Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2007/December

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of discussions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals for the month of December 2007. Please move completed December discussions to this page as they occur, add discussion headers to each proposal showing the result, and leave incomplete discussions on the Proposals page. After December, the remainder of the discussions will be moved to this page, whether stub types have been created or not.

Those who create a stub template/cat should be responsible for moving the discussion here and listing the stub type in the archive summary.

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

Category:Swaziland geography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
As with Lesotho, so with its neighbour to the northeast. 60 stubs, speediable. Grutness...wha? 11:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lesotho geography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Another speediable country - 60 geo-stubs (I'll get all these TPLAC's up to threshold even if I have to write 60 stubs for each of 'em myself ;) Grutness...wha? 04:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC) no offence intended to Lesotho...

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Split of {{Ethiopia-geo-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create.
The template seems to have grown quite a bit and now stands at 580+. I don't have any counts for a breakdown, does anyone seem to have them?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • with nine regions and two cities i certainly see no problem with upmerged templates for all eleven regions and categories for any that reach 60, however I don't have a count and looking at the category a lot of articles don't have a regional category so it would probably be easier to create the templates then count the articles that way.Waacstats (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll certainly agree with Waacs, here. I have to remember to fix my hard disk so's I can run db queries for this sort of thing, but in this case, the regionals cats seem very poorly populated, and I don't see any extensively-used infoboxes, so I'm guessing it'd have to be done the old-fashioned way. Fortunately, not a priority or urgent case (yet). Alai (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The regions are Afar, Amhara, Benishangul-Gumuz, Gambela, Harari, Oromia, Somali, Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People's Region (abbrev SNNPR), and Tigray. The cities are Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa. Shall we create upmerged templates in anticipation? Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I see no problem with upmerged templates and Categories for any that reach 60. Waacstats (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Sounds like a plan to me. Alai (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Okey dokey. Since I'm a bit insecure on how to build a template (even after reading the instructions), let me check these with you for correctitude:
although the last two could be {{AddisAbaba-stub}} and {{DireDawa-stub}} if -geo- is too specific. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happier to keep them all as geo. What usually happens with individual cities is we have both a geo and a non-geo if needed, but it's usually the geo which is populable more readily. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've created most of the templates; any last words regarding the form of the final two? Hyphen or no hyphen? Initials or no initials? cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a hierarchy, so no hyphens. Initials in CamelCaps? If so, then yes. Alai (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
That takes care of BenishangulGumuz, but please don't tell me I have to spell out SouthernNationsNationalitiesandPeoplesRegion-geo-stub. The mind boggles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, those initials. For all I knew, you were asking about AddisAbaba-. I'd go with Grutness's characteristically threading-defeatingly-indented suggestion, below, or even simply {{SouthernNations-geo-stub}}, perhaps. Alai (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Threading defeatedly? What's threading defeating about it? You start a new thread by ging back to the single indent, you continue the current one with a zigzag. otherwise you end up with text plastered against the righ margin and the necessity of counting whether it's 18 or 19 colons before the text when you reply. Grutness...wha? 21:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Like this. Grutness...wha? 21:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
How about {{SouthernNationsET-geo-stub}}? I doubt it would be particularly ambiguous, and it would be a little more clear to the average person than SNNPR-geo-stub. Grutness...wha? 10:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Boys, boys! Do I have to separate | you two?? Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Just the usual gentle sparring. No damage being done :) Grutness...wha? 23:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cornwall building and structure stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Already have over 40 articles tagged with the template Template:Cornwall-struct-stub, there is a related Wikiproject (WP:CORNWALL), and the main Cornwall-stub category has several hundred articles, so this new stub category, using an existing template, would enable editors to navigate more easily and concentrate their efforts more effectively. DuncanHill (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • 40's a little on the slim side - 60's the usual mark - but Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Cornwall-stub suggests there is some undersorting - I've added another eight without trying, making it up to 54. If you can get it up to 60, I'm sure there'll be no objection - and remember that "struct" covers everything from Georgian estates to lighthouses to ancient barrows, so there's plenty of scope. There seems to be a bit of undersoprting to cornwall-geo-stub in there too, BTW. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I saw you restubbing, I make it 68 now. I agree about undersorting at both Cornwall-stub and Cornwall-geo-stub. I suspect that some editors may not have been aware of the Cornwall-struct-template, as we hadn't listed it on the wikiproject page. I certainly hadn't really used it until today! DuncanHill (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
68? That's a definite support from me now, then. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Can speedy this one, now. Alai (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Does that mean I can go ahead and do it? It's a long time since I proposed a stub and can't remember the etiquette! DuncanHill (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead and do it. :) (Specifically, because it's an established pattern of split (B&S by UK local authority), is over threshold, and because you've just been egged on to do so, so have someone else to share the blame if for some strange reason there's any objection.) Alai (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I've done it now. I think I've done it right, but would be delighted if someone more experienced would double check for me! DuncanHill (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Grutness...wha? 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Wonderful, thank you all. Over 90 members now - and been a useful exercise in stub-sorting too, as have been able to improve the stubbing of several other articles too. DuncanHill (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:South American basketball biography stubs / Category:South American boxing biography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
The first is speedable with 60 articles now sorted between 3 categories. The second has no definitive count, but with the rest of the world properly sorted for the most part, South America seems very likely.--Thomas.macmillan 15:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Support basketball as this is clearly over 60. Re boxing, support (The Colombian and Argentine templates have 50+ combined and catscan found 14 Brazilians marked with boxing-bio-stub). Waacstats 16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ulmaceae stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Another speedy plant stub for Elms (genus Ulmus), which account for nearly 200 of the more than 700 items in Category:Tree stubs. Since the plant family Ulmaceae consists almost entirely of trees, this will be a dual subcat. --EncycloPetey 21:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Under Category:Rosales stubs and Category:Tree stubs:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Angolan sportspeople stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Speedy create to around 60--Thomas.macmillan 20:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Technically, there are only 57, so it's not speediable. --EncycloPetey 22:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Now upto 60 Support. Waacstats 23:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Cat:Video gameplay stubs

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

The result of the debate was taken to sfd.

