Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive17

Proposals, November 2005[edit]

More {{sportbio-stub}} splits[edit]

I'm going through gradually restubbing Category:Sportspeople stubs, and it's clear that some more sports can be split off in addition to the dozen or so that have already been created. The most obvious would be {{triathlete-stub}}, which would have over 100 stubs, according to a quick Google. I'll do some more checking before I propose any others. sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Going from the other direction, there certainly enough stubs in {{tennis-stub}} and {{autoracing-stub}} to justify a {{tennisbio-stub}} and a {{autoracingbio-stub}}. Probably also enough for a {{skiingbio-stub}}, but without a {{skiing-stub}} to quick count the double stubs, I can't be sure. Caerwine 17:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(See below for continued discussion -- sjorford mmmmm 13:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

{{canada-abp-stub}}[edit]

Aboriginal peoples in Canada are an ethnic group comprised of the First Nations, Métis and Inuit. Currently articles in these subjects meriting a stub notice most often use canada-stub and ethno-stub, and org-stub may apply too. Creating an Aboriginal peoples in Canada-stub notice would encompass all of these subjects, and help to depopulate the very large ethno-stub and canada-stub categories. A list of where this proposed stub would be appropriate is as follows:

--Kurieeto 23:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A {{Canada-ethno-stub}} might well be useful. I would, however, emphatically recommend NOT using the name you suggested, since the term "abo" is extremely insulting in some countries (in Australia, it's on par with terms like "nigger"). Grutness...wha? 00:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for pointing that out Grutness! Because {{canada-ab-stub}} has Alberta connotations and we may need a stub for articles relating to that province one day, I'm changing my proposal to {{canada-abp-stub}} instead of {{canada-abo-stub}}. Kurieeto 00:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support the creation of the stub, though {{canada-abp-stub}} seems awkward. Is there something better we could use? Mindmatrix 00:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Canada-aborig-stub}}, mebbe? Would {{Canada-aboriginal-stub}} be too long? The Tom 00:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Canada-ap-stub}} is an option too. Now that I look at it, we already have {{Quebec-stub}}, so I assume we'll be going straight to {{Alberta-stub}} if it's necessary at some point in the future. That frees up {{Canada-ab-stub}}. Kurieeto 01:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no to {{Canada-ab-stub}} solely on the grounds that it's ambiguous; someone will surely use it for an Alberta-related article. I was going to propose {{Canada-aboriginal-stub}} too, but didn't do so because it could be used for non-biographical articles. In retrospect, this shouldn't matter, since we aren't restricting this to just biographical articles anyway. Right? Also, {{Canada-ap-stub}} isn't bad, but isn't very clear either; my preference right now is {{Canada-aboriginal-stub}}. Mindmatrix 01:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support {{Canada-aboriginal-stub}}, but would propose and prefer {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}} for consistency in capitalization of the term. See also Aboriginal peoples in Canada#Capitalization. Kurieeto 01:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer a (slightly more general) {{Canada-ethno-stub}}; this also keeps a consistent naming with it's parent. Also, {{Canada-aboriginal-stub}} might get used on biographical articles about aboriginal peoples, which is a rather different scope then is proposed. None of the abbreviations seem particularly desirable or intuitive to me. --Mairi 01:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree. The reason I suggested -ethno- in the first place is that we have a precedent for it, and - being slightly more general - it will take more stubs. I don't think the First Nation stubs would be drowned out by ones for groups like the Acadiens, which could theoretically also take that stub. Grutness...wha? 02:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have both? There are over 600 First Nations in Canada, and most of them will likely need the proposed {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}} at some point in their existance. This is without considering the possibility for growth in Métis and Inuit stub articles. If we can I'd like to avoid the manual renaming of many {{Canada-ethno-stub}}s to {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}}s that would be likely at some point in the future. Kurieeto 02:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just leave it at the one stub for now (canada-ethno-stub). It can always be split later if that's needed, but there's no evidence yet that it would be. Grutness...wha? 07:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the proposed stub notice for a {{canada-ethno-stub}}? I see the following options as possible:

This ethnic groups of Canada-related article is a stub.

