Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposals, May 2006[edit]

{{camera-stub}} and {{lens-stub}}[edit]

Subcategories of Photography stubs. Many of those stubs fall under those umbrellas. Even digicam-stub plus film-camera-stub instead of only camera-stub. I could sort them. --Marc Lacoste 17:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • two new splits for a cat with only 350 or so stubs is a little unnecessary (we usually only look at splitting once a category's around 600 stubs in size). How about a single {{photo-equip-stub}} to cover cameras, lenses, tripods, filters, darkroom equipment, etc? A quick scan through the photo-stub category suggests that would almost exactly halve the current category. Grutness...wha? 05:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So just {{camera-stub}}, it should be more useful --Marc Lacoste 08:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • yeah, there look like there are about 80-90 of them at a quick glance, so it would be a reasonable split. Sorting some of the photographers into the propser stub category would help a bit, too! Grutness...wha? 11:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know how to create a subcategory template --Marc Lacoste 00:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then don't try! Leave it here and we'll get round to making it in a few days (when the one week debating period's finished). Grutness...wha? 07:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's two weeks later, I've done it, based on photographer-stub, the other subcategory of photography-stub. I hope there is nothing wrong. I 'll try to sort it out. --Marc Lacoste 10:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Asia-album-stub}} and/or {{J-pop-album-stub}}[edit]

I have been working my butt off the past couple of days to cut down the number of albums in the generic album stub category. However, I am getting to the point where it seems around 50% of the stubs left are Asian artists that I have no clue how to classify. World music doesn't seem to match it, because world music usually suggests more tribal or heavily ethnic music (not just non-Western music), and I feel like just labeling them pop indiscrimanently is just making it someone else's problem because I feel it doesn't really meet the criteria for a pop stub either. Anyone got any suggestions or feel like making a new stub that deals with asian music? I am not sure it needs to be any more specific from that because there are enough albums in there that fit the (admittedly broad) description "asian music album" (or something like that), but it is better than the even broader description "album" isn't it? Warhorus 02:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd previously suggested a {{J-pop-stub}}, which is at least a well-known term studying to be a genre, if in definitional terms not far off being a country-based catch-all. So if {{J-pop-album-stub}} is viable, I say go for it, and likewise {{Asia-album-stub}} will do at a pinch, if no-one has any brighter ideas. Though this would be better placed on WP:WSS/P, and might be moved there, if there's no objection. Alai 02:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have a problem with it Alai, but I personally don't have the know-how to create a stub for it. As such, I don't want to propose it if I cannot create it, know what I mean? As far as a J-Pop stub goes, I wouldn't personally have a problem with that, however, not all of these albums I am talking about are Japanese. I would like a stub that recognizes the difference between a Japanese artist and a Korean artist (or in the case of a "Asian album" stub, desides to ignore individual ethnicity past just being from Asia). However, if you want to put the wheels into motion (or just copy this over to WP:WSS/P , I would be really grateful! Warhorus 03:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actual creation for the stub won't be a problem; if in seven days time there's a consensus for one or other type (or a lack of objections), just ask me or one of the other "regulars", whenever you'd be ready to start populating. I realize the J-pop idea wouldn't be a complete solution, just had the thought that (assuming there's 60 or so of them) they might be worth carving out as a sub-type). Alai 04:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On third and fourth thoughts... I didn't realize we already had {{japan-album-stub}}, so scrub my J-Pop suggestion. Also, I didn't realize that album-stub was down below one listing page: well done, Warhorus, and everyone else that's helped slay that particular dragon! (Or lop one head off a hydra, perhaps...?) So the Asia- type may itself not be as urgently required as all that; and would it even hit 60, itself? Alai 04:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On its own, I don't think it would hit 60, but it's worth noting that I proposed (and had approved/not contested) multiple other different stub types that didn't necessarily hit 60 simply because they were needed to thin out Category:Album stubs, and there's no telling how much more populated they'll become once more sorting is done in the child categories. Based on that precedent, I'd say that it's a great add. --fuzzy510 04:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given how oversized album-stub was, there may have been some winking at undersized types, and/or a failure to realize they would be undersized. Since it's now only somewhat over a listings page (and that with several spurious inclusions of user pages and the like), that precedent, were it ever an especially compelling one, certainly seems much less so now. Just how undersized are we talking, anyway? Alai 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Category:United States law stubs[edit]

Cat is 5 pages.

Those sound pretty good to me. Perhaps {{US-detainee-stub}} for the first case, {{US-fed-law-stub}} for the second, and redirects from -corp- and/or -comp- or whatever we're calling that hierarchy this week in the last case. Alai 18:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. It excludes the 38 Guantanamo detainees who the DoD acknowledged had been innocent civilians all along.
    2. The term "enemy combatant" embodies a controversial, biased POV.
    3. It is unfair to the many Guantanamo detainees who were unable to prove their innocence due to the highly unjust nature of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals.
      • The Tribunals turned the presumption of innocence on its head, Detainees were presumed to be guilty, and had to try and prove their innocence.
      • Detainees were presumed to be guilty, and had to try to prove their innocence without knowing what accusations they had to debunk.
      • Detainees were presumed to be guilty, and had to try to prove their innocence of charges that actually had nothing to do with them, because intelligence analysts were very sloppy and allowed allegations against one detainee to slip into the allegations against other detainees -- See the transcripts of the CSRT and ARB hearings of the detainees captured following the skirmish at Lejay, Afghanistan for examples.
      • Detainees were presumed to be guilty, and had to try to prove their innocence of false allegations that stemmed from other detainees wishing to be granted privileges for informing on fellow prisoners.
    • Confession: I started most of the articles about Guantanamo Bay detainees that used the {US-law-stub}. Apologies if my ignorance of categorization caused me to make a mistake. -- Geo Swan 23:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about {{Guantanamo-detainee-stub}}? {{US-detainee-stub}} sounds reasonable as well. I suppose {{International-cockup-stub}} would be too POV? Grutness...wha? 00:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hehe... US-statute-stub would also be a child of already existing statute-stub. US-fed-law-stub is ambiguous (discipline/piece of legislation) and ignores the few prominent state statutes. US-detainee-stub is also ambiguous - criminals are also detainees. I think the template name must include either Guantanamo or Enemy Combatant, which is an official U.S. term and is thus profoundly NPOV. Grutness' last point is duly noted. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the template name in and of itself has to be beyond all reproach as regards ambiguity: that's what scoping text is for. I think my suggestion's adequately clear (though I would say that, wouldn't I?). Detainees are prisoners, and vice-versa, but those "detained" under criminal provisions are generally referred to by the latter term, and those "imprisoned" as ECs by the former, so the distinction is still useful and strongly suggestive. I assume "official US=NPOV" is face-strainingly tongue in cheek... mind the wind doesn't change! Point taken on "statute-stub", I didn't realize we had that, but I'm not confused as to what axis or axes your suggesting we split on: is this federal statutes only, in which case, the template name's wonky, or US statutes, state-level included (in which case your apparent suggestion about population and potential parent is very confusing). Given that it's obviously not undersized scoping it to just the feds, I'd suggest doing so, as {{US-fed-statute-stub}} or some such. Alai 00:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • On US-fed-statutes-stub, point taken, agreed. On the official US government, I am being completely sincere. These people have been declared "enemy combatants", which is a term of art in law. You can feel whatever you want toward Bush and/or their having been declared such, but using official government terms is the height of NPOV. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • More like "depths", I think. OGPOV is by no means NPOV; it's by definition a POV, and in this case in no way a generally accepted one (much less, factually correct, as been pointed out). It's not even Wikipedia practice to use "official terminology" (but rather, common names) even in cases where legal competence, political neutrality and applicability are not at issue, as they are here. It has the sole merit of an (allegedly) precise definition, but mere precision is not actual accuracy. Now admittedly, my own argument about scoping text can be deploted against me here ("people declared to be ECs by the US gov"), but the template name is itself problematic enough that I don't think that's an entirely satisfactory solution. Alai 02:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of the discussion so far
- CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{terrorist-org-stub}} Terrorist Organization stub[edit]

I propose the stub {{terrorist-org-stub}} into the {{org-stub}}. There are many terrorist groups and sadly many to come. This could be a good way of ordering them. I present the following stubs, there are many more to find: GRAPO, Nagaland Rebels, God's Army (revolutionary group), Organisation de l'armée secrète, Environmental Life Force --Francisco Valverde 13:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd suggest that {{paramil-org-stub}} might be more neutrally and clearly scoped. Alai 18:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then you'd have to suggest all the categories that deal with terrorism in the same way. See then: [[Category:Terrorism]], [[Category:Terrorists]], [[Category:Terrorism by country]], [[Category:Terrorism victims]], [[Category:Fictional terrorists]]. Also change the title of the articles: Terrorism, Terrorist. Please note the difference between Terrorism and Paramilitary in each article.--Francisco Valverde 18:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why, are you likewise planning on renaming Category:Paramilitary organizations? You might address my substantitive point, rather than throwing up straw men. Nowhere is it written that every category has to have a corresponding stub type -- indeed, the logic of the guidelines strongly suggests otherwise -- and my suggestion is, as I say, much clearer and more neutral. Your very own nominations in each case lack an unambiguous statement that the organisation is terrorist in nature, and in a couple of cases, mention "terrorism" only in the perm-cat, which is in itself highly problematic. Having bunfights over terminology in articles and categorisation thereof is probably unavoidable (sadly), but it seems entirely needless to introduce them into stub-sorting, when other axes of categorisation are available, and are much more straightforward. Alai 21:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have problems with {{terrorist-org-stub}}. There are quite a few organizations for which the accusation of ties to terrorism are politically motivated and completely unreliable. See charities accused of ties to terrorism for examples. Further, other accusations of ties to terrorism that have been leveled by American intelligence officials are highly unreliable because the American intelligence establishment has been stretched far beyond its breaking point, and poorly trained, inexperienced analysts have been put in positions of authority beyond their expertise. Today, for instance, I read the transcript of a Guantanamo detainee named Sami Al Hajj. He is an Al Jazeera cameraman. Among the allegations is that a company he used to work for, the "Union Beverage Company" is an al Qaeda front organization. A few minutes of web search showed me that the Union Beverage Company is based in the USA, and, far from being an al Qaeda front organization it is a corporate sponsor of the Shoah Foundation that commemorates the victims of the holocaust. {{alleged-terrorist-org-stub}} maybe? To my American friends -- that is your counter-terrorism dollars at work. -- Geo Swan 23:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Way too POV a name. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Paramilitary overlaps, but is not the same as terrorist. Perhaps {{revolution-org-stub}} or {{revolutionary-org-stub}}, since most, if not all, such terrorist/freedom fighter organizations advocate overthrowing the current regime and replacing it with something else. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overlaps-but-is-not-the-same is exactly the point; if it were merely a euphemism, it would be just as hard (and contentious) to sort to. I'd think paramil- would suck up most of the same articles, and maybe a few more, thus doing much the same "job" from a sorting viewpoint, without necessarily going on exactly the same set. (Though it's obviously not possible to predict exactly how either would be used "in the field".) The "revolutionary" tag might be seen as too "opposite POV", and doesn't really describe "pro-status quo" paramils/some-people's-terrorists (Loyalists in N.I., pro-Serbian-state militias in Kosovo, etc). Alai 00:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, revolution and counter-revolution go together, so I see no reason why revolutionary and counter-revoultionary orgs couldn't (at least until the stub type becomes large enough to split) with some reasonable text text in the template and the category much as the main category Category:People by revolution does. This argument does support favoring {{revolution-org-stub}} (organizations associated with a revolution) over {{revolutionary-org-stub}} (organizations advocating a revolution). This would also be the sort of inclusive catch all stub type such as Category:Crime biographical stubs, which includes criminals, victims, and crime fighters Caerwine Caerwhine 04:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whee, reactionary-stub, that's the ticket! But counter-rev is an even more nebulous and rhetorical concept; in many cases, nationalism is closer to the actual motivation, and what's really at issue is the means. Alai 05:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry... but I am just asking to create a stub category, later, in each case we can reach a consensus. I do not see that there was any problem with the categories that wikipedia has already have of terrorism, terrorism by countries, fictional terrorists, and many others... and although many articles in these categories have POV problems, many others don't. I am just saying that if one article is in the terrorist category, or the fictional terrorist category and is a stub, where do we place it?
--Francisco Valverde 04:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That rather begs the question, as it assumes firstly that the perm-cat already is in use on the article, and secondly that it's unconversially so, neither of which is necessarily the case. You've yet to address my point about classification as paramilitary organisation: that also has a perm-cat, so your arguments also argue in favour of that, as as I've argued, it's a a more "well-defined subcategory", as the guidelines put it. Look at it like this: "are these guys a not-a-formal-military-force who nontheless go around shooting at people?" is a much easier question to answer than "are they guys terrorists, insurgents, revolutionaries, counter-revs, freedom fighters, or other?", and stub-sorting is wise to stick to easy questions when they're conveniently available, rather than needlessly tilting at more difficult ones. It's not that I doubt there are reasonable numbers of stubs that "every" wikipedia article would agree are terrorist organisations, it's just that there will also be cases that are more marginal, or more contentious, and that sort of haggling is better left to a per-article basis as regards permanent categorisation, as opposed to stub-sorting, which tends to be a matter of "by bulk", and is in any case only for temporary convenience, not "final product". Alai 05:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For now, until this is settled, there's nothing wrong with simply using the nationality-bio-stub or plain org-stub for each one. As far as the naming's concerned, paramil-org-stub and paramil-bio-stub seem the best suggestions I've heard so far. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UGA-stub}}[edit]