  • Woops. I already created the stub and associated category for Template:Video-game-gameplay-stub before reading this page. This stub template is intended for all stub articles in Category:Video game gameplay. Note: the associated category is undergoing speedy renaming, as I created the article with the wrong name. Discuss. SharkD 20:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The template is also misnamed - as a subtype of {{videogame-stub}} it should be at {{videogame-gameplay-stub}} or similar. As such, both should probably be at WP:SFD for renaming (the category should never have been at WP:CFD anyway - it's a stub category and as such is overed by WP:SFD). Grutness...wha? 13:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Crassulaceae stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Puerto Rico radio station stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
There are already 65 station articles tagged with {{PuertoRico-radio-station-stub}} (which was previously created by some other editor). This category would match the existing US state radio station stub categories and greatly aid the sorting of Category:Radio station stubs. - Dravecky (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy, straightforward, ample precedents. Alai (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy - with a note too that any PR category should have both US and Caribbean equivalents as parent stubcats. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no Caribbean radio stubs category to parent it. Bearcat (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Mmm. That's a bit of a surprise. Perhaps there should be... it would parallel other by-region splits, and probably take a bit of a weight off the Category:Radio station stubs parent. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Queensland geography stubs subtypes

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

The result of the debate was create.
Oversized. Hopefully I'll remember to powercycle a db-containing hdd over the course of the next five days, and be able to give you counts and such, but presumably we'll be able to finagle something with local government areas, or if strictly necessary, the various vaguely- and inconsistently-defined "regions" that certain Wikiprojects seem intent on ramming through regardless. Alai (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just created: {{SunshineCoastQueensland-geo-stub}}. Any help? Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It's just as well I type these things out, isn't it? Otherwise I'd apparently just loop indefinitely... As you might gealn from the above, though, I'd prefer we use LGAs, which seem to be the primary division, as the populating templates. (But that'd not how NSW has ended up...) Alai (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Righto! But it was indeed your own self who proposed the aforementioned type, don't you know, what? Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
That was my point (as I didn't recall that at all until I followed the links). But I stand by my preference for by-LGA templates. Alai (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[mildly:] The proposal was for Category:Sunshine Coast, Queensland geography stubs; I struggled with the template and (of course!) ended up using that NSW one as a model. My bad. It would help if people proposing a category would also specify the template format as well, when possible, so others can be clear about how to create it. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not claiming I said that at the time, just that I did so in this discussion. Obviously I should have done, since it's an "upmerged" model. Giving the template is in most cases fairly redundant, though. Alai (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2000s indie rock album stubs oversized -- any ideas?

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.
I saw this coming for a while, but I've not yet managed to come up with any plan to deal with these that convinces even myself. We could try country of origin, sub-sub-genre, or even release year. The last would certainly be doable, and we could plead "current decade exceptionalism", but I'd be concerned it'd be a potentially bad precedent to set. The other two I feel even more lukewarm about. Alai (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Are we splitting EPs from albums yet? The same thing would eventually happen, but at least it'd delay it for awhile... Crystallina (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
We're not, and I'd be up for that. I'll check the numbers and report back. Alai (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Basque Writer Stub

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

The result of the debate was do not create.
I want to make stub for Basque writers, just like there are for other nationalities. Currently, writers like Bernardo Atxaga, Bernard Etxepare, and Gabriel Aresti are either listed as being French or Spanish writers (which can remain, obviously), or have no stub designation at all. There's even a list of "Basque Writers" on List_of_Basques.  Madler  17:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think this is a good idea for two reasons, first we normally only create categories when there are 60+ stubs and the list you mentioned has less than 20 blue links, secondly we don't normally split people by subnational entities and Basque is not a nation. Waacstats (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons given by Waacstats. Too small, and we don't split people by subnational groupings for stub-sorting purposes. Grutness...wha? 19:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Puerto Rico radio station stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
There are currently 63 pages that link to {{PuertoRico-radio-station-stub}}, which I feel is sufficient to warrant these particular stubs getting their own category, a sub-category of Category:Radio stations in Puerto Rico. (These stubs and related articles are maintained by WP:WPRS.) - JPG-GR (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha, always a pleasant surprise to see someone else working in the same direction. :) JPG-GR (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Physics-experiment and institute

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

The result of the debate was create.
When sorting physics-stubs, I found several that actually describe an institute/lab or an experiment. I suppose these two could be gruuped under a single stub category, I am just considering a name. Any suggestions? I am not sure that there are enough for each category if we make two and they would overlap anyway. --Tone 22:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

