Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2009/June

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposals, June 2009

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Odd-toed ungulate stubs / {{oddtoedungulate-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.
A search using CatScan suggests that there are 61 articles in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Prehistoric mammal stubs that could also go in this category. Add a few from the parent category (‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Mammal stubs), including the ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Horse stubs category, and you should have around 65-70 pages under this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Support though I don't know that this would necessarily cut down the growing ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Prehistoric mammal stubs would it? Waacstats (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2009 (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.

Speedy ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ardabil 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.
Create category for {{Ardabil-geo-stub}}. Over 200 stubs and counting. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Support speedy per massive precedant. Waacstats (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2009 (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.

Cloud computing 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.

Category:Cloud computing

i.e. Nivio. –xenotalk 14:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"i.e."? There's no need for a separate template if that's the only stub. I take it you mean "e.g." though... We actually had discussions about a cloud-computing-stub in the past, but it was rejected because there were few stubs and for definitional reasons (see here). This came a few monts after an unproposed stub template for this was created and deleted at SFD (see here). If there are enough stubs that would clearly take this which aren't effectively covered by other stub types, it might be worthwhile ("enough" being 60 for a separate category), but I suspect there are still the same concerns as voiced in November. Grutness...wha? 00:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, forgive the brief and grammatically incorrect nomination, I've never been here before and was kindof rushed. No worries if we don't need this. –xenotalk 00:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, by now we might, so it was worthwhile suggesting. I must admit to knowing very little about the subject, though, so will leave discussion on whether it would be useful to others who know more. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

split of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Missouri 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 do not create.
{{SaintLouisCityMO-geo-stub}} has more than 60 stubs so propose ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Saint Louis City, Missouri geography stubs or similarly named category, this will still leave the parent oversized so anyoneany idea on regions that we could use for splitting? Waacstats (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Counties of Missouri most likely, although there seems to be a high number of counties. Mmm that's a tough one as it is obvious there won't be enough for each category. There are Regions of Missouri but these seme to be loose geographical areas rather than official administrative regions. Other than this all I can suggest is to decide upon boundaries oursevles and created cateogries such as ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Northern Missouri geography stubs .

I'd split the map of Missouri on the right into four, northern, southern, western and eastern Missouri geography stubs. Informal but would seme to solve the category splitting problem. Problem is that some counties may be both southern and western Missouri for example so it isn't hard to in down. By the looks of it maybe we should leave it. Its oversized but at least it isn't like 2000 or something. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I had just finished sorting to upmerged by county templates (see proposal some way below relating to 5 states, only 4 to go!). I think only a couple of counties are even halfway to threshold so it may well be awhile before anything else becomes viable. Waacstats (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we'd best just do Saint Louis for now then and leave it bloated. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

{{bloggers-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.
If this exists, I can't find it. It can be subcategorized into bloggers by nationality, subject, etc. I was trying to put an appropriate stub for Amit Agarwal and that was when I couldn't find one for bloggers. I was shocked! Postcard Cathy (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose We already have {{Internet-bio-stub}}, not to mention that we should not be encouraging articles about bloggers in my view anyway. I would however support ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Internet biography stubs Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Bank 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 was quite surprised to discover that the most fine-grained stub type for British banks was {{Europe-bank-stub}}. Given the number of companies in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United Kingdom company stubs is nosing towards 700, a UK-bank-stub template would make a lot of sense, upmerged at least. It would probably be worth splitting out a few of the other major nation-specific bank types, too. As such, I'd like to see the following (upmerged unless they reach 60) for starters:

Many of the rest have only a small handful of stubs, so doinbg every European nation might be overkill at the moment, but would make sense eventually. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Support the major ones like this. Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Support all of these. Not others, necessarily.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Taiwanese music 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.
Wow, I discovered most of the albums in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Taiwanese albums are stubs. There are like 80 of stubs that I've found. Propose creation but would the name ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Taiwanese album stubs more fitting or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Taiwanese music stubs? Thanks - impactF= 22:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy. Dr. Blofeld White cat 23:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Turkish company 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 created {{Turkey-company-stub}} but I think there is over 60 stubs. I would also propose creating company templates for most major countries and merging them until appropriate. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think most of the major countries already have templates if not cateogries. We could do with a ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Dutch company stubs given that the template is over 60, but not seeing any obvious gaps, though I would support any templates that we are missing. Waacstats (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it tomorrow. Offhand I think there is a lot from the Middle East which haven;t got any templates. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

split of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Mexico geography stubs part 2