Apologies for creating this stub before actually reading the process. I saw the template:UTexas-stub and made a similar one for the University of Georgia a few days ago not realizing a process existed for stubs. I have just now read the discussion that took place for the UTexas stub so I am even more apologetic. I am not using that as an excuse, just trying to explain why the cart has come before the horse. I have already put this stub on about 12 articles and there are probably 15-20 more in Category:University of Georgia or its subcategories that I plan on marking as a stub as well. I have numerous additional UGA-related articles in the works which would also have this tag. So, now this stub request is officially in process and I realize that the previous OK for the UTexas stub is not a precedent. My long-range goal is to create a UGA wikiproject and wikiportal, and I thought having a stub category would increase interest enough to reach those goals to be honest. UGA is one of the oldest public Universities in the nation (arguably the oldest, but I'll save that debate for elsewhere) and is one of the larger institutions in the Southeast so I think it is deserving of its own stub. If this stub does not exist then would these stub articles belong in the Southern United States university stubs? There are currently 400+ entires in that category with almost all of them being the main institution articles. The UGA stub will allow editors interested and knowledgeable about UGA to find these articles of interest quickly and easily. Also, on a tangent, I would recommend requiring stubs to also have a small statement about reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals before creating new stubs - so dolts like myself don't repeat my mistake. Thanks.--Roswell native 05:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • well, first things first. If this is kept then it definitely needs a rename (Until reading what this was for I was about to suggest it needed redirection to {{Uganda-stub}}. "UGA" is simply not an unambiguous, widely-enough known abbreviation. It's a reasonable "if", though, since there are meant to be 60 stubs or thereabouts before creating a stub type if there's no existing wikiproject (and the prominence of the subject isn't reason enough - stub categories are for the benefit of editors, not readers, and need a reasonable size before they'll be much real use. There are entire countries without stub templates, let alone individual universities!). And yes, the articles would otherwise be in the Southern US university category, which is getting large enough to consider splitting - by state, not by individual university. Having said that, it is pretty close to time for that split, and perhaps renaming/rescoping the template to cover all universities in the state of Georgia would be a reasonable compromise. Mind you, it's also worth considering the debate below about Penn. State. If you can show there are 60 (or close to 60) stubs on UGeorgia, then it can probably be simply renamed but kept for this subject. As to requiring stubs to have a small statement, templates in the article space aren't supposed to link back to WikiProjects (we've tried that in the past and it's always been edited off). What all the templates do link to, though, is WP:STUB - and that explains that this page should be contacted before creating the stub. Doesn't always work, though :) Grutness...wha? 06:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am blind - I never even noticed the pennstate discussion right below this, thanks for pointing it out. I agree completely with the name, I have been doing a lot of Georgia History articles as well so I should have already had my blinders off. Should I change the template name while the viablity of the stub is being discussed or wait? Also, I just did a quick and dirty run through all the Univ. of Georgia related pages and tagged more stubs - so there are about 65+ after this. Thanks for the explanation about the template wording. --Roswell native 07:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wait before changing the template name over, just in case someone objects strongly to the whole idea of a template, but if it's up over 65 there aren't likely to be too many objections. Grutness...wha? 08:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Chef-stub}}[edit]

At present, there are more than 100 chefs listed in List of chefs, most of which are stubs. Therefore, I propose we gather all of these chef articles and further divide the new stub group into nationalities. - splot 14:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By your own rather rough count, further divisions won't be viable at present. What about scoping this rather more broadly, as {{food-bio-stub}}? Alai 15:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support if 60. Food bio stub would be confusing - do food spokespeople qualify? Manufacturers? Theresa Heinz Kerry? Perhaps, Restaurant-bio-stub? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Caribbean-band-stub}} / Category:Caribbean musical group stubs[edit]

In {{band-stub}} there are currently 67 bands from the Caribbean. --Bruce1ee 09:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Created and populated. --Bruce1ee 10:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Musician-stub}} split[edit]

The musos are seriously oversized; here's some counts of possible splits, from that cat only.

If people can dig up a few more, to tip these over the threshold, several of these are likely to be viable; otherwise I'll go with per-continent splits; Euro- already proposed, a Category:Asian musician stubs would also work, on these numbers. Alai 21:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 20:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: An musician of a particular country ought to have a national stub, ipso facto. Knaw 22:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{pennstate-stub}}[edit]

Create {{psu-stub}} in support of Penn State WikiProject. Stub does not currently exist. Per wp:stub, number of articles threshold should be waived in this case because the stub category will exist as a tool for use by a WikiProject. Prototype stub template in User:RockinRob/Sandbox. RockinRobTalk 19:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:STUB, there's no such "waiver". See the note on this page, which addresses the question of what's considered a reasonable number of stubs for a wikiproject-specific type (i.e., 30). In any event, please use a less cryptic and ambiguous template name. (My first thought was "what the heck?", and my second was power supply unit.) Perhaps {{PennState-stub}}, say. Alai 21:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All good advice, especially about the stub name, I was trying to save keystrokes. pennstate in place of psu will be less ambiguous.

Sorry, I must have misread WP:STUB#Additional information

"4. Will there be a significant number of stubs in this category; are there enough article stubs to warrant this new type?

Typically the threshold ranges from 100 to 300 articles. This threshold is waived if the stub category exists as a tool for use by a WikiProject. In general any new category must have at least 60 articles."

How about per note 1 above? I can create 30 stubs in short order, but I was hoping to have a stub template first, rather than pick a close stub template, create a bunch of stubs, and then go back and update the stub articles later. I'll gladly do that if that is required. My first stub template. RockinRobTalk 21:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We really should get our ducks in a row and have some consistent guidance, but I don't think the above is saying there's no size requirement in such cases, just that the threshold isn't 100, as that document is claiming is normal, but rather 60. (60 and 30 resp. are what we more normally work to, though.) In theory the stubs are supposed to be already in existance, so's to avoid the "coming real soon now" effect, but no-one will be much bothered if the stub type starts small, but is actually seen to be growing. (I can't immediately see why Penn State needs 30 stubs if there's none in existence at present, mind you...) Alai 22:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a good look, and there do seem to be enough stubs relating to Public Sector unions, but I don't see that it's a more useful split than by industry or country. Also I don't quite see what it's got to do with Pennsylvania. Grutness...wha? 23:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Just had a look at the mockup template - it makes sense now. The name for it definitely doesn't though. "psu" is clearly going to cause sonfusion. Iff it has enough stubs (which seems questionable at the moment) it will definitly need a better name ("PennState-stub" seems a reasonable name). Grutness...wha? 23:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the name in the template above since if it gets approved for use, it will have the more obvious name. RockinRobTalk 07:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ant-stub}}[edit]

There are 57 pages in Category:Ants are stubs. Zalgt 18:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds sensible, the insects are only just under 800. OTOH, it's customary to wait seven days, and to lowercase "stubs" in the category name, which I've just taken the liberty of fixing. Alai 16:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Frog-stub}}[edit]

277 {{Amphibian-stub}}s in Category:Frogs.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 19:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's almost the whole parent category! Be simpler to split out the non-frogs and rename the amphibians. :/ What about a split by taxon, presumably meaning at the family level for frogs and toads? Alai 19:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about splitting the salamanders out instead? They seem to be the only other sub-population of any real size. ({{newt-stub}} would be easiest to type, if not the strictly the most accurate...) Alai 00:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{beauty-pageant-stub}} or {{beauty-pageant-contestant-stub}}[edit]

There are 84 {{model-stub}}s in Category:Beauty pageant contestants. What do you think it should be called?--CarabinieriTTaallkk 18:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I supposed this is a reasonably coherent split; perhaps {{pageant-bio-stub}}? Alai 19:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Mexico-footy-bio-stub}}[edit]

Apropos nothing in particular, I note that there's 60 articles with {{NorthAm-footybio-stub}} that are also under Category:Mexican people. Alai 15:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four more oversized occupation splits[edit]

These all look to be viable:

I'll give more detailed counts and/or lists later, if people have concerns on those lines. Alai 14:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese and Russia bios[edit]

These are both only in the 800s; creating all of these would be overkill for de-oversizing the Russians, but may be useful later. Alai 06:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

France-bio- split[edit]

Last of the six-pagers. Alai 06:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada-bio- split[edit]

Continuing the same pattern. Alai 05:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. (Continuing the same pattern.) --Mais oui! 05:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India-bio split[edit]

Next largest, at a mere 6 1/4 listings pages; same deal as previous two. Alai 05:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australia-bio- split[edit]

The next largest bio-stub type, counts on a similar basis as below. Alai 05:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several splits of Japan-bio-stub[edit]

Japan has the third largest bio-stub category, but very few subcategories at present. Here's some possibilities:

These counts are based in each case on Japan-bio- taggees, also categorised in some sub-cat of the corresponding permanent possible parent. (Fashion, entertainers, and academics.) Alai 05:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United kingdom historian stubs[edit]

There's 108 articles in Category:British_people_stubs, and in Category:Historians, or some subcat thereof. Alai 04:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Created and placed on the stub list,Will do some initial populating, but not exhaustive. Caerwine Caerwhine 14:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Argh! Please create these under the names proposed, or else raise objection to the proposed name in a timely manner. Alai 18:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal splits from the mil-bios[edit]

The following countries are "bubbling under" on my count, a more careful count might "put them over the top".

These counts are based only on stubs tagged with mil-bio-stub itself, and some sort of per-country categorisation. Alai 04:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom comics creator stubs[edit]

102 articles in Category:Comics_creator_stubs, and a subcat of Category:British_people. This plus quite a few undersorted Yanks are probably enough to get it non-oversized. Alai 04:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{MEast-journalist-stub}} / Category:Middle Eastern journalist stubs[edit]

Another possible split from the journos: I can find 41 tagged as j-stubs, and in some subcat of Category:Middle Eastern people. I'd lay odds there's a few lurking elsewhere. Alai 04:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Australia-journalist-stub}} / Category:Australian journalist stubs[edit]

Between {{journalist-stub}}, {{Australia-bio-stub}} (oversized), and Category:Australian journalists, I think I have 60 for this. Crystallina 01:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This was the most promising per-country split from the journos I found, though my search didn't quite hit threshold. Alai 04:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Mais oui! 05:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen WikiProject[edit]

There are many Queen song stubs on Wikipedia and we need a way to sort them we already have a template Template:Queen-song-stub. - mtmtmt 5/25/2006 6:21 AM - Queen WikiProject

It would have been far better if you'd asked first (that is - if you'd followed the instructions). Hopefully there are more than you've currently marked with it, because 24 isn't yet close to the threshold for a separate stub category. I've fixed the coding on the template and the wording of the category to stub "standard". Grutness...wha? 11:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are many more the templates are being added as the info boxes are updated. - Mtmtmt 11:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me, as the category already contains 50 entries. Conscious 12:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary African Art stub[edit]

There is currently very little on modern contemporary African Art

--Pswaniker 21:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)===[reply]

There being little on contemporary African Art is not cause to justify a stub type - creating stub types is for when a large number of stub articles exist and could be better sorted.This problem might better be brought to the attention of relevant projects such as WP Comtemporary Art, WP Arts, or WP Visual Arts. Aelfthrytha 02:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think there should be a stub for this. Even if there are only a half dozen such stubs (and I think there are more), a stub category would help link them and encourage more sharing of information. I believe this is consister with the Countering Systemaic Bias Project. Interlingua 23:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{sex-industry-stub}}/Cat:Sex industry stubs[edit]

moved to proper place on page

As the terms Pornography and Sex industry are two separate concepts, the proposal is for the addition of a sex industry stub to better catagorize articles. For instance, a sex shop which may sell all manner of sex toys should not be classified as a "pornography"-stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangePeel (talk • contribs)

That's why we have {{sex-stub}}. It covers things like sex shop and sex toys quite adequately. And it's not really a big enough category to split. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I've also removed the stub template from sex shop - faar too big to be a stub! Grutness...wha? 00:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Americanfootball-team-stub}} / Category:American football team stubs[edit]

A vast majority of the stubs in Category:American football stubs are various small franchises which technically should use {{sport-team-stub}} instead. Adding this allows for them to be under a more appropriate parent category and, at the same time, not overflow Category:Sports team stubs. --fuzzy510 20:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{film-char-stub}} / Category:Film character stubs[edit]

There are stubs for comics characters, tv characters, video game characters, etc. But there are no stubs for movie characters, and there are well over 60 appropriate articles to be found under Category:Fictional character stubs -- MisterHand 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Washington, D.C. geography stubs[edit]

Has reached 65, {{WashingtonDC-geo-stub}} can be unredirected now. Conscious 18:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disability stubs[edit]

It seems some stubs related to disability are listed under {{med-stub}} (as in the case of Reading disability). Some creative users have even found a way around the lack of a {{disability-stub}}, as in the article Invisible disability.--Ezeu 17:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A forseeable problem with this stub type is defining it - any definition could easily be extremely broad. Could you please propose what you would consider a reasonable definition? Also, could you give an approximate count of related stub articles? Aelfthrytha 23:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hygiene, beauty, cosmetics?[edit]

I don't have a real proposal, but I note that there's nothing for stubs in these fields. Shampoo - is that {health-stub}? Make up - is that "fashion"? What about pimple cream? Toothpaste? Tanning lotion? There's a great big hole between "health" and "fashion" that lots of stuff could fall into. However, even some redirected stubs would be handy for cases like Shower gel which took me ages to find a home for ({health-stub}). Stevage 16:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd like to see some numbers before supporting this, but if there are enough stubs, perhaps {{toiletries-stub}} would be a reasonable name? Grutness...wha? 02:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If not, are redirects a reasonable alternative? Just {toiletries-stub} or {bathroom-stub} or whatever redirect to one common goal. Does one need approval to set that up? Stevage 16:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few more Album stubs[edit]

With these, hopefully album stubs can finally be reduced down to less than a page.

