Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

Slovakia geography stubs - completion

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

The result of the debate was create upmerged templates, cats as needed.
There are existing stubs for 6 of Slovakia's 8 kraje (counties or regions). The missing two are:

I don't have such detailed statistics, but I've begun adding translated stub articles from the Slovak project related to Bratislava, e.g. Trnavské mýto, Račianske mýto and Šancová street

MikeGogulski 22:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support on spec, at the very least as upmerged templates, and there should certainly be scope to populate categories if the others are anything to go by. Alai 05:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I've crunched the numbers from the last db dump: there's some undersorting to existing types, especially {{Košice-geo-stub}}, but Trenčín has a latent pop of 261 -- so super-strong support for that. Big enough that it's perhaps worth thinking about splitting or at least upmerged templates per-district, though unfortunately there's no categorisation by those, so it couldn't be automated at present. Bratislava isn't quite there at 34, but that's likely an undercount. Alai 05:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Splif of {{England-footy-bio-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create.
Category:English football biography stubs is oversized, we already have subcats for different positions but a lot of the articles seem to be players that don't state the position that they play i propose (without figures to back up)

Will act as a new parent for current categories

And thats me proposed out for a while. I guess I've spent to long in the sport-bios but these should keep me off the streets and out of trouble for a while, well at least the upcoming bank holiday weekend. Waacstats 23:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

US airport stubs, by region

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

The result of the debate was create.

US airports are oversized, but no state is catted over 60. (Texas is getting close at 53.) Suggest traditional approach, courtesy of the USCB. Alai 18:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Bird order stubs

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

The result of the debate was create upmerged templates, cats when 60+ are verified.
If I were to say "the birds are oversized again", what I'd really be thinking would be "holy crap, where did all those bird-stubs come from!?". A mere ten days since the last db dump, at which point these were "only" on their fourth page, they're now on their seventh. And we're probably over a month away from the next accurate db dump, so I can only present the old numbers, and apply a "even if he's lying, he's John the Baptist" factor.

I may defer doing anything about these until I have more of an idea which are more likely to be strictly viable. Alai 18:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Operas by language

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

The result of the debate was create.

Not in urgent need of splitting, but these look viable if anyone feels so inclined. Alai 03:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

New geo-stubs

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

The result of the debate was create SouthGeorgia-geo-stub, WAntarctica-geo-stub, EAntarctica-geo-stub.
Hi all - just completed the latest tally-up of countries without geo-stubs... two candidates this time:

  • Vanuatu, which has had a template for a while, now has 72 stubs - enough for its own geo category.
  • The other one is trickier - South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is at the right size for template-only... but what to call it? I'd favour {{SouthGeorgia-geo-stub}}, since the South Sandwich islands are regarded as part of the same dependency/territory/whatever, in the same way that we have SaintVincent-geo-stub and not SaintVincentandtheGrenadines-geo-stub. Other suggestions are welcome, though.

Grutness...wha? 08:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

    • Those are fine with me, though if you're feeling you're otherwise trampling the poor oppressed Sandwichians(?) underfoot, you could always create an additional {{SouthSandwich-geo-stub}} template. BTW, what minumum size are you working from? Alai 23:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Just realised I never answered this - 60 for categories, 30 for upmerged templates. Seems reasonable that as many "countries" (by whatever definition) as possible should have their own plain stubs and geo-stubs, and 30 seems a reasonable size for an upmerged template even if not for a separate category. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I'd certainly support any over 30 for a template, but it's not clear to me why we'd need a lower limit for that at all (as opposed to the limit of creator initiative and effort, which is always a factor). Not that it's currently too likely anyone will sort a country-stub, country-bio-stub or country-geo-stub and get a redlink, statistically speaking... Alai 01:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
      • It is pretty arbitrary, and I've lowered it from 40 when I started doing the template-only ones. But below 30 you do start to run into problem situations, which will crop up sooner or later anyway, but it's probably better to deal with each one on an individual basis rather than doing the lot as a big batch (an example - the status of the Netherlands Antilles is in the process of changing to several autonomous parts of the Netherlands). Lowering it a little further, to 25 say, or simply doing several of the remaining non-controversial ones, wouldn't be much of a problem. Perhaps I should just propose some of the other non-controversial ones sometime soon and et them out of the way. Grutness...wha? 02:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I've no objections to body-swerving anything that's controversial, fluid, or more trouble than it's worth, I just don't see a rationale for purely size-based lower limit. Which isn't to say I'm demanding all of them At Once, just on the proverbial (if not to say hypothetical) eventualist scenario. So if you're using it essentially to prioritise, that makes perfect sense. Alai 05:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • That's pretty much it, though I can't see much need yet for, say a SaintPierreMiquelon-geo-stub (currently no stub articles at all). There are a bunch in the 20-30 stub range which I might give a hurry along too soon, though. TYo be honest, I've been sneaking in one or two unproposed ones every now and again anyway, since they're so obviously non-controversial (like SanMarino-geo-stub). Yeah, I know, don't do as I do, do as I say :) Grutness...wha? 05:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
        • To defend you from yourself, I'd have to say that they were not so much "unproposed", as "unenumerated". (Don't even ask how many Illinois county templates I've created lately, many of them with, yes, exactly zero population...) Alai 05:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the scope of {{Antarctica-geo-stub}} currently includes the sub-Antarctic islands such as South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, how about {{UK-subAntarctic-geo-stub}} or even better expand the scope to {{subAntarctic-geo-stub}} and split them all out from {{Antarctica-geo-stub}} (and which might even have enough for a category of its own). The Antarctic geo stubs are at 778 so they will need splitting soon. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • StubSense reports 93 Sub-antarctic stubs of which 56 use {{Antarctica-geo-stub}} and 24 use {{UK-Atlantic-geo-stub}}, so there's definitely enough to split out a separate {{subAntarctic-geo-stub}} with a category of its own from the Antarctica type. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know that that's the best scope and name for the UK territories, but I didn't realize there were sovereign territories being sorted along with the {{Antarctica-geo-stub}}. Logically that would cover only the domain of the Antarctic Treaty, which are accordingly not part of any state, whether geographically Antarctic or sub-, so certainly those should be the first to be separated out. Alai 00:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Seems there's a bit of a misapprehension here, and Alai is right. {{Antarctica-geo-stub}} is not used for UK Atlantic territories - or at least, shouldn't be being used for it. The South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands get {{UK-Atlantic-geo-stub}}, since they are not covered by the Antarctic Treaty. However, the South Orkney Islands, for example, are covered by the Antarctic Treaty and as such get {{Antarctica-geo-stub}}. I'd be against UK-Subantarctic-geo-stub for the same reason - it would include those areas officially in UK territory, and also those where all territorial claims are officially in abeyance. As I mentioned about a year ago, Antarctica-geo-stub is one that may be a difficult one to split, due to overlapping territorial claims (though AAT, Adelie Land and Ross Dependency are fairly clear-cut). If it were to be split, I'd be tempted to split off Subantarctic-geo-stub, to take all places covered by the treaty that are not on the Big Ice itself (all the subantarctic islands). The other option would be to see how far we could get by removing AAT and Ross Dep., though that would lead to inevitable problems later if other areas (BAT? Argentinian AT?) were split off. However, the number of stubs has only been slowly increasing (there were 600 of them a year ago), so it's not urgent yet. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Looks to me like the sub-Antarctic islands would be just about viable, even after the couple of stray UK territories are re-sorted (unless I'm missing more than aren't categoried as such). The Antarctic islands (proper) would also be a viable type. After that (not that that will be on the "to do" list anytime soon, as you say), I'd have to say that landforms seem like the best option; you'll all be shocked and stunned to learn that "mountains" and "glaciers" are the most common such (over 200 and about 100, resp.). Alai 01:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course, the only problem with that is opening up a precedent for landform splits in other continents, and it will always leave a residue of "other" types. I suppose the geo-stubs could always be split by latitude - divide the continent into four quadrants around the Pole and work from there... most of the articles seem to have coordinates. It's also worth noting that a lot of the items in the category aren't actually for geo items - expeditions, organisations and the like. A separate {{Antarctica-stub}} for them is long overdue, could also be added to various explorer-stubs, and would reduce the Antarctica-geo-stub category by about 25 (adding in the explorers would take it up to viability level, I think). Grutness...wha? 02:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • An Antarctic stubs cat sounds plausible enough. Splitting by longitude (not latitude, right?) isn't very appealing. It might be more NPOV than by claim, but it's even more arbitrary. And the trouble with both is that they don't appear to have much in the way of "sub-specialist traction", which is the main motivation for splitting in the first place (well, that and sheer force of habit). Mind you, I don't know how much value the landforms would be either (though there's a glaciology WPJ, they might have something of a vested interest), and the basic human/physical geography doesn't get us very far in this case. So I'd be inclined just to split out the two cats of islands, and kick the rest to touch until someone has a rush of blood and creates another 200 stubs, or demands a sub-type on the basis of some or other specialisation. Alai 02:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
        • The Transantarctic Mountains appear to be an internationally recognized dividing feature of Antarctica that divide the continent into East Antarctica (aka Greater Antarctica) and West Antarctica (aka Lesser Antarctica). That would give us a {{WAntarctica-geo-stub}} and a {{EAntarctica-geo-stub}} which would be both NPOV politically and probably split the category into three fairly evenly. East Antarctica is larger but West Antarctica includes the Antarctic Peninsula which given its relatively northerly latitude is likely to have more articles simply because it gets more people visiting there. And then the stubs that deal with the stuff that's either on the dividing line or otherwise not clearly in either East or West probably would keep teh parent reasonably populated. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
          • The Antarctic peninsula would be a reasonable candidate too from that viewpoint, though E and W does make a lot of sense. Splitting off the subantarctic islands would be a reasonable idea, i think - it would also allow an extra parent category for the Falkland, South georgia, etc geo-stubs. (BTW, it's always "Subantarctic", not "Sub-Antarctic"). Grutness...wha? 23:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