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.
2 more upmerged templates have reached 60+ propose

Waacstats (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Again I'm the culprit! Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Norwegian sports venue 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.
Existing upmerged template with 60+ articles. Speedy! Waacstats (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Prehistoric carnivoran stubs/{{paleo-carnivora-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.
According to Cat Scan, this intersection (deep content of Category:Carnivores with Category:Prehistoric mammal stubs) comes out to 115. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(Comment added after first support) Please note that Category:Carnivores already has a stub category (238 stubs) and Category:Prehistoric mammal stubs has 711 stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I support! Abyssal (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2009 (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.

Re-creation of {{Orienteering-org-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Orienteering organization 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.
Proposing re-creation of a organization stub for orienteering, with corresponding category named 'Orienteering organization stubs'. Articles that meats the stub criteria are 39 (32 federations and 7 clubs). The main reason is to reduce the amount of stub texts from two to three, see example Swiss Orienteering. The stub/category parents would be 'sport-org-stub' and 'Orienteering-stub'. See also discussion. Can this stub category be created even if the articles are only 39? --Kslotte (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

  • A template would be reasonable, but 32+7 is still well less than 60 - so it should still be an upmerged type (i.e., no separate category). The template alone would remove double-stubbing, by feeding into both parent stub categories. If you can find another 21 stubs, then I'd have no objection to a category, but 39 is pretty low. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The amount of stubs is exactly 39. No more can be found for now. So, creating an upmerged type of stub is OK? Can I create it? Upmerged type sound like the best choose. --Kslotte (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Based in your earlier texts I assumed a template is OK. I created a draft. Is it OK? I will process the pages using AWB once accepted, or do you have any Bot that can do this? --Kslotte (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • My earlier texts by themselves indicate nothing other than my own opinion. As it says at the top of WP:WSS/P, the debate runs for several days before the template is made, just in case anyone spots problems with it. It certainly shouldn't be used for at least a couple more days yet. Once that debate period's over though, if there are no objections, the template you've made will work well - I've tweaked it slightly, but other than that it was fine. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd support templates but not categories just yet. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I often propose templates splitting out a handful of nationalities from a particular sport and I normally use 30ish existing stub articles as a benchmark or if enough countries already have templates/categories will propose finishing off the continent. In this case I see no reason not to have these templates assuming all those articels are stubs. Waacstats (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If those counts are for stubs, I see no problem with them, but these appear to be the counts for articles overall. From the comments below, though, the numbers seem reasonable enough for upmerged templates. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Conclusions ... --Kslotte (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


The complete breakdown of Orienteering biography can be found here. --Kslotte (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Verified the biography countries stubs: 30 Swiss, 30 Russian and 26 Czech. --Kslotte (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll support all the above templates given these figures. Waacstats (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Final structure --Kslotte (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Stub structure for orienteering (keep discussions above this section) The complete current structure of orienteering stubs:

Latest update: Grutness...wha? 00:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Note - I've just altered the names of two of the proposed templates - stub templates use the noun forms of country names, not the adjectives (adjectives can be confused with things like languages in a lot of stub types). Grutness...wha? 00:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

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 Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Brazil geography stubs id oversized again propse we finish the by state templates. So I believe that means

Waacstats (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong support - I thought we have these already? Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We have some states but not all. Waacstats (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Mecklenberg-Vorpommern

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 Brazil so with Mecklengerg-Vorpommen in Germany, we've started splitting by district so I think the following

Tamil Nadu

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 above so Tamil NAdu is oversized and has a partial split, propse the following templates, categories following existing subcats iff template reaches 60.

Waacstats (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

{{isotope-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.
To identify stubs relating to isotopes. Would replace {{physics-stub}} and {{chemistry-stub}} found on isotope stubs, such as Beryllium-8. The relevant categories of Category:Isotopes would be affected. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, good plan. Waacstats (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

split of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Mexico 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.
Category is oversized, luckily four upmerged templates have passed 60 so I propose the following categories

note that the permenant category for Hidalgo is at ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hidalgo while the article is at Hidalgo (state) so would be happy with either in the stub cdat. Waacstats (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Yep I'm responsible for all of these! I'm working my way through them. I forgor about these though. Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Virginia, Missouri, Oregon and Pennsylvania and Washington