I remain in favour of an Aboriginal peoples in Canada stub notice. Great lengths have been gone to on Wikipedia to avoid describing or implying Aboriginal peoples in Canada as belonging to Canada, as advised against by the Government of Canada ^[1]. Actions on Wikipedia taken in this manner have been the renaming of Category:Canadian First Nations to Category:First Nations and the renaming of Aboriginal peoples of Canada to Aboriginal peoples in Canada. This policy has been extended to all Indigenous/Aboriginal peoples, see the renaming of Indigenous people of Brazil to Indigenous peoples in Brazil. These renamings required a vote, or were otherwise not objected to. I'm very hesitant to describe Aboriginal peoples as an ethnic group being "of Canada", thereby implying belonging, especially when a need has been demonstrated for an option like:

This Aboriginal peoples in Canada-related article is a stub.

Other possible names for an Aboriginal peoples in Canada stub are: {{Aboriginal-canada-stub}}, {{Aboriginal-can-stub}}, or {{abcan-ethno-stub}}. This would begin a new syntax for Aboriginal/Indigenous peoples stubs that one day may be needed, such as for Category:Indigenous peoples and/or its subcategories. Kurieeto 13:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not {{Canada-indiginous-stub}}? aboriginal isnt pc everywhere and could cause complaints. And it could say something like

> This article about indiginous peoples in Canada is a stub.

BL kiss the lizard 01:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best option is to go for {{Canada-ethno-stub}}, which follows {{ethno-stub}}. And while we're at it, what about {{Africa-ethno-stub}}? {{Ethno-stub}} could do with splitting, and Africa seems to be closest to being viable. Aecis ^praatpaal 21:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Aboriginal' is the correct name for all aspects of Canadian indigenous people, the name agreed to by all parties. I would fully support {{canada-abp-stub}}. Radagast 17:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-abp-is definitely not a desireable abbreviation as it is not self explanitory. I could live with either a {{Canada-ethno-stub}}, {{Canada-indiginous-stub}}, or a {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}} with a capital "A". Caerwine 21:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A week has passed since a stub for Aboriginal peoples in Canada was first proposed and I wanted to summarize the comments received so far so that a stub could be created soon. Please also note that when the word "indiginous" has been used above I have changed it to "indigenous" below, because indigenous is the spelling used on Wikipedia, indiginous is not.

Individuals who have expressed support for a stub for Aboriginal peoples in Canada, though we haven't completely established the syntax of the name of that stub yet, are: Myself, Mindmatrix, The Tom, Radagast, and Caerwine (Caerwine being supportive of either Canada-ethno, Canada-indigenous, or Canada-Aboriginal).

Individuals who have expressed support for {{Canada-ethno-stub}}: Grutness, Mairi, Aecis, and Caerwine (Caerwine for reasons above).

Individuals supportive of {{Canada-indigenous-stub}}: BL, Caerwine (Caerwine as above).

