 stubs in the continent as a whole. Grutness...wha? 10:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German geo split edit

There are 99 articles in both Category:Germany_geography_stubs and Category:German_history_stubs. However, I seem to recall the plan was to split into Laender, which seems more immediately useful. Alai 22:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a few have been split off iirc. may be worth looking for more to split off. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Stemonitis is onto the job - have a look further up the page :) Grutness...wha? 12:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misc. politics stub splits edit

All are double-stubbed over the threshold, and have an oversized parent. Alai 21:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support all of these. I'm looking forward to the two new politican categories. --Valentinian 00:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all - though I'm still not a big fan of having liberal and communist parties with their own categories. The terms are pretty vague - especially "liberal", and it surely makes more sense to divide parties by location than manifesto. Grutness...wha? 23:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather agree with you there on "liberal", someone should take a look to see if there's actual coherency in this category. Look at making them slightly-more-geographical as damage amelioration: it's at least somewhat consistent in its application on a regional basis. Alai 05:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Swimming-stub}} edit

I sorta made this stub template without checking here first. Could someone check it out and make sure it's quality? Jimbo (not THE Jimbo) 17:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ive fixed it up. you had a noincluded category (not done with stubs) which was a redlink (bad) and was added after the first few articles (also bad). its fixed now. also its only got three articles, and two of them should have been marked with swimmingbio-stub. so if it doesnt grow sometime soon its likely to be taken to sfd. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Are there any other swimming stub templates? It seems that there should be more articles. Jimbo (not THE Jimbo) 00:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not that i know of. but there are likely to be a few more in the plain Category:Sportspeople stubs and Category:Sports stubs. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Turkey-bio-stub}} edit

I have created and populated {{Turkey-bio-stub}}, which was proposed long ago. Conscious 11:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people stubs edit

Under this category I propose a Subcategory of American Clergy stubs, such as: {{US-clergy-bio-stub}} Pastorwayne 13:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of {{US-Christian-clergy-stub}} (see below). I guess it's what you meant anyway. Conscious 07:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States stadium stubs edit

This one's a double win: Category:Stadium stubs and Category:United States buildings and structures stubs are both oversized, and they overlap to the tune of 141 articles. Alai 01:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

support. I was wondering how long it would be before someone suggested splitting the stadia by location. It'll also take care of almost all the (sfd'd) "ballpark stubs". Grutness...wha? 04:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... or to look at it the other way, splitting the structures by type, which seems to largely be how we've started doing it. Alai 05:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes and no. We started splitting structs by location (and it's still going on - there are three proposals below, two of which I';m about to start on). It was only after we'd started doing that thay we started splitting by type as well. US-stadium-stub is just a logical cross-referencing of the two. Grutness...wha? 05:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean splits of the top-level structs, I was referring to these structs, the US ones. Though it's less clear-cut than I thought at time of typing: 2 sub-cats by type, and one by location (NY). And you're exactly right, this is basically just cross-referencing on a semi-industrialised scale. :) Alai 06:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese anime voice actors edit

Overlap of 96 between Category:Anime and manga stubs and Category:Japanese voice actor stubs; former is oversized. Alai 00:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Category:Japanese voice actor stubs should be narrowed to only anime voice actors, I doubt there are many non-anime seiyu stubs. Conscious 08:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had that thought too (after the fact). OTOH, wouldn't a name-change still be appropriate, for the sake of clarity? And to facilitate resupercatting, and thus de-double-stubbing. Alai 02:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's good reason to split Category:Japanese voice actor stubs into an anime-only grouping and everyone else, mainly because there are very few voice actors in Japan that don't do anime or video games in one form or another. The market is just too huge for them to ignore it. --日本穣 05:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philippines actor stubs edit