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 Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Missouri geography stubs, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Oregon geography stubs, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Pennsylvania geography stubs, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Virginia geography stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Washington geography stubsare at 842, 902, 853, 1098 and 818 articles respectivly. I propose upmerged county templates, category for any county over 60 then see if we need/want to sort into regions. (nb templates of the form countyname2letterstate i.e Ripley County, Missouri would have template {{RipleyMO-geo-stub}} as per usual for US states.Waacstats (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Central American struct and museum templates

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.
Propose:

Anybody care to comment on my proposals? Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy support as I am sure these have already been passed. Waacstats (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

{{European-film-stub}} and Cat:European film stubs, and related

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.
S2. I found a german film stub and there is no category for it. Alternatively I recommend there be a {{European-film-sub}} and Cat:European film stubs for any european countries not mentioned (And along that, the same for the other continents). - Floydian τ γ 07:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Floydian we have {{Germany-film-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:German film stubs. Where appropriate I think it is better to create film templates by country. I'd support the creation of any missing film templates by European country and merge them intoa European category though until they become viable. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd have to agree. Splitting using the term "German" leaves it ambiiguous as to language or country of origin, and it's far easier to split films by country a lot of the time (there are plenty of multilingual films to cause real problems). I also support Dr B's suggestion of a catchall European category but with by-nation templates (as per the usual naming formats, i.e., the forms here). Grutness...wha? 01:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The {{Germany-film-stubs}} isn't listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types/Culture#By_country. I will add it so that others do not come here proposing another german film stubs category. Perhaps just adding European film stubs, Asian film stubs, and North American film stubs onto the list will let people choose it when they can't find a specific country on the list. -- Floydian τ γ 01:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
There's a cat for European stubs at Category:European film stubs with either a sub-cat for more popular countries (including Germany), or templates for less popular countries that upmerge to the main cat (for example, Albania). The German stub is at {{Germany-film-stub}} and not {{Germany-film-stubs}} (I think all stubs have the suffix of stub rather than stubs). There is also the parent cat of the European stubs at Category:Film stubs by country which covers everything else. If you can't find a particualr film stub, please drop a note on my talkpage and I'll get back to you. Lugnuts (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Split of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Psychology 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.
Over 1000 articles. My gut feeling is that splitting by topic area is a good one, perhaps with the following templates for starters, plus separate categories for any which reach the 60-stub threshold:

and possibly one for sexuality-related psychology, name to be debated (just {{sex-psychology-stub}}, perhaps?) These would parallel the existing splits at ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Neuroscience stubs, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Mental health stubs +c. Open to other ideas, but this seems a good series of options to start with. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

PS - I've left a note on this at WP talk: Psychology. Grutness...wha? 02:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. Although some of them like "perception stub" seme a little offbeat. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I got my MSc in psychology with perception as my specialist area. It's not that offbeat :) Grutness...wha? 01:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Air-disaster-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Aviation accident and incident 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.
Not sure about this one, as I haven't done an exact count; given the number of articles there, though, one would think it might be viable. Category title is along the lines of "Category:Aviation accidents and incidents" etc. What say you? --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 17:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean {{Aviation-accident-stub}}? For the record, a similar discussion has been had before (see Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2009/February/4). There may be enough stubs for a category by now, though... BTW, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Disaster stubs is a bit of a mess - a lot of its contents seem to be earthquake-doubles stubbed with both disaster-stub and earthquake-stub, even though the latter's cat is a subcat of Disaster stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Interestno, as my grandmother would say. I've never noticed that stub before - there's quite a few things double-stubbed that could use it, so perhaps I'll go on a fix-up spree ere long. Not sure if it's enough for a category yet, but I could be wrong. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 13:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:German museum 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.
Should be easily 60. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Oaxaca geography stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Veracruz 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.
560 odd stubs for Oaxaca, note that for Veracruz many articles are missing stub tags. It should easily be 60 +. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

{{India-food-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Indian food 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.
Would it be OK if I moved this stub template to {{India-cuisine-stub}} and have it record stubs to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Indian cuisine stubs? This would be to bring their naming structure into line with the other national cuisine related stub templates and categories. This is part of a housekeeping move for the WP:Food project in regards to our naming guidelines. --Jeremy (blah blah) 08:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

can't see any problem with this, may be should have been at WP:SFD. Waacstats (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved this and changed the cat. --Jeremy (blah blah) 03:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The former category will still need deleting (either through SFD or speediably once empty). Grutness...wha? 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been watching it to see when it gets depopulated. I will {{speedy}} it once that has happened. --Jeremy (blah blah) 01:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Tokelau-bio-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Tokelau 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 is a Tokelau politician stub but not a general Tokelau bio stub yet. I accidentally created the Tokelau stub category today, but I'm unsure how to fix it and make it a working page. Scanlan (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