mmmmm. These are different enough things that having one stub type for both might be a bit messy. The institute one might be the easier one to handle first, perhaps expanding its scope to cover both institutes and organisations as physics-org-stub? Grutness...wha? 22:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I suppose that's reasonable. After a quick look, there are more organizations than experiments so a physics-org-stub would do the job fine. Any ideas for the image? A stylised CERN ring would be nice for example... --Tone 22:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The CERN logo would be nice, but is copyright. There's this picture on the CERN article that's GFDL, that would shrink to 40x30 quite well. Alai (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, copyright. I know. I didn't actually want the real logo, more like something simple like {{Nuclear-stub}} has. Well, let's try the template: {{physics-org-stub}}. How do you find it? I am not sure about the category name, could be probably improved... --Tone 08:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the category name could do with some work (I'll ignore for the moment the fact that there's supposed to be a bit longer delay before making the template...). Not sure what would be a better name, though. Grutness...wha? 09:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can still delete the template if we decide not to use it. But I think it's better to have something to work on when discussing. I'll post a question at the physics project page, some good ideas may come from there. --Tone 09:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I tweaked it somewhat, but it looked basically OK to me. What's the issue with the category name? (If category be justified by size.) Alai (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The question is whether Physics organization stubs is a good name for the category or is there a better one. --Tone 23:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand all the words, but the sense of the question still eludes me. :) It seems perfectly OK to me, and no better one suggests itself. Is there some problem with it? Alai (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I guess we have all the necessary for the new stub category. I'll wait some days and then add it to the rest. --Tone 13:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
In particular, the permcat is indeed Category:physics organizations (I only just thought to check that). So make that a "yes, certainly!" Alai (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


{{Turkic-hist-stub}} or {{History of the Turkic peoples stub}}

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

The result of the debate was do not create.
This stub sort will help identification of the stub-sort articles on the history of Turkic peoples. It would be better if linked into the Category:History of the Turkic people. Regards. E104421 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Mmmm... not sure. We already have an {{Ottoman-stub}}, which covers the majority of articles which would readily take a Turkic history stub. Certainly the latter name is a no (have a look at the stub template naming conventions). Turkic-history-stub or Turkic-hist-stub (whichever we're now using - I think we've made them all "-history-") would be a reasonable name, assuming the sorting of stubs in this way is reasonable. But with the Ottoman-stub currently in use, I doubt you'd find the required 60 other Turkic history stubs that would use this stub type, so it's unlikely to reach threshold. Grutness...wha? 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • History of Turkic peoples is not restricted with the Ottoman Empire (1299–1922). The {{Turkic-hist-stub}} is more general and covers the all Turkic speaking nations. This will provide the links between the empires and their relations. Classification of early Turkic states such as Western Turkic Khaganate (600-603) will be problematic if the history is restricted to specific empires. The connections between them would be totally ignored and the entries out of Ottoman Empire would be unsorted. Regards. E104421 (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, I realise they're different things. The point remains though - once you remove the Ottoman stubs from the mix, you don't seem to have very many stubs on Turkic history. Perhaps a reverse merge would be in order, redirecting Ottoman-stub to a Turkic-history-stub covering the wider subject matter? Another problem is that in general, history stubs relate either to a specific historical state/entity or to modern nation states. Defining one more loosely as "Turkic" could lead to problems of definition. (Any opinions from other stub sorters - preferably ones that know a bit about the history of this part of the world?) Grutness...wha? 08:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I want to clarify my proposal. The {{Turkic-hist-stub}} will sort the stubs on the history of Turkic-speaking peoples, but there is no need to merge the existing ones into a single one. They can be placed under {{Turkic-hist-sort}} directory with their previous status. I do not think that there would be a problem if we have two stub categories such as {{Turkic-hist-stub}} and {{Ottoman-stub}}. Linguistic based classification is more general, of course, but it's a correct one. During the early Ottoman era, for example, there were many Turkic Beyliks (small states), they were Turkic-speaking but not Ottoman. They were not that much significant as the Ottoman empire but they survived some time. It's not informative to relate the stubs on them to modern nation states or historically significant states. On the other hand, it is also not proper to relate the early Turkic Khaganates to {{Turkey-stub}}, since they were Turkic-speaking but they were not the members of the Turkish Republic. For this reason, i'm still in favor of a new {{Turkic-hist-stub}} or {{Turkic-stub}} in short. All the Turkic-speaking people related stub-sorts can be included in this directory. The users will decide to narrow down the classification of the stub-article. For example, if it mentions the Ottoman-British relations, it's sorted in {{Ottoman-stub}}, but if it's on "Turkic migration" or "Nomadic empires" related subjects, it's sorted in {{Turkic-hist-stub}}. In case of overlap, we can place extra stub-tag into the article if it's necessary. As in the case of Ottoman miniature article, which has two stub-tags one on {{art-hist-stub}} and {{Ottoman-stub}}. Since there are many historical Turkic-speaking states, a general one would be appropriate. Regards. E104421 (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Question on size not addressed; cuts across existing Category:Central Asian history stubs; uses language/ethnicity as a splitting criteria, rather than the standard (and simpler, and much less likely to be controversial) geographical basis; unclear coherence of this as a distinct scope (History of the Turkic peoples is far from a comprehsive or unified treatise on the topic, and largely serves to point to more substantial articles on more specific topics). Suggest upmerged per-(modern) country templates. Alai (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I beg your pardon. Since i'm not familiar with the stub sorting project, what do you mean by "Question on size not addressed". My proposal was not based on the wikipedia article History of the Turkic peoples, but on Carter Vaughn Findley's The Turks in World History (Oxford University Press, 2005), René Grousset's The Empire of the Steppes (Rutgers University Press, 1970), and Jean-Paul Roux's "Historie des Turks - Deux mille ans du Pacifique á la Méditerranée" (Librairie Arthème Fayard, 2000). I'm not refering to the History of the Turkic peoples article. On the other hand, the geographical terminology is somewhat confusing, if we consider the nomadic Turkic empires. Language based sorting is more simpler. In addition, {{Turkic-hist-stub}} will help to identify the newly introduced articles on Turkic-speaking peoples. By doing do, we can compile the information from these article, and use them to write comprehensive History of the Turkic peoples article. In the current situation, it's very difficult to identify which one of the Central Asian history stubs is related or not. It's even very difficult the wikify the articles, since we do not know whether there exists any entry in wikipedia. If we cannot wikify the articles, we cannot built a coherent line. I'm not objecting to the existing stub sorts but i'm in favor of addition of {{Turkic-hist-stub}}. Let's try and see whether it works or not. Regards. E104421 (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The question of size is related to the usefulness of stub categories. Unless they have sufficient size to be of use to editors - usually regarded as 60-800 currently existing stubs, then there are probably better ways of stubbing them. As yet, there's no indication of how many existing stubs could take this stub type, and given that a large number of the stubs that could use this are already effectively covered by either the Ottoman stub (as I pointed out) or a Central Asian history stub (which Alai pointed out, and I had forgotten about), it's doubtful; that there are enough currently existing stubs for this to be a useful split. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not suggesting it's not a valid topic, but I'm certainly questioning whether it's a more useful one than something more geographically based. And the choice is essentially, one or the other, because trying to manage the two in parallel would be a nightmare. Almost inevitably, they're get tagged inconsistently with one, the other, or both (or neither, but there's less helping that), with little rhyme or reason. Nor are the numbers of Central Asian stubs so large that the existing situation seems to present any real difficulty in that regard. If there's some residual need beyond the above, I suggest a talk-page template of some kind, perhaps scoped around a Wikiproject, or "task force" thereof. Alai (talk) 04:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Serbia-struct-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create.
Procedural creation from this SFD. To be upmerged into Category:European building and structure stubs. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy, on that basis. Alai (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United Kingdom ship of the line stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Category:United Kingdom naval ship stubs is once more oversized, and 300+ of them seem to be "ships of the line", according to their existing categorisation. Alai (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:moth stubs, family subtypes