Any thoughts? --fuzzy510 20:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Fascism-stub}}[edit]

The Fascism WikiProject thinks that a Fascism stub would be useful. There are currently a bunch of articles that are related to Fascism that are stubed as pertaining to politics or history that would be more accurately classified with a Fascism one (especially the ones that already have the Fascism template). It'd also be a blessing for organizing future articles for improvement. The stub page was accidently created before this procedure was taken. - DNewhall 17:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • how big is this "bunch of articles"? if there are 30+ then it seems reasonable (note too that - although a distinct sub-type of fascism - some of them might be able to use nazi-stub). If made, I suspect that it's one we'd have to tread carefully round... would the fasces (bundle of sticks with axehead) be a reasonable icon for it, or not? Grutness...wha? 05:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhh skip that. I see you're waay ahead of me. I've tweaked the template slightly and created the category. Grutness...wha? 05:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This one looked like a good idea, but it is unfortunately not growing. Valentinian (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Protected-areas-stub}}{{Protected-area-stub}} / Category:Protected areas stubCategory:Protected area stubs[edit]

A home for the hundreds of current and future stub articles in the Protected Areas wikiproject. See examples of some articles that would belong here. The current {{NPS-stub}} is not inclusive enough to cover all of these areas and its not as helpful to the project to have them in only a state or country specific stub. ClarkBHM 17:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though maybe there should be {{NWR-stub}}, {{Forest-service-stub}}, etc, just to be more specific like {{NPS-stub}}. Nationalparks 17:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the current stub is mainly used on parks that are the least documented, and that list is slowly coming to an end due to improvements in the article content. However, many other protected areas (including some I have stubbed) are yet to be written or are just a relatively small and nondescriptive paragraph.--MONGO 20:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG OPPOSE. what NPS-stub? why wasnt this one proposed or even mentioned here before? All places like this should be marked with geo-stubs not with an ambigously named "NPS-stub"! {{ecoregion-stub}} covers a lot of these places too. this looks like a recreation of state-park-stub and state-forest-stub, both of which were deleted. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create the NPS-stub so I don't know. I'm trying to go throught the proper channels to create a projected areas stub as it could be used on several hundred articles within the wikiproject. Please consider this proposal on its merits and not compare it to the NPS-stub. Compared to some of the other stubs out there, I would think that a stub for an entire wikiproject wouldn't be objectionable. ClarkBHM 01:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok. good points. im willing to go along with the suggestions below about replacing NPS-stub with this one and only using it to double stub things that have locations. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't go that far, but I do oppose the proposal as it stands. NPS-stub is badly named (too ambiguous), was never proposed, and does seem like it's replicating a previously deleted stub. "Protected-areas-stub" is equally badly named - plural, to start with, and no mentuion in it that it's for the US only. I'd suggest that NHS-stub should be rescoped to cover all US protected areas (US-protected-geo-stub) and only be used double-stubbed with the appropriate geo-stub whichever state or territory the area is in. Grutness...wha? 01:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mention that it's for the US only because it's not for the US only. The Protected Areas wikiproject covers the entire world including Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, etc. "Protected areas" is the name of the wikiproject, and as such, is the name of the stub proposal. We can certainly consider a more appropriate name as long as it includes the entire project. ClarkBHM 01:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
see further comment below Alai's comment. Grutness...wha? 03:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously it should indeed be double-stubbed with, and not replace <location>-geo-stubs, but other than that I'm not immediately seeing anything that gives me the screaming heeby-jeebies here. That there's a serious-business wikiproject on the case surely establishes likelihood for expansion on the basis of this axis; the theme of "we're splitting X, by country, and then by region, no matter what" gets a little excessive around here at times. Let's especially not lynch a proposal on the basis that some other type was unproposed and overly-cryptic; we keep doing that, and people will quickly enough get the message that it might just be easier not to propose any types, so's to avoid the "negative reinforcement". (Let's face it, it's at times a lot easier to just create something and have it fail to be deleted, than to get it past /P.) Clearly G. is correct on the plurals; I've taken the liberty of striking and fixing up accordingly. Alai 02:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, I'll amend my initial comments above to support on two conditions: 1) it is understood that it is to complement rather than replace location stub templates on articles; 2) it replaces NPS-stub (i.e., we take NPS-stub to sfd once this new stub goes through) - there's no need for both and NPS-stub is overly restrictive. Grutness...wha? 03:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, I was going to suggest we take NPS- to SFD sooner rather than later, but either works for me. Alai 03:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no problem with the stubs complementing each other. It increases the liklihood that someone will work on incomplete articles. I also have no problem with dropping the NPS stub as long as we tag those articles with the new stub. I appreciate your willingness to work out a solution that works for everyone. ClarkBHM 03:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd also echo BL's point about us also having an {{ecoregion-stub}} - that may well be useful for the project, too (if not, it might need to be dealt with at SFD some time, too, since it doesn't really have much other purpose that I can see). Grutness...wha? 05:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • They seem quite different to me: ecoregion- should really only be used on the entries on the list of ecoregions, which are typically much larger than the scope of any single protected area. Clearly some of the existing population is highly wonky, however (and the intended scope is mostly redlinks, with the occasional redirect and full article thrown in for good measure). Alai 06:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would agree that they are not the same. Among other reasons, the ecogregion stub is used by the Ecoregions Wikiproject. This is a different wikiproject. ClarkBHM 16:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Basketball biography stubs and {{Hoopsbio-stub}}[edit]

Cat has 6+ pages. Propose

and then seeing what else is left. Perhaps Croatia or Lithuania will make it over 60, I am not sure now. It would be cheaper to split off the two obvious countries I have proposed and then analyze the smaller remainder. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the first as {{US-hoops-bio-stub}}, given the discussion about the missing hyphen in the "sportbios"; I'd be surprised if that's not sufficient in itself to get the parent below 800. But support any others that're north of 60, too. Alai 23:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{music-org-stub}} / Category:Music organization stubs[edit]

In {{org-stub}} there are at least 50 music organizations and in {{music-stub}} another 60+ music organizations, and, from what I can see, only 2 articles are double-stubbed with both. --Bruce1ee 14:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Crystallina 01:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Created and populated. --Bruce1ee 10:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two more band stub cats[edit]

Over 60 New Zealand and Spanish band stubs now exist in {{band-stub}}. I'm proposing 2 more nationality band splits:

--Bruce1ee 12:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Created and populated. --Bruce1ee 08:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more country-geo-stubs[edit]

The latest tally shows three more countries reaching threshold for geo-stubs of their own:

Some good news with these, too - Central America will be complete after the first two - in fact CentralAm-geo-stub could just about be got rid of once these go (there will only be two stubs using it). Grutness...wha? 09:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-company-stub}} / Category:British company stubs[edit]

I don't know how to run a scan for stubs, but with a 12 page listing of company stubs, I'm sure that there are at least 90 UK company stubs. Even though it is perferable to put them into the "by type", for some them by type doesn't cover and by country is the only thing left to do. Mexico companys get a stub type, while stubs like this: Salters Steamers remain unsortable ( transportation-company-stub doesn't sound right for it). --Rayc 23:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support; nothing to say we can't split on both axes and double-stub: that seems to already be underway, as you note. I'd prefer Category:United Kingdom company stubs, as being more precise, and less annoying for NI-based cases, but any sort of consistency has admittedly long since gone by the wayside. Alai 00:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was looking for this recently and was amazed we didn't have it (I was sure it was proposed a couple of months back). Support. Grutness...wha? 09:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Mais oui! 05:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I came here looking to propose it (after being shocked to lean while sorting publish-stub into its two new sub types), since it has been proposed now for well over a week with only positive comments, and since I can use it whilst doing that sorting, I'll go ahead and create it. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-historian-stub}} / Category:American historian stubs[edit]

When I counted US-bio there were at least 30 of these in US-bio and historian-stub should make up the difference. Crystallina 02:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll say Jolly good idea, I keep coming across historians where it's not clear if they're academics per se, so it's not always possible to get rid of them there. (Also with assorted other alleged subcats of academia.) Alai 02:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Tibet-geo-stub}} / Category:Tibetan geography stubs[edit]

Double-stubbing finds 40 both with Tibet-stub and in "Mainland China geography stubs" (a curious scope if ever I heard one); latter is somewhat oversized. Could hit threshold on a more extensive search. Alai 02:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - and will help sort when needed. Aelfthrytha 05:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support with caveat. Precedent is to split by the regions as currently used in the country concerned. Tibet is used as a region by China - but the Tibet Autonomous Region so used is not identical and coterminous with what is traditionally thought of as Tibet. I have no objection as long as it is clarified that it is the Tibet AR that is being referred to. Wouldn't object to a proposal for further splits of China by region either. Category should be "Tibet..." not "Tibetan...", too. Grutness...wha? 02:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedure is also to follow the perm-cats, and the perms seem to use "cultural Tibet" (and also don't use the noun "Tibet" attributively, which I see no reason for preferring in any cases outside of where the adjective is problematic, such as "American" or "British"). Note that the PRC does recognise the "Tibetanness" of various bits and bobs outside of the TAR, as cultural districts (or some such terminology). I've no especially strong feeling on this, I'd just prefer a scheme that followed the logic of the existing scheme, and/or changing said scheme in line with with the above; just so long as we don't end up with one definition of "Tibet" in one "tibet-*stub", and a different one in another. Alai 23:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's all very well, but it would mean that Tibet's geography stubs would be working on a different basis to every other geography stub we have, and would also be named differently from them. All geo-stub categories are in the form "Noun geography stubs", and all of them use current political boundaries. Making it geography stubs for some less clearly defined "cultural Tibet" risks opening the door again to the Kurdistan poblem, as well as potentially removing stubs listed as geo-stubs for several different countries (cultural Tibet includes parts of modern Tajikistan, for instance, and you really don't want to start poking around into any Kashmir geograhy stubs - they're enough of a problem as is. Grutness...wha? 01:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If China-by-province is viable, or there's some meta-province chunks that'll fly, I'm all in favour: just working with what I have, here. I don't think cultural Tibet is underdefined by the PRC, it just isn't coterminus with the TAR, given the areas outside with "Tibetan" in their names. I'm no expert, mind you. We'd in any case better not follow the PRC's definition of the TAR too closely either, otherwise we'll be double-stubbing a chunk or two of India. On nouns vs. adjectives: well, why? It's not in the naming guidelines, it reads awkwardly, and since null-edits have gone the way of all flesh, it's not difficult to change on our "legacy types". I thought we'd already been over this for "Europe" vs. "European" and such like... Alai 02:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I wouldn't mind seeing all the geography categories with adjectival names, but it would be a huge job changing them all over. There is some scope for problems with some of them, though, where the adjectives are identical or similar for different countries (Nigerian/Nigerien, Dominican, Congolese, etc) and where the adjectival forms are difficult to guess (Monegasque, Burkinabe, Ivorian, etc) or potential POV/political difficulties to consider (British, American, Macedonian, etc). Grutness...wha? 03:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Irish-singer-stub}} / Category:Irish singer stubs[edit]

I'm not really sure of what to put here. Basically, I propose a stub be approved for Irish singers. The only one I know that would apply right now is Feargal Sharkey, but I'm not averse to searching for more.Alan 01:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The threshold for stub creation is 60 articles, and as Feargal's from and has overwhelmingly worked in the UK, I'd have to say you've only another 60 to go. Your proposal (and hasty creation) also doesn't follow the naming guidelines. A more inclusive type such as {{Ireland-musician-stub}} or {{Ireland-music-bio-stub}} would probably be more useful. Alai 01:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur. I'm still fairly new at this, and have been duly chastised for the hastiness.Alan 01:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No chastisement intended or necessary. :) Alai 02:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Scotland-politician-stub}} / Category:Scottish politician stubs[edit]

There's vast numbers of Scottish politicos currently tagged with the oversized {{scotland-bio-stub}}, the also oversized {{UK-politician-stub}}, or indeed, both. Admittedly many of these should go into the existing -MP- and -MSP- types, but there will inevitably be significant numbers who've been both, or neither, and a catch-all/parent category and a template in the "regulation pattern" would be handy. Alai 20:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Valentinian (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • wait! We've only recently gained {{Scotland-MP-stub}} and {{MSP-stub}}. Those should be fully populated first, since they may greatly reduce the need for this proposal. Grutness...wha? 02:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just realised that I didn't notice the last sentence of the proposal. I still think that fully populating the two existing categories will reduce the strain greatly, but if it still seems worthwhile even with those two out of the way, then I've no problem with it. Grutness...wha? 09:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Mais oui! 05:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{India-sport-bio-stub}} / Category:Indian sportspeople stubs[edit]

Only 32 that I can find that are directly doubled-stubbed, and the perm-cats seem to be sadly lacking in, well, existence, so I'm not sure what we can learn from StubSense, but I'm guessing there's an undercount. But both parents are oversized, there's existing subcategories, and undersorting is, as usual, highly likely, so I'd be inclined to give it a punt. Alai 20:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Scotland-noble-stub}} / Category:Scottish nobility stubs[edit]

40 stubs in double-oversized-parents. There's no permanent parent, so it's difficult to be certain this will hit the threshold, but it seems highly likely (and guaranteed if we throw in the royals, which are a sub-cat). Alai 19:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Canada-mil-bio-stub}} / Category:Canadian military people stubs[edit]

