Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive22

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting‎ | Proposals

Proposals, March 2006 edit

{{Canada-business-bio-stub}} edit

A new stub for Canadian business biographies. It will be a child of Category:Canadian people stubs and Category:Business biography stubs. I haven't counted the stubs but the current category Category:Canadian businesspeople and its sub category has 287 articles.

--YUL89YYZ 11:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentatively support, CatScan finds about 84. This is a probable overestimate, as may not be a primary notability and thus "stub taggable" as such: someone might want to check a little more closely. Alai 02:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{Netherlands-geo-stub}} edit

About 550 articles. Two provinces already have their own stub cat: North Holland and Gelderland. I know that Utrecht has at least 75 stubs: all of the articles in Category:Towns in Utrecht have been created by me, and almost all of them are stubs. These articles have been largely generated automatically, including the stub-tag. When I start on the other provinces, they will also reach the limit quickly. I would like to at least create all of the templates in advance, so that my bot can generate the correct stub tag, and so the articles need not be re-stubbed.

I suggest:

Of these, at least Utrecht should have its own category from the start. The others may categorize into the main Dutch stub cat; sub-cats can then be created when I start working on those provinces.

Of the remaining two provinces: I'm not going to create articles about Friesland at this time (more difficult because some of my sources contain Frisian place names...); and Flevoland is too small for its own category. Eugene van der Pijll 20:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose for the moment. I know you are creating a lot of articles, but the rules should be the same for everybody. You don't need to do the restubbing yourself, I'd be glad to help doing that, and I'm sure others feel the same way. Valentinian (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC) *Just for the record, I have no problem if you create a template for any province with more than 60 stubs. (I've not checked any figures but you mentioned Utrecht.) Valentinian (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the creation of all these templates, and such categories are over 60, only. Templates are cheap, and if someone is willing to sort 'em now, it saves work later. I'd be happy to say that anyway, for any per-region national geographic category with a 3-page listing, but if someone really is about to create a batch of articles (as opposed to the usual "... will eventually be useful") it's perverse to stop them. Look at it this way: if it'd be populated in a week (which I'm assuming it will be, if it's done automatically, right Eugene?), given that it takes a week to delete something anyway... We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot for a procedural nicety, as people are apt to suggest we do. Alai 02:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's this kind of timeframe we're talking about, I'll support the templates but not the actual categories before they've reached threshold. Valentinian (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'll create the templates for a province when I start working on one. I don't expect to finish a province in a week, but I do expect to create at least in the order of 60 articles per province in such a time frame. (I uploaded ~45 articles on Zeeland in one evening a few days ago.) Eugene van der Pijll 23:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. Valentinian (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Anime-series-stub}} edit

Many stub articles are about the anime itself while some stubs are about stuff like Yggdrasil (Oh My Goddess!), a fictional computer. Seperating them may be beneficial. The computer is not a character so it is inaproporately tagged at the moment. --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I support, there are lots of them. What about manga series, are you planning to include them as well? Many articles start with "Foo is an anime and manga series..." or "Foo is a manga series..." Conscious 06:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for manga stub, too. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 07:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{baseball-catcher-stub}} edit

As previously noted by Crystallina {{baseballbio-stub}} is large and could benefit from new stub types for each position. There will easily be at least 60 entries for this new stub (as there would be for outfielders, and infielders as well). No Guru 19:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Category:United States university stubs edit

1247 in the category, no subcats. I say, instead of doing the northeast/southwest deal we see elsewhere, we simply make stub templates for the 50 states and then see which ones reach 30. Ideas? - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 16:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

30? 60, surely. I have no objections to creating all the templates, and I'd encourage same, but I suggest we do go with "the northeast/southwest deal we see elsewhere", not least as it's already proposed, approved, at least by default, and awaiting creation. Alai 20:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alai's right. Maybe tomorrow I'll create the stubs. A2Kafir 02:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you create the stubs, I'll get on the sorting. :) Aelfthrytha 03:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Sorry abt that. Me too, I'll help with the sorting. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 03:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of these exist now: {{US-midwest-university-stub}}; {{US-northeast-university-stub}}; {{US-south-university-stub}}; {{US-west-university-stub}}. I've only sorted a few so far. A2Kafir 23:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest that to save later re-sorting effort, state-by-state templates also be created? (But as redirects to, or duplicates of, the above, not with separate categories.) Alai 23:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just created {{Texas-university-stub}} as an experimental redirect to {{US-south-university-stub}}; it seems to work just fine. But what say others? A2Kafir 23:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support! Aelfthrytha 23:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it would probably have been beter to wait until wed worked out what was happening with {{UTexas-stub}} over at sfd! other than that it sounds like a good idea. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point -- unfortunate choice of place to start in that respect. Obviously don't depopulate the UTexas ones in favour of this, and possibly hold fire on the UT-not-at-Austin guys too. OTOH, I don't see any business pending in regards to the other 49 states... Alai 00:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One word of caution, I noticed that there were some law schools mixed into this stub cat, and people are sorting them futher. Actually, law schools have their own {{lawschool-stub}}. FYI. - the.crazy.russian τ/ç/ë 16:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-planning-law-stub}} edit