There are 146 article double-stubbed into both Category:Actor stubs and / Category:Philippines stubs. Former is oversized. NB: there's a gaping hole in the hierarchy in that there's no Category:Philippines people stubs category, although there is a corresponding template, applied to a couple of dozen articles. I imagine this would be viable if it were properly sorted, but I have no concrete data on that. Alai 23:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be {{Philippines-actor-stub}} and Category:Filipino actor stubs?? We currently have Category:Filipino politician stubs and Category:Filipino politicians but Category:Philippines writer stubs. I believe the latter category in inconsistantly named, and we should go with "Filipino ..." . Thoughts anyone? --Valentinian 09:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Makes a certain amount of sense to me; I'd just like to be sorted in the first instance, and consistent one way or the other in the second. This would be a lot clearer if we had a root category: Category:Filipino stubs, Category:Filipino people stubs, Category:Philippines people stubs? Alai 15:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Went with Val's suggestion here: the permanents all seem to go this way. Doubtless Philippines writer stubs should be renamed at some point... Alai 05:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further splits from Category:American musician stubs edit

Double-stubbing counts indicate that {{US-jazz-musician-stub}} (77), {{US-woodwind-musician-stub}} (68), and {{US-keyboardist-stub}} (60) would all be assuredly viable, and help reduce oversized parent. Alai 21:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Central American politician stubs? edit

There's 184 of these explicitly double-stubbed, and the politician cat is over-sized. It'd be preferable to do this separately by country, but this may be worth consideration as more immediately doable, rather than letting the parent just much larger. Alai 05:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. A {{CentralAm-politician-stub}} would be very welcome. The around 40 stub articles for Panamanian politicians are double-stubbed with {{politician-stub}} and {{Panama-bio-stub}}, so they could be updated as well. I've only got as far as Q in the current split-offs of {{politician-stub}} but I'm pretty sure there are no more potential country-level splits above the 60 threshold. While we are at it, we should include a {{Caribbean-politician-stub}} to make that group a little more workable (some of these articles are triple-stubbed). A {{SouthAm-politician-stub}} would also be a good idea. Both of these are definitely above the 60 stub mark. Oceania is a bit tougher case, since a separate stub would pretty much empty the new Oceania-bio-stub. --Valentinian 00:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Alai has proposed the same two stubs elsewhere on this page. My error. --Valentinian 00:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've created and populated this stub. --Valentinian 10:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{battle-stub}} edit

At 9 pages, {{battle-stub}} is significantly oversized, and an impressive 209 articles are double-stubbed with this and with {{UK-hist-stub}}. (Well, I was impressed. Very nearly the most common double-stubbing in the whole article-space.) Likewise, each of {{AmericanCivilWar-stub}}, {{Ancient-Rome-stub}}, {{Austria-hist-stub}}, {{France-hist-stub}}, {{Japan-hist-stub}}, {{NapoleonicWars-stub}}, {{Spain-hist-stub}} are double-stubbed with more than 60 of them. (I have a feeling some of these were proposed previously, but might as well do all of them at a gulp.) Alai 05:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Of these, I would say that {{UK-battle-stub}}, {{AncientRome-battle-stub}}, {{Japan-battle-stub}}, and {{Spain-battle-stub}} are clearly good ideas. Would populating {{AmericanCivilWar-battle-stub}} significantly depopulate {{AmericanCivilWar-stub}}? Otherwise, that one works as well.
The other four are more problematic. Given that France, Austria, and Spain were major players in the Napoleonic Wars, I suspect that there will be a significant number of double-, triple-, and quadruple-stubbed articles if all four are created, thus solving nothing at all. —Kirill Lokshin 05:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On ACW-stub: it's 92, so roughly half the category, so both would still be perfectly viable. On the Napoleonics: I had that thought too, but it'll only result in double-, triple-, and quadruple-stubbed articles if these are already triple-, quadruple-, and quintuple-stubbed, respectively. (To emphasise this: the above counts are only of articles which already have (at least) the battle- and country- or war-specific stubs, which would be being combined into one, therefore consistently decreasing the number of stub-tags by one.) Now, if the argument is that these shouldn't been triple-stubbed (or more), etc, in the first place, then by all means fix those. That's largely independent of this proposal, unless dealing with this dips the Austrians below 60 (current count is 68; all others are at least 83). I haven't checked how often this is the case, I'll try and do so during the discussion period. Alai 06:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-singer-stub}} edit