Stubsense finds 86 in the perm-parent, Category:Canadian military people, large numbers of which are are in oversized stub cats (or indeed, double-stubbed thusly). Alai 19:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure this one will reach threshhold. I used StubSense to try to find enough stubs for his cat just a few days ago, but I was unable to find more than 43, listed here, even after looking around for quite a while. If you'll check the lists that you get from StubSense you'll find that a lot of them are double-stubbed or just do not fit into the proposed stub type. Couldn't you find a few more stubs which would fit. You can add them to my list, where the names are currently listed alphabetically by first name, so it's fairly easy to see, whether a certain article is already on the list.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 17:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There do seem to be some real oddities on the StubSense list; probably toolserver corruption again. Here's my list, compiled from double-stub counts alone: User:Alai/Can-mil. In a rush now, will examine contents and compare lists later. Alai 18:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I compared our two lists and added stubs from your list which weren't on my list to mine as long as they fit into the proposed stub type. The only one I remember, which didn't in my opinion was Stefan Sznuk. Further there were quite a few stubs, whose subjects were technically part of the British military but served in Canada, while Canada was still a British colony. Should we count them? Right now they are under "unsure" on my list, along with one article, which is pretty long and currently not marked as a stub, so I'm not sure it should count. My list is up to 46 "definates" und 10 "unsures"--CarabinieriTTaallkk 21:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say include 'em, possibly double-stubbing if it's unclear if they're of "primarily Canadian" or "primarily British" interest. Given that the parent if oversized, I'd be inclined to go ahead at this level, and as the parent also seems undersorted I imagine it'll grow a bit whenever someone goes at 'em. Besides, we never actually delete anything in the 40-60 range. :) Alai 23:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, support.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 10:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{2000s-metal-album-stub}} / Category:2000s metal album stubs[edit]

There's 53 stubs in both Category:2000s_rock_album_stubs and Category:Metal_album_stubs, which is bound to be an underestimate -- both parents are oversized. Alai 19:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, with further division into 1990s and 1980s metal albums
  • Hrm, just a slight underestimate. I've populated this to 100... and there's 439 articles left on my AWB list that will apparently go too. (I've gone through enough of this list that I don't think there's a massive false positive rate from double-categorisation, and bear in mind this isn't even counting the stubs that are entirely untagged, or aren't categorised by release date, or by decade.) That'd certainly get the later parent down in size, but is itself sillily large for a new type. Presumably it would make more sense to split further, either by sub-genre, or by finer-grainer date. The former would be more useful, I'd imagine, though the later would be much easier. Alai 05:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-film-tv-actor-stub}} / Category:United States film and television actors[edit]

On similar lines, but on a still-larger scale, there's 187 actors double-stubbed as both tv and film, which rather defeats the point of the medium-based split, especially as both of those are themselves oversized. These presumably need to be either re-sorted for primary acting notability, or re-split, or put into a combined stub type as above. Alai 18:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If we go down this path, will we eventually have US-film-theat-actor-stub, US-tv-theat-actor-stub, etc.?? I know it's big, but re-sorting or country-stubbing might help. Her Pegship 21:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last time I checked, the US was a country, and it's not immediately clear how to further refine them; by-state is unlikely to be at all useful, likewise genre (unless we want to replace oversized double-stubbing with oversized quadruple-stubbing). Splitting by "era" would be one method (dob by decade, say), but terribly arbitrary. I don't much mind how we do this, as long as we actually do it... Alai 01:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dang, you're right. There it is, right on the map between Canada and Mexico. My bad! (I plead Mommy Brain.) Her Pegship 06:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what to do with these - I was the one who double-stubbed them, having nothing better to do. (Initially I was stubbing them as what their primary venue was but someone complained.) Acting is such a broad profession that it's hard to get a good specific split. Crystallina 22:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{dramedy-film-stub}}, {{comedy-drama-film-stub}} / Category:Comedy-drama film stubs[edit]

There's 89 stubs doubled into Category:comedy film stubs and Category:drama film stubs, which frankly is a real pain in the neck, since both of those are oversized. Either someone's been going a bit mad with the double-stubbing, or there's a crossover/grey area between the two genres that would justify a combined stub. Or alternatively, both of these should be further split on some dimension or other. Alai 18:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{environmental-org-stub}} / Category:Environmental organization stubs[edit]

Organization stubs are still oversized. A search reveals about 87 rough matches; it should be plausible to obtain 60 from it. Crystallina 14:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last two Canadian regions[edit]

I'm in the middle of the latest geo-stub tally, but this one seemed so obvious that I've decided to propose it now. All of Canada's provinces have long had specific geo-stubs - only the stubs for Yukon and the Northwest Territories currently feed directly into the Canadian category. NWT has now reached 71 stubs and - at 57 - Yukon is not far short of the standard number for a split. So, the time is probably good for:

Grutness...wha? 09:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I hadn't come across this proposal before, I just happened to come across these two stub categories. I've already edited those stubs so that they feed into their respective territorial stubs (Category:Northwest Territories stubs and Category:Yukon Territory stubs). Both of those stubs need to be renamed per convention. Agent 86 18:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • huh? This proposal was implemented over a month ago, and the naming complies with the naming guidelines - what's wrong with it? Grutness...wha? 23:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the case of the first, I assume (after some head-scratching) that (what's now the redirect) {{Northwest Territories-stub}} is being referred to; that could be taken to SFD. Don't see anything wrong with the Yukon parent, though. Alai 03:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{software-type-stub}} / Category:Software type stubs[edit]

A stub type for types of software, such as Graphics software, rather than specific pieces of software. 1000 stubs from Category:Software stubs checked (out of a total of 2504) and 53 found that could be given this stub type. Possible non-stub parent ctaegory could be Category:Software by domain.

Some more examples: Analytical software, Appointment scheduling software, Art software, Audio codec, Audio player (software), Charting application, Crash reporter, Desktop shell replacement, Digital audio editor, File manager.

Anyone have a better name? --TheParanoidOne 05:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

additional Israel-related stubs[edit]

There are currently only five Israel stubs, including the main stub {{Israel-stub}}. Granted that there are not a tremendously large number of stubs listed, I think that a minor expansion is in order.

{{Israeli-biz-stub}} for all business-economics-finance articles - >20

{{Israeli-political-party-stub}} - about 20

{{Israeli-culture-stub}} for all things tv, film, theatre, - about 20

--Shuki 23:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Only five? No other Middle Eastern country has more than two (other than Turkey, which had such a huge number of geography stubs - over a thousand - that they are currently being split)! As you said, the main category isn't over-full - we usually start thinking about splitting a stub category up when it has 600-800 articles: Category:Israel stubs has 225. And the numbers you've offered up are far too skinny for new stub types in any case (and even if they were a good idea the names and splits you suggest aren't in line with those from other countries, so would need to be changed). Grutness...wha? 01:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible oppose. These are badly undersized, the parent is very modest in size, and of the three proposals, two are non-standardly scoped, and one is out-and-out terribly named. Alai 14:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per same. Aelfthrytha 15:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lol only five? Need at least seven... :) :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I get it, DOA. CrazyRussian, the attempted humour is unwarranted. I merely wanted to organize the main stub. Grutness, I took the India stubs as a basis, thanks for explaining the problem and options. See you guys in another 400 stubs. Thanks for both your dedication to this otherwise non-prestigious section of wp. --Shuki 21:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
400's probably a pretty good guess (and non-prestigious is bang-on), but if any of the standard(ish) stub types are viable on a Israel-specific basis before then, by all means propose 'em before we have another oversized category on our hands. You have a point about India-culture-stub; didn't realize we had that, seems somewhat anomalous given that it overlaps considerably with several other, more usual scopes. Alai 01:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? I like to go for some self-deprecating Jewish humor every now and again. If they take away humor from us, the Jewish nation will cease to exist, R"L! :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you understand the reason for the opposition, Shuki. There'll certainly be far less objection if and when the israel stub categories grow bigger. And thanks for the kind words about stub-sorting! Grutness...wha? 01:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Germany-mil-bio-stub}}[edit]

StubSense finds 69 stubs currently marked with {{Germany-bio-stub}} which are in Category:German military personnel.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 14:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Already proposed, no objections were made. Indeed, I was inches away from creating this last night (did two of the other German-bios instead). Alai 19:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All things Gurdjieffiana[edit]

I would like to propose a category for stubs relating to all things about the guru G. I. Gurdjieff and everything realating to his pupils, teaching and system. There is a large amount of articles relating to this. It should be a subcategory of Religion stubs. Here is a list of articles relating to Gurdjieffiana with stub status (sorted under different stubs):

Henriette H. Lannes Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man In Search of the Miraculous Thomas and Olga de Hartmann Jean Toomer Kathryn Hulme Life is Real Only Then, When 'I Am' All and everything Emotional Centre James Moore (Cornish author) Gurdjieff hydrogen number

The "Fourth way" category contains numerous articles related to Gurdjieff's teaching sorted under different stub categories, mainly philosophy. Maybe all these articles should be sorted under Gurdjieffiania? peterak (Peterakr 22:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Are there 60, though? Crystallina 23:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stub sense finds 30 under that permanent category. Alai 01:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Navy stub[edit]

As of 17 May, 2006, there are 152 articles under Category:United States Navy. There are 17 subcategories. {{navy-stub}} is rather broad, while {{US-mil-ship-stub}} is too narrow for many articles. There are probably quite a few articles that could take use of this stub template. NTDOY Fanboy 21:11, 17 May, 2006 (UTC)

weve already got one - {{USN-stub}}. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's indeed one of the aforementioned 17 subcategories... Alai 01:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castle stubs for England / Wales / Nothern Ireland[edit]

{{Scotland-castle-stub}} has been created and has 77 entries. To match I propose we have

  1. {{England-castle-stub}}
  2. {{NI-castle-stub}}
  3. {{Wales-castle-stub}}

These would be sorted out of the crowded {{UK-struct-stub}}

The first & third will be easy to fill to the required level. The second is for completeness. Saga City 13:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's for completeness only, and won't hit threshold, it should be created only as an upmerged template. (Perhaps to a hold-all cat, Category:United Kingdom castle stubs.) Alai 01:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have followed above advice Saga City 15:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geographer stubs[edit]

Human geographers currently tend to be listed as 'Earth Scientists', 'Sociologists' or 'Anthropolgists'; a stub cat for geographers would be beneficial (something along the lines of {{geo-bio-stub}}  ? This could include human geographers, people who dabble in both human and physical geography or those physical geographers who would bew identified as part of the geography discipline and not as earth scientists. It could also be used to include explorers and travel writers etc. Possible articles:

That's just a start... I'll do a search and add some more possibles at a later date but you get the idea for now. --Robdurbar 10:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please get more of an estimate of the number of stubs, please? Aelfthrytha 17:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... expect one tomorrow. --Robdurbar 22:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of {{geoscientist-stub}} seems intended to cover geographers in general, and is literally too small to split. Unless there's significant numbers of untagged geo-bios, I think it's probably better just to make the scope of the existing cat more explicit, and possibly create a duplicate template if there's some concern about the applicability of the existing tag and its text. Alai 01:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible then to move the geoscientists stub to read {{geographer-stub}} and then change the text to be more inclusvie of human geography? At the moment, quite a few of those geographer stubs are only 1/2 lines but not listed as stubs; I suspect because there isn't a suitable category.

Well here's a few more, however, that could go into a 'new' one:

Plus there are quite a few people who probably ought to have articles that don't - such as Doreen Maassey or Ash Amin.... --Robdurbar 10:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if I were to edit the stub to read 'geographer' instead of earth scientist and then move it to geographer-stub and change the category name too, would this be acceptable? --Robdurbar 10:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd suggest a new template, rather than a move, lest some people fall off the other side by simply changing it to the other. I'll do this later tonight unless anyone "speedily objects". A more explicitly inclusive category name sounds like a good plan, but what precisely did you have in mind? (Technically that's more SFD business, though that hasn't always stopped us in the past.) If there's indeed under-tagging going on caused by any semantic confusion (as opposed to our old friend inertia) that obviously Not At All Good. Alai 19:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well at the moment its 'geoscientist' in the stub syntax, which comes up as earth scientist on the page. How about geographer in the syntax, and then geographer in the template? Its more inclusive that way. --Robdurbar 20:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see by it's more inclusive, if the two have distinct but overlapping scopes. I've gone ahead with my threatened course of action, and created {{Geographer-stub}}, feeding into the existing category. If you can 'populate' it, more power to you. Alai 14:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian culture stubs[edit]

The Norwegian culture article is a stub itself.ALso, take a look at the category:norwegian culture, which I find really not good enough. I hope this will help wikiproject Norway. Ehjort 19:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is probably technically viable in that stubs can be found for it, but is on the one hand, not really required (Norway-stub is by no means overused), and is very broadly drawn. (StubSense illustrates both the former and the latter.) Can this be rescoped (or have its scope clarified, at least) to be somewhat less like Norway-misc-stub? Alai 21:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will use the norway stub as suggested, and if it seems a norw. culture stub should be necessary, I'll come back.Ehjort 14:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishnavism stubs[edit]

The Hinduism-stubs section is totally bloated, with hundreds and hundreds of entries. Suggest a stub category specific for Vaishnavism to give the stubs more attention. There are too many stubs for the heading to even begin listing! Raga 12:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Contrary to its {{verylargestub}} tag, the parent's not quite oversized, but granted it's getting there. I don't want you to list the Vaishnavism articles, but can you give us a ballpark estimate of how many there are? Stubsense only finds 41, though granted under-categorisation may be massive. Alai 15:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say the exact amount. It's just that every other Vaishnava-related link I click looks like a stub, and 50% of the rest are direly in need of a rewrite... -- Raga 21:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exact count not necessary, just convince us there's at least 60. (And hopefully, not more than 400.) Alai 01:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-crime-bio-stub}}[edit]

My counts for the UK-law- type, below, inadvertently included the crime-bios, which also seem to be fairly numerous. (I've nevertheless scraped up 60 law-bios without including any of those.) These are likely to be viable separately, and in any event I invoke the "behemoth!" clause. Alai 03:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Television stubs[edit]

The situation with {{tv-stub}} and {{tvseries-stub}} is really getting out of hand. We need to deal with it fast now. I also noticed that many of the cats and templates on the list don't have the proper banners, nor the proper parent/child cats.