US train stations, by state

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

The result of the debate was create tpl & cat for those listed, upmerged templates for other states.

Yet another recent oversized job. Alai 23:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  • As one responsible for the stubs I heartily endorse the idea. Is there any reason not to go ahead and create them for all states? Mackensen (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Stub guidelines are to create stub cats when there's 60 stubs (or a bit less if there's s dedicated Wikiproject), on the rationale that stubs are as likely to be neglected if they're last to linger in a type that's small and rarely-visited, as one that's honkingly large. But there's no reason not to create a stub template for each state, either feeding into the current parent, or USCB-style regional categories (on the pattern of the US-airport proposal, below). Alai 00:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Iran geography

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

The result of the debate was create Tehran Province geography stubs & upmerged tamplates for others.
BTW, it may be that Iran is the next country worth looking at... Grutness...wha? 06:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that was already discussed, and I think the gist was "too many counties, not enough categorisation", so beyond Category:Tehran geography stubs, I don't have any useful suggestions at present. Alai 22:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
My comment was prompted by a recent SFD (Mazandaran-stub, IIRC). There are upward of 1000 Iran-geo-stubs. It is a problem... I note that Mazandaran is a province, not a county, though - can we not split by the thirty provinces of Iran? Grutness...wha? 00:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, I was looking at Category:Counties of Iran (to which categorisation is low) as against Category:Provinces of Iran (to which it's minuscule). So yes, province would be the natural level, but there's too many of 'em for that to work in the average case, and not nearly enough categorisation for me to tell anything from that. Alai 00:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this is a case of "you make the templates and I'll see if I can populate them"? Some of them must be close to threshold, surely... Grutness...wha? 00:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, seems like a fair deal to me! It's not unlikely that some of them might sneak past 60, plus there's always the possibility of introducing a certain level of grouping. (Historical provinces each contained multiples of the current ones, though that idea was poo-poo'd when I floated it last.) Just a lot of effort to find this out. I'll get back to you once my mouse finger's recovered from Bavaria... Alai 16:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, it's a done deal. Tehran (& province) split out as Category:Tehran Province geography stubs, templates for the other 29. Have fun! BTW, there seems to be very erratic transliteration at work; if anyone has a better guess at the spellings, wishes to shorten the compound stub names, add redirects -- or really wants macrons -- then feel free, as far as I'm concerned. Alai 03:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Back in March there were several templates approved, some of which still haven't been created - would that help? I see {{Esfahan-geo-stub}}, {{East-Azerbaijan-geo-stub}}, {{West-Azerbaijan-geo-stub}}, and {{Razavi-Khorasan-geo-stub}} still missing. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It does help illustrate my point about the spellings... (See the top-sorted and upmerged templates at Category:Iran geography stubs.) Alai 05:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • (after edit conflict) Well, it might if you dropped the unnecessary hyphens...{{WestAzarbaijan-geo-stub}}, {{EastAzarbaijan-geo-stub}} already exist as such, leaving only {{RazaviKhorastan-geo-stub}}, etc. Esfahan may need a redirect from Isfahan, too - both spellings are used, by the look of it. BTW, better make sure that the one for Kurdistan is {{KurdistanIR-geo-stub}}, for obvious reasons! Also, if anyone wants to help tag all of these, I'm hoping to have a by-province list of the Iran geo-stubs on User:Grutness/Ongoing geo-stub splits sometime in the next few days :) Grutness...wha? 05:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The same could be said about unnecessary t's: {{RazaviKhorasan-geo-stub}}. :) Many, many spellings seem to be used, for many of these provinces; as these are just different transliterations "schemes" (I use the term loosely), there's no obvious way to determine these which of these is in any meaningful sense "correct". I have a nervous switch about the abbreviation "IR" for Iran, as someone sent a parcel supposed to go to my IE/IRL address to... no, really! I used {{KurdistanIran-geo-stub}}. One might raise a similar point about the Azars (or indeed Azers), come to that, I suppose. Oh, and .sfahan is currently at {{Isfahan-geo-stub}}, to match the article... though I did notice the province-in-Iran image is at the other spelling, so yes, a redirect one way or the other seems like a plan (at least there only seems to be two spellings for that one). Alai 05:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Uhhh...I'd taken {{KurdistanIran-geo-stub}} to SFD before I read this. I don't think there's much chance of it being mistaken for an Irish stub type :) I also created the template you missed, for Kerman (you made one for Kermanshah, but that's a different province). Oh, and it's pretty disconcerting to be counting up stubs and have the load for Tehran suddenly disappear from the category! As to the different spellings, there are also loads of diacriticals if you're interested in opening that can of worms, too :) Grutness...wha? 07:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, I alluded to the macrons (or lack of), above: another dodgy transliteration issues, so I didn't think it was worth it. I'm also pretty sure I'd already intimated that Tehran (province or otherwise) was over 60 (and the only such on the basis of permcat membership), so I wouldn't think there was any particular need to be counting those; of course, if you were especially looking forward to sorting them... My underlying point on the name is that the postal/TLD abbreviation is far from instantly obvious, and while it might the only country with a "Kurdistan" that begin with "Ir", the general contentiousness of "Kurdistan" as a concept or entity suggests to me that as much clarity as possible is highly desirable. Perhaps I should have added a hyphen, though. Alai 22:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Okay - that makes sense. It's a shame from the consistency point of view, but the IR=Iran or Iraq business does cause an added problem. And as you said, there are enough potential problems with Kurdistan as a stub type without that as well. Grutness...wha? 11:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      • And here's my grumble...if someone else did any closing of discussions (accurately), or checked the "approved" portion of the archive page, I wouldn't have to chase this stuff down. Hrmph. I will be addressing the talk page now, hrmph hrmph. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Update. I'm part-way through the split and have worked out the location of about 70% of the places... at the moment, it looks like Tehran is the only one that will make it past threshold, although Isfahan will probably pass 50 and three or four others should get into the mid-40s. If the three Khorasans were grouped together they would almost certainly get to threshold, but it seems a little arbitrary (though no worse that what we did with Yorkshire in the UK). BTW, while doing this I noticed that there is both a Tehran-geo-stub and TehranProvince-geo-stub - why the double-up? Grutness...wha? 11:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Because everything I populated "Tehran Province" with is actually in Tehran, so lumping them in with the sticks seems inefficient, given the likelihood of future re-splitting (i.e., the usual reason). I'd support grouping by the historical provinces, of which I'm going to guess (the) Khorasan(s) is/are an instance. Ah, an article on same: Khorasan; so just grouping them under that name. For the others, if people object to the historical provincial name, could just enumerate them in the category. But Category:Iranian Azarbaijan geography stubs/Category:Azarbaijan (Iran) geography stubs would seem plausible enough. Alai 02:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Mmmm. I'd been stucking tehran-geo-stub on things in Tehran province without realising there were two templates (and most of the Tehran province articles I've come across were outside the city - must be the ones you left behind :). It'll probably require some sorting if'n we get round to splitting that. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you were expressing perplexity as to why, rather than what. After all, Tehran and Tehran Province are distinct entities, and the template texts are scoped as such. Though at least they're not actually disjoint, like numerous German districts and eponymous towns... Alai 17:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Breakdown of Venezuela-bio-stub

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

The result of the debate was create.
This one is seriously undersorted. I am proposing a {{Venezuela-sport-bio-stub}} with templates for football and baseball for now. Lets also throw in a politician-template too. My guess is that the baseball-bio-stub will very easily pass the threshold (Category:Venezuelan baseball players is over 200 in total).--Thomas.macmillan 20:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Support though it would not have been my first choice of country for a sport-bio-stub there definitly appear to be enough. Waacstats 21:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds sensible. Support per nom. Categories when 60. Valentinian T / C 16:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Scottish scientist stubs

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

The result of the debate was full speed ahead!.
Never mind the Sassanachs, Scotland-bio-stub is oversized; best candidate (aside from re-sorting in general) appears to be this, at 58. Alai 00:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd, I would have thought Category:Scottish engineer stubs would be the likelier candidate considering the stereotype. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The stub sorters canna handle that, Captain :) More seriously, Scottish scientist seems reasonable. I was going to suggest Scotland-sport-bio-stub, but I see we already have that. There;s quite a bit of undersorting, though, by the looks of it... Grutness...wha? 06:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

US-sport-bio... what to do?