No, not a US-bio- split this time; there are 161 double-stubbed in both US-musician- and singer-. Probably a huge underestimate of the total population. (Strangely, two countries are already split out, but not the US.) Alai 08:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-poli-bio-stub}} edit

At first sight I thought they were just undersorted, but there are 62 articles double-stubbed with {{US-bio-stub}} and {{poli-bio-stub}}, but this is not quite the same scope as {{US-politician-stub}}. Alai 07:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-Christian-clergy-stub}} edit

72 article double-stubbed with {{Christian-clergy-stub}} and {{US-bio-stub}}. Alai 06:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-radio-bio-stub}} edit

77 articles double-stubbed with {{US-bio-stub}} and {{radio-bio-stub}}. Alai 06:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-crime-bio-stub}} edit

132 articles double-stubbed with {{US-bio-stub}} and {{crime-bio-stub}}. Alai 06:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-activist-stub}} edit

Counting only articles explictly double-stubbed with both {{US-bio-stub}} and {{activist-stub}}, there are 157 of these(!). First-named parent is horrendously large (biggest single stub category). Alai 05:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly support these four splits, this is what we need to bring down {{US-bio-stub}}. Conscious 07:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support. I've tried to sort that category before and hit about 1 in 3 activists. I'm almost positive it'll exceed threshold and might even require further subcategorization in the future. Crystallina 23:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(American) Football coach stub edit

Proposed: {{amfoot-coach-stub}}

  • Reason: In the overpopulated American football biography stub section, which I'm currently sorting, I've run into many articles about football coaches, and I'm nowhere near finished. Currently we only have three football positions to subcategorize into; coaches, however, are completely different entities and could have different sources of information for research. I think it'd be helpful to be able to put coaches into their own category. Crystallina 02:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a good plan to me, in principle, and I'll assume it'll hit threshold. But a bad name, hits the football ambiguity problem. For some consistency with the existing types ({{Amfootbio-stub}} and {{Americanfootball-stub}}), I'd suggest {{americanfootball-coach-stub}}, with a redirect from {{amfoot-coach-stub}}. Aren't a some more positional split going to be required, btw? Linemen, running backs, secondary? Alai 08:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that'd work. Some more positional stubs would be nice as well but I don't know enough about football positions to be categorizing them. Crystallina 23:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights stub edit

Proposed: {{Humanrights-stub}}

Miscellaneous stub edit

Proposed: {{Miscellaneous-stub}}

  • Reason: (Apologies for already creating the template as I did not read WP:STUB and was about to notify people of the stub. If it fails, please fell free to delete it). Anyway, generally for templates to do not fit into any stub category, like terrorist encyclopaedia becuase there is not stub to fit it. There are quite a lot of articles, that I would say, fit into this category. I have not yet added them. Thank you. KILO-LIMA 19:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose this. Quite aside from quibbling about the alleged uncategorisability of this particular stub, I think it's a huge mistake to essentially duplicate (or split) {{stub}} according to this meta-criterion. Alai 19:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. As Alai said, please use "Stub" if you are unsure. Others will take it from there. Regards. --Valentinian 21:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - A categorization is successful insofar as it avoids categories like "miscellaneous". -GTBacchus(talk) 21:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose thats what Category:stubs is for. ISTR that one of these was sfdd in the past for that reason, too. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per GTBacchus. --Naha|(talk) 07:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that this is now on WP:SFD, and we have a a vote to keep, if remaining people opposing here would care to transcribe those to 'deletes' there. Alai 21:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Educational computer or video game stub edit

Proposed stub: {{educational-cvg-stub}}

  • Reason: There are quite a few cvg-stubs that are educational games that cannnot be sorted into any specific ones at this time. About every week, one or two new ones crop up. Thunderbrand 19:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Road stub edit

Proposed stub: {{New-Jersey-road-stub}} Reason: Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Jersey has a bunch of lists for roads, traffic circles, and similar transportation features. A lot of the articles are simply stubs, and have no stubs on them at all! Adding them into a separate, New Jersey category, rather than lumping them into the general {{US-road-stub}}, makes them more likely to get expanded and easier to find. Just a few examples:

  1. Brielle Circle
  2. Collingwood Circle
  3. Eatontown Circle
  4. Watchung Circle

See the project itself for more lists with articles. Also notice how many articles in those lists aren't even created yet, which means that when they do, they will probably be stubs as well. Lensovet 19:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It might be worthwhile to consider {{NewJersey-State-Highway-stub}} since that's where most of the road stubs are. But I suppose this could work since KY follows this. (Would it be worthwhile to start another WikiProject for the highwyays? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I guess so, but these circles really need to get some work on them and I was hoping it would make them more visible. Also, West Virginia has a general "roads" category. As for starting another project, that's something to talk with the NJ Proj people about (or do you mean a wiki-wide road project?) -Lensovet 19:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose it depends on the state, if there are a lot of rural roads with articles thatt aren't numbered then it may be best to use road. Plus we don't have to worry about caps. Regarding a separate state highways project, I was meaning something like WP:CASH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, I just remembered, NJ also has county roads, which could also fit into this category. Despite having numbers, though, calling them highways would be completely inapproriate. Lensovet 21:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many of these are there, anyway? Current stub articles, that is. I don't see (m)any in US-roads... The wider scope and name would be preferable if it makes it a more viable number, but I suspect it's too small with either scope. Alai 17:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comet Stub edit

Proposed stub: {{comet-stub}} Reason: There are many comets listed in the astronomy-stub category, and if Asteroids have their own subcat, Comets should too! A list of just a few articles that apply are below.

  1. 109P/Swift-Tuttle
  2. 10P/Tempel
  3. 26P/Grigg-Skjellerup
  4. 28P/Neujmin
  5. 31P/Schwassmann-Wachmann
  6. 91P/Russell

Again, that is just a few of the numerous comet stubs within astronomy stubs. --lightdarkness 04:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance Stub edit

Proposed stub: {{insurance-stub}} Shoefly 02:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many (existing) stubs do you forsee being given this new type? What existing type(s) would they be split from? Can you give some examples of stubs that would be given this template? --TheParanoidOne 12:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Congressman Stub edit

Proposed stub: {{US-Congressman-stub}} Reason: In the {{US-politician-stub}} there is many politicians that can not be categorized depending on their state. First they might lived in various states. Second, I feel that "federal" politician should not be in the state category. --Jan Smolik 16:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that US congressmen and congresswomen were always listed as being "(Party name) representative for State X". In which case it would be very clear which state they represented and therefore which state category they should go in. Grutness...wha? 22:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's ok to keep congressmen in the state-politician-stub categories, but i think there should be something like {{USFed-politician-stub}} for politicians known only for their work on the federal level.--Carabinieri 14:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like USFed more than congressman. Anyway with stubs you do no know whether they are both, you usualy have just "John Smith was a US senator from Texas from 1945 to 1949." --Jan Smolik 19:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are sorted this way in Categories but not in stub categories. --Jan Smolik 19:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just keep them as US-politician-stub? Grutness...wha? 23:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because that leads to people sorting them by the state they were born in, or something like that.--Carabinieri 23:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because people will tend to add mayor of Austin as US-politician-stub and not as Texas-politician-stub. It would be more difficult to find out which people realy should be in US and which are there incorectly and should be sorted by state. --Jan Smolik 19:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rican Bio Stub edit

Proposed stub: {{Puerto Rican-bio-stub}} I check the bios listed on the List of Puerto Ricans page daily and I have found many articles which should be tagged as stubs and others that are tagged as American stubs. I therefore propose the creation of a {{Puerto Rican-bio-stub}}. Three examples of the many articles which would require said stub would be:

Thank you for taking my request into consideration. Tony the Marine 07:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there would be 50+ stubs, I don't see there being a problem - as long as it is clear that it's for for people living in or born in Puerto Rico, though, rather than simply people of Puerto Rican descent. IIRC, many people who have never been to PR still regard themselves as Puerto Rican by dint of their ancestry, so that might be a concern (the template wording should make it clear what it is and isn't for). The name should be {{PuertoRico-bio-stub}} for consistency, BTW. Grutness...wha? 09:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...that's interesting. Looks like someone's recently created one without telling anyone or proposing it. Under the circumstances, it seems to have been a reasonable idea... Grutness...wha? 09:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More geo- and struct-stubs edit