So, including Caerwine's position, an Aboriginal peoples in Canada stub has the support of 5 people, Canada-ethno has the support of 4 people, and Canada-indigenous has the support of 2 people. How should we proceed? Continue open debate until one stub establishes a clearer majority? Create both an Aboriginal peoples in Canada-stub and a Canada-ethno stub? Or proceed solely with the creation of the stub that has the support of the (bare) majority? In the case of the latter debate will need to be re-focused onto what the exact syntax of the Aboriginal peoples in Canada stub should be. Kurieeto 14:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we have to continue discussing this proposal. The proposal itself doesn't seem to face any objections, but there are some differences of opinion as to what the template should be called. I think we need to find some common ground before proceeding with creating the stubs. It might be wise to drop Canada-indigenous-stub, although I don't know whether BL and Caerwine agree with me on this one. I think we should focus on Canada-ethno-stub and what I will call "an aboriginal stub". Aecis ^praatpaal 14:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that dropping Canada-indigenous-stub from consideration would be useful in focusing our discussion. Of those in favour of {{Canada-ethno-stub}}, would any be in favour of the simultaneous creation of {{Canada-ethno-stub}} and {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}}? I would support this dual-stub creation. For those against this creation of two stubs, at what number of {{Canada-ethno-stub}} articles would you support the creation of a split-off {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}}? Kurieeto 02:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And/or, at what number of articles where an Aboriginal peoples in Canada-stub would be the most specific and appropriate would you support its creation? Currently 63 have been listed. Kurieeto 14:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I generally concur with the Canada-Aboriginal-stub idea. But if that can't get consensus, what about using the phrase First Nations? As in, This article related to First Nations in Canada is a stub. This seems to be an acceptable terminology to Indian Affairs Canada ([http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mand_e.pdf PDF of IANAC's mandate). Do note that the term is not seen to include Inuit peoples. -Joshuapaquin 01:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that IANAC seems to like "Aboriginal" more, consider this press release with five uses of the word. -Joshuapaquin 01:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Aboriginal" isn't blocking consensus currently. The roadblock is debate regarding if a {{Canada-ethno-stub}} should be created before a {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}}, with a {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}} being broken off once there is an excess of articles in {{Canada-ethno-stub}}. The roadblock would remain if the scope of the proposed stub was reduced to just the First Nations. Kurieeto 02:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also favour -ethno-, for consistency of naming (hence increasing the chances of people using it, and using it correctly) and inclusivity. Opposed to -abp-, excessively cryptic. Alai 03:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would favour -ethno- for consistency across Wikipedia and to avoid stub proliferation. We need a place to put First Nations plus we need a place for the Portuguese-Canadians, Armenian-Canadians, etc. I don't think there is any point at this stage to have more than one stub category. If we ended up with a couple of hundred First Nations stubs and a large number (100+) of other ethic stubs, we could revisit at that point. Luigizanasi 16:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being late in getting back here, I got distracted by other matters. Before I support the creation of solely a Canada-ethno-stub I want to clear up the wording of "ethnic groups in Canada" vs. "ethnic groups of Canada". To that end I've submitted a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)#Ethnic groups by country categories to establish a naming convention on Wikipedia for ethnic groups by country. Once that's settled I'd be fine with a {{Canada-ethno-stub}}. I had been under the impression that 60 articles where a new stub would be appropriate would be enough to merit its inclusion which is why I advocated for the dual creation of Canada-Aboriginal-stub and Canada-ethno-stub. But I see the sense of making first solely a Canada-ethno-stub, which would be the parent of a future Canada-Aboriginal stub. Kurieeto 02:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

India History Stubs[edit]

Hi, we really need a listing of history stubs related to India. I do not know what tpo do about it, but please can we have such a category? There are a whole lot of articles that would fall into such a category.

Hi whoever you are. At the moment theyre listed in Category:Asian history stubs and marked Asia-hist-stub. a seperate one would be india-hist-stub or perhaps SAsia-hist-stub since stubs from other countries would overlap like Maynma and Pakistan. it would be useful too i think. BL kiss the lizard 02:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A {{SAsia-hist-stub}} would probably be the more useful, given the overlapping nature of the history of all of what was British India - extending from Baluchistan to the Andaman Sea. it might be a very useful one to add to the list, too. Grutness...wha? 03:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are enough obvious stubs for a {{India-hist-stub}} in the overlarge India stubs category that I would not mind creating that directly. However, I do ask whoever does the resorting to be sure that it really is India related and not South Asia related. I suspect that are quite a few stubs misstubbed as {{India-stub}} instead of {{SAsia-stub}}, mainly due to the fact that {{SAsia-stub}} hasn't been around that long, so people went for the best substitute available while it wasn't available. Caerwine 05:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not a {{SAsia-hist-stub}} and a {{India-hist-stub}} as a daughter of it for stubs that relate specifically to India?--Carabinieri 20:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem if there are enough stubs to support both. Caerwine 04:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft stubs[edit]