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

The result of the debate was create US-Olympic-medalist-stub and US-wintersport-bio-stub.
Now at exactly 800, but I'm a bit hard up for viable sub-types. There is:

Beyond that, things get very thin. If we smooshed the swimmers and surfers together into an upmerged-template container Category:United States water sports biography stubs, that'd make all of 41, plus whatever others might be out there. Beyond that, it's into the realm of hand-counts, or adding more categories... Alai 19:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  • There already is a US-swimming-bio-stub and cat so any swimmers should be in that. Having recently sorted the Wintersport categories I believe that there would be plenty for a {{US-wintersport-bio-stub}} once those are taken out and a good sort of the rest for articles that aren't stubs or should be in another cat it should be well below 800. (I'll look at sorting these this weekend hopefully). Waacstats 12:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Water sports includes activities such as water polo, watercraft racing of various sorts, diving, etc., so while swimmers have a US cat of their own, there could exist a US bio version of {{water-sports-stub}} if the need exists, but with only 2 of the 44 stubs I looked at having a water sport (1 crew rower and 1 surfer) I don't see that as likely being viable at this time. Based on that survey, the only two "possibilities" I see as viable are two other groupings {{US-team-sport-bio-stub}} (5 of 44: 1 crew rower, 1 cricketer, 1 lacrosse player, 1 roller derby skater, and 1 softball player) and {{US-mind-sport-bio-stub}} (4 of 44: 2 chess players, 1 poker player, and 1 speller), but be don't have corresponding stubs at even the non-bio level and I dislike innovating unless it is needed to bring a stub cat down below 800. Between Olympic medalists and winter sportspeople, I think we have enough to thin the U.S. sportspeople down for now. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Neuroanatomy stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
I don't know much about neuroscience, but counting stubs isn't exactly brain surgery (ba-doom). There's 72 {{neuroscience-stub}}s in/under Category:Neuroanatomy, so this looks a plausible place to start. Alai 16:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Area Code stubs?

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.
Articles about area codes seem to be stubs. But either they should not be classified as stubs or they should be moved to the Wiktionary because how much can you say about an area code? Basically, you just say that area code xxx is for region xxx and that is all you can really say. There isn't anything else to say. Look at these examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_code_268 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_code_516

They say all that there is to say about the Area Code. Classifying them as stubs makes no sense since there is nothing more you can say about them. Fanra 15:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

One could also include the history of the area code, such as what other codes have been split from it and or which one it was split from, as well as the dates that those events happened or were proposed. You could also list which exchanges (the second set of three digits) corresponded to which area and local telephone companies before number portability was introduced. So there is potentially a lot of other info, info that might be useful to someone doing research that involves backtracking from a particular phone number. Whether Wikipedia is the place to hold such information is of course a separate question entirely, but there is a good deal of info that could be added. Caerwine Caer’s whines 08:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
And failing all else, they could be merged, say on a per-state basis. Alai 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

zoological medicine stubs?

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

The result of the debate was further discussion at sfd.
I suggest renaming this stub category to "veterinary medicine stub," which is broader, as it appears that currently there is no general veterinary stub category, and according to the article on zoological medicine, the field of zoological medicine pertains to zoo animals specifically. 69.140.164.142 07:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good idea - but better suited to WP:SFD - I'll propose it there. Grutness...wha? 23:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Baden-Württemberg geography sub-types

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

The result of the debate was create.
Another suddenly-large German state, conveniently also having a officially-defined regions:

With upmerged per-kreis templates. (Anyone with an ueber-preference for having categories use parenthical disambiguation wheneven main articles do might prefer "Freiburg (region) geography stubs", but that seems a bit pointless here.) Alai 05:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I came to this page wanting to propose exactly the same! I second this idea. Poeloq 17:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - although can you spell it "Tubingen"? The "ü" in "Tübingen" may be against policy. Goldenrowley 04:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
See Tübingen (region). BTW, correct ASCIIfication would be "Tuebingen". Alai 15:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. No problem with the category name being at Tübingen, though a template at Tubingen (with possible redirect at Tübingen) is in line with what we usually do. Grutness...wha? 02:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Then what "we" usually do is deeply misguided. What's the point of all the hoo-hah about stub categories following the permcats if the templates -- the things people actually use -- are at random misspellings thereof? The template for Tübingen (kreis -- note observation about upmerged templates) really has to be at either "Tübingen" or "Tuebingen". If you really must have "Tubingen", for some reason that escapes me, then add that as a redirect. Alai 03:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Stub categories should follow permcats, sure, but since there are no permcat templates it's a bit mysterious suggesting that the arguments there can be applied to template cases. We went through this before recently, and other than one or two templates using ø, we didn't have any templates that used diacriticals. And that makes sense, for the very sensible reason that not all browsers can cope with them. Most of them don't even have redirects at the "correct" spellings. And if you think that having the standard spelling but eschewing all diacritical marks is random, then I suggest you look up the meaning of the word "random". Mind you, if you want to propose changing all the current templates into ones with diacritical ones, feel free. Grutness...wha? 03:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I hardly think it's "mysterious"; the term "disingenuous" springs to mind in reply, for some reason. Your oft-repeated (and I do mean "oft") mantra is for "guessability": stub templates, like permanent categories (and unlike stub categories, mind you, the context in which you traditionally incant it) actually do have to be "guessed" when they're being applied (if they're not going to be memorised or looked up), which is a pretty powerful argument for consistency in my mind. Not to say, for correctness, that being the spelling likely to be used by those actually familiar with the topic (and especially if they happen to have the local keyboards), whether or not they've looked at other material on Wikipedia. There may not be a permcat for Tübingen (district) yet, but there's highly likely to be one presently, per discussion at the relevant wikiproject, and it's highly likely to follow the name of the article. Shall we take that as read, or would you like to reconvene after the permcat's created? German has a standard spelling without diacritics. If you're going to make up your own, then OK, strike "random", and insert "arbitrary" (or a few other terms that I'll forbear from sharing for the moment). If we were discussing French accents or Swedish non-Latin characters (that don't have ASCII respellings); if I found your "browser" argument compelling (as opposed to reiterated); if several people hadn't showed up last time we "went through this" to tell you how to enable diacritics; and if there were anything wrong with using redirects from an ASCIIfied version, rather than to it, then your self-review of "very sensible" might be apt. But we're not, I don't, they did, and there isn't: hence it isn't. I'm very much inclined to just make all those moves, actually, rather than "proposing" them. (I don't recall much "process" being involved in this move, for example, notwithstanding there already being a redirect at the target, making the whole purported purpose entirely moot.) I see absolutely no case for the correctly-spelt versions being redlinks, if people have been following this alleged practice of creating templates at the ASCII-stripped version, and not even creating a redirect (so moving them would accomplish that much, even if you then moved them all back again). Alai 05:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
For once, I'll have to agree with Alai (tho I hope that fact doesn't make him change his mind). Once we get to such narrow stub types, the only people likely to be applying them are either people who regularly know and use the correct spellings or stub sorters sorting out a parent cat. In either case, guessing, isn't going to be a problem and at worst people who don't readily have available a means to type the diacritics can copy and paste or use the character inserter from the standard edit page. In the case of German there's also the additional fact that it has a standard way of going to the plain Latin alphabet. So in this case I favor a main template of {{Tübingen-geo-stub}}, a redirect from {{Tuebingen-geo-stub}}, and since I will concede that not all stub sorters will know or care about proper German orthography, a redirect from the misspelled {{Tubingen-geo-stub}} as well. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, German has its own version without diacriticals, but it's not used in English. You might as well say that those who can't spell Köln with diacriticals should use Koeln, since Cologne is clearly a misspelling. Similarly, to claim that it would be more logical, if we had a Nürnberg-stub to have its redirect at Nuernberg-stub than at Nuremburg-stub is - to use your word - disingenuous. And before you say that Tübingen is not known as Tubingen in English and therefore isn't comparable, I can point to quite a few atlases that would shopw that where diacriticals are not used in English (and this is, after all, an English language Wikipedia), the German alternative spelling is not used. By way of comparison, Māori is another language with the same situation. We don't have {{Māori-stub}} or the "correct" alternative {{Maaori-stub}} - we have {{Maori-stub}}, since that is (a) the version most widely known in English and (b) the correct version without a diacritical. Suddenly jumping to an alternative form not used in English would indeed be mysterious. As it happens, I have enabled diacriticals on Safari, but I no longer use the earlier browser I had for Wikipedia, since it was impossible to enable diacriticals on it. As for Botosani-stub, the only reason I moved it without proposal (notwithstanding that I was not aware of the redirect, which hadn't appeared in Special:Newpages), was because I thought you had made a mistake with your naming of it, and thought I was doing you a favour by making it uniform with other stub templates. I repeat: Not all browsers can use diacriticals. Standard English tends to eschew diacriticals. Where it does eschew then, a standard English spelling is used which is rarely that used in alternative forms of the language concerned. Grutness...wha? 06:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
In the case of both Cologne and Nuremburg (as well as Vienna, Moscow, Warsaw, Lisbon, Rome, Turin, and other well known foreign cites) there does happen to be a conventional English form that is not a simple repletion of the spelling of the city in those languages, even if as in the case of the examples I cited, there are no diacritics that are the cause. As for Māori, we actually do have {{Māori-stub}} (as a redirect you yourself created) and while the use of double vowels was one proposal for how to differentiate long vowels from short vowels in Māori, which in its original orthography lacked the distinction, nothing I checked indicates that it was ever made official, so that argument would seem rather spurious. To use such cases as a reason to insist that a diacriticless version of a foreign proper noun that uses diacritics and which has no conventional English spelling should be used in the main template instead of as a redirect, because somehow removing the diacritics makes it magically into the proper English-language form when the presence or lack of diacritics has little to nothing to do with whether foreign proper nouns have a distinct English form strikes me as rather disingenuous, to use a word that is being overused in this discussion. Caerwine Caer’s whines 08:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The double vowel is the form used by government departments in New Zealand, and also in many dictionaries of the Māori language. As for Tübingen, you miss the point I'm making. München is usually written in English as Munich, irrespective of the fact that there is a non-diacritical german alternative. Nürnberg is similarly usually written in English as Nuremburg - and Tübingen is similarly normally written as Tubingen. Given tha5t Tubingen is the English form of the name Tübingen, it makes no sense not to use it. As for MMāori-stubori-stub, I'd forgotten I'd made that! But, sigh, if there is enough support for the template itself being at Tübingen, I'm willing to go along with that - as long as there is a redirect from the standard English spelling Tubingen as well.Grutness...wha? 22:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
PS - it's also interesting to note that these stub types will be subtypes of {{BadenWurttemberg-geo-stub}}, not {{BadenWürttemberg-geo-stub}} - something which no-one has ever complained about! Grutness...wha? 22:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Support {{Tübingen-stub}} and the other three. Create redirects if anybody feel like doing so, but please no redirects that are just typos (e.g. "Wuerttemburg"). This will also solve the problem iff a location in Germany actually has the other name. I haven't checked but given the size of the German speaking region ... If a German sorts this material, he/she will expect the common spelling, and if a stub sorter does it, this person will know the proper template names anyway. Let's worry about Aachen/Aix-la-Chapelle, Köln/Cologne and Nürnberg/Nuremberg another day. Caerwine, I presume the "plain Latin alphabet" statement was a slip of the tongue? The English alphabet differs from the plain Latin one, just as is the case for almost all other languages using it (hint: "W") :) Valentinian T / C 08:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I said plain, not classical. We haue 26 basic Latin letters these days not the 23 that the Romans vsed. Caerwine Caer’s whines 09:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
iust as well, too! Grutness...wha? 22:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

UK-structs by remaining regions of England

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

The result of the debate was create.

Having created and populated upmerged B&S templates for every English county, it now looks to me as if all the remaining regions are viable. The third is the smallest, looking around 50, but there's already a county-level cat which would become a sub-type, which just happens to be West Midlands (county). On which topic, sticklers for following article disambiguation precisely might prefer Category:West Midlands (region) building and structure stubs, though I'm personally filing that one under "pointless". I'm highly inclined to speedy at least the first two, unless anyone even more speedily objects. Alai 02:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The permcats are a mess disambiguation-wise for the West Midlands, with most of them seemingly an undismbiguated West Midlands referring to the county. Of course all this is rather confusing to me as I consider Swansea to be part of the western Midlands, so for me a full disambiguation would be West Midlands (UK region). The name you propose is fine until we get some permcats for the region to give a guide for naming the stub cats. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
But Swansea is in Wal-- oh, I see. I notice that the UK definitions are currently bogarting the article-space too: Midlands, West Midlands. If those aren't actually the predominant senses, that would seem like the place to start. Alai 16:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I doubt anyone outside South Carolina is likely to be confused, it's definitely England's Midlands that are the primary meaning, just as the Italian Piedmont is the main one instead of the Appalachian Piedmont. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and there's also Category:North East England building and structure stubs, but that seems a long way off 60 at present. Suggest creation if and when. Alai 17:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Japan-sports-stub

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

The result of the debate was create.
There are a bunch of sports-related stubs currently residing in Category:Japan stubs—over 80 of them. There's already a {{Japan-sport-bio-stub}}, but that only covers people, and this stub would be for all the non-bio articles. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Support A better idea for splitting Category:Japan stubs than culture. Waacstats 12:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
But that's an apples-oranges comparison. They have nothing to do with each other for the most part. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
They are similar in that they are both possible ways of cutting down the number of articles in japan-stubs and I think that sport is a better way to go than culture. Waacstats 20:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Iceland-writer-stub

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

The result of the debate was create.
There are around 70 (and probably a few more) biographies of Icelandic writers which are stubs, and there isn't currently a stub type for them. See User:Switchercat/Sandbox/Icelandic writers for a list of 72 Icelandic writer stubs which I've identified. Switchercat talkcont 03:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

support Looks clear enough to me. Waacstats 12:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
support template and category (Category:Icelandic writer stubs). No problems here. Valentinian T / C 12:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
comment I think the template should be {{Iceland-writer-stub}} as the parent is at {{Iceland-bio-stub}}. Monni 13:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Why didn't I notice it? Yes, it should be {{Iceland-writer-stub}} and Category:Icelandic writer stubs to be in line with the similar material. Valentinian T / C 15:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I've changed the name of the proposal to be in line with that then. Switchercat talkcont 22:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Alabama-people-stub Alabama-bio-stub

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

The result of the debate was do not create.
This would fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject Alabama. I have identified about 130 stubs that would go here which are separate from {{Alabama-politician-stubs}} and {{Alabama stubs}}. JodyB 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support as {{Alabama-bio-stub}}. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • These are traditionally problematic, for the sorts of reasons that the likes of Category:University of Georgia stubs are too: it's tempting for people to apply them to people who were merely born there, or went to university there, etc, etc, rather than having primarily Alabaman notability (of the sort where one would want to, and could validly apply {{Alabama-stub}} to). If there's 60 of the latter, and not just of the former, then support. Alai 18:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm uneasy about this for the reasons Alai mentions. We don't normally split people by subnational region, other than those who can be pinpointed due to holding a political office in a place. People move around too much. It's fine for, say people who helped found the state, for example, but a sportsman who transfers from team to team is going to be far more problematical. I'm not going to outright say no, but I can't really give it my wholehearted support either. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't like it either. People move around. Rocks and cities normally stay put. Valentinian T / C 22:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Japan-culture-stub