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

The result of the debate was create.

Suddenly there's getting on for 2400 of these: and the main culprit^Windustrious editor creating these seems only to be up to "H". Precedent would suggest these are speediable, unless anyone objects, and especially if someone chimes in to concur. Alai (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • 714? Consider this a chime-in. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The first two are sufficiently large that ideally, they'd be split more finely immediately, as it seems they'll have to be sooner rather than later. However, no genus seems to be big enough at present, so that'd require looking at tribes or sub-families... Alai (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Central Asian history subtypes

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.

I want to make stubs for a group of Middle Asian countries, just like there are for other nationalities, i.e. {{Sweden-hist-stub}}, {{Poland-hist-stub}}, {{Denmark-hist-stub}}, {{Lithuania-hist-stub}}, {{France-hist-stub}}, etc. Currently, historical events like battles, treaties, or dinastic periods and lines do not have any stub designation at all. Though the volume of material in the WP for these countries presently is relatively small, the history of their states and people from ancient times can be readily foreseen to easily exceed 60 for each stub.Barefact (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but stub-sorting redlinks is not a useful (or indeed possible) exercise. I suggest these be created as upmerged templates until they each pass 60. Alai (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
... and in the case of Tuva, upmerged to the Russian category, of course, not the Central Asian one. Alai (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: I've changed the spelling of one of the listed templates to Kyrgysztan, which i what we use for other similar templates. Other than that, support (but see below) but it'd be wise to check how this affects the debate on "Turkic-hist-stub" below. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • For the better, I'd hope. Of the two, this one seems strongly preferable. To put that its most mild. Alai (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of the Tuva one - we don't normally split history stubs by places that aren't currently independent except in rare cases (where, for example, there are a great many stubs). In fact it's not that long ago we had some fuss with a Tatarstan stub which would have been comparable in form to this one. Any reason why these couldn't simply be marked with the Russia-hist-stub (other than independentist pride?) Grutness...wha? 06:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
As a consideration for Tuva I would remind some history: Tuva was a last country swallowed (captured) by the Stalinist FSU in 1944, much like Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Moldova, and Galicia, all at the same time. Tuva was not even a part of the Hitler-Stalin deal, it fell a victim of predatory opportunists. The three Baltic states now are independent, but would they be denied a historical stub when they were under FSU? Tuva history for 2 millenia had nothing to do with the expansion of Russia in the 18-20es centuries, they were "upmerged" history-wise for only 70 years. At the same time, histories of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, East Turkestan, Mongolia organically include Tuva in their historical development in many aspects. Barefact (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
To reply to the question would (the Baltic republics) be denied a historical stub when they were under FSU?: Almost certainly yes, they would. If you have a look around the way stub types are made, they almost always work using current nations as their basis. There are rare exceptions (we have history stubs for the Soviet Union, Ancient Rome, and Ancient Egypt), but the rest of the time, it makes considerable sense to use current boundaries to reduce the necessity for multiple-stubbing. Thus an article History of X Province, Belarus, requires only a Belarus-hist-stub, and not also a Poland-hist-stub, Prussia-hist-stub, Courland-hist-stub and KievianRus-hist-stub, for instance. It's also one of the reasons why "nations" not widely internationally recognised don't have their own stub types (again, there are one or two occasionally disputed exceptions to the rule, but we try to stick to it as much as possible). Grutness...wha? 08:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Oppose - I don't think there would be enough stubs to justify any of them, and I think that {{CAsia-hist-stub}} covers many of them better because most of the Central Asian history stubs are from before the existence of these states. Aelfthrytha (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{UK-photographer-stub}} and Category:United Kingdom photographer stubs / {{Japan-photographer-stub}} and Category:Japanese photographer stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
British people stubs are at 7 pages, and Japanese people stubs just hit 5. Photographer stubs, meanwhile, are at a solid 4 pages. There are well over 60 articles for each of these categories - search is being odd so I went through photographers by hand. I stopped counting, in each case, when I hit 60, and I hadn't even reached the M's yet. Crystallina (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, and speedy: straightforward, much needed, more than sufficient precedents on these patterns. Alai (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States Pacific territories radio station stubs (or alternate name)