I propose something along he lines of

bcast-stub

  • tv-stub (general TV)
    • tv-prog-stub (TV shows)
      • tv-format-stub (sitcom, drama, gameshow, reality)
      • specificshow-stub
    • tv-bio-stub
      • tv-producer-stub
      • tv-director-stub
    • tv-movie-stub
    • tv-char-stub
  • radio-stub
    • radio-substubs
  • country-bcast-stub
    • country-tv-stub
      • country-tv-station-stub
      • country-tv-channel-stub
      • country-tv-prog-stub
        • country-tv-format-stub (sitcom, drama, gameshow, reality)
      • country-tv-bio-stub
    • country-radio-stub
      • country-radio-station-stub

Note that for the "country*" stubs you will probably have multiple parenthood cats in the associated category. Both "UK tv programme" and "TV show stub" for instance. With "country" I actually mean "country of origin" in most cases. We need to deal with these fast, or it won't be managable anymore, we are probably gonna need someone with a bot already. Are there people out there that would like to help with this? Cause i'm not doing it alone :D - The DJ 21:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worked out proposal[edit]

I've taken some more time and sorted out what exactly needs to happen in my eyes. The most noticable change is from tv-show -> tv-program(me) since that is the more prevalent usage in the various TV categories. I've also expanded it with stuff that's not on the official list atm. they are marked. Please leave any additional notes at the bottom. If you update the list, then please also leave a note with what you changed and why. - The DJ 10:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be determined[edit]

To Do[edit]


Done[edit]

To be orphaned[edit]

{{broadcasting-stub}} < 100 on May 16

Comments[edit]

  • Renaming "show" -> "program(me)" seems pointless; it's more to type, and it introduces the NA/Commonwealth English clash unnecessarily. I'd have no idea what Canadian or European TV would use, unless I memorised a case-by-case list. Your list seems to assume everyone-but-the-UK would use US spelling, but I see no reason for that. I'd assumed tvseries-stub was supposed to have a somewhat different scope (Lost is a series, but World News Tonight isn't), but seemingly not, so renaming that to tv-show-stub seems OK (leaving a redirect). Alai 15:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
why not tv-prog-stub? i dont think it would be too ambiguous. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me too, on both grounds. Alai 23:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And for me - I've changed the names in the proposal above. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think prog is OK. I have some comments still on the {{tvseries-stub}}. Though TV series are a special subcat or TV programs, I do realise that i'm expanding the meaning of this stub to be broader. I just rather put all tv programs in one cat and divide from there, to make sure there is a place where non-series material can be properly stubbed. Also i do not consider "tv series" to be an appropriate subdivision. It is better to subdivide in genres and formats (ergo sitcom,drama,reality,gameshow,talkshow etc). I have expanded my example. This would initially be done only for US-tv-*, since it is currently the only set that is large enough to subdivide into formats. I also think that dividing by country is important, because especially for foreign programs probably only people in/from that country can properly finish the article. By dividing it in country/region subsets it will be easier to find back these articles. As someone who has done some work on several articles about Dutch TV shows I found that is was a nightmare to find such articles in wikipedia. - The DJ 13:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed Category:Europe television program stubs back to Category:Europe television programme stubs, given that's the UK English, Irish English, not to mention the French spelling... Didn't notice this was an existing cat, I suggest renaming accordingly. (This bears a WSS template, but was it ever actually proposed?) Alai 16:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • moved animation as a small child under Television programs
  • mmm, on the Country-division. Do people think it is more important to subcat by genre over subcatting by country ? I chose country over genre, because it's closer to the current situation, but I'm not 100% sure it's desirable in the US case (i really do prefer it in case of foreign stubs). Also, shouldn't it be American TV series instead of US TV series ?
    • Anyone have any comments on the genre thing?

Looks fine to me. The only thing that bothers me is that everything with European in name is a little too broad. Besides, UK is a part of Europe (at least for European people...). Otherwise it's ok. --Tone 11:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree that Euro- cats are indeed broad, but often are the only way to go when a category is oversized, and it has 20 stubs in it from each of 20 European countries, and no other sensible way to get it back down under 400. In the case on UK, I don't think this is an instance of "fog on the channel, continent cut off": it, and any other European countries can and should should be split off as sub-types of the Euro-cats, as and when they hit threshold. Alai 19:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incomplete movie, TV or video lists {{video-list-stub}} existing but unofficial (category may require renaming) - Do we need a stub type for this? The fact that the lists are tagged as incomplete should be sufficient to attract the attention of potential "expanders". Her Pegship 21:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that incomplete lists are out of out project's scope, and shouldn't be included in the hierarchy. Conscious 16:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removed "Mast" and "incomplete list" from the list - The DJ 13:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good structure to me... but could someone add a stub for BBC Archives to the BBC section please? I would do it myself but I am not that clued up on wiki yet and I don't want to mess it up. The BBC Film & VT Archive is the largest holding of it's type in Europe and one of the largest TV holdings in the world. I think it deserves a mention here. As I worked there for quite a while I could certainly write some content. jennyd60 23:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In my opinion there are already too many BBC stubs, and most aren't even official. Take it up with WP:BBC or Wikiproject British TV shows. Find some common ground there, and then get back here to get the stubs approved and listed. - The DJ 13:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about tv-company-stub ? I'm proposing it because currently {{company-stub}} is listing {{tv-stub}} as the stub to be used for TV related companies. Most companies are already a stubbed under one of the broadcasting stubs, but things like TV production houses kinda fall outside this category. I should probably move the ABC and BBC stubs up to Broadcasting btw, since they clearly are involved in actual broadcasting I guess. - The DJ 13:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for tv-company-stub; I created film-company stub for the same reason. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the "Europe" category to "European". Should the same be done for "US program stubs" ? - The DJ 13:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to the current status - TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've done most of the moves and restructuring implied by the above discussion; the additional creation and deletion it would be clearer to propose separately, and take to SFD, respectively. Currently my 'bot is retemplating everything from {{US-tv-stub}} to {{US-tv-prog-stub}}; that'll leave the new, separate category created fed by the former template empty, apart from the three subcategories (programmes, people and stations). Doubtless there will be a few "false positives" that should be sorted back into the root category. If this settles down without controversy, I'll do the same with UK, Canada, etc. Alai 20:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where are we with all this now? Even i'm loosing perspective in the wood of redirects now :D When will we update the main list with the new names ? - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Largely done, from my point of view. The US moves are done, I won't do the rest for a week, just to make sure there's no massive confusion or backlash. Yes, the main list should be updated: I'm a shocking slacker when it comes to /ST, I freely admit it. Alai 18:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom stadium stubs[edit]

I didn't realize we didn't already have this, otherwise I'd have proposed it at the same time as the Europeans, etc (if not before). As these would otherwise be clogging up my list of Europeans to re-tag, I've taken the liberty of sorting them to a temporarily double-categorised template, but there's enough of these for a separate category, and plenty more besides. I was half-tempted to speedy this one, but given the amount of time I spend fuming about other people's non-proposed stub types, I'll occupy myself with other things on the to-do list for a week. Alai 01:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musican Stubs[edit]

Can we please have a category of Scandinavian musicians. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomkeene (talk • contribs)

Currently musicians are split by genre and country, but not region, and {{Finland-musician-stub}} already exists. You could consider Norway-musician-stub, Sweden-musician-stub and Denmark-musician-stub, provided you can find at least 60 stub-articles for each. --Bruce1ee 05:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the magic eight-ball, that would appear to be respectively, certainly, yes, though many of them already split out as singers, and need to find a few more the old-fashioned way. Alai 05:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British People Stubs[edit]

Sorry for my ignorance, is it possible that a British sportspeople's subcategory can be created. Thanks, will help for sorting of stubs. tomkeene

Since the UK usually compete with four diferent teams, it would probably be better with {{England-sport-bio-stub}}, {{Scotland-sport-bio-stub}}, {{Wales-sport-bio-stub}} and {{NI-sport-bio-stub}} with a UK parent category. Not sure about the numbers. --Eivindt@c 17:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's only only partly true; in some sports it's (fairly) consistently the UK, in others (fairly) consistently the constituent countries, and in some it varies considerably from competition to competition. My preference would be to split to UK, then by sport, and only then as above, by the logic of "most likely to expand similar articles". Alai 23:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eivind's proposal. Would be nice to have some numbers. --Mais oui! 22:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New album stubs[edit]

Category:Album stubs is overflowing, and as I've been going through it, I've noticed that there are some genres that aren't covered that would really help to thin it out if they were covered:

These would really help to further be able to trim down the list. Thoughts? fuzzy510 22:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support plus 1960-2000 pop sub-divisions. --Eivindt@c 17:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create 'em all, SFD will know its own (should any upmerging be required). Alai 01:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{HHGTTG-stub}}[edit]

Now that WikiProject Dad's Army is running smoothly, I have created a second WikiProject and I will require a stub for that it is called WikiProject Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. What do you think? Mollsmolyneux 20:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These pages (in my opinion) require stubs:

  1. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book)
  2. So Long, and Thanks For All the Fish
  3. Mostly Harmless
  4. All the fits for the radio series require stubs.
  5. All the episodes for the TV series require stubs.
  6. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (film)
  7. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (computer game)
  8. Trillian (character)
  9. Wikkit Gate
  10. Notable phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
  11. Somebody Else's Problem field
  12. Bistromathic drive
  13. Babel fish
  14. Total Perspective Vortex
  15. Sirius Cybernetics Corporation
  • It strikes me that a) that's quite a short list, and b) the articles on it aren't stubs! (On an initial sampling of four I didn't hit one, at least.) Even where there's a wikiproject, our normal requirement is that there be 30 stubs in existence to create a new type. Alai 21:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • well, firstly, I share Alai's concerns about the current number of stubs - there simply aren't enough at present to really consider a new stub type. Secondly, even if there were enough, the name would need definite improvement: we try to avoiud abbreviations where possible, and anyway, the series is known internationally as simply HHGG, so an HHGTTG-stub would be off to a bad start from that alone. Grutness...wha? 05:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Find a good number[1] of stub articles, as many as you can, that will fit that tag. Each of these articles can be:

currently be marked with stub; currently marked with another type of stub tag (in which case you should justify why your tag is better for the article than the current one); a stub whose categorisation is highly ambiguous or questionable; not marked as a stub. Mollsmolyneux 10:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • That they're not marked as stubs isn't the problem, it's that they are not in fact stubs, by any reasonable interpretation. You're also ignoring the very "good number" aspect that your start your quote with. Alai 18:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Too small, see the top of the page. If you can find 30 'real' stubs, then I may reconsider. --GW_SimulationsTalk | Contribs 10:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Aelfthrytha 22:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good idea. Josen 18:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Euro-road-stub}}[edit]

ive just been looking in Category:Road stubs and the first page of the cat is about 30-50% European roads. i think that a euro-road-stub would be a very useful way of splitting this cat, which is about 500 stubs long (not too big, but getting there). BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick count-up suggests there are 90 or so that could take this template, and quite a large number that could take an Asia-road-stub, too. Support. Grutness...wha? 09:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit broad for a parent that doesn't actually need to be split, but it does make some sort of eventualist sense (who knows when euro-road-cruft might suddenly spike to present US levels). Then again, as there are 100+ parents that do... Alai 10:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so is that a support or not :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was an absence of opposition, at any rate. :) "Unenthusiastic support", perhaps. Alai 18:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Owarai stubs[edit]

Just realized that I'm supposed to list it here before creating. Sorry! Stubs to go along with Wikipedia:WikiProject Owarai, Category:Japanese comedians, and Japanese comedy. Closest category is Japanese people, comedy, or biographical stubs, and this category will help to organize the improvement efforts. Already 24 stubs in the category, many more already exist in wrong stub categories that I am trying to find.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  01:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thrash metal album stubs[edit]

Parent is oversized, this seems to be the most obvious sub-cat to split out. StubSense only finds 32, but I suspect it'd hit threshold (thrashold?) if someone waded through them all. Alai 04:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - but 'thrashold'? Come on, Alai, that's just pun-ishment. Aelfthrytha 02:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • <rant>Man I hate Category:Album stubs, so big, and almost impossible to sort. You would think they would start an article with "X is a rock album by Y...", oh no they get pretentious: "X is a progressive electro-death-pop-folk album..." Say what? </rant> Support --Eivindt@c 03:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tell me about it. What's worse is when they don't list any genre at all, nothing, and nothing in the article provides any hints. At least it isn't 21 pages like it used to be. Crystallina 02:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English football club stubs needs split[edit]

Perhaps by level of the "football pyramid", or by county? (Or if counties are too small, by English region.) I'm cross-posting to WP:WPF. Alai 03:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both could be a problem one way or the other - the latter, there's too uneven a spread; the former, we'd have to change things every season. Perhaps a simple split into
  • league sides (if there are any still at stub length)
  • non-league by region

would be best? Grutness...wha? 05:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer splitting them into Conference, Northern, Southern and Ishtmian per the National League System. If there's any fifth level clubs they probably belong at afd. --Eivindt@c 03:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem there is at any one time there are at most 70 or so clubs in the conference. The chances of 60 of them having stubs is remote, to say the least. Perhaps conference. The you've got the problem with clubs that no longer exist but have stubs, too. Grutness...wha? 05:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what I meant by "Perhaps conference"! What I think i was meaning was splitting clubs into the Northern/Southern/Isthmian regions (basically north/south/home counties) might be the easiest way to go, even if it is a fairly crude split. Grutness...wha? 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of arithmetic, confirmed by some random sampling, tells me that most of these clubs only dream of being fifth level! And obviously, clubs at that level and below are split on a different geographical basis than the above, complicating matters. Admittedly a three-way geographical split would be sufficient to take care of the current oversize, but it'd be pretty crude. Alai 10:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Poland-geo-stub[edit]