I propose a subdivision of the {{UK-law-stub}} to cover planning law Town and country planning in the United Kingdom
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 etc.etc. - it's a very large subject rather unrepresented at the moment but with a broad appeal for uk residents. --User:McginnlyUser talk:Mcginnly (Mcginnly 16:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that "unrepresented" means "nowhere near 60 stubs at present"? If that's the case, oppose on those grounds. Alai 19:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've been quite busy but you're right, not quite 60 stubs. Category-United Kingdom Planning Law currently has 53 articles, most of which are stubs. This week I'll be writing up the dozen or so Planning policy statements and Planning guidance notes so maybe you could review again in a week and let me know your thoughts. PS. is there a quick way to cross reference articles in a category with the number of stubs therein?

--User:McginnlyUser talk:Mcginnly--Mcginnly 09:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short of a database query, the best thing I'm aware of is CatScan. It lets you check for articles flagged as stubs, or that by content are likely stub candidates (though unfortunately not both at once). Alai 14:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've counted up (manually) and I think there's 61. --User:McginnlyUser talk:Mcginnly-- --Mcginnly 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Solareclipse-Astronomy-stub}} edit

I believe there is a very good potential for this kind of stub type. Since it can be filled with 50+ articles if only the solar eclispes of the past 100 years are covered. Solar eclipse has a list of exlipses and so far only two have articles which will change with my edits really soon. So in order to evade redundent cluter of the blanket astronomy-stub cat this may be wise. --Cool CatTalk|@ 12:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solareclipse-stub would also work, but otherwise, go ahead. --Tone 14:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the size criteria are defined in terms of existing articles, not intention to create same. Oppose creation of a separate category until viable on size. If the template is retained, rename as per Tone. Alai 14:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know THAT. I just wanted comments before potentialy waisting my tiome creating tens of articles. Ill really be copying NASA data. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having a stub type shouldn't be a porerequisite for actually making the articles. Creating the articles is primarily for Wikipedia and its readers' benefit, not for the stub sorters. Once it's clear that there are enough articles about this subject, then IU';m sure there'll be no problem with a stub type - but preferably not until then. As to the stub type itself, how about broadening it slightly and just making it {{eclipse-stub}}? That way it can include articles on lunar eclipses and possibly transit and occultations. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support {{eclipse-stub}} in principle for use as Grutness suggests, including transits and occultations (like {{crater-stub}} is used for any landform not on Earth). But I have yet to survey to see how many articles this one would catch at the moment. A2Kafir 23:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support {{eclipse-stub}}. and someones made us more work by making it first and asking questions later...off to sfd... BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cuba-geo-stub}} edit

Oman might not quite be at 65 geo-stubs yet, but Cuba has finally made it - in fact a recent spurt of stub creation has taken this to 88. it's the only one to reach 65 with the latest geo-stub count, but several are very close (I expect that Latvia for one will get to threshold with the next tally). Grutness...wha? 07:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba's been proposed and discussed by our very own Grutness...wha? back on March 10 (see below). Propose we do it immediately. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 16:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I own Grutness, back off. :) and of course I agree with him. I mean who wouldnt? --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nah - it's two other cool cats that own me. I didn't actually propose it - I said it was very close and should be proposed if someone added an extra couple of stubs - which they did with a vengeance (in fact, an extra 25 stubs in the last two weeks). It can wait a couple more days :) Grutness...wha? 01:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Final tally 97. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 01:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Oman-geo-stub}} edit