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

The result of the debate was create as revised.
Stub templates have already been created for Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands. An accompanying stub category was created for the Guam template, but not for the other two. Instead, those templates dumped their articles directly into Category:Radio station stubs, which is already too large as it is, but Category:United States radio station stubs isn't really an ideal dumping ground, either. The Guam category is fully populated, but not very large; the other two aren't on enough articles to justify standalone categories. However, if all three territories were grouped together in a single stub category, much like the way mainland US radio stations are grouped into four regional stub categories instead of every state having its own stub cat, I believe that would probably be the most useful solution here. Bearcat (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, Category:Guam radio station stubs seems much too small, really. Though if it's the largest, the all three smooshed together would still technically be too small, I'm afraid, as sensible as that otherwise sounds. I suspect we should in the meantime SFD the Guam- one for upmerger, since at any rate it should be retargetted to one of the possibilities you've mentioned. Alai (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Both the general Category:Radio station stubs and the US-specific Category:United States radio station stubs are far, far, far, far, far too large as it is to be viable targets. The primary value in doing this is to reduce clutter and improve organization in the parents; IMO, that's at least as valid a rationale. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The US type is at less than a page: that can't possibly qualify as "too large", even with no "far"s at all (much less five). However, if there are indeed 90 in total, I fully support. (That wasn't what I'd gathered from the suggestion that the "fully populated" one was 16, and the other two were "small", however.) Alai (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Grutness' "90 stubs" is referring to the possibility of using this same solution for the same territories' geography stubs, not the radio stations. But I'd also like to point out that there's typically a back-and-forth edit war regarding whether Guam/Mariana/Samoa stubs should be dumped into US-specific categories or directly into general international parent cats; that needs to cease as well. And as things stand right now, Category:United States radio station stubs is an unnecessarily confusing jumble of satellite radio stations, internet broadcast streams, stations in the Pacific territories, international shortwave signals and four-stick rural talk radio networks — even 128 articles (the 112 currently there plus the 16 that would be upmerged from Guam) most certainly is 5x-far too large for a stub category if that size results in the category being a badly organized piece of crap that hinders, rather than helping, the purposes of stub sorting. Bearcat (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds a reasonable solution. It would also be a plausible temporary measure for the geography stubs of those three island groups (they have close to 90 stubs between them at present but will no doubt grow to stand-alone category size before too long). A question - what about the equivalent stubs for the FS of Micronesia? Would that also qualify for this category? Grutness...wha? 00:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Would the Federated States of Micronesia ordinarily be classified as a territory of the United States? Bearcat (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
No more so or less so that the Northern Marianas, I would have thought. Both are listed as being "in free association with the United States", which to be honest made me surprised that the Northern Marianas were listed as a territory. If something is listed as being in free association, it usually implies that it has enough autonomy to decide for itself to be in free association, and is therefore not a subordinate territory. We have a similar situation here in New Zealand with regards to the Cook Islands, but perhaps the situation and interpretation is slightly different with the US. But that's really neither here nor there as far as this is concerned. If general consensus is that the NMs count but the FSM do not, then I can live with that. Grutness...wha? 10:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The Marianas' article actually uses the term political union rather than free association; they're not quite the same thing. The Marianas are a commonwealth of the United States, which is essentially the same status that Puerto Rico has. FSM is in free association, however; it's an independent country which nevertheless has certain functions (military defense, etc.) provided to it by the US. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, okay - that makes sense (a local equivalent for me would be the difference between NZ's relationship with the Cook Islands and NZ's relationship with Tokelau). Thanks for the clarification. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we're starting at the wrong end if the problem is that Category:United States radio station stubs and Category:Radio station stubs are too large. How about we start with continent level templates to help organize the latter to see what subcategories are large enough for categories of their own appropriate (i.e. {{NorthAm-radio-station-stub}}, {{SouthAm-radio-station-stub}}, {{Euro-radio-station-stub}}, {{Africa-radio-station-stub}}, {{Asia-radio-station-stub}}, and {{Oceania-radio-station-stub}}). The first of those would be more appropriate for the Sirius and XM stations since almost all are in both countries anyway. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The Sirius and XM stations are typically stub-sorted by which country they originate in. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I know I'm slightly jumping things, but I'm going to go ahead and create the continent level templates to enable some sorting to be done. I'll leave the Mexico ones alone for now because of the proposal above. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
We normally also do the Caribbean and Central America at the same time with separate templates, CW... Grutness...wha? 23:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Call me old fashioned, but I think of those as part of NorthAm. About the only benefit they would have would be to make clear which stubs aren't satellite radio stubs, which I've found a fair number of in Category:Radio station stubs with no info in the stub to tell whether it originates in the U.S. or Canada, I've also gone ahead and speedied another template {{Philippines-radio-station-stub}} as there appear to be about 100 or so of just those. I haven't seen any Mexico stubs, but I haven't gotten to X (the letter Mexican call signs start with) yet. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! Proposing a Philippines radio stations stub and stub cat has finally worked its way to the top of my to-do list and, hey, it's already done. (Um, you are speedying the stub cat, too, right?) The next obvious candidate is New Zealand but I'll have to double check that it's over 60. - Dravecky (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I was waiting to see whether there would be enough stubs for an Asia cat before creating the Philippines cat. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Don't we usually use "Europe-" rather than "Euro-" now? Grutness...wha? 02:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Could be, I've been relatively somnolent on the Wiki the past few months, so if that long needed change has happened, I'll gladly follow it. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
We agreed it in principle. I'd be very surprised if it'd been implemented on a consistent basis yet. Alai (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Whee - you're right. Euro-X-stub still greatly outnumbers Europe-X-stub.[1][2] Grutness...wha? 01:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Internet-slang-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.
I propose that there should be an internet slang stub. Today, there are many "words" floating around on the internet (LOL, OMG), so I think it would be appropriate. Daniel. M (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude, there are words floating everywhere, and there's a stub type for 'em: {{vocab-stub}} (or maybe {{ling-stub}}). Besides, what you're talking about are acronyms. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, the important thing is not that there are a lot of terms, but that there are a lot of terms with stub articles. I don't think there'd be enough of them yet for a separate stub type (but YMMV). Grutness...wha? 23:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this could be broadened out a bit, beyond slang per as such? Alai (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that could work fine. Daniel. M (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{google-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was do not create.
I think there should be a google stub.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.178.54 (talk • contribs)