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

The result of the debate was create upmerged templates as revised, cats as needed.
I've counted 77 articles that would be categorized by this stub, and I'm only through the J's. I suspect there would be well over 100 (if not close to 200) articles that would fit into this stub. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What sorts of articles? Do they already have {{Japan-stub}} and/or {{culture-stub}}? Could they use a more specific existing stub? Because culture is such an amorphous blob of an abstraction, we've traditionally resisted per country culture stub types. Indeed, I suspect the existing {{culture-stub}} exists solely because it was needed to depopulate {{stub}}. I'm not totally against this proposal, but I'd like some evidence that other stubs couldn't do the job. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's a broad subject, but so is just "Japan". Category:Japan stubs has over 500 items in it right now, and I'm trying to break that into more manageable chunks. Breaking out all the articles having to do with the culture of Japan would likely take 100-150over 200 of those. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"Culture" is a pretty tricky one for the reasons Caerwine says above. Given that you've found 77 by "J", do you think it's possible you could have 60+ overall in several more "graspable" possible splits like Japan-art-stub or Japan-music-stub? That might be easier to assess from the point of view of stub sorting. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I could see {{Japan-music-stub}} as an upmerged stub, though I don't think there are enough for its own category. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm also lukewarm about this, for the above reasons. Nor is {{Japan-stub}} an especially urgent need for splitting, so if more specific types aren't quite viable yet, I'd be inclined to say, wait and see. At a minimum, if this is created as a Category:Japanese culture stubs category, it should be populated from more specific upmerged templates, and not a single -culture- template. By permcat, it looks as if {{Japan-art-stub}} and {{Japan-cuisine-stub}} look plausible. There may also be undersorting to {{Japan-org-stub}} and {{Japan-bio-stub}}. Alai 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The art and cuisine stubs probably won't have enough to be on their own, though I haven't counted for those specifically. I've just been going through all the Japan-stubs and listing those that fall under "culture" in general. And I've been adding the org and bio stubs to articles which are lacking them, or generally stub-sorted into the main Japan-stub. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I take that back. {{Japan-food-stub}} was created back in February as an upmerged stub. It now has 69 articles using it, so I created a category to hold them. I'm not sure about an art stub, however. I'd have to look and see. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to toss in {{Japan-religion-stub}} and {{Japan-festival-stub}} as upmerged stubs into Category:Japan culture stubs, in addition to the suggested {{Japan-art-stub}}. This would help better track the various groups of stubs needing work. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget we have {{Japan-lit-stub}} as well. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
But it already exists, so there's no need to propose it. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed; I was just thinking of its usefulness as a haven for possibly undersorted Japan-stubs. :P Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and I sort things into it when possible. However, it's still not used that much (in comparison to the {{manga-stub}}, for instance, which is technically subordinate to that one). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, here's a breakdown by permcat-tree membership of the Japan-stubs (as of the last db dump):

Usual caveats about undercategorisation on the one hand, and "mysterious" category inclusion on the other, naturally apply. Alai 07:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the correct location for the "people" and "organisations" ones should be fairly self-explanatory, at least :) BTW, Joe, if you do decide to go with a japanese religion stub, it should be at {{Japan-reli-stub}}, not Japan-religion-stub. Mind you, religion is normally split by actual religion rather than country... do we have enough stubs for a shinto-stub, perhaps? Grutness...wha? 07:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, {{Shinto-stub}} already exists and currently has 131 articles listed in it. It goes along with WP:SHINTO. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Split of Election-stub

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

The result of the debate was create templates & cats as proposed; create upmerged templates for countries with more than 30 but fewer than 60 stub articles.
Not surprisingly, {{election-stub}} is overwhelming (over 800). Seeing as the number is so large (and the Canadian elections have already been broken off), I propose the following:

I am not sure what to do with Central America and Mexico, perhaps {{CentralAm-election-stub}}? Also, something just struck me that this may have been proposed previously. Does anyone recall it?--Thomas.macmillan 21:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Why not include Cen. Amer. and Mexico with S. Amer. into LatinAm-election-stub? This would still leave the problem of the Caribbean Island nations. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 15:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Also add {{Oceania-election-stub}}--Thomas.macmillan 22:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Those are obviously very broad: can I suggest upmerged templates on a per-country basis, feeding into categories with the above scopes, either in whole or in part? Alai 00:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I think for many European countries and US will obviously need there own templates and categories. This is just a basis to begin breaking down a behemoth of a stub. Africa will not need any other template than a continental one for now.--Thomas.macmillan 02:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I'd rather see (upmerged) templates created too soon, than too late. How many Africans are there in total, and what's the most populated Africam country? Alai 03:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
        • The largest category is is South Africa with 30. Most others only have a handful of articles, with the vast majority being stubs. I would support a {{SouthAfrica-election-stub}} template but not for any other country on the continent yet.--Thomas.macmillan 14:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
          • When you draw up a list of (upmerged) templates, please add Denmark to the list, we have 49-50 relevant stub articles. They are also listed under Category:Danish history stubs if you want to check :) Valentinian T / C 22:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
            • For anything over 30, we'd be a bit daft not to, in cases likes this. But "as many as possible" (or as many as people have the patience to create) seems to me to be a good appoach, since any time we tag an article with an "agglomerated" template, there's every chance we'll just end up retagging the same article later, when the agglomeration becomes oversized, the per-country population hits 60, or people express general dissatisfaction with the nature of the agglomeration, all of which have regularly happened before, and seem likely to happen ever more often in the future. Alai 23:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear with what has been accepted for the split, we are going to create templates for any country with between 30 stubs and 60 stubs and create the corresponding categories after 60. We will also create the continental templates. Is this correct?--Thomas.macmillan 04:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Split of Field hockey bio stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
I would like to propose the following, based on stubsense figures which I have had a look at to see if any serious over statement is occuring

Chose United Kingdom over British to match other subcats of Category:United Kingdom sportspeople stubs feel free to decide otherwiseWaacstats 23:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Support all. Aelfthrytha 03:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Split of Ice hockey bio stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Similar to above but for ice hockey

Waacstats 23:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Split of golf bio stub

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

The result of the debate was create.
Following the recent split off the United States I propose

stubsense figures again here but expect numbers to be a serious under count as golfers seem not to be well classified by nation. Chose United Kingdom over British to match other subcats of Category:United Kingdom sportspeople stubs feel free to decide otherwise Waacstats 23:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Split of cycling-bio-stub

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

The result of the debate was create.
Another one to follow an American split, I propose

Waacstats 23:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Split of Rugby Union bio stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Three countries have enough articles for a split of this category again numbers from stubsense which I have had a quick look and don't see any problems with, I propose

The Irish category is to correspond with the permcat which is for both sides of the border, I assume this would then have ireland-sport-bio-stub and UK-sport-bio-stub as parents with a re scope of UK-rugbyunion-bio-stub to exclude Irish players. Waacstats 23:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong support. I'm amazed these don't already exist. As for Ireland, NI and the RoI compete together as one nation internationally (a bit like the West Indies at cricket). Grutness...wha? 00:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

New foo-sport-bio-stub

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

The result of the debate was create.
A number of countries -bio-stub categories are between 400 and 800 and a sport-bio-stub category would cut the numbers present by approx 100 in each of the following cases. Note figures below are from stubsense and count only those articles in foo-bio-stub or a template upmerged to there.

All categories would take between 1-3 existing subcats. I also propose the folloing templates whose figures may or may not be included above.

as additional templates. Waacstats 23:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

-bio-stub for 3 sports

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

The result of the debate was create.
We have no stub cats for 10 pin bowling, Volleyball or Sport shooting all of which have more than enough bio-stubs on there own so I propose

The name of the last comes from the permcat title Category:Bowling players anyone have a better suggestion. Waacstats 23:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

-bio-stub split of 4 sports

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

The result of the debate was create.
The following are all viable splits from the relevent -stub category the only thing is I'm not sure how many articles these would leave behind.