I propose a new stub for Oman geographical articles because there are approximately 60 stubs which would fall into this category. Additionally, this will help to clear out the Middle East geo-stub category which is currently about 1/3 Oman-related stubs. Aelfthrytha 23:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oppose. There are 37 - or were as of yesterday, which was the last time they were tallied (that's 16.5%, not 1/3). All geo-stubs for countries which have no separate stubs are tallied twice a month, and are automatically proposed when they reach the 65 mark. It's likely that Oman will be at that threshold soon, but it isn't yet. Oman is quite some way down the list - it isn't even the country with the largest number within the Middle East! (That is Lebanon with 47). or the second largest (UAE with 44). For a full list of how many geo-stubs exist for each country, see User:Grutness/Geo-stub tallying. Grutness...wha? 01:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone must have been working overnight, as today there appear to be 53 (more if I include coastal bodies of water which could fall under Oman's geography). Aelfthrytha 01:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oops - you're right, there are 53. Still not enough, but closer (I did the count but forgot to update the figures on my page). UAE is now at 45, too, but Lebanon's still at 47. BTW - coincidentally, this was good timing, since I am most of the way through the latest count-up and I would have missed that! One country has reached 65, BTW... see above. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC) (added to 07:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

{{Finland-artist-stub}} edit

finnish artists, for example Lilyah. For information, finnish-writer already exists.

yes, it exists because there were a large number of stubs on finnish writers. It might be worth making a separate finland-artist-stub iff there are enough stubs for it - can you find 60 or so Finnish artist stubs? Grutness...wha? 01:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you search for "finnish singer" or "finnish actress" for example, there are plenty of them. there are also sculptors and painters that are categorized under the general biography stub. i think it's worth it.

well, show us there are enough - are there 60 stubs? And any chance you can actually sign your proposals? Grutness...wha? 02:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Singers are artistes aren't they? — Instantnood 17:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Sicily-stub}} edit

I propose a stub for all new articles created as part of WikiProject Sicily. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable - as long as there are a good number of stubs that can take it (preferably 30 or more, since there's a wikiproject). Note thatthere may soon be a separate geo-stub for places in sicily (there are discussions ongoing about splitting up italy-geo-stub - see below). Grutness...wha? 03:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip - that actually fits in perfectly. There are over 600 Sicilian municipalities (it's the largest region in Italy), and seeing that most are still stubs in the Italian and Sicilian wikipedias, it is reasonable to assume they will be stubs here for a while. I guess we would use the {{Sicily-geo-stub}} for all the municipalities, and {{Sicily-stub}} for all other project related stubs - I see no problem getting to 30 such stubs very quickly. I'll leave a similar message below. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... as the instructions above say, you're meant to wait a week before creating the stub template. And you're meant to have it categorise articles in a stub category! I've fixed it up. Grutness...wha? 13:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formal proposal, subdividing {{star-stub}} / Category:Star stubs edit

Geez, I hadn't looked at that for a while. Someone went nuts creating star pages! Anyway, I propose, as a start, the following new templates:

  • {{var-star-stub}} for variable stars (see all the ones with one or two letters, like "WW", starting their name? They're variables.)
  • {{star-cluster-stub}} (all the NGC and "open cluster" ones here, just to start)
  • Less certain: {{bright-star-stub}} (any star that starts with a Greek letter is generally one of the 20 or so brightest in the constellation in question, so is "bright" by star standards, but may be dim if you actually look for it)

Thoughts?A2Kafir 02:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable although I am afraid most of these articles will remain stubs. But sure, sorting them is always fine. --Tone 14:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite a simple radio telescope survey can do wonders and bring in data that can fill in an article out of being a stub. This is been regularly done in order to find planets and perhaps published. Its just that no one bothered to write articles about them yet. --Cool CatTalk|@ 12:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support the first two - I'm not so keen on bright-star-stub. I actually suggested a while ago splitting stars by spectrum: O-star-stub, B-star-stub, A-star-stub, F-star-stub, G-star-stub, K-star-stub, M-star-stub, N-star-stub, which I still think might be a good way of doing things. Grutness...wha? 02:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to split first on HR diagram regions, lumping together some of the giants if they're too small. The main sequence stars would doubtess need to be re-split by spectral type (as this is essentially equivalent to my earlier luminosity suggestion in this case, and the spectral notation is the more usual). Alai 02:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mused a little about that at the bottom of the earlier proposal. Why don't we start with {{var-star-stub}} and {{star-cluster-stub}} and see how far that gets us.....A2Kafir 21:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think we should sort out the clusters, and also the binaries, as obviously those are independent of any split by any of the various HR types. Less clear-cut we should do that with the variables, but not implausible, either. Alai 03:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Podcast-stub}} edit

There should be a Podcast related stub sorting thing, since podcasts are becoming more and more popular. dposse 00:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one's been proposed before and rejected, for one simple reason: 99.999% of podcasts are simply not noable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Stubs created on podcasts are almost always sent straight to AFD. The chances of having 60 notable podcasts in stub form any time soon is pretty remote. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This stub type was also deleted in February. I don't think the podcasting situation has changed much in the last month or so. --TheParanoidOne 05:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Oil field stub}} edit