  • Since you're the user who entered "Against: English people are evil" anonymously under the UK photographer proposal, I'm not likely to take this suggestion seriously. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What conceivable purpose would this serve anyway? Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We do not have - nor are we likely ever to have - sixty stubs relating to Google. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, but considering that we do have individual stubs for some other computer companies with a lot of projects, I'd never say never. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{NewZealand-radio-station-stub}} and Category:New Zealand radio station stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
There are currently about 50 New Zealand radio stations sitting directly in Category:Radio station stubs, and a dozen or so more as-yet untagged stubs in Category:Radio stations in New Zealand. It's an obvious sub of {{Oceania-radio-station-stub}} and an also-needs-to-be-created Category:Oceania radio station stubs. (See next.) - Dravecky (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There just are not enough to warrant creating a category for both New Zealand and Oceania. Enough to warrant at least an upmerged template for New Zealand. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Understood. I'll withdraw the category request but I'll stand by the stub request. - Dravecky (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hm. Normally, if a continent-specific category has several national-level subcats, we tend to turn a blind eye to its size (hell, there are Continent-specific geo-stub categories with no articles, only country-specific categories - the same is true with a lot of other stub types relating to South America). This is especially the case given that in much of the stub hierarchy we seem to be using {{CountryName-X-stub}} as a "standard unit". I don't see any problem with having both Category:Oceania radio station stubs and Category:New Zealand radio station stubs, so I'd support both (and that's irrespective of any personal biases I may have due to my own location). Grutness...wha? 07:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
This is, of course, assuming NZ gets to 60 (which it should). Grutness...wha? 22:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Oceania radio station stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
The obvious parent for radio stations in Oceania which includes, Australasia, Melanesia, Micronesia, Polynesia. This would include Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and other troublesome categories like the Philippines. Speaking of which... - Dravecky (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The Philippines, like Indonesia and Japan go in Asia not Oceania. There just are not enough to warrant creating a category for both New Zealand and Oceania. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, understood. I've withdrawn the NZ category request (see above). - Dravecky (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that Australia has its own, how many would there be aside from the NZ ones? If NZ will just about squeak over 60, and the others combined are very small in comparison, maybe that one would be preferable? Alai (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Depends on whether the US Pacific territory radio stations go here as well as the US. If not then based on what I sorted, maybe 5 existing marked stubs at the most that aren't Chinese gooseberry radio stations. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
In envisioned Oceania being the parent category with two major sub-cats, Australia and New Zealand, plus a bunch of articles. It's normal with the WPRS for a parent cat to contain few (or no) articles as long as it serves as a logical and useful organizing tool. With articles on stations in Guam, the Northern Marianas, and other nations there would be just over 30 articles in Oceania plus those two major sub-cats. - Dravecky (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The normal situation with stub categories is slightly different (there are minimum sizes, which permanent categories don't have). However, as I've noted above, given that this would have per-country subcategories, it seems a reasonable thing to have. As for CW's comment, I'd envision the same sort of thing as with geo-stubs - the US territory articles would be subtypes of both the US and Oceania. A similar double-catting would be logical for French Oceanian départements like French Polynesia and New Caledonia. Grutness...wha? 07:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Philippines radio station stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
There are currently 120 Philippines radio stations tagged with {{Philippines-radio-station-stub}} and it would help unclog Category:Radio station stubs if they had their own category. At 120 stations (so far!) that's certainly worthy of a separate category. I see this one also as a sub of the Oceania - Dravecky (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Just created as Category:Philippine radio station stubs, but it is a sub of Category:Asian radio station stubs not a hypothetical Oceania cat. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Right, I just re-read the Oceania article and can't say what the heck I was thinking trying to wedge the Philippines in there. But shouldn't that by Philippines with an s? I thought the difference between Philippine and Philippines was the same as between Canadian and Canada. (Granted, this island nation is clearly not my area of expertise this evening.) - Dravecky (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
We've never been able to agree on whether in cases such as this whether to use the noun or the adjective form, so it's never made it into the naming guidelines. I chose the adjective simply because of personal preference. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{PeterPan-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was do not create.
Some character pages from the subject of Peter Pan are stubs, so I suggest that a Peter Pan stub type be made. An example is John from Peter Pan. GoldenPhoenix 20:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I found a grand total of 4 stubs in Category:Peter Pan and its subcategories. That's not enough even if there were a wikiproject on Peter Pan. I did correct the proposed stub template to conform to the stub template naming conventions in case someone decides to go on stub creation spree. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Highly unlikely you'll ever find 60 Peter Pan-related stubs. Grutness...wha? 22:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