Now top of the geographical to-do list. Currently has only one subcat, the unproposed and undersized Category:Warsaw geography stubs. Logical basis would clearly be to split by the 16 Voivodships of Poland as and when they hit threshold (no reasons not to do all the templates at once). There's six NUTS-1 regions, which is another option if large numbers of constituent regions don't hit 60. (Wasn't this discussed before?) Alai 03:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative support I've been talking it over with the folks on WikiProject Geography of Poland at the bottom of the relevant talk page. Generally splitting into the voivodships is preferred, and that might work. Mathematically, there are enough stubs (at last check) to give each voivodship exactly 65, but I would bet that they aren't distributed uniformly over the 16 voivodships. Unfortunately, they generally take forever to reply. Waiting for the relevant WikiProject to have their say might be beneficial though. Aelfthrytha 15:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize there was a wikiproject; another venue for arguing about terminology, evidently. If they don't object in a timely fashion, I'd be highly inclined to at least split off the three or four largest ones to get it back to being non-oversized. If someone else wants to do the split more systematically, all the better. Alai 18:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would favor creating stub templates for all because based on the math all are close to 65, counting, and then creating categories as is appropriate. The people at the wikiproject will have plenty of time to object in the week we wait to approve/finalize this. Also, this is a case of deja vu because it was done before - see Archive 13.Aelfthrytha 20:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Poles have gone by the 16 Voivodships, it might be a good idea to do the same here. We can even use the maps they've created for the templates. I'm not sure about which set of names we should use, but it seems like the Poles are discussing a general standard for naming Polish locations. Valentinian (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The names do indeed seem to be a moving target -- it's interesting to look at the page history, and at the interwiki links, to see the different permutations used previously, or elsewhere. (The English wikipedia seems to be in the minority in using largely "untranslated" versions of compound Polish proper names.) So perhaps hanging back for seven days is a good plan, even if the earlier discussion already reached much the same conclusion. Alai 23:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. May the wikiproject people direct us on names, because Polski naming convenczionsz are famouszly difficult :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they manage to do the actual sorting, I'll live with whatever dodgy names they come up with: this is going to be a real pain to do, as there's little by way of by-region categorisation of Polish places, so StubSense does no good (and personally, if I know where somewhere in Poland actually is, 100% guaranteed it's not a stub). Alai 19:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Stubs[edit]

There are a massive number of articles related to Arabs but there is no binding category. I propose Arab Stub be created with sub categories including politics, history, religion, conflicts, art, people, economy, expatriates, and organizations.--Zolfeqar 08:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Zolfeqar. Stub articles are normally sorted according to countries and citizenship rather than ethnicity. Have you seen {{MEast-stub}} (Middle East in general), {{MEast-bio-stub}} (people), {{MEast-writer-stub}} (authors/poets), {{MEast-royal-stub}} (royalty and nobility), {{MEast-geo-stub}} (geography), and {{MEast-hist-stub}} (history)? A large number of Arab countries already have their own stub templates; In the Middle East: Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. In North Africa, Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Sudan, and Western Sahara. I hope to check soon if more Arab countries have gathered enough material to get their own templates. Valentinian (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should go ahead an make {{MEast-bio-stub}} divisible into many countries as there are many people in it. I checked into Jordan and it has more than 20 personalities just check Prime_Minister_of_Jordan

--Raraa 12:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"more than 20" doesn't necessarily mean its got 60 tho which is what we use as a split. it might be worth spliting out the larger ones tho. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Composer Stubs[edit]

I noticed that there's a heck of a lot of stubs in {{Composer-stub}}. I thought, to reduce the number dramatically and increase organization, why not categorize them by country of origin and/or type of music? Foxjwill 01:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed so: two country-based splits already done (though likely to be highly undersorted), and three or four already proposed, lower down the page. I'd guess a couple more are likely to be possible. Alai 02:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal law stubs[edit]

(moved from the bottom of the page BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)) I had been thinking about proposing a criminal law stub when I noticed that there already is a {{crime-stub}}. There's quite a lot of stubs in {{law-stub}} that could be in {{crime-stub}}. There are even some stubs in both of these categories. Am I right in assuming that {{crime-stub}} is a sub-category of {{law-stub}}, so anything that could be in a criminal law stub should actually be in {{crime-stub}} and not in {{law-stub}}, and that no stub should be both a {{law-stub}} and {{crime-stub}}? Caveat lector 15:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a sub-category/sub-type, and I'd agree double-stubbing with both should probably be avoided, but I'm inclined to say that stubs on the legal aspects of criminal law (as opposed to relating to breaches thereof) should be tagged with law-, rather than with crime-. A split is a possibility, but I'd imagine it'd be a rather extensive one, so splitting by country, as has already started, is probably ultimately the more "slimming" option. Such a split for US law might not be far off the horizon, though. Alai 17:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book series stub ({{bookseries-stub}})[edit]

I noticed that some of the book series in category:series of books were stubs, and I thought that there should be a book series stub. The examples where this would be used in, that are shown below, are from the A section in category:series of books, and they are 9 out of the 18.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by The editor1 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 9 May 2006 UTC

Oppose: the {{book-stub}} category is already being split by genre, not by form of publication. This would interfere with the existing sorting format without adding significantly. Aelfthrytha 15:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Aelfthrytha. If these articles don't have stub tags appropriate to their genre, they should be sorted. Thanks for the thought, though. Her Pegship 16:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In theory this could work, as technically a series isn't a book, so we should make clear that the scope of the book-types are supposed to cover these, but in practice it's pointless, as people will work by type/genre/country, not by format. Also seems to be undersized on the above count, though that's probably an underestimate. Alai 18:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Christian-org-stub}}[edit]

Organization stubs are extremely oversized, and Christianity stubs consistently hover around the 5-page cutoff. This should help to bring both down - especially organization stubs. Crystallina 18:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting US stadia/sports venues, by sport[edit]

I was pleased to see that many of the US-struct-stubs are in the sports venue perm-cat heirarchy, as (thinks me) this will enable slimming down that type. But by the time I'd've finished doing so, the US-stadium-stubs would themselves be oversized, at which point the futility quotient would be a bit high. So I suggest:

Some of them may be more idiomatically "parks", "arenas", "stadia", or whatever else, feel free to add reasonable-looking redirects, or alternative names, with the above as redirects for the sake of regularity. (The perm-cats simply use "venue", though.) Alai 04:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem would be that many venues (the American Airlines Center is the first example I can think of) house several different sports; ice hockey and basketball is the most popular combination as far as I know. This would make a lot of double stubbing necessary, so I don't know if this is a good idea. What do you think?--CarabinieriTTaallkk 07:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valid point; I reckoned most of these would be not terribly likely in combination, but the one you mention does seem to occur: there's a significant overlap between the permanent categories, according to CatScan, but a sample of the output from that suggests they're largely not stubs, so I don't forsee huge amounts of double-stubbing. I can't currently give you a count, but I may be able to after I've done some more db-dump-bashing. If that does arise on a large scale, a stub type for the particular combo is an option. The alternative approach is to tag by form of structure (indoor arenas vs. stadia per se), to which there was some opposition, below. Alai 19:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose becuase of the problems with multiuse stadiums. id be far happier to split this by state than by sport if its too big. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... which was already proposed, below, and greeted with loud waves of indifference. Note you've also objected to sorting by physical-form-of-venue, my first suggestion, and which was specifically designed to address the whole multiple-use issue. I think we've now officially exhausted the possibilities on this, now we actually have to pick one. Alai 01:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer state-by-state as well. As things stand, golf courses are already split that way, because they're counted as geo-stubs rather than stadium-stubs (everything else above is played in some form of stadium, but golf isn't). Given that so many stadia are multi-use, splitting by sport played is not going to do anything but create large amounts of multi-stubbing. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you say "stadium"... but let's not have that fruitless discussion all ovevr again. Could you quantify "so many"? As I said, there's in fact very little overlap between the above tag proposals. In fact, if people were consistent in double-stubbing, not splitting-by-sport would tend to increase same, as a given sport-specific venue would logically be tagged with its sport, and by the generic venue template, as does indeed occur in several cases. (Can't say I've actually counted.) The larger problem is structures that are multi-purpose between a sport and some entirely different purpose, hence the logic of the "form of structure" proposal. Alai 02:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going by the stadia I know in New Zealand, Australia and the UK - the situation may well be different in the US, but if it needs splitting then it would be useful to have the split such that other countries could be split in the same way if necessary. I'd say 25-30% of the UK stadia I can think of are used for more than one sport, and here in New Zealand and Australia I cannot think of one single stadium that is used for only one sport. Even swimming pools are used for swimming, diving, water-polo, and underwater cricket. I'm not including golf courses in this because, as I said, they're currently listed as geo-stubs and are therefore already split by sub-national region for several countries. Grutness...wha? 05:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I was wrong about the per-state split already having been poo-pooed, I was confusing that with this proposal. Many of the same concerns would apply, mind you. Alai 02:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Middle East military biography stubs[edit]

65, would be viable separately from the Asia-mil-bios also proposed below, and vice versa. Alai 21:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese sportspeople stubs[edit]

There's 66 articles double-stubbed into Category:sports stubs or some sub-type, and directly into the oversized Category:Japanese people stubs, which I'm presuming will wholly or largely re-sort here. Alai 21:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European company stubs[edit]

As it looks like we're doing a two-axis split on the (oversized) company stubs, I'll suggest this, which will account for 129 of 'em, from various subtypes of euro-stub. Alai 21:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navy ship stubs[edit]

There are over 250 articles in Category:Naval ship stubs. I'd like to split out the Japanese ships, and perhaps others, into national categories, as has already been done with Category:United Kingdom naval ship stubs and Category:United States naval ship stubs. —wwoods 10:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm dubious; two listings pages is far from an urgent case to split, and it's not clear that any of the remainder are "viable" (>= 60 stubs) on a per-country basis. I'd certainly favour giving the Japanese, Canadians and Australians their own templates, fed back into the parent category until such time as they're large enough. Alai 16:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I made a template for the Japanese ships and have tagged 65 articles—mostly new stubs. —wwoods 08:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No accounting for 'em untagged stubs. Go ahead and create the stub category, then (unless someone objects in the next 24 hours, technically...). Alai 14:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various Asian bio splits[edit]

Double-stub counts:

As with the Europeans, below, it's the "other" parent that's oversized. Alai 05:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC) And furthermore:[reply]

In these cases I'll double-check before creation that this isn't depending on under-sorted Indians. Alai 21:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States theatre stubs|Category:United States theater stubs & Category:European theatre stubs[edit]

Category:theatre stubs is oversized; 60 of them would sort into a US- subtype, and 101 into a Euro- one, based on double-stubbing alone. Alai 04:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States theater stubs perhaps, not to be picky but I just know someone going to complain. --Eivindt@c 15:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, changed thusly. Alai 15:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On third thoughts... Given the apparently mixed usage in the US, and that the permies are at names such as Category:Theatre in the United States, I'll leave both possibilities open, and go with whatever people chime in in favour of. Alai 17:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd use -re, with a redirect at -er. --CComMack 17:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't redirect categories unfortunatly, and our old theat[r]e[r] stubs uses theat-stub which avoids the problem completly. --Eivindt@c 01:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is the issue of the template name, but with what Eivind says, I planned on just using US-theat-stub and Euro-theat-stub. Alai 02:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, although I think European might be too broad & vague...should we start with another country or two? UK-theat-stub, France-theat-stub? Her Pegship 06:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd certainly support any of those that are viable, didn't myself verify that any are... Alai 07:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian people splits[edit]

The India-bios are oversized: the following are double-stubbed over the threshold:

Can find no more, other than some undersorted writers: get double-stubbing, people! Alai 02:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm back to strongly oppose myself, idiot that I am. :) The Indian nobles seem to have very largely been royalty, and almost entirely already re-sorted as such, leaving very few of the above count left; such as remained seemed to be "ruling nobles", so seem really to be better in that cat, too. I discovered this after creating and (rather miserably) populating this type, though; I've now "downmerged" it to point to the royalty cat. Alai 06:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German people splits[edit]

The Germans ain't no Brits, but they're pushing 1000. The following look viable on the basis of the double-stubbing sledgehammer:

The most marginal of these (in more ways than one) is the first: I'm basing the count on double-stubbing from Category:religion stubs and descendants, not specifically reli-bios-stubs, but I'm guessing they'll pan out. There's also 91 in Category:history stubs: I'm not clear if we're creating hist-bio-stubs on any sort of systematic basis. Alai 01:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Music-bios may not be separately viable from the composers, which I'm assuming are a large chunk, so I'll probably skip that one unless people twist my arm. Alai 01:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With reli-bio-stub, wouldn't it make more sense to split first by the religion rather than the nationality? Do we have any other nationality-reli-bio-stubs? Grutness...wha? 01:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not from a de-oversizing (as it were) point of view, it wouldn't: it's not the reli-bios that are oversized, it's the nationalities. We have US-reli-bio already, and UK-reli-bio is proposed below, for similar reasons (with knobs on). This instance may be marginal for the reasons I mention, but as I've argued before, if we're going to stub-sort by nationality and by notability/occupation, we have to be prepared to split to all reasonable permutations thereof, where size considerations dictate. Alai 02:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vest-Agder geography stubs[edit]

Was debated and created recently. Upmerged less than one week ago, and now up to 66. Suggest a speedy recreation. Valentinian (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Atlantic territories[edit]

There is now a {{UK-Atlantic-geo-stub}} for geographical items relating to the various British territories in the Atlantic Ocean (Bermuda, Falklands, St. Helena, etc). I'd like to propose a similar non-geo stub, {{UK-Atlantic-stub}}. None of these territories are ever likely to get enough stubs for their own stub type, but together they should swing 50-60 with a bit of luck (I haven't counted them). A more general {{UK-territories-stub}} is another option, but quite a few of the other territories are already listed elsewhere (e.g., {{Caribbean-stub}}, {{Oceania-stub}}), so I'd favour UK-Atlantic-stub. Grutness...wha? 06:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By way of further incentive, I've just listed 43 articles that could take this stub from Bermuda alone in my sandbox. Even if the Falklands only amassed another 20, that would still be over threshold, even without counting St. Helena, South Georgia, etc. Grutness...wha? 07:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further follow up: I found 92 stubs in total that could take this new stub. Grutness...wha? 09:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British people splits[edit]

British people are the "new model behemoth": the above might get it down to a mere 15-16 listings pages. Alai 03:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shedload of Euro-bios[edit]

In each case, the non-European parent is oversized; template names to be said parent's template name, prefixed with "euro-". Some of these are sufficiently large that there may be individual countries that are large enough separately, though none of these are evident from double-stub counts. Alai 03:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, as we wrang three sub-types out of the composers (with plenty left over for the euro-parent), and one would think the same would be true for the even larger type on the above list, but I can't find 'em. What I'll likely do is to create "pre-upmerged" templates for the mid-sized possibilities:
Unless anyone has any brighter ideas... Alai 05:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the same lines:
In the first two cases, some sleuthing might actually make those viable... Alai 05:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central and South American stubs[edit]

Many countries in Central and South America have no national templates. According to StubSense this is often not warranted. I'm suggesting the following templates.