The figures are all form stubsense but a look at the categories shows they are likely to be under counted in all cases. . Waacstats 23:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Colombia geo sub-types

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

The result of the debate was create.
Columbia is now nearly at 1200 articles. Some counts, based on old data:

to which add per-department templates upmerged to cats based on the Category:Regions of Colombia, starting with at least:

(since it contains Bolivar Department which has 40, and seven other departments). Alai 07:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Support BTW, it may be that Iran is the next country worth looking at... Grutness...wha? 06:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

New cats US-sport-bio-stub

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

The result of the debate was create.
I proposed 4 templates below that I created early due to free time. All four have over 60 articles so I now propose cats for these (I will wait 5 days this time).

the last with US-icehockey-bio and US-skating-bio as subcats. All this should reduce Category:United States sportspeople stubs from nearly 800 to around about 500 articles.Waacstats 10:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff, and support. Doubtless you'll want to wait the five days for the full benefit of the "United States" vs. "American" bunfight (deep joy). Alai 15:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Given that we have a discussion on the stub naming guidelines talk page that in theory could resolve that dispute (if it ever gets finished), I might have let it go without comment except you threw down the gauntlet.
The convention for permcats that group people is to use the adjectival and all three proposals under discussion on the stub naming guidelines talk page would call for the adjectival form (in this case "American"), so I strongly support creating the categories as I noted above. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind which way we go, the only reason I put United States was because all the stub parent would be Category:United States sportspeople stubs and all the other subcats use United States, so I thought while the discussion is ongoing it would be best to atleast keep some consistency within categories. Waacstats 20:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Consistency within categories -- what a concept. :) Trouble is, we can't have consistency between all categories, so the question is, which, and in which way? It wasn't so much intended as glove-throwing for a fresh bunfight, as a reference to the on-going bunfight CW flags more explicitly. (My own preference is for a consistent attributive within as many stub categories as is feasible, of course, which I suppose I should go state in as many words in said discussion, if and when I can get enough Natracalm in stock. So I'd favour the names in the original proposal.) BTW, "American" in people permcats is not specified as a matter of any convention, though granted it's much the more common case. But I count 536 subcats of Category:American people that use "United States" (generally in some prepositional form), rather than "American". Alai 23:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
It will come as no surprise to you that I'd prefer United States to American, as much as anything because american has wider meanings as well (for example, the book "Essential History of American Art", S. Bailey, Parragon Books, 2001, which lists such American artists as Siqueiros, Rivera, and Kahlo). Both terms are used adjectivally, so there's no real cause for problems there. Going with the permcats would seem the best solution in line with what I've said before on the naming conventions, but if the permcats themselves follow no set pattern, then keeping it consistent with the stub parent has a certain amount of logic to it. Grutness...wha? 04:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
To show that I really don't care which way we go, of the 115 subcategories of Category:American sportspeople all bar three use American, the three that don't are Category:Canadian expatriate sportspeople in the United States (US not used adjectivally), Category:Olympic competitors for the United States (olympic competitor cats use noun form) and the stub catCategory:United States sportspeople stubs
...and to show that even the official authorities can't work out any kind of consistency, I've just been counting up the number of geo-stubs from American Samoa and the United States Virgin Islands :) Grutness...wha? 10:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Synagogue-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create.
With stubs for churches, mosques, and Hindu places of worship there is a similar necessity for a stub designation for synagogues and other Jewish places of worship. There are a bunch of short stub-level synagogue articles on Wikipedia, some of which can be found in Category:Synagogues, and many notable synagogues yet to have articles created, even more reason to have the availability of a stub for when they are started. There are multiple Jewish wikiprojects that I could see associating with this stub, specifically Wikiprojects Judaism and Jewish History. I have created a prototype that can be found here. --Valley2city₪‽ 00:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Hm... seems we crossed paths - I've just listed this at the discoveries page. As it says at the top of the page, propose, then create - not the other way round! As I said at WP:WSS/D, this sounds like a reasonable idea if there are 60 potential stubs (which seems likely) - but it needs more than a redlinked category. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that. After I created the stub I noticed the WP:WSS and thereafter followed the instructions to propose the stub I had already created (I didn't proceed to create a corresponding category after I noticed the instructions). Shall I leave it be while the post-facto discussion takes place or do you think I should Speedy G7 it for the time being? --Valley2city₪‽ 01:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Leave it for now. The template is a very sensible scope - it's the size issue that's the only concern, and if it doesn't get to 60 stubs then it can always be upmerged into the stub categories for religious structures and Judaism. I'd say there's a good chance of 60 stubs, though. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Very sensible in scope, though I get worried about size when people saying that it's useful for all the articles that don't exist yet (since we have no idea as to the ifs and whens). Support in full if there's 60, and just the template, double-upmerged (to the buildings&structures cat and the Judaism cat) if there isn't, until such time as there is. So don't have it deleted, but hold off on the category for now. Alai 02:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It is going to be associated with at least one WikiProject as I mentioned in the proposal so I think it can pass with 30. However, just in categories and subcategories EXCLUDING Category:Synagogues by country (too long for me to check every article) I found at least 32 stubs and many more articles that I would define as stubs. There are likely to be many more in Synagogues by Country than anywhere else. But again, this will be affiliated with WP:JEW as our members collaborate on synagogue articles. --Valley2city₪‽ 02:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The lower 30 stub limit only applies to a stub type that has the same scope as a Wikiproject, so it would apply in this case only if there were a WP:Synagogues. That said, you've identified enough for at least an upmerged template and with what you didn't check, if likely will go over the 60 stub article minimum. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I decided to continue on the 60 quest. I haven't even gotten through the letter "G" yet and I've passed 60. I would posit there are over 100 stubs here. As I have tediously went through the manual count I've noticed nobody has really figured out which stub they should go under up to this point: Judaism, Jewish History, Architecture, Religious Builidings, European Architecture, all of these and more have been used for synagogues. There is a necessity for a synagogue-stub so we can avoid all of this clutter. --Valley2city₪‽ 03:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, good enough, support (without the earlier provisos and contigencies). But let's be clear that this is not a recipe for "avoiding clutter" by way of replacing all of the above by synagogue-stub and nothing else, since that'd be removing them from (potentionally) equally valid "stub expansion routes" (most obviously, people working on the buildings of a given city or state). Use your best judgement in when to add it, and when to replace directly. Alai 03:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Since it has been five days and there is clearly consensus, I will begin to mark synagogue stubs as such, without objections. Could an admin please close? --Valley2city₪‽ 19:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Pathology stubs

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

The result of the debate was create template, upmerge until count reaches 60.
{{Path-stub}} This would be a useful tool for members of WikiProject:Pathology and others trying to expand Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to pathology. Examples of existing or soon-to be created stubs include ~13 subspecialties of surgical pathology, dozens of pages covering tools and techniques pathologists use, pages for famous pathologists, etc. We'd like to map out the pages which are important to the project using stubs first, then fill them in with high-quality articles over time. This stub would be organised under medicine. Thanks. RustavoTalk/Contribs 23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A definite no on the proposed name, as it's way too ambiguous. At ~1900 entries Category:Medicine stubs is way overlarge, tho also way undersorted. No problem with a {{pathology-stub}} and probably not a Category:Pathology stubs tho I would like to see more evidence of existing rather than proposed stubs numbering over 30 before giving a unreserved thumbs up to the cat as well. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (after edit conflict)Sounds like a good idea, but with three caveats. First, as long as there are 30 existing stubs, it's fine, but how many of the ones you mention are simply "soon to be created"? If only a few of them currently exist it might be worth holding off on this for a while. Second, I'm assuming that this would fit in well with other existing stubs and not cause too much overlap. Finally - and perhaps most importantly - path-stub isn't a particularly good name. It sounds like it should be a redirect to track-stub (which is for long-distance footpaths). If the first two concerns are met, though, a {{Pathology-stub}} would seem like a good idea. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Rustavo, Rustavo, Rustavo... whereabouts in the instructions for this page does it say "Propose the stub type, then wait six minutes before making the template"??? {{Path-stub}} is now at WP:SFD for reasons which should be clear from the above discussion. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You've created an odd catch-22 on this page in which one has to create a whole set of stubs before getting the stub label to mark them as such. I was under the impression that those rules applied to adding the stub to the sorting page, not creating it at all (seems like hunting down and tagging the existing stubs with the proposed stub would be a good demonstration of the case, no?) There exists a catagory and a wikiproject for this topic. I'm fine with changing the name, although I'm not sure what the ambiguity is - is there an extensive set of articles on foothpaths? -RustavoTalk/Contribs 01:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but someday, if there is a WikiProject Footpath...Really, if you're going to cite rules here, you should follow them yourself (all of them, like the one about the waiting period). Stub sorting is for organizing articles that already exist. The idea is that as stub-size articles are created, they can be tagged with a more general type (such as {{med-stub}} and then, when there are 60+ of the general type (or 30+ in the case of a Project), a sub-type is proposed. If you read any of the proposals on this page you would see the size and time guidelines, and you would notice that the project focuses on stub categories with, as Alai puts it, honkingly large numbers of articles. How is this a Catch-22? Support {{pathology-stub}}; delete {{path-stub}}. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not quite a Catch-22, but it does sometimes mean doing two sets of work, or more or less the same work twice. (Count then tag, or create then tag.) But the alternative is stub types being created regardless of size, or with vague hopes and good intentions, potentially resulting in lots of little backwater categories. A halfway house is to create an "upmerged" template (populating an existing category), and then propose the category when there's over 60 (or 30+WPJ). Or just to propose it on the basis of an educated guess as to the current population. At any rate, since this does potentially help deplete a "honkingly large stub type" (the meds), I have high hopes for this... Alai 02:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look at [[Category:Pathology]] and its subcategories, you will find that there are several hundred articles listed, at least 1/3 of which, by my partial sampling, are of stub length. Some of them are currently marked with {{Medicine-stub}}, but as noted above, that category is overcrowded. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 01:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The proposal is now {{Pathology-stub}} -RustavoTalk/Contribs 01:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good if it pans out on that basis (and the college try if it doesn't). So, ex post facto support, to coin a phrase. Any objection to speedying of the {{path-stub}} redirect? Alai 02:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
None at all from me. Still don't understand why some people think that doing their own thing is a good way to build a community - and again noting that the new pathology-stub (again created without following the instructions) has no category. Grutness...wha? 02:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks G., though I did rather mean "from the creator". :) Let's cut the guy some slack though: it's not "another unproposed creation", it's the same one, moved in line with your own "most important concern". And if he'd created the category, wouldn't you have complained that that was unproposed, too? So don't shoot him again for the original "crime" just yet. :) Alai 02:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, okay :) What I was getting at, though, is that saying "okay, I'll change the proposal", then instantly making the template could potentially make even more work. What if someone came along here tomorrow - still within the debating period - and pointed out a really good reason why we shouldn't have the stub type? it would just have made more work. Admittedly, that's unlikely to happen, but we have had that sort of situation develop in the past - that's why we have a discussion period, after all. Sorry if I seemed in a grumpy mood, though. Grutness...wha? 07:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