Category:Aircraft stubs consist of more than 900 articles, and would like to sort according to country of manufacture, bu am open to other structures if anyone has anything better. Bjelleklang - talk 14:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility would be to:

Expand {{bomber-stub}} into a {{mil-aero-stub}} to also cover fighters.
Add {{airship-stub}} to deal with lighter than air aircraft.
Add {{rotorcraft-stub}} to deal with helicopters, gyrocopters and tilt rotor planes.
Add {{jet-aero-stub}} to deal with jet airplanes. Strangely enough this is the only one of my three proposals that doesn't seem to already have a parallel main category as there is no Category:Jet aircraft.

I have no real preference in this case for a propulsion based, versus nation based scheme, but I doubt if there enough aero-stubs to support both. Caerwine 16:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that at combination of the two would be too much, but I don't think that a propulsion-based sorting would be best, as some of the sub categories would be extremely large ({{rotorcraft-stub}} and {{jet-aero-stub}}). A better idea than both these two might to sort by manufacturer... Bjelleklang - talk 16:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...or at least by the nationality of the manufacturer. Another option, one which I'd probably favour, is to do the same as with cars - split by era, using important dates in Aircraft history as cutoffs (e.g., Alcock & Brown, Chuck Yeagar, Concorde) and using the same terminology as for cars. Grutness...wha? 23:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that era would be the best way to go, as there isn't really any tradition of 'veteran,' 'brass,' 'vintage' or 'classic' aircraft (that I'm aware of) unlike cars, so I just think that would tend to confuse people. I think we would be better off by sorting either on manufacturer or type (with several subcats for some), although not both. Bjelleklang - talk 23:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While there would be some overlap, {{biplane-stub}} (which would also include triplanes and the like) and {{jet-aero-stub}} would be a defacto era sorting. It's doubtful that a manufacturer based spilt would yield groups large enough for stub categories. Caerwine 02:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still not too convinced about this, especially not about {{jet-aero-stub}}, as this would get quite large. Have another suggestion though, what about the following:

{{Milcombat-aero-stub}} for military combat aircraft (fighter/attack/bombers/etc)
{{Milsupport-aero-stub}} for military support aircraft (tankers/cargo/radar/trainers/etc)
{{Rotorcraft-aero-stub}} for any rotary wing craft (helicopters/gyrocopters/tilt rotor/etc)
{{Singleprop-aero-stub}} for any (civillian) propeller aircraft with one engine
{{Multiprop-aero-stub}} same as previous, but with two engines or more
{{Lightjet-aero-stub}} for light jet aircraft, such as business jets and smaller airliners (727/737/A320/BAC1-11/etc)
{{Mediumjet-aero-stub}} for medium-sized jet aircraft (757/767/A300/VC10/etc)
{{Heavyjet-aero-stub}} for larger jets (747/A340/A380/An-225)
{{Misc-aero-stub}} for aircraft not fitting into the other categories

Although I'm open for just about anything, I think it's important to split up some categories such as the proposed {{jet-aero-stub}} as it would encompass quite a lot of aircraft. Bjelleklang - talk 14:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to propose {{mil-aero-stub}} myself, subject to it being of sensible size (in either direction). I'd suggest it doesn't replace {{bomber-stub}}, but supercat it. Several of the other proposals seems less clear-cut. Alai 17:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree to this; {{bomber-stub}} should be replaced by {{Milcombat-aero-stub}} (or under another name), as it currently only holds 21 stubs. I can agree to other alternatives regarding the category names, but believe that there should be a category for single-engined aircraft (or General Aviation), commuter aircraft, smaller jets, and as bigger jets. Bjelleklang - talk 18:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a {{mil-aero-stub}} would be too large, which I rather doubt, I would oppose splitting the stub into combat and supprt aircraft stubs given that there are quite a few craft that have served in both roles such as the C-130/AC-130, T-37/A-37, or the B-29/KB-29 to name the most notable ones.