  • Ecuador 154 (excl. -geo.s). {{Ecuador-stub}} and {{Ecuador-bio-stub}} (60 are politicians, so the latter is viable as well).
  • Paraguay 169 (excl. -geo.s). At least 83 are bios: {{Paraguay-stub}} and {{Paraguay-bio-stub}}
  • Uruguay 167 (excl. -geo.s) At least 65 are bios: {{Uruguay-stub}} and {{Uruguay-bio-stub}}
  • Honduras 76 (excl. -geo.s) {{Honduras-stub}}
  • Guatemala 104 (excl. -geo.s) {{Guatemala-stub}}
  • Nicaragua 63 (excl. -geo.s) {{Nicaragua-stub}}
  • Costa Rica 107 (excl. -geo.s) {{CostaRica-stub}}
  • Panama. Bio-stub exists already. No geo-stub. More difficult to count but definitely above 60. {{Panama-stub}}. Valentinian (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot Belize. 93 stubs, no -geo or other templates: {{Belize-stub}}. Valentinian (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Belize and Panama are both getting fairly close to geo-stub threshold, BTW. Grutness...wha? 07:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The numbers for Panama and Belize are including the geo-stub candidates, btw, but both Belize should be viable without them (Belize has some untagged material.) Valentinian (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
        • My bad, sorry. The already existing bio-category makes Panama a ..... to count for StubSense. I'm not sure a generic {{Panama-stub}} is viable excluding both geography and -bios. But since we don't have enough for a separate -geo-stub yet, I still think the generic one should be created (giving the same situation as with some of the European countries). Valentinian (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm of the view that there should be at least a stub template for every country, full stop, and probably a -bio-stub and -geo-stub too, so that stub-sorting by country doesn't require any second-guessing as to whether they exist. (If SPUI can spend the donors' money on disk-space for templates with silly and confusingly non-NC templates that we have to then spend process-page disk-space to delete, I don't see why we should fret about doing that much.) If they're not (each) of adequate size, upmerge (to each other); if they are, create the category. This follows from the general principle (which I hereby explicitly propose) of, when doing a split, do so symmetrically from the point of view of stub-sorters. Alai 01:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • euuuh...while that's fine in principle, I'm not overjoyed with it in practice. We have a SouthAfrica-bio-stub, but the idea that that should mean creating 55 new templates for Africa-bio-stub - one for each of that continent's other countries - doesn't thrill me much. Similarly, I don't see that having an NZ-bio-stub means that there'll ever be a need/poracticality for Nauru-bio-stub. It just strikes me as overkill, and will simply clog up the categories with templates, making it harder to keep track of how many actual stubs they contain. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point isn't whether they'll ever be needed for a threshold-passing stub category (though "ever" is a long time), as that if we've created the expectation that places and people are split by country, it's a needless annoyance to have sorters attempt to put them into stub types that then turn into redlinks (especially if this involves successively trying country-bio-stub, then country-stub, and discovering neither exists). I don't see much difficulty in the "clogging" aspect; they're all sorted together, if they're excessive in any given category, they can be top-sorted (or even hidden, as some people already seem to be fond of doing for no particular reason), and if they're redirects they won't show up in any case. I stress, this is a matter of regularity and expectation, as opposed to the "create as many confusing and badly-named redirects as can be thought of" approach. Alai 03:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If such a system is implemented, I think it should only be one generic template per country, and I don't think it'd be a good idea regarding Oceania and the Caribbean. Europe, Asia, the American mainland and Africa seem to make more sense to me. Valentinian (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm definately against such a system. It would mean completely changing the policy of only creating stub categories, which hold more than 65 (or more or less, depending on who you ask) stubs, with the known exceptions. I definately think that this was a good policy. Anyway, if this decision is to be made, this isn't the place to decide a fundamental policy change so the discusison would have to be taken elsewhere.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 18:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it wouldn't involve such a change, because I'm not proposing any change as regard stub categories. Are you really suggesting that, for example where we've split half of the sub-regions of a country, we scrupulously avoid creating even templates for the others, thereby requiring stub-sorters to maintain an ever-changing list in memory of which have currently been split out? (Or to consult the list?) And forcing people to use a generic-country-stub, even when a split may be imminent, then requiring re-sorting of them all? Our collective to-do list seems long enough to me, I don't think we need to be adding to it unnecessarily. Frankly, I find it a bit puzzling to see any opposition to this at all, especially given the creation-spree of essentially meaningless redirects (that we're then in practice rarely able to ever get rid of). Or perhaps said opposition is partly motivated in (over)reaction to that? Or just a symptom of the widening gap between the proposals list, and actual stub creation? Alai 18:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case, I've created and populated the proposed templates. Valentinian (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italy, Germany, France composer stubs[edit]

Composer stubs are overpopulated. German and French bio stubs are also overpopulated. A search brings up 90-130 results which mostly seem relevant, so I believe they'll all make threshold. Crystallina 01:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Looking at double-stub counts I see over 300 European composers, so a parent category of Category:European composer stubs would also seem useful, and highly likely to be viable even once the above are "depleted" from it. Alai 05:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Alai. Valentinian (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks like a good split. Grutness...wha? 07:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More royalty stubs[edit]

On the basis of double-stub counts, the following are viable, and will each help empty one oversized parent (Category:European royalty stubs and Category:Indian people stubs, with Category:Asian royalty stubs, Category:German nobility stubs and Category:Irish people stubs):

I notice that the lastfirst has already been created, though not fully populated. Alai 01:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I missed India when creating the others, but I was expecting both Germany and India. Full support from here. Valentinian (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've populated the Indian one. It is up to 161 articles. Valentinian (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the two others, it just struck me: shouldn't they be -nobility-stubs? The German material seems to be more related to nobility than actual royalty. I'm not sure which name characterizes the Irish material best. Valentinian (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a category for German nobles: that's where the double-stub count is from. Indeed, it bears a message, "There is presently no stub category for German royalty: it is necessary to use both {{Germany-noble-stub}} and {{Euro-royal-stub}}": obviously it was felt to be necessary rather a lot! I can upload a list of the double-stubbees if you wish to review 'em (I notice CatScan still seems to be unwell). Alai 23:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't checked that one, point taken. If you make the list, I'll be glad to fix them. You are absolutely right that the toolserver is still not functioning properly - which somewhat annoys me, since it upsets my plans to do a few more counts for new national templates. Liechtenstein is getting close and it bugs me that Luxembourg has both a -bio and a -geo but no {{Luxembourg-stub}}. Liberia is probably over threshold too. Well, counting by hand still works, but it *is* nicer to have a machine do the donkey work. I have a number of countries on my list that need counting. Valentinian (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the list. I've even worked out how to avoid screwing up the unicode characters, woo-woo. Beats me what's going on with the toolserver: StubSense seems to be essentially OK, while CatScan appears to be entirely broken. I don't get why there's a deep problem, as neither should depend on the complete db dumps (that are failing), but just on the smaller ones such as page and category data (that are fine, though unreasonably slowly updated due to the way the cycle's being run). Asking on meta hasn't actually produced an avalanche of answers. I'd support any <country>-stub where's there's already a viable -bio and -geo; not having the "missing" supercategory and template is just pointlessly annoying. Alai 01:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Germany done. Valentinian (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good man. Anyone else that wants to tackle any other listfuls, just say the word and I'll upload 'em. Alai 22:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin-legal-phrase-stub[edit]

There is already a category for Category:Latin legal phrases, but no stubs category. I propose to create one as a sub category of Category:Law stubs and to move all the phrases from there. There's at least a hundred of these stubs on Google. Caveat lector 17:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, would Latin legal phrases be double-stubbed as {{Latin-vocab-stub}} and {{law-stub}}, in that case? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Support. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole purpose of creating a {{legal-latin-stub}} is to take articles out of heavily overcrowded {{law-stub}}. Double stubbing would defeat this. There is already a stub for phrases - {{vocab-stub}}, but these should really be in Wiktionary. You could always create a {{latin-vocab-stub}} as well. The point about having a {{legal-latin-stub}} is that these Latin phrases describe legal concepts, doctrines remedies and orders which have a meaning above and beyond a mere translation of the Latin phrase. As I pointed out there is already a specific category for Category:Latin legal phrases just not for stubs. Caveat lector 16:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
looks like there are only about a dozen in vocab-stub so leave it at just legal-latin-stub - but something will need to be done about the vocab cat soon since its onto its fifth page. perhaps someone needs to go through and afd some of them... BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do recall that there's over 100 stub types that are on their fifth page ("and the rest", for many of them). Can't panic about all of them at once! Though, I do rather like the Gordian solution proposed... Don't we have enough articles yet? :) Alai 00:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:) well, it does say in the cat that a lot of them are probably candidates for moves to wiktionary. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good point. Doesn't sound like the easiest of kills, oversized-type-wise, but kudos if you manage it... Alai 01:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{defensiveback-stub}}[edit]

And here it is. Football bios down to 5 pages, clutter from the draft is sorted. Time to put the last nail into the coffin until it hits 5 pages again and I figure out what major positions are left. Crystallina 03:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, and congrats! I reckon you have the full offensive and defensive teams covered now, unless you want to split off the tight ends as a separate type from the offensive line (or more strictly to make it a sub-type, I'd think). After that, perhaps kickers, and coachs and other non-playing ancillary types. Special teams might be splittable, but I suspect that's as often a "sideline" for someone as their main notability. Alai 03:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuesport-stub[edit]

Category:Billiards, snooker and pool stubs currently has one stub: {{Snooker-stub}}, which is specific only to snooker. I realized there was a problem after I reverted two stub sorts using that stub, one for Billiards table and another for Cue ball, both of which do not fit under the too-specific snooker stub. After I left a message on the user's talk page about the revert, we had a discussion about creating a generic stub for the category. However, after I was bold and went ahead and created the stub, {{Cuesport-stub}} I only then realized that it should be proposed here. Mea culpa--I have never created a stub before and jumped before I looked. I then removed it from the category so it won't be used prior to approval here. Of course, if not approved, I will {{db-author}} it. There are many articles in the area currently under the overbroad sport-stub or game-stub, and which would also not fit under the too inclusive snooker-stub, or aren't stub tagged at all but probably should be. In addition to the two I reverted, there are: Ten ball, Billiard Congress of America Hall of Fame, Russian billiards, German Open (snooker), Beer-In-Hand which probably should be on afd, Bumper pool, Face Off, Hexapool, Pool hustling, Banks (billiards), Chinese Eight Ball, Golf (billiards), Bagatelle, 1927 World Snooker Championship, Billiard room, Pocket (billiards), Carambole billiards, Straight Pool, Billiard ball, Pool hall...among a host of others. I also propose that either we get rid of the snooker stub and always use the generic, or we must make the snooker-stub analogue for the other major cuesport disciplines, pocket billiards (pool) ({{Pool-stub}}), and carom billiards ({{Carom-stub}}. However, even if we do so, we will still need the generic stub for things which are not specific to any one subdiscipline, like cue ball, for instance. I do think though that one inclusive stub is all we need given that the number of article are limited right now, and the subject matter probably limits the number of possible future articles, no matter how large Wikipedia grows--Fuhghettaboutit 03:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is all under discussion already, further down the page. We seem to have reached consensus on three separate templates - snooker-stub, billiards-stub, and pool-stub... except that pool could refer to swimming venues, so it could be a problem. A single cuesports-stub instead would be a good idea, though. Grutness...wha? 03:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Support the proposed new template, strongly oppose deletion of {{snooker-stub}}: we just thrashed that out at SFD, consensus was to upmerge, not to delete the template. If there's significant numbers of stubs for the other games, I have no objection to the creation of the additional templates for convenience in subsequent splitting. (pool-stub and billiards-stub were specifically mooted, I just didn't preemptively create them when doing the rescope.) Alai 03:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Games stub[edit]

I propose creating a stub for the Southeast Asian Games, and Asian Games called {{asiangames-stub}}. It would help organize the sports-stub [21], since there seems to be at least 100 stubs which are about these events. Mike 01:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, but the template sounds a little bit ambiguous to me. Aelfthrytha 01:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestions for a better template name? Mike 02:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, that's Grutness's department!Aelfthrytha 04:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fuff. Don't look at me - I went to bed an hour ago :) Grutness...wha? 12:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems slightly mix and match, given that these two events have different scopes, frequencies, etc. Perhaps with two different templates, one with a "SE" thrown in? Support though, on the basis that the sports-stubs do need bashed into shape somehow. Alai 02:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm trying to slim it down so that I can find topics i'm interested in expanding more easily. There are some other stubs which I think would be good, but this is my first proposal, so i'm taking baby steps Mike 04:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oslo geography stubs[edit]

I couldn't bear to see two Scandinavian categories being upmerged yesterday, so I've populated them. Oslo is now up to around 80 stubs so the category should be recreated. Unfortunately, I could only get Vest-Agder up to 53 (grrr.) Valentinian (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is now used on 56 articles. Valentinian (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that as good as nomination on SFD is for encouraging population, actual deletion may actually be better. :) Support, and suggest we might as well "speedy" this. Alai 01:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also has to do with my calendar. I mostly have time for this kind of work in weekends. :) Valentinian (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy create, was discussed before. Conscious 19:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I don't hear any massive protests, I'm being (slightly) bold and re-creating it. Valentinian (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other deleted category - Vest-Agder - is now up to 62 articles. I'm extremely close to just propose it again. It's somewhat odd having categories for all counties except one. Valentinian (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The latter one has been recreated as well. See listing above. Valentinian (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Turkey-geo-stub}}[edit]

This stub category is just too large. I propose breaking it down to more digestable chunks. Refer to Geography of Turkey for the following info.