'old your 'orses Mr Grutness. I'll see what I can do. The category has been created now so may as well fill it! Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Good luck... but remember I keep an eye on the geos and country generics that haven't reached threshold (less so than I used to, I'll admit) - last time I checked there were no stubs in the Tokelau-specific or Oceania-specific permcats that could be marked with tokelau-stub that hadn't been tagged. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

{{FrenchPolynesia-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.
Unlike most counties or territories, there is currently not a separate bio stub for French Polynesia. Scanlan (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

{{conservation-stub}}

Suggested text "This article about a Project or Organization involved in Conservation is a Stub"

Could be as sub types e.g. {{philanthropy-org-stub}}

Original proposal could be greatly improved but I was short on time Contributions/78.32.124.28 (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Examples: Save the Tiger Fund

I'd support all templates but the category naming would need sorting, Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

{{chef-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.
This is a request regarding this new stub - Could we please make this follow the format of the other food and drink biographical stub formats of xxx-bio-stub and rename it {{chef-bio-stub}} before it gets deployed in any real capacity? --Jeremy (blah blah) 17:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I am asking that it follow the same naming standard we are already following in the WP:Food project for biographical stubs which is demonstrated in the two examples you have just listed. I am just looking for a single format so people don't get confused when tagging a food or drink related biographical stub.

Also, I would prefer that there be two different stubs for this subject since there are two different categories and they really are different occupations. The ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:chefs has 39 articles and dozens of sub-cats and is assigned the {{chef-stub}} template, so the ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:restaurateurs with two sub-cats and 126 articles should have its own ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:restaurateur-stub template. The reason is that while they can sometimes be the same person they are often not.

Examples:

--Jeremy (blah blah) 09:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable Jeremy. Maybe you could sort it out and stub tag the articles appropriately see chefs by country I haven't got around to it yet. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the chef-stub template to {{chef-bio-stub}}, changed the articles that had them and will be speedy deleting the redirect. I will also will be creating the {{restaurateur-bio-stub}}. --Jeremy (blah blah) 01:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

{{food-stub}} and {{drink-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.
I recently turned up the drink-stub template which assigns articles to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:drink stubs. The problem is that food-stub assigns articles to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Food and drink stubs. Would it be okay if I create a separate ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Food stubs group and edit the food-stub template so it only assigns articles to that group, thus eliminating the overlap? --Jeremy (blah blah) 11:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

sounds like a good idea. Waacstats (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, too - but it's probably still worth keeping the old one as a parent of both. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and done this. --Jeremy (blah blah) 08:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Japan-school-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Japanese school 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 over 60 articles now using {{Japan-school-stub}}, so this is an S1 for creating the Category:Japanese school stubs. Almost all the articles in Category:Japanese education stubs are using {{Japan-school-stub}}. I was bold, though, and created the category already. It's likely there are more articles as I keep stumbling on orphan articles for schools in Japan. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(nods). A Japan school cat makes perfect sense. Grutness...wha? 08:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC) (PS - thanks for communicating more with WP:WSS :)