I also don't like the proposed division of jets into three rather arbitrary stubs, especially since most of the jet aircraft articles are not stubs. The writers of aerocruft have been very busy writing good and complete articles about modern military and passenger aircraft. Each of the aircraft mentioned in the three jet sub types above as examples have lengthy non-stub articles. I'd actually be more worried whether we actually have 60 stubs about jet aircraft than whether we should have three separate stubs.

Finally, I don't like the proposed {{misc-aero-stub}}. Isn't that just simply {{aero-stub}}? Caerwine 23:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mind combining both milstubs into {{mil-aero-stub}} (including {{bomber-aero-stub}}),. What about dropping the categories I mentioned earlier, and settling on {{GA-aero-stub}} for General Aviation, {{Airliner-aero-stub}} for airliners/commuter aircraft, {{Cargo-aero-stub}} for freight/cargo aircraft with their own stubs, as well as {{rotorcraft-aero-stub}} for rotorcraft, leaving gliders, airships and other rare types in {{aero-stub}}?

The only problem as such I could see here, is certain airliners that has been modified to be used in the cargo role as well. This is easily fixed, as they would a) be a seperate stub, or b) be included as a subchapter of the aircraft type. Bjelleklang - talk 16:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to delete {{bomber-stub}}, you're on the wrong page. I strongly suspect that under-sorting is the issue here, not lack of articles. Also strongly oppose {{GA-aero-stub}}: that's just the root category reinvented, as per the previous proposal of misc-. I could live with {{Airliner-stub}} (note name), and with the cargo one if there's the numbers. Your last proposal is not clear: if you're suggesting a single stub type for dual-use airliners with cargo versions, then equally opposed. Alai 06:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General Aviation is actually an established term, used to describe private aircraft, often used by hobby pilots (who don't fly for a living). See General Aviation. What I meant by that last sentence, was merely that for some aircraft, cargo and passenger versions are identical, as with the 747-200F. Basically, this will either have an own article, or be written as a paragraph in the article about the 747, but in both cases, ther won't be any problem sorting them. Bjelleklang - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 07:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake. Always good to be enlightened. I'd suggest that private-aero- would be much clearer (if less strictly accurate), though, assuming there are a splittable number of these. And thanks for the clarification on the second point. I agree it's a non-problem; there's likely be be relatively few of these, especially as unsplit articles that remain stubs, and in such cases double-stubbing is hardly horrendous. Alai 07:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, this category seems to contain numerous "aviation concepts" stubs, and others not on specific types of aircraft. I assume these would be more correctly/usefully in {{aviation-stub}}, which confusingly is almost empty, aside from being a super-cat. A tighter wording on the category page might be helpful. Alai 08:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Have listed {{Bomber-stub}} on WP:SFD, if anyone wants to contribute to that discussion. Bjelleklang - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 13:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's any objections, I would like to create the templates, and begin sorting around friday first with the following stubs:

{{mil-aero-stub}} also including ~~{{bomber-stub}}~~ Note: will leave {{bomber-stub}} alone for now.

{{GeneralAv-aero-stub}} - General Aviation

{{Airliner-aero-stub}} - Other passenger aircraft

{{Cargo-aero-stub}} - Cargo/freight aircraft

{{Rotorcraft-aero-stub}} Rotary-wing, V-22, gyrocopters and similar.