I propse a stub template for the hundreds of oil fields around the world. There are many stub entries on the List_of_oil_fields page and another 10 within the broader Energy stubs category. - Shiftchange 22:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And roughly how many is "many"? And template name would be {{oil-field-stub}}, or probably better still, {{oilfield-stub}}. Alai 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
or possibly {{oilfield-stub}}. But there are currently only two that I know of marked with geo-stubs - and there are only 49 blue links in total on the oil fields list page - some of which are bound to be bigger than stubs. I seriously doubt there are anywhere near 60 stubs at present. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
update - the geo-stub oilfields were moved to ocean-stub, which has a total of 11 oilfields. Grutness...wha? 02:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Alabama-stub}} Category:Alabama stubs edit

I propose a stub template for Alabama. - Patricknoddy 4:27pm March 27, 2006 (EST)

Any particular rationale? (Applied to immediately previous, too.) Alai 23:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stub types are generally only made for US states if there's a WikiProject. is there a WP Alabama? If not, can you show there are 60 or more stubs on the state which aren't better served by existing stub templates? Grutness...wha? 00:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{School district-stub}} Category:School district stubs edit

I propose a stub template for school district stubs. We could split it up by country, state or province if it gets too big. - Patricknoddy 4:22pm March 27, 2006 (EST)

oppose. only the US really has articles for school districts and US schools and school districts are all already divided by state or region. none of them needs a further school-district-stub. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Category:Norway geography stubs edit

Cat's about 1100 strong. I propose splitting it among the 5 Regions of Norway:

  • Nord-Norge
  • Østlandet - will be the lion's share
  • Sørlandet - may be undersized
  • Trøndelag - may be undersized
  • Vestlandet

Counties are 19 - too many. Nothing else makes much sense. Svalbard not part of any Region, and would be left in the mother Category. I did not count them, though - it's too monumental a task. I just suggest we create all 5, and sort them, and hopefully all will come out above the threshold. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 19:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support those over threshold, but note that 1100/19 is sufficiently close to threshold are to strongly suggest several will already be comfortably over, especially given that the distribution is clearly very skewed. Suggest templating by all 19 counties to facilitate later splitting. Alai 23:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A split into the five regions seems perfectly sensible (although I'd suggest splitting off the large one first to see what remains before splitting the potentially undersized ones). Given that the main category only has about 700 stubs I doubt there'd be any need to split into further counties (though the county containing Oslo might conceivably be a special case). Grutness...wha? 00:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Østlandet should go first. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Oslo is not in any county, it's standalone, but are probably lots of geo-stubs within the city of Oslo. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's 1100, not 700. If Østlandet really is as relatively large as suspected, it seems like needless double-handling to create a new regional category that already has 2-3 pagefuls, then wait until that grows to 5, then re-sorting to perform the next level of split. Country templating avoids that entirely, without the need to create the categories prematurely. Alai 04:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A small word of caution. The government of Norway is considering a municipal reform in which some of the counties will be merged to larger units, or - based on the municipal reform currently being implemented in Denmark - replacing the counties altogether with a few regions. No decision has yet been taken, but I think we should avoid the regions at the moment. Neither their borders or number seem to be set in stone (that's the impression we get on this side of the border, in any case.) If the category is to be split at the moment, I'd suggest going with the counties (Alai's suggestion). Valentinian (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, I suspect that just creating an {{Oslo-geo-stub}} might help matters out. It would be worth having as a separate item even if there were new regional boundaries. If that one's created, we can see where we stand from there. Can someone run a quick tally and see whether it would be worthwhile? Grutness...wha? 01:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But if we do that, and the mother category will descend below 800, will we still be able to split it further once we agree on a way? I am not terribly sure how these guidelines work. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 03:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Usually once a split into subsections like this starts, there's far less objection to splitting other equally viable subsections - especially as (in a case like geographical regions) all of the stubs can theoretically be put into a subcategory. Grutness...wha? 03:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems at all with further splits of this category, but I just fear this is not the best time. I personally hate doing the same work twice :) Valentinian (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we "template-tag" by county, then so long as the current counties themselves aren't messed around with too rapidly (in particular, counties being split up, rather than merged), no re-sorting will be required, just recategorising the templates (some grinding noises and smoke from the servers at that point). The counties seem the more attractive option to me, partly as the regions don't seem to be a very significant or meaningful subdivision (even compared to the English ones, which is saying something). Alai 23:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think 5 regional stub is the best way to categorize them, but {{MidtNorge-stub}} would be a more logical division than {{Trøndelag-stub}}. Møre og Romsdal is usally considered a part of Midt Norge rather than Vestlandet, and placing Møre og Romsdal in {{Trøndelag}} could be rather "problematic". Eivindt@c 23:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another word of warning: not only has it now climbed to 1230 stubs (an average of 65 stubs per county), it is about to get a lot larger. I have started to translate the lake articles from no: and (a) they're almost all stubs, (b) there are loads of them. I've started at Nordland, which now has over 70 lake stubs alone, and will reach 130+ soon. Once these translations are done (and they are mainly automated), Aust-Agder will have 40+ new lake stubs, Buskerud will have 50+, Finnmark 70+, Hedmark and Hordaland 40+, Nord-Trøndelag 70+, Oppland 80+, Rogaland 30+, Sogn og Fjordane 40+, Sør-Trøndelag 50+, Telemark 70+ and Troms 30+. That's going to be on top of all the non-lake stubs that already exist. Ironically, the county that will be least affected by the lakes is Oslo! So, Aust-Agder, Buskerud, Finnmark, Hedmark, Hordaland, Nord-Trøndelag, Oppland, Sogn og Fjordane, Sør-Trøndelag and Telemark will be dead-certs soon from the lakes boost (with Rogaland and Troms looking pretty hot too, I suspect that they already reach the threshold but it's very hard to sift through because so many Norwegian geo articles in general haven't been categorized by locality) and Nordland is all ready for a Nordland-geo-stub category now: it's definitely not just Oslo that has enough. I'd argue in favour of at least creating stub templates for all 19 counties now too. If we wait until 700+ lake stubs have been added, it's just going to make sorting through them even more arduous. TheGrappler 01:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. There was no particular reason not to do this in the first instance, and if not doing so is going to mean that much unnecessary double-handling, it should be done ASAP. Alai 14:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By all means. Precedence is established from the similar Dutch material; templates for the counties can be created now and the categories when they reach threshold. Is this acceptable?Valentinian (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about names?