Both Malawi and Saudi Arabia have reached 65, so are goodies to split:

And three more stcruct splits by location seem likely. None of these actually has 65 stubs in the general struct-stub categories, but all are close and there are many more in the struct by purpose categories like reli-struct-stub and stadium-stub, so all should easily reach 65:

Grutness...wha? 07:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems with these, though I'd prefer {{MiddleEast-struct-stub}}. Mindmatrix 20:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MEast is consistant with MEast-geo-stub and MEast-stub... perhaps we should think about renaming them? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth a thought. We also have stubs like {{CentralAm-bio-stub}} or {{SouthAm-bio-stub}}. In that case, they should be renamed as well. --Valentinian 11:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've created {{CentralAm-politician-stub}} and {{SouthAm-politician-stub}} to match the other stubs, but in case of a renaming, these two should also be renamed. --Valentinian 10:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I took MEast-geo-stub and MEast-stub to SFD for renaming, but no-one seemed too interested (two weak keeps, no votes for rename)... so I withdrew the suggestion and made MEast-struct-stub. I think CentralAm and SouthAm would probably survive in the same way. Grutness...wha? 11:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corporation stubs edit

The vast majority of subcategories in Category:Companies use the wording "Foo companies". However, the top-level category for stubs about companies is Category:Corporation stubs, and the vast majority of its sub-categories use the wording "Foo corporation stubs", with none using "Foo company stubs". Their needs to be consistency in wording. As per types of companies, all corporations are companies, but not all companies are corporations. I am proposing that all stubs containing "corp" in their name and their parent-categories be renamed to use a wording based on the word "company". Kurieeto 22:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A week has passed since the above proposal was offered for discussion. I've now moved the proposal to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion#Renaming corporation stubs to company stubs. Kurieeto 18:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These have now all been renamed via SFD. --TheParanoidOne 15:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian musical stubs edit

Proposed stub: {{Italy-band-stub}} Proposed stub: {{Italy-singer-stub}} I propose two stubs to identify Italian musical artists, in the same vein as several other countries. Examples of existing articles that should be tagged as {{Italy-singer-stub}} or {{Italy-band-stub}}include:

Additionally, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of dead-links to artists and singers in Music of Italy, Italian folk music, Italian popular music, Culture of Italy, etc. for which properly categorized stub articles could be created with some hope that a knowlegeable soul could expand them. Vineviz 16:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political scientist stubs edit

If there are these ... 

 People by occupation
   Academic biography stubs 
     Economist stubs 
     Historian stubs 
     Linguist stubs 
     Pedagogue stubs
     Philosopher stubs
     Psychologist stubs
     Sociologist stubs 
     Theologian stubs 
     American academic biography stubs

(See Stub_types#People_by_occupation)

... then why not ... 

     Political scientist stubs

AWhiteC 21:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note we're adding new proposals at the top now. Assuming that's not just a rhetorical question, it sounds sensible enough on the face of it. But do you have any idea how many there are in the parent category? i.e., are there 60-ish or more? Alai 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that these stubs are under {{poli-bio-stub}} now. Conscious 11:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Around 1200 in {{Academic-bio-stub}}! {{poli-bio-stub}} is for political biography stubs. I feel like going ahead. I wouldn't be qualified to separate out the political scientist bios from academic bios however.
  • Um... sorry to break in here, but if you look a little further down this page you'll see that {{polisci-bio-stub}} was proposed and created last week! Grutness...wha? 12:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh yeah... Unlisted, mind you, malformed (categorywise), and hence most of the articles not in the corresponding category. (Soifixedit.) Alai 17:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well spotted - yes, the name is wrong and it does ned a bit of a fix-up... looks from the conversation further down the page as if it was made and then proposed rather than the correct way of doing things. Grutness...wha? 22:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive21&oldid=1110596317"