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Japan university 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 over 850 articles in Category:Japan university stubs, but I'm unsure of how to break it down further. We could do it by location for some of them, perhaps. Ideas? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps {{Japan-tech-university-stub}} would be a good one as there are at least 45 articles with "Technology" in the title, plus another at least 15-20 universities and colleges which have a focus in that area. Another could be {{Japan-med-university-stub}} for medical colleges and universities as there are well over 60 of those. Another possibility is {{Japan-junior-college-stub}} for junior colleges as there are at least 60 of those. There are also a high number of private universities (at least 60), so {{Japan-private-university-stub}} may be good. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The only country that I am aware of having been split before is the US where we split by state so I would suggest going by location rather than by type. Waacstats (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree - location seems a more logical type of split than type of university, especially since so many universities have faculties of various types (it could well end up with a lot of multi-stubbing). We've split the US by state, as WS says, and I think that the UK is getting close to being split in the same way. Mind you, we have split out seminaries in the past and - I think - law schools, so by subject's not completely out of the question. Location would be my first choice, though. Grutness...wha? 08:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be some by subject. I'm most sure of {{Japan-med-university-stub}} and {{Japan-private-university-stub}}. My thoughts on regional splits are below. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Guys why don't you break them up by Region? Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support the creation of prefecture templates for all 47 of them and merge into region e.g ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Kyūshū university stubs. The categories should definately be by region. It just depends on how many we are likely to have eventually to decide whether or not to create templates by each prefecture rather than region. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If we did that and had them dump into a by region category (unless they were large enough on their own), that would be fine. I was suggesting by type because I didn't think most prefectures would have enough to be created. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Just to make sure I get them all, I'[m going to list them here how they would be sorted according to the above.:
Category:Hokkaidō university stubs
  1. {{Hokkaidō-university-stub}}
Category:Tōhoku university stubs
  1. {{Akita-university-stub}}
  2. {{Aomori-university-stub}}
  3. {{Fukushima-university-stub}}
  4. {{Iwate-university-stub}}
  5. {{Miyagi-university-stub}}
  6. {{Yamagata-university-stub}}
Category:Kantō university stubs
  1. {{Gunma-university-stub}}
  2. {{Tochigi-university-stub}}
  3. {{Ibaraki-university-stub}}
  4. {{Saitama-university-stub}}
  5. {{Tokyo-university-stub}}
  6. {{Chiba-university-stub}}
  7. {{Kanagawa-university-stub}}
Category:Chūbu university stubs
  1. {{Aichi-university-stub}}
  2. {{Fukui-university-stub}}
  3. {{Gifu-university-stub}}
  4. {{Ishikawa-university-stub}}
  5. {{Nagano-university-stub}}
  6. {{Niigata-university-stub}}
  7. {{Shizuoka-university-stub}}
  8. {{Toyama-university-stub}}
  9. {{Yamanashi-university-stub}}
Category:Kansai university stubs
  1. {{Mie-university-stub}}
  2. {{Nara-university-stub}}
  3. {{Wakayama-university-stub}}
  4. {{Kyoto-university-stub}}
  5. {{Osaka-university-stub}}
  6. {{Hyōgo-university-stub}}
  7. {{Shiga-university-stub}}
Category:Chūgoku university stubs
  1. {{Hiroshima-university-stub}}
  2. {{Yamaguchi-university-stub}}
  3. {{Shimane-university-stub}}
  4. {{Tottori-university-stub}}
  5. {{Okayama-university-stub}}
Category:Shikoku university stubs
  1. {{Ehime-university-stub}}
  2. {{Kagawa-university-stub}}
  3. {{Kōchi-university-stub}}
  4. {{Tokushima-university-stub}}
Category:Kyūshū university stubs
  1. {{Fukuoka-university-stub}}
  2. {{Saga-university-stub}}
  3. {{Kumamoto-university-stub}}
  4. {{Nagasaki-university-stub}}
  5. {{Ōita-university-stub}}
  6. {{Kagoshima-university-stub}}
  7. {{Miyazaki-university-stub}}
  8. {{Okinawa-university-stub}}
Does that look good? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks good can't see any problems here. For the templates with Ō in it might be an idea to include a redirect from O, but that is not important. Waacstats (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was planning on that as it is standard for any macronned item per WP:MOS-JA. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've created them and am in the process of sorting. Got it down to 599 from over 800 (I think it was close to 850 or so). I'll work on it until it's sorted, and I may end up making Category:Tokyo university stubs as there are already over 20 and I've only done through the Js. The only other one which might end up having its own category, too, is Category:Osaka university stubs, but that one is not filling up nearly as quickly as Tokyo. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I created Category:Tokyo university stubs and have {{Tokyo-university-stub}} filling it. There are almost 100 articles in the cat right now. I'm getting closer to being done tagging everything by prefecture (only 222 to go!). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, these are all sorted. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Chef-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Chef 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 template only.
Am I missing something? Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Should it be chef-bio-stub? Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought this would have been in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Food and drink biography stubs Waacstats (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree with Waacstats's suggestion, which has a slightly wider (and perhaps more useful) scope - as to "did I miss anything", you missed that it's now June :) Grutness...wha? 00:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I did spot that but thought I would save my fellow welshman some embaressment. Waacstats (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL thanks! OK we'll keep the template but place it in Category:Food and drink biography stubs instead of a seperate one for chefs. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Request - Could we please make this follow the format of the other food and drink biographical stub formats of xxx-bio-stub and rename it {{chef-bio-stub}} before it gets deployed in any capacity? --Jeremy (blah blah) 10:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
See note on the proposal further up the page. Grutness...wha? 23:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Japan rail company