{{pathology-stub}} now marks 56 articles. I encourage anyone to inspect those articles to see for themselves the appropriateness of this stub template. I apologise for neglecting the rules of this page, but I had a good chunk of time tonight to sit down and do this and I just wanted to get it rolling. I do not know how to link a category to a stub (this is obviously my first stub creation) but it can't be that hard, right? Please go ahead and edit the template to improve it as you see fit. Thanks again for the understanding. Again, I will undo all of this in a week if that's the ruling on the forum-RustavoTalk/Contribs 03:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've also just noticed that a significant number of the stubs listed on Category:Medical sign stubs are not actually medical signs (findings of clinical significance noted on physical exam - see the definition on the page itself or in any dictionary) but are in fact microscopic pathology findings. Examples include Mallory body, Fatty liver, Howell-Jolly body, Neurofibrillary tangle, etc. There are also many of these in the general Category:Medicine stubs. So I don't think it would take long to find well over 100 stubs for this template. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 04:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've given it a cat, but for now just an "upmerged" one: i.e., feeding them into Category:Medicine stubs. BTW, there's not much point in just adding this tag to those already with {{med-stub}} (or to longish articles not previously tagged as stubs at all); there's only really a win here if the general tag is replaced by a more specific one (and now that the template's categorised, you can do that without risk of "unstubcategorising" them, regardless of whether it remains upmerged or is given its own category). I'll try and get back here tomorrow with a list of med-stubs in the Category:Pathology cat-tree by way of re-sorting candidates, though given the above sorts of subtleties, probably best if someone familiar with the area does the actual retagging. Alai 05:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I actually want to amend my statement about medical signs. As I was going through Category:Medical sign stubs and the page Medical sign, it became apparent that there are really two definitions of "medical signs" being used here. The narrow definition is the one used at the start of the page Medical sign: clinically significant findings made on physical examination. This actually is a bit too narrow, since I know that the term is also used for characteristic radiology findings, for example. The broader definition of "medical sign", which seems to be followed on Category:Medical sign stubs, is "objective evidence of disease" - essentially anything that is useful in diagnosing a disease other than the subjective "symptoms" reported by the patient. To my mind, there is a difference, both in common usage and in theory, between a "sign" - which is a concept that refers primarily to an appearance or an observation, and a pathologic entity, which is a physical part of the disease process itself. So Levine's sign (patient clutching his chest) is primarily a medical sign, while myocardial infarction is not, even though a pathologist could examine a heart at autopsy, directly observe a myocardial infarction, and thereby diagnose it. Strawberry tongue (seen in certain bacterial infections) is a sign, since it is a term which refers primarily to a diagnostic appearance, while Coccus (a round bacterium) is not, even though identification of cocci under the microscope is diagnostically useful, because the term refers primarily to a physical entity not to an appearance or observation per se. I'd like to request some opinions from members of WikiProject Medicine to get a sense of this since it would have a large impact on the scope of items marked by my proposed stub. I'll hold off on tagging anything else for now.-RustavoTalk/Contribs 01:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed definition for Category:Pathology stubs

"Included are stub articles referring to subdisciplines of pathology (both as a science and a field of medicine), tools and techniques used primarily by anatomical pathologists or clinical pathologists, and gross & microscopic entities which are part of a disease process and are identifiable by a pathologist. Items NOT covered by this stub category include famous pathologists (in Category:Medical biographical stubs), individual diseases themselves (in Category:Disease stubs), pathophysiological disturbances detectable through laboratory testing of serum (remain in Category:Medicine stubs), disease-associated observations notable on physical or radiological examination (in Category:Medical sign stubs) and pathogenic organisms (in Category:Microbiology stubs or subcategories)."

I am confident that well over 60 stubs currently exist which would fit this definition and which do not better fit another stub category. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 03:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly... full. If it'd gone ahead and created it myself, I'd just have linked to pathology. :) (As a parameter to {{Stub Category}}.) I don't think anyone here is questioning you know what's (primarily) related to pathology, but see my comments above as to whether the articles are stubs at all, and about double-stubbing them with med-stub. Which reminds me, here's that list I mentioned: Alai/med-path. These are (or were) med-stubs categorised somewhere under Category:Pathology, and may (or may not) be candidates for restubbing. Some of them you may already have tagged, of course, and others may not be primarily to do with pathology, or just be strangely categorised. I'll leave that up to your judgement. Alai 05:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
It is difficult to categorize pages within medicine because there are so many potentially conflicting catagorization schemes - this isn't simply a matter of biting off a clearly defined subset of an existing category, such as skinks from within lizards (to take an example from below). I didn't want to remove the med-stubs until the pathology-stub was approved, but I will go back and take care of that later. The definition wasn't to demonstrate that I know what's related to pathology, it was to lay out a clear guideline for anyone who might be tagging in the future, and to make sure that there is some consensus & consistency in its use. I think one of the reasons that there is so much multiple tagging of stubs (noted in many unrelated topics) is the lack of clear guidelines for how a given stub template is and is not to be used. I am admittedly learning as I go along, but I thought this would be helpful. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 17:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate that, and I don't want in any way to minimise the difficulties (that's likely why the med-stubs have become so large, as it's not an area that every sorter will necessarily feel very confident about what they're doing). If this type were to be "disapproved" and deleted, it wouldn't really be a problem if the med-stub tags had been removed, though, since the obvious thing to do would just be to mass-replace the former with the latter, so don't worry about that aspect. Alai 18:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm now listing candidates for Category:Pathology stubs at User:Rustavo/Pathology stubs & have stopped tagging with the proposed template {{Pathology-stub}} for now. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 02:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Actor stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
{{Africa-actor-stub}} every other major continent has one, but not africa! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.218.153 (talk)