Will also sort technology and other related non-aircraft stubs to {{aviation-stub}}. Bjelleklang - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 23:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd like to point out that there are already several objections to these. "GeneralAv-aero-stub" has not been proposed; its immediate predecessor in this discussion, GA-aero-stub, I have already objected to: I don't think this is a clearly-named stub tag, nor is the most common term for what would be placed in it, nor does it correspond to the naming of any analogous permanent category. Mil-aero- I (still) support, the others I (still) oppose at those names, including the "-aero-" addition to Caerwine's proposal. We also lack any indication of the sizes of any of these proposed splits, aside from the mils. Alai 04:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Folklore stubs[edit]

I'd like to propose 2 folklore stubs. One would be a Category:Folklore stubs, with template {{folklore-stub}}. This would include all the nationality entries for folklore generally, as well as for folklorists. This category would come under literature (recognizing that much in the way of folklore is non-verbal, too, such as folk art). The second would be a sub-category called Category:Folktale stubs, with template {{folktale-stub}} and would come under the category Category: Story stubs. Bruxism 20:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea how many folklore and folktale stubs there are? (The threshold for stub templates/categories is usually 60 to 80 articles). I reckon there are quite a few in {{culture-stub}} and {{socio-stub}}, and perhaps even one or two in {{myth-stub}}. Aecis ^praatpaal 21:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I checked those. There are very few (<10) in {{culture-stub}} or {{socio-stub}} that most folklorists would consider folklore-related. I did a quick count on the Folklore entry, and there are about 10-15 right now. I could easily add two dozen more, or could add them as requests for articles, and they could work their way up to stub-length. There are other entries that could yield many more. Proverb - itself a stub at the moment - could include a list of proverbs with links to their own stubs, although some of those could be in Wikiquote, so I don't know how to handle that issue. As for {{myth-stub}}, there are entries there that properly should be in a folklore, rather than a myth, category, given that they refer to popular beliefs but are secular or not connected to myths in any way (in other words, they refer to the unsicentific definition of "myth" as "wrong belief" rather than "sacred narrative.") As for folktale, it would be fairly easy to do a big data drop of several hundred worldwide folktales, with a stub-like entry for each including basic info like 1) well-known collections or printed versions, 2) tale-types, 3) motifs, 4) areas recorded and other variants, etc. So, are there 60-80 stubs now? I don't know. But if I had enough time I could come up with them. What's the proper Wiki way to proceed on this? And, assuming we go forward, where can we get a nice little image to go with the template? Bruxism 01:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Business bio stub daughters[edit]

After having gone through just the A of {{business-bio-stub}}, I've already found 38 European and 35 United States business biography stubs. This continues in the other letters. So I would like to propose {{euro-business-bio-stub}} and {{US-business-bio-stub}}. There are only 9 Asian business biography stubs, but that might reach the threshold as well. If it does, I would like to propose {{Asia-business-bio-stub}}. I would have proposed the same solution as {{footybio-stub}}, with daughters for every continent, but I'm not sure about Africa, Oceania and South America yet. Aecis ^praatpaal 23:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After having gone through A, N, O, P, Q, U, V, X, Y, Z and "other", the scores are:

{{US-business-bio-stub}}: 65;

{{Euro-business-bio-stub}}: 59;

{{Asia-business-bio-stub}}: 19.

Aecis ^praatpaal 01:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look in Japan-bio-stub to increase those asian numbers considerably! Grutness...wha? 04:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Business bio stubs aren't yet at such a size that we need continent level subcats just yet. Let's first create and populate any approporiate country level stubs. Since {{US-business-bio-stub}} was the subject of an earlier proposal this month and I'm starting a sort of {{US-bio-stub}}, I'm going to go ahead and create that one now. Caerwine 14:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that a category like Category:European business biography stubs is going to be too large, and country split will be more helpful. The most likely candidates are countries with largest bio-stub categories: UK, Canada, France, Germany. Japan is also famous for its businesspeople. Also, a contry-based split will take stubs from both {{business-bio-stub}} and [country]-bio-stub. Conscious 15:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]