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 over 90 articles which would use {{Japan-rail-company-stub}} (I quit counting after that). They would be sorted into Category:Japanese rail company stubs, which would be a sub category of Category:Japanese rail stubs and Category:Japanese company stubs. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

support a sensible split, sure we've done it withat least one other country. Waacstats (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I've created these and started sorting. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, done sorting this one. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Japan rail line

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 over 150 articles which would use {{Japan-rail-line-stub}} (I quit counting after that). They would be sorted into Category:Japanese rail line stubs, which would be a sub category of Category:Japanese rail stubs. If we can push this through quickly, that would be good as I'm in a stub sorting mood and this was next on my list. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't remember doing this elsewhere but seems sensible so support. Waacstats (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I looked around for it elsewhere, but didn't find any other country with as many train line articles (and therefore train line stubs). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
It's probably a reasonable idea - I can't think of any better way of doing it, and Japan does have a lot of these by the looks of it. The UK and US may be about the only other two countries where this would make sense in the foreseeable future. Grutness...wha? 02:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I've created these and started sorting. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Done sorting this one, though now I'm thinking it may be good to split out ropeways and cablecars. I think putting them together would be good (one uses a cable underneath, the other above), and there are almost 70 of them in Category:Japanese rail line stubs. I think something like {{Japan-cable-line-stub}} feeding into Category:Japanese cable line stubs would be good. The wording in the stub tag can specify that it covers both ropeways and cablecars. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Any comments on this one (cable line stub)? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable idea, though I'm not entirely convinced about the name. Can't think of a better one, though... Grutness...wha? 01:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I couldn't think of a better, concise-yet-very-descriptive name. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this is all done and completed now. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

U.S. television stations

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 believe that this is an S2. Completing pieces of the existing stub template and category structure. All proposals are for upmerged categories at this time, and would be populated via retagging articles in Category:United States television station stubs:

  1. New category — Category:Western United States television station stubs. Category:California television station stubs would be a sub-cat of this. The following new stubs would feed the new category directly:
  1. New category — Category:Northeastern United States television station stubs. The following new stubs would feed the new category directly:
  1. Additions to existing category — Category:Southern United States television station stubs. Move Category:Texas television station stubs to become a sub-category of this. The following new stubs would feed the new category directly:

These new categories and stubs would also complement the existing Category:Midwestern United States television station stubs, and the state-by-state templates underneath it. Mlaffs (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Have meant to get round to that one myself at some point so support. Waacstats (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Meant to say would also support categories for any of these that reach 60, named along the lines of the Californian cat (just to save anyone coming back with a few categories to propose). Waacstats (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Can't find a reference anywhere to how "speedy" "speedy creation" is supposed to be. So, I've been bold. The first set of categories and templates - for the Western U.S. - has all been created. Mlaffs (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
All proposed categories and stubs now created, including {{Oregon-tv-station-stub}}, which I missed somehow in the initial request. Listing of all stubs has been updated, as well. Mlaffs (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sports

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.
A number of templates have reached 60+ and require categories I propose the following categories

unfortunatly this would also mean the renaming of 5 categories

Are people happy to deal with these together or would they prefer the renamings split to SFD. Waacstats (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Visual novels

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.
Over two years ago, the {{visual-novel-stub}} template was created, but instead of using Category:Visual novel stubs, it was decided here that Category:Anime game stubs would suffice. However, there was a recent discussion at WP:VN at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Visual novels#Discussion to rename a template on the fact that anime games (which redirects to List of video games based on anime or manga) have never been apart of the scope of the visual novels task force under WP:VG, so we needed to change some things. The Category:Anime game stubs itself states This category is for stub articles relating to anime games. As it is, the term "anime games" has become a misnomer for classifying what visual novels and dating sims are, and I am here now to remove the misnomer by proposing the creation of the category:

as {{visual-novel-stub}} is already in use. I would further like to clarify that a visual novel and dating sim are also not the same thing, and it's also a common misnomer to interchange the two, which is why we have the two separate categories Category:Visual novels and Category:Dating sims. However, since dating sims are similar in gameplay to visual novels, dating sims are under the scope of WP:VN, and we have a related template {{Dating sims and visual novels}} as well (which was also just moved from {{Anime games}} in an effort to remove the misnomer). Now, while I'd also like to propose the creation of {{dating-sim-stub}} and its related category Category:Dating sim stubs, there are not enough articles in Category:Dating sims to constitute this, but there are many stubs in Category:Visual novels which would benefit from the creation of Category:Visual novel stubs, along with finally removing the "anime games" misnomer.--十八 20:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  • {{Visual-novel-stub}} is only used on 39 stubs, which is well below threshold. This really isn't used enough for its own category at the moment. If you can find a further 21 visual novel stubs and mark them, I'm sure there'd be no objection to a ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Visual novel stubs. The other option might be to find 21 stubs that could use {{Dating-sim-stub}}. If so, perhaps a combined stub category would be an appropriate compromise until such time as each has enough stubs for its own stub category, given that - as you say - they are different but the terms are often used interchangeably. Personally, I'd think the former way would be better - so i've started to hunt for a few more stubs for it myself. If it reaches 60... Grutness...wha? 01:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • It's up to 48 stubs now, so we're getting there... BTW - please DON'T change a stub template to point to a non-existent category! If there are as many stubs as it looks like there might be, a new category will be made soon enough. untiol then, editors still have to be able to find the stubs - which they won't be able to do if the template points to a nonexistent category. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • UPmerged template with 60+ articles - support. Waacstats (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Creation of a Emergency Services of Boone County, Mo 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 have already created three articles regarding emergency services in Boone County, Mo: Boone County Fire Protection District Columbia Fire Department and The Public Service Joint Communications Center and would like to have them all grouped together. Future articles will all concern law, fire, and ambulance services in Boone County, Mo.

User:BCFDFF (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2009 (CMT)

  • Oppose. That's not the purpose of stub types. If you want to group them together, put them in a permanent category. We don't even have a stub type for emergency services in the United States as a whole, let alone splitting by individual counties in each state. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

futher split of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Middlesex County, Massachusetts Registered Historic Place 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.
Three more templates have got beyond 60 so speedy the following categories

Waacstats (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Reorganisation of Disease stub categories

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 propose that new categories are created based on the chapters within the ICD-10 disease classification. In other words, the addition of the following categories:

As part of the reorganisation, the contents of the current categories ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Dermatology stubs, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Immunology stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Oncology stubs would need looking at and possibly double categorising. I would prefer to subsume ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Genetic disorder stubs into the proposed Congenital malformation category however am happy to receive guidance. I would also like to see the two current categories ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Symptom stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Medical sign stubs brought back together as ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings stubs but I am aware that there was considerable discussion in the past to cause them to be separate - I also can't work out a good grammatical name for such a category(!). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea of a category that has needed splitting for a long time. I would suggest the following templates first and categories for those that reach 60 articles

Waacstats (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of these templates need to be expressed as disorder rather than disease. {{Mental-disorder-stub}}, {{Perinatal-disorder-stub}} and {{Congenital-malformation-stub}}. This is because most conditions that are classified to these categories are not the result of a disease process. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I favor the term "condition" over "disease" or "disorder," and would prefer at least the dermatology-related stub category and template to use such terminology, perhaps ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Cutaneous condition stubs and {{Cutaneous-condition-stub}}? Regardless, thank you for your work on this! ---kilbad (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I've used the term "disease" because (a) the stub category is ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Disease stubs and (b) of basing this proposal on the International Classification of Diseases. Chapter 12 is called "Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue". I'm more than happy to take guidance on appropriate names for categories and templates. I just want to be sure that it will be usable by editors seeking to improve the articles. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Is this supposed to replace the relatively simple current system, in which things are simply tagged as being a disease, without specifying the type? Kilbad, have you done any stub sorting? Having dozens of very specific tags make the process much more cumbersome, and therefore much less likely that anyone will actually do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Stub categories are there for people to be able to find articles to work on, does having a category of 1200 articles assist this, in my opinion not and breaking down the category will I believe help in getting the number of stub articles down. I don't think anyone is suggesting getting rid of disease-stub so that will still be there to be used and people with expertise in eye diseases can more easily find what they are looking for. Waacstats (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I am willing to do the stub sorting for this category - this is my area of expertise as a clinical coder. And, yes, I'm fully aware of what it means having stub sorted the Birds at the beginning of the year. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The ones with "system" as part of their names should use a lower-case "s" (e.g., {{Circulatorysystem-disease-stub}} - Circulatory System is not a proper noun in this context, and the article is at Circulatory system (what's more, Circulatory System is a band!)). Alternatively, they could simply be at {{Circulatory-disease-stub}}, {{Neural-disease-stub}} (maybe? expert advice needed on that one...), and {{Respiratory-disease-stub}} without making them too ambiguous, I would think. Other than that, I don't know enough about this to suggest a better way of splitting it, and BWC sounds like (s)he knows what (s)he is talking about, so support, but with all the caveats that my previous comments suggests. Grutness...wha? 08:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
One of these days I'll remember when to use CamelCaps and when not. Waacstats (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Reorganisation of Pharmacology stub categories