The 1st Geography Congress, held in Ankara between 6-21 June 1941, divided Turkey into seven regions after long discussions and work.

These regions were:

  • Black Sea
  • Marmara
  • Aegean
  • Mediterranean
  • Central Anatolia
  • Eastern Anatolia
  • Southeast Anatolia

I suggest we structure {{Turkey-geo-stub}} accordingly

--Cat out 19:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent suggestion. In fact, the same proposal was made on 20 April [22], and the following templates were all approved.
Feel free to create them and populate them. Valentinian (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I proposed this and would have already created it except that I realized I have no idea what format to name the associated new categories with. Help? Aelfthrytha 00:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest something like "<noun phrase> [rR]egion of Turkey stubs", and/or <adjective> Turkey stubs". The former would work for all seven, and seems preferable for the first two; the latter seems more natural for #3-#7. Alai 01:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the first one better for the first four actually because it makes it clear what the gibblet the category is about, but for the last three it just doesn't sound natural to me (the first option). But there is the problem of consistency, no? Aelfthrytha 01:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you prefer the "region of" form, "Central Anatolian" (etc) would be the somewhat more natural form in those cases, I suppose. Alai 02:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! You're also missing out the word geography! I'd go for "Xnoun region of Turkey geography stubs" for all of them, though for some the "region of Turkey" bit isn't really needed. Grutness...wha? 02:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont like that. Those are inconsistant and have abriviations. We need a uniformal way. And the word "Turkey" should be in all for consistancy. {{BlackSeaTurkey-geo-stub}} etc... --Cat out 19:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case the Turkish material will become inconsistant with its similar examples (see WP:WSS/ST). Couldn't you show the relation to Turkey by adding a flag to the templates? The "TR" is used only when a region can be confused with a different country (e.g. the Mediterranean), and the use is consistant with similar examples (e.g. the Netherlands and the U.S. state of Georgia.) You can see the old discussion further down the page. Valentinian (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the stub templates in question makes it clear within the template text that the template relates to Turkey, so there should be no need to add a flag. I wouldn't virulently oppose adding it, but I am trying to lessen the load on the servers by not adding images to new stub tags. That should be kept in mind. Aelfthrytha 04:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two more Churches stubs[edit]

I would like to propose to add the following 2 new subcategories under "Churches": Four more countries have reached the 65-stub threshold for splitting - in one case, though, the template name may need a bit of debate. I'd like to propose:

If you do a search on "chinese church", you will find 2073 search result items and there is NO specific subcategory to cover that.

The reason I proposed the new subcategory "Churches by Language" is once we add "Chinese Churches", then I can think of Korean, ..., and other churches which we can group by language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.69.117.36 (talk • contribs)

  • Category:Church stubs don't look that big to me, considering that several articles there in belongs in Category:Catholic churches stubs. And I think you might be confusing stubs with categories... --Eivindt@c 19:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The suggested names of these stubs are not ideal. More importantly, Category:Church stubs is very small. There is no way near enough material for a Chinese stub, and other suggestions do not look promising either. I don't think we can find 60 for a single country, so I'm against this one. Valentinian (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps the person suggesting this is confused about what the difference between stub categories and main categories is. we dont need these as stub cats but if there are that many articles theyre needed as main cats. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does sound like that, true. I don't think these are needed - neither church-stub nor (in the latter case) China-struct-stub is over-full. Grutness...wha? 02:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people stubs[edit]

Eight days on, I renew my call to upload these inconsistent and insupportable categories because there was no consensus last time:

What's a Utah person, anyway? These are not serious. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, there was no consensus last time; eight days is a little soon to be "re-opening". And as I mentioned, SFD is technically the correct venue. Alai 02:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Withdrawn. Off to SfD. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain stub[edit]

In adding pages for mountains, I've noticed quite a few that need additional information, and I've added a few (and would like to add more) for which I don't myself have time to do comprehensive research. So I'd like to propose a {{Mountain-stub}} to mark these, with possible geographic (but not country-specific) sub-stubs if demand grows, i.e. {{Rocky-mountain-stub}} and {{Himalaya-mountain-stub}} denoting ranges, with the requisite {{Category:Mountain stubs}}). These should be used in addition rather than instead of geo-stubs, since editors wishing to contribute might do so on either basis. I suspect that this stub (or set of them) should also be documented in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains.

-- ghoti 17:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, but I would suggest that you uncapitalize the first letter of the generic stub format (i.e. {{mountain-stub}}. Aelfthrytha 00:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose as per last time someone suggested this. and if you look at WP:STUB youll see that it mentions that geographical items are always split by location not by type. weve also deleted umproposed templates in the past that tried to split by type of place. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also strongly oppose for the same reasons BL gives. We've been through this suggestion before and it was rejected for exactly those reasons. Grutness...wha? 02:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, and of course I agree that geographic divisions are the norm in many stub categories ... but I've read WP:STUB, and it's inconsistent. As a person interested in mountains, if I want help expand stub articles, I should be able to find them using a stub that relates to them. Cultural, political, education, etc. stubs all make sense to slice up by country. Mountains do not. (Buildings and structures are divided by multiple criteria.) One could as easily divide mountains up by rock type, or range. Note that "Company" stubs are also divided by type -- Leisure, Food, Film, Finance, etc, even though each company also exists within a particular country. Should these divisions exist in Categories instead, with a bare {{stub}} to mark them as unfinished? Should the non-geographic divisions in Sport, Mathematics and others be replaced with geographic-only divisions? -- ghoti 11:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're largely comparing apples with oranges here. Company stubs are divided up by type because many many companies exist across multiple countries and continents. Similarly sport and mathematics are worldwide phenomena, and splitting them by country is not a good method - it makes far more sense to spelit by type of sport and ignore geographical boundaries entirely (sportspeople and mathematicians are a different matter, since these are people from a particular country). Mountains very rarely move from place to place and - except when they are on a border - are usually just in the one country. As such dividing them up by location is a clear and obvious method of splitting them. As to buildings and structures, the ortogonal split by type of structure and location creates merry hell with the categories and is IMO an almost complete failure. I would rejoice if the separate stubs for stadia, churches, etc were deleted, as most buildings are far better known by local editors than by editors of a particular type of structure (which will a Brazilian sports fan know more about, a church in Brazil or a stadium in Bulgaria?). The main problem is that many editors not connected with WP:WSS think that articles can only have a maximum of one stub template. So they remove the location one to add the type one or vice versa. So far, we've managed to stop that from happening with geo-stubs, and it's still very easy for editors interested in a particular type of feature to find the articles they want. Interested in the Rockies? Try BritishColumbia-geo-stub, Washington-geo-stub, and Oregon-geo-stub. The Alps? Switzerland-geo-stub and Austria-geo-stub. And even if mountain-stubs were a reasonable idea, splitting by mountain range would be a horrible thought, since it would cut deep through the country-specific hierarchy. Grutness...wha? 01:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with additional comments. Additionally to this, the average editor or reader will find it significantly easier to classify mountains based on country rather than the other aspects of them. Part of an encyclopedia is ease of access to information, and as a result it is essential that the articles be classified in an approachable way. And Grutness, if we did it by mountain range, can you even imagine the debates over where certain ranges begin and end? Oy. Aelfthrytha 04:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused. You say support, but your additional comments sound as though you're opposing - which is it? Grutness...wha? 06:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: I mean that I am supporting you, you dingbat. Aelfthrytha 04:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Himachal Pradesh Geo Stub[edit]

I would like to propose the {{HimachalPradesh-geo-stub}} as a sub category to Category:India geography stubs as there are many articles under the main category which should be categorised within this sub category. Being a novice, I actually created the stub before reaching this page Thanks --ramit 11:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objection if there are 65 stubs that can use this template and/or it shows definite signs of growth. If there aren't, though, then it may get sent for deletion. I've fixed the strange parent this category had, BTW. Grutness...wha? 13:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dad's Army Stub[edit]

This is the second time I have proposed the {{Dads-Army-stub}} as a sub category to United Kingdom television programme stubs. This time there are a lot more pages that will take this stub and also there is a WikiProject Dad's Army, (sorry the page is not complete yet, but it is U/C). Not only will the character pages take this stub, but a few others and me are currently making pages for all the Dad's Army Episodes, which amounts to more than 80 pages. I hope you will consider my idea. Thankyou Mollsmolyneux 09:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are currently 30-40 stubs, then it would seem reasonable - but definitely not under that name - stub templates don't have spaces or apostrophes, as we would have told you if you'd proposed it before making it (grrrrr!!!!) next time, follow the instructions! Also, the icon on this stub is impossibly large, and you're bound to get complaints from some quarters about adding the link to the WikiProject, even if it's re-spelt correctly. Iff this gets the nod, might I suggest changing the icon to one of those triangular Union Jacks, like in the opening credits? Surely they would be easy enough to make an icon of, and are a distinctive icon for the series. Also, if kept the category will need stub-cat parents. Grutness...wha? 12:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Grutness, this needs reformatting and a smaller icon, not to mention the other stuff. Aelfthrytha 15:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a several problems with the image in the stub, first of all it's copyrighted, I don't think this usage falls within fair use (AFAIK). And when redused to an acceptable size for stub usage, it's almost impossible to tell what it's supposted to illustrate. I suggest it be removed from the stub-template. --Eivindt@c 15:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Eivind. Valentinian (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that {{DadsArmy-tv-stub}} - or even just {{DadsArmy-stub}} might be a preferable name, to stop it from being confused with any actual army stubs (and no, using "tv" wouldn't mean that any stubs about the film would miss out, they could be covered by the same template!) To come back to my suggestion for a possible icon, I've made a rough at Image:Dadsarmyicon.png to show you the sort of thing I was thinking of. The WikiProject would know far better than me whether it's suitable, but it does have the advantage of being reproducible small without any problems. How does this look?
This Dad's Army-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Grutness...wha? 09:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I had a similar thought for the icon -- I think we must both be dating ourselves. (Shouldn't it be a little more obtuse, though?) I'd disagree on "DadsArmy-tv-stub": I think tagging Home Guard and Volkssturm units with DadsArmy-stub is unlikely (even in the first instance, and after the resultant aversion therapy, even less likely to be repeated...). Alai 09:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean I can do it Mollsmolyneux 18:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the comments, procedure says to wait a week from date of proposal. Aelfthrytha 04:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems this template was put into use. Was it approved ?????
Not especially clear either way. Certainly seems to be rather small, though to be fair it's only existed for a week. Alai 22:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four more geo-stubs[edit]

Four more countries have reached the 65-stub threshold for splitting - in one case, though, the template name may need a bit of debate. I'd like to propose:

My personal preference for the last one is {{CentralAfricanRepublic-geo-stub}} with a redirect at {{CAR-geo-stub}}, but if anyone's got any opinions on this, then now's the time to note them! Grutness...wha? 08:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The long name is probably the best one (as the "official" name anyway). Support naturally. Valentinian (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Horror novel stubs / {{horror-novel-stub}}[edit]

There are currently about 58 articles that belong solidly in this category. WikiProject Films is in the process of separating book and film articles; many are for horror films, thus will feed this cat. Plus I hear on WikiProject novels that other editors are finding articles to feed it, so I think it's definitely viable. Her Pegship 05:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Sounds good to me. Alai 05:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this seems viable with more potential than my Gothic attempt. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It'll have no problem reaching threshold.

Done and ready to fill. Her Pegship 04:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canada television stubs, and other TV irregularities[edit]

As was noted elsewhere, the TV hierarchy is very haphazard and irregularly named. In particular, in some cases the "<country>-tv-stub" template feeds into a general TV category for that country, and in others that template is for TV programmes specifically (and the general category may or may not exist). I suggest we create the umbrella cat in each such case (and a template if required), and rename the <country>-tv-stubs to <country>-tv-prog-stubs. (Technically the latter should be done at SFD, of course, but perhaps we can simply "acclaim" here, with less heckling.) Alai 03:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support and what about <country>-tv-movie-stubs as well? There is a tv-movie-stub cat already, although I see that it has only (!) 145 articles in it. Her Pegship 04:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plausible, if the stubs can be found for it. I'm sure they exist, but who knows where they might be hiding... (Deep within Category:film stubs, I'm guessing... Silly question, why don't we have Category:United States film stubs? Alai 05:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not so silly! At least 233 articles currently in Category:American films qualify as stubs...and that doesn't include those waiting in the wings at Category:Film stubs. The thing is, in order to wrestle with the large film stub cat, it seems we look for the film's genre first, and if it doesn't fit neatly into a genre, it goes under the country of origin. Then, if a genre sub-cat gets too full we can shift some of those into the country sub-cat as well. Sooooo...my point (and I do have one) is that Category:United States film stubs would contain only films from the U. S. that don't fit into a genre. As we are a genre-driven market, this type of film would be unusual. My theory, and welcome to it...Her Pegship 19:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Something needs to be done with the tv-stubs, and if Alai (or anyone else) is willing to work out a better system for it, I'm certainly prepared to give them fairly free rein to do so. Grutness...wha? 08:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Since the stub category for films made for TV has been renamed to {{tv-film-stub}}, if we go with <country>-tv-film-stubs, we should be sure to name the stub cat accordingly (for example, {{Canada-tv-film-stub}}). ♥ Her Pegship♥ 05:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive26&oldid=1100705720"