1. Østfold - {{Østfold-geo-stub}} 2. Akershus - {{Akershus-geo-stub}} 3. City and county of Oslo - {{Oslo-geo-stub}} 4. Hedmark - {{Hedmark-geo-stub}} 5. Oppland – {{Oppland-geo-stub}} 6. Buskerud – {{Buskerud-geo-stub}} 7. Vestfold – {{Vestfold-geo-stub}} 8. Telemark – {{Telemark-geo-stub}} 9. Aust-Agder – {{AustAgder-geo-stub}} or {{Aust-Agder-geo-stub}}? 10. Vest-Agder – {{VestAgder-geo-stub}} or {{Vest-Agder-geo-stub}}? 11. Rogaland – {{Rogaland-geo-stub}} 12. Hordaland – {{Hordaland-geo-stub}} 14. Sogn og Fjordane – {{SoF-geo-stub}} or {{Sogn-og-Fjordane-geo-stub}} 15. Møre og Romsdal – {{MoR-geo-stub}} or {{Møre-og-Romsdal-geo-stub}} 16. Sør-Trøndelag – {{SørTrøndelag-geo-stub}} or {{Sør-Trøndelag-geo-stub}} or {{ST-geo-stub}} ? 17. Nord-Trøndelag – {{NordTrøndelag-geo-stub}} or {{Nord-Trøndelag-geo-stub}} or {{NT-geo-stub}} 18. Nordland – {{Nordland-geo-stub}} 19. Troms – {{Troms-geo-stub}} 20. Finnmark – {{Finnmark-geo-stub}} (for those who are really observant, it's true - there is no Norwegian county number 13! TheGrappler 18:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The versions with one fewer hyphen, please, in those cases; the abbreviations I'm not wild about -- what about {tl|SognFjordane-geo-stub}}, etc?; and all those ø's might be problematic, can we create redirects from some plausible "non-extended-latin" transliteration? (Which is the less obnxious, ø -> o, or ø -> oe?) Alai 19:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be consistent with similar stubs, it should be {{SognFjordane-geo-stub}} and {{MøreRomsdal-geo-stub}}, and the versions with one hypen less: e.g. {{AustAgder-geo-stub}} and {{SørTrøndelag-geo-stub}}. Both transliterations are pretty bad, but my first reaction is that any redirect should be to a "O" version. Valentinian (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I start making the templates, or does someone object? Eivindt@c 23:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please go for it, I think we are pretty much all agreed now! TheGrappler 03:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive22&oldid=1145640668"