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.
With there being 2823 stubs articles in the main category as I write this with some apparently random subcategories, I propose a complete reorganisation based on the reorganisation that has occurred recently for Category:Drugs by target organ system. The reorganisation is based on the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System, which is a World Health Organization adopted classification. Obviously with !voting still happening for levels 3 and 4 of this reorganisation (at WT:PHARM:CAT), I can only propose that the stub categories follow the levels 1 and 2 at this stage. However, I think that doing so would at least give us a better idea of which level 2 categories needed further division. I doubt that many level 4 categories would be required for stubs. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a split at level 1 should clear this category for now but would like to see sugested names for categories and templates before offering full support.Waacstats (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, herewith suggested names for level 1:

The current stub subcategories need to be moved to the appropriate place with the above level 1 cats or deprecated where they don't match the ATC. For example, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Antimicrobial stubs should be a subcategory of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Anti-infective agent stubs with ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Antibiotic stubs as a sub-subcategory. Whereas ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Psychoactive drug stubs should be deprecated as it falls across multiple categories of the ATC. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest dropping some of the hyphens and using CamelCaps to comply with normal stub usage on AntiInfective, CardiovascularSystem, GastrointestinalSystem, GenitoUrinarySystem, SystemicHormonal, MusculoskeletalSystem, RespiratorySystem. Also any chance of using -drug- on all of them or is the above suggestion normal usage. Also any reason why on disease the cat would be Genitourinary and here it s Genito-urinary? Waacstats (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't use -drug- on the anti-infective agent and systemic hormonal preparation categories because the ATC uses these terms. And these are the titles of the non-stub categories. This is in part because not all pharmacological agents are drugs in the strictest sense. With respect to the Genito-urinary vs Genitourinary: I hadn't noticed that. The two classifications actually spell them differently even though they have the same publisher (WHO). The stub category for anatomy is without the hyphen and the hyphenated version for the articles are redirects to the unhyphenated version, so I guess for consistency this should also be Genitourinary. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
They wouldn't use camelcaps, BTW - thats only if the words would normally have capitals (e.g., NewYork-geo-stub). These would simply be {{Respiratorysystem-...}} and the like - though see also my suggestion for the "system" ones in the section above. Grutness...wha? 08:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Chakwal district 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.
The first district template in the punjab reaches 60. Category as in title? Waacstats (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Presumably as in title, as long as (a) there aren't any other places with the same name to disambiguate between, and (b) previous Indian splits have used a lower case "d" (ISTR they have). If these points are fine, then, support. Grutness...wha? 08:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
answers: a-The articles for each district (and for that matter city) have no notice about other city/region/etc of same name and i can find no disambig page for them. b-indian districts do use lower case "d". So I'll get onto it - should get another cat off the oversize list. Waacstats (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

NRHP-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.
Someones been busy with these so I propose the following categories based on the already existing templates having already reached 60

and based on the fact that 58 is close enough - especially as it would be the last state in the South with out a category

Waacstats (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

split of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Maryland Registered Historic Place 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 did say someone has been busy (1323 articles) I propose splitting by county (as per Massachusetts). Templates of the form {{AlleganyMD-NRHP-stub}} with categories for any that pass 60 being of the form ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Allegany County, Maryland Registered Historic Place stubs using BaltimoreCity and BaltimoreCounty to distinguish these two. Waacstats (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2009 (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 ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Middlesex County, Massachusetts Registered Historic Place 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.
Busy - this is madness. The upmerged templates for Arlington, Stoneham and Winchester areupto 60 articles propose the following

Waacstats (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2009 (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/2009/June&oldid=1141871315"