For I found 300 articles about peter pan that needed a stub.--213.202.179.31 (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Needed one, as in they really are stub-sized and have no other possible stub type? It's all very well to find things that could qualify, but if they already qualify for a different stub type (lit-char-stub, play-stub, child-film-stub, child-novel-stub, etc.), why create a whole new category? Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are less than 60 stubs in Category:Peter Pan and its subcats so I doubt there are 60 let alone 300! Waacstats (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Compu-law-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.
Many of the stub articles in Category:Computer_law would fit better under a general computer law category than being under each respective countries law stub categories. This has earlier been suggested by User:Lquilter on the talk page for the same category. Asbjornit (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  • To clarify: it looks like LQuilter was suggesting someone start a stub article about computer law to provide a main article for the category. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{USSR-footy-bio-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create.
Lots of articles from Category:Soviet footballers or currently tagged with {{Template:USSR-bio-stub}}, {{Template:Russia-footy-bio-stub}}, {{Template:Ukraine-footy-bio-stub}} etc will fit this tag.   Jhony  |  Talk   23:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{NewZealand-sport-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create.
Proposal for speedy creation (S2: X-sport-stub) for "New Zealand sport stubs". In total, there are well over 60 articles (well over 100 by my estimates) that could be placed in this stub category, including stub articles in Category:Sport in New Zealand and its subcategories, as well as sports-related articles currently tagged with {{NZ-stub}}. Subcategories may include the current {{NewZealand-sport-bio-stub}}; individual sports may also warrant their own subcategory in the future. Note that the longer name – "NewZealand-sport-stub" versus "NZ-sport-stub" – is consistent with "NewZealand-sport-bio-stub", though I personally prefer the shorter version, which is consistent with some other New Zealand–related stubs – any thoughts? Cheers. – Liveste (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  • There are certainly a lot of them, and as you point out, there are natural subcategories (including such things as NewZealand-rugby-bio-stub). As for the name, we changed all the New Zealand ones over from NZ-x-stub earlier this year, though a lot of them still have the shorter form as redirects, so the template should be at NewZealand-sport-stub (though I'd be reasonably supportive of a redirect at NZ-sport-stub). As far as the numbers are concerned, I'd be inclined to say a definite yes to the template, with the creation of a separate category speedied if it becomes clear there are 60+. Grutness...wha? 05:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I count 51 sport stubs currently in the main Category:New Zealand stubs (working by eye rather than by stubsensor) - shouldn't be too much of a stretch to find nine more. Grutness...wha? 05:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I counted about 50 or so sports-related stub articles in Category:New Zealand stubs. The others I found are from Category:Sport in New Zealand and its subcategories. If there needs to be 60+ stub articles in "NewZealand-stubs" (is this to do with "upmerging"?), then I can slap on about 20 or so {{NewZealand-stub}} tags to some "Sport in New Zealand" articles. Naturally though, less work is preferable to more. Cheers. – Liveste (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • No, no need for that - the "upmerge" thing simply indicates that if there weren't 60 a template would be made but it would put articles in the main NZ stub category. If there are 60+, then a separate category is also used. Grutness...wha? 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Saint Kitts and Nevis geography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Another speediable - 60 stubs. Grutness...wha? 06:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Provincial level templates for {{Canada-radio-station-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create.
Category:Canadian radio station stubs has reached 649 stubs, so it's probably time to go ahead and do provincial level templates and then speedy any categories that pass the 60 stub level. Any objections? Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Templates created, now populating to see which categories can be speedied. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Only Ontario and Quebec got categories, though Alberta, with 54 stubs, came close. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Mexico-boxing-bio-stub}} / Category:Mexican boxing biography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
No template or exact count, but Category:Boxing biography stubs is over 100 and populated primarily by Mexican boxers.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Propose keeping template upmerged until it reaches 60 articles. Waacstats (talk) 12:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Upmerged template now has 61, more can be found by going through the main category, so now speediable--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New Zealand radio station stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
There are currently 94 articles that link to {{NewZealand-radio-station-stub}}, which I feel is more than sufficient to warrant these stubs getting their own category, a sub-category of Category:Oceania radio station stubs. I had proposed then withdrawn this earlier when I was uncertain just how many articles would be involved but now that the NZ stub exists it was easy (and a bit surprising) to find more than 90 NZ radio station stub articles. - Dravecky (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Seems speediale to me. It will leave the Oceania parent a little small, but with two subcats. Also will reduce the load at Category:New Zealand stubs. Grutness...wha? 04:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, it's now well-populated. - Dravecky (talk) 07:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nebraska radio station stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
There are currently 72 pages that link to {{Nebraska-radio-station-stub}}, which I feel is sufficient to warrant these particular stubs getting their own category, a sub-category of Category:Midwestern United States radio station stubs. JPG-GR (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. Sixty-twelve is plenty. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Saint Lucia geography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
I've had a fun afternoon, and there are now at least 69 St. Lucia geostubs ready for a category of their very own. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Heh. Go for it! Coincidentally, I see that someone else has been creating Grenada geo-stubs, and I'v wrestled Antigua and Barbuda up to nearly 50. Looks like several more Caribbean geo-stub categories are on their way! Grutness...wha? 23:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{silent-western-film-stub}}/ Category:silent-film-stubCategory:Silent western film stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
I would say there is easily 60+ articles in the Category:Silent film stubs that are Western films. There is already sub-cats in the that category for silent comedy and silent drama films. Lugnuts (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I have corrected the category format; support if 60 stubs are actually documented. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{pro-audio-stub}}} / Category:Professional audio stubs

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

The result of the debate was do not create.
This stub would be an appropriate stub to create for many Pro-Audio articles. Pro-Audio includes DJ-related articles and Live-Sound reated articles. Articles where this Stub can be used: Pioneer Corporation, Numark (DJ equipment), CDJ, Eastern Acoustic Works,Scratch Live , Allen and heath and many more articles I am going to be working/ Create like CDX, JBL EON, DN-S 5000, Serato, Torq (DJ Software) and so on. Thank You, Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 15:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC).

I've taken the liberty of changing the proposed template and category to match the naming guidelines for stubs. Thing is, there is no corresponding main category of Category:Professional audio. The closest would seem to be Category:Audio engineering which would suggest {{audio-eng-stub}} / Category:Audio engineering stubs or Category:Sound technology which would suggest {{sound-tech-stub}} / Category:Sound technology stubs. There's still the question of are there enough stubs to warrant a new stub type. We generally create stub types only to help sort existing stubs, not because of planned stub articles, since those often prove to be not made. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

O.K., In the meantime, I'll work on those articles. Thanks for your time. Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 01:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Serbian building and structure stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
I know this has only just been deleted but there are over 60 articles marked with either {{Serbia-struct-stub}} or {{Serbia-sports-venue-stub}} so I propose its recreation. Waacstats (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Sounds reasonable. The only reasons it was deleted were the lack of templates and (at that time) apparent lack of stubs. Now that there's a template and it's clear there are 60 stubs, there's no reason not to have it. Grutness...wha? 07:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{stub|date=January 2008}}

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

The result of the debate was discussion archived without consensus reached.
I just started a discussion about adding a date parameter to {{stub}} over on the main talk page project. This idea would have us adding {{stub}} to all stubs. Please follow the link to that discussion. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:North American radio station stubs

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.
There are currently 70 stubs marked with this template, but over half are stubs for various Sirius channels that were sitting in Category:Radio station stubs. Once the Mexican radio station stub type is created and populated, Category:Radio station stubs will down to below 200 without having to create any of Category:North American radio station stubs, Category:New Zealand radio station stubs, or Category:Oceania radio station stubs so I thought I'd get feedback on what we want to do with the satellite radio station stubs before proceeding with category creation as that will affect whether this cat should be created. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll ring in...There are a number of items tagged with NorthAm that can be considered Central American -- according to the article on Central America. It looks like its constituent countries have formed an organization of sorts (Sistema para la Integración Centroamericana), so perhaps a CentralAm-radio-station-stub template would be appropriate after all. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Mexico-radio-station-stub}} and Category:Mexico radio station stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
There are currently 30 Mexican radio stations sitting directly in Category:Radio station stubs, and an even larger number (I lost count, but can safely vouch that it's closer to 150 than it is to 30) are sitting directly in Category:Mexico broadcasting stubs without being included in the radio stations category. So I'm pretty sure the numbers justify. Bearcat (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Certainly looks that way. Support, possible speedy. Alai (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{ChinesePatrioticCatholicAssociation-stub}} / Category:Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association stubs

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

The result of the debate was create upmerged template(s) as needed.
CPCA is a Church not in communion with Roman Catholic church and my suggestion is that they get their own stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumaterana (talk • contribs)

  • Took the liberty of changing the proposal to fit the naming guidleines. Oppose as there don't appear to be sufficent existing articles to meet the guidelines on stub type size. (Only 2 stubs for CPCA bishops.) However, we might want to consider having some sort of stub for all the churches that consider themselves to be Catholic yet are not in communion with Rome. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd support the latter, though it might be prudent to create (only) upmerged denominational templates feeding into such a category, not only on the off-chance that one of them might grow to be splittable, but to avoid unnecessary tagging perplexity and bunfights. Alai (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Split of Category:United Nations stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Category:United Nations stubs is near 400 articles. I think we could split out a {{UN-bio-stub}}, with category, for UN officials (or just people associated with the UN), and {{UN-resolution-stub}}, with category (both have over 60 possible members). Thoughts? Picaroon (t) 02:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Opposed for now to {{UN-resolution-stub}} as the Category:United Nations doesn't have a nice neat corresponding cat. The Security Council and General Assembly have separate categories for their own resolutions and but there isn't a category for the Economic and Social Council, let alone its resolutions. Since 400 articles is not particularly large for a stub cat, let's see what we get with a {{UN-bio-stub}} before proceeding with other ideas. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Would a Category:United Nations Security Council Resolution stubs be viable on its own? Alai (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, easily. Normally I'd prefer a more general cat such as Category:United Nations Security Council stubs, but there aren't many current articles on in Category:United Nations Security Council except those for the resolutions sub cat, though there are a fair number of potential stubs if someone decides to make stub articles for the 61 red links in {{United Nations elections}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
So, {{UN-bio-stub}}, for UN officials, and {{UNSC-res-stub}} for Security Council resolutions (both with category)? The naming of the latter needs work, though. Picaroon (t) 20:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Since the security council resolutions fall within the scope of international law, how about make the template {{UNSC-law-stub}} and with category Category:United Nations Security Council Resolution stubs which would also be a child of Category:International law stubs as well as the obvious Category:United Nations stubs. That would have the stub cats follow the permanent cats and give us a nice short template name to use. No objection to a {{UNSC-resolution-stub}} as either the main template or the redirect, but let's avoid the use of -res- Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Organometallic-Compounds-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create.
Some compounds can not enter in Organic or Inorganic compound stubs as they are simply Organometallic compounds . And there are many . Alchie1...wha? 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  • If there are more than 60 current stubs, and you lowercase that "c" and de-pluralise it to make it {{Organometallic-compound-stub}} (per the naming conventions), then I'll support :) Even if there aren't 60, it would probably be useful as an upmerged template. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur with Grutness on all points, though my guess is that this should be useful as a full-fledged type. Chemistry tends to be one of of our "unsorted morass" areas. Alai (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/2007/December&oldid=1138356841"