  • The real case is not so much where else has one, but how many stubs there are which could take this. If there are 60, it would make a lot of sense to have this though. A quick bit of work with stubsense finds 14 South Africans, 22 Egyptians, one Algerian, one Moroccan, eight Nigerians, one Kenyan, two Ghanaians, one Cameroonian, two Ethiopians... that's 52 to start with. Assuming a little undersorting, this one might just squeak up to 60. Grutness...wha? 02:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I think we can trust the Films WikiProject to make good use of it. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I have personally tagged at least 48 Egyptians with the Egypt-bio and MEast-actor stub, so I forsee this having no problem whatsoever.--Thomas.macmillan 11:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That suggests to me (as if it needed suggesting, I hear you all say) that upmerged templates for as many of these as people can be bothered creating seems preferable to a continental template. The Africa/MEast overlap is a bit vexing in cases like this: if we're following the UN geoscheme we'd instead have "North Africa" and "Western Asia" (in scope, if not by those names), Alai 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • FWIW, as far as the geo-stubs are concerned, Egypt has never been included in the MEast section. Egypt is in Africa, not Asia, and the Middle East is usually regarded as part of Asia (and, indeed, "Middle East X stubs" categories usually have "Asia X stubs" cats as their parents). Grutness...wha? 00:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I think you might be overstating the definedness of that just... well, an awful lot. {{MEast-stub}} and {{MEast-geo-stub}} scope themselves simply by linking to Middle East, an article which begins, "The Middle East is a historical and political region of Africa-Eurasia with no clear definition." So while I think your suggested scope is preferable, and I wouldn't be surprised to find a discussion in the recesses of the /P archives along those lines (or even that I'd participated in it), it's stretching things to say that they existentially have such a scope. Ultimately we'll need to work out if we're following the UN geoscheme in scope and/or associated names (but I tried that with Africa, and didn't get very far). Until then, we're likely to have to deal with this sort of fuzziness a lot. Alai 02:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah - to be honest, it is a lot fuzzier the other direction (Afghanistan and Turkey in particular are definite borderline cases). Listing Egypt primarily as Africa does make a fair amount of sense though. Grutness...wha? 07:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
        • It does, and indeed in general I'd rather avoid "second-level grouping" stub types that crossed continents, if we're going to use those as the "first level groupings". (Of course, the UN geoscheme does this itself in a couple of instances, by grouping Siberia and the Russian Far East in "Europe", and splitting the Americas at the Mexican border rather than the isthmus of Panama, but it does conform to its own top-level groupings, at least.) So in this case, I'd suggest that (ideally) we rename this to reflect it being "Western Asia" as defined by the UN stattos, or else (back in the land of the art of the possible) we keep it largely as is, but change or add to the scoping statement something to the effect that that's the intended scope. I notice that according to the IATA, for example, the Middle East includes not only Egypt, but also Somalia and Sudan, but excludes both Afghanistan and Turkey. The US originally defined the term to also include Libya, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Ethiopia, and then later excluded all of the above (but keeping Egypt). The UN-defined "Western Asia" excludes the African countries (and thus also the Sinai), but includes Turkey; "Southwest Asia" seems almost as vague as Middle East, but seems generally to include at least the Asian portion of Turkey. The dreaded term "Greater Middle East" includes the proverbial kitchen sink... but not Turkey. Alai 15:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support creation, needed. Picaroon 04:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Brazilian footballer sub-types

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

The result of the debate was create by position.
Round-ball game this time, and rather further south, but similar possibilities, with one additional axis:

and/or:

or:

(Parent is oversized, if it needs saying.) Alai 18:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  • support split by position as is done with England and was proposed for France and Italy lower down and suggest template for goalkeeper to keep all four the same. Waacstats 18:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Offensive lineman subcats

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

The result of the debate was create by decade.
Oversized; two possible ways of splitting this, by specific position, or by "era":

or:

I'll ping the NFLers for a view on which would be more useful. Alai 17:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support decades breakdown. Personally, I feel the decades are more concrete and useful in this situation. Especially with offensive linemen, positions vary greatly depending the need of the team they are on.--Thomas.macmillan 20:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • You're the lucky winner, then! :) My understanding is that centre is more of a specialised position than the others, but none of them are exactly "glamour positions", so editors with an interest in offensive linemen probably have fairly similar interests in the whole "unit". Alai 23:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

"Canada road" subcats

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

The result of the debate was create.
Parent's now > 800.

Note that the second one was previously deleted, but Its Time Has Come; the third and fourth were previous proposed, so I'll speedy. Alai 17:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Also would it make it easier for future splits to have all a template for the remaining provinces or are these to small to be worthwile. Waacstats 12:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed, and not too much of a chore, given the manageable number of Canadian provinces (at least when compared to Illinoisan counties or Bavarian kreise -- my poor aching mouse finger). Alai 23:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

UK-struct subcats

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

The result of the debate was create.
We have both by-type and by-region splits of UK-struct (which is oversized again) going on. Here's some possibilities for each:

and:

All look viable, not giving exact counts as I'd have to add up lots of counties... Alai 05:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Indian film subtypes

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

The result of the debate was create.

We don't generally split films by country, but we have with Category:Indian film stubs, perhaps on the logic of linguistic or marketplace considerations. Anyway, it's now oversized, so we might want to consider re-splitting by language. Otherwise, by-genre or by-decade would seem like options. Alai 16:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support the split by language. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support the split by language Haphar 16:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Hindi is a language, so saying Hindi-language is redundant. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm in two minds about this one: I see potential problems - it takes as a given that all flms of these languages are automatically Indian, though I suspect that some Sri Lankan films are likely to be in the Tamil language, to start with. There's the potential that films could be split by two dimensions with this one - language and country - whereas by decade may make for a more convenient split. Also, what form would the templates take - Hindu-film-stub or Hindu-India-film-stub? Grutness...wha? 02:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Will make it easier for editors to find articles they're interested in and fix them. utcursch | talk 04:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support and Comment Of course it is necessary to classify the Indian film stubs. However, as expressed above by Grutness, there may be a few problems. Apart from the case of Tamil, Bengali has a similar problem. Bengali films are made in both India and Bangladesh. So may be we need to make special consideration in case of Bengali and Tamil, by creating stubs like "Indian Bengali films", and "Bangladeshi Bengali films". Also needed is a stub for "Indian English films". IMO the stub should read like this", This is a stub on an Indian film in Bengali/ Hindi/ Tamil/ Assamese language... etc. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I didn't propose an English language type, since the corresponding permcat, Category:English language Indian films seems to be very lightly populated. If the categorisation is accurate, Malayalam, Bengali, Urdu and Kannada are all closer to the creation threshold (which is 60, but I'm assuming Telugu is a good bet for another 8 someplace), but none are over 30. Alai 06:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support the three types originally proposed; having sorted & catted many of them, I see that these are oft-used distinctions within WikiProject India. And remember that the stub can indicate language while the permcat can indicate country of production. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Pakistan Military-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create templates as revised, upmerge.
There are more then 30 articles about Pakistan Military which fall in this category.They are currently listed under different stub lists. Sulaimandaud Sulaimandaud 04:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Skink stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
According to a quick search using AWB, there are currently 572 lizard stubs, 172 of which are about skinks (including 3 which I tagged while writing this proposal). Given what I'm in the middle of doing in AWB, I believe that both of these numbers will be going up. So I think it's time to split it up - and {{skink-stub}} seems like a good place to start. Od Mishehu 08:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, seems very sensible and straightfoward. (Follows the permcat and the taxon, well-justified numerically.) If you're already in the middle of tagging these, I think speedying the template (at least) might be justified... Alai 17:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    I've decided to set up the template as a redirect for now. If this vote passes, that will make the sorting job easier. Od Mishehu 05:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support from me too - seems a logical split. BTW, Od, it isn't a vote - just an "any objections" process. If there aren't any in the next few hours (i.e., by about 8.22 on the 22nd), you might as well go ahead with the category :). Grutness...wha? 23:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support it's always good to be specific, especially with animals. -- iguana_nirvana14 (talk · contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Media-stub

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

The result of the debate was do not create.
{{Media-stub}} I was surprised that this did not exist already as more specific media-stub templates exist, but as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Media I discovered there was none.--Jorfer 01:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Is there really the need for this, bearing in mind the existance of said more specific types? i.e. a significant number of media-in-general stubs, essentially. Having said that, I'm inclined not to be too sniffy about there being quite 60, since it'd also serve as a container for those other types. Alai 02:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree - it doesn't really seem necessary given that there are already lots of subtypes of media with their own stub. An overarching category would seem reasonable, but I'm less convinced that a template would have much use. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

US-sport-bio

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

The result of the debate was create all except US-canadianfootball-bio-stub.
As Alai points out below these are close to 800 articles I will be sorting through these at the weekend to try to reduce the numbers however a look at stubsense (despite it being out dated) and recent sorting I have done in sport shows that the following may be useful, I propose only templates for know as I have no firm figures on what numbers will come out of these so I propose

Waacstats 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be {{US-Canadianfootball-bio-stub}}, to be picky? (I now feel the need for a {{Canada-Americanfootball-bio-stub}} for symmetry, of course.) Support, and since you're proposing only templates, I suggest speedying. Alai 15:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Support all except {{US-Canadianfootball-bio-stub}}. Besides the name issue, I strongly suspect that any membership is likely to be made up of players of American football who had a stint in the CFL after failing to make an NFL team. The differences between the two football codes are so minor as to make it easy for players to switch between the two that I fail to see why we have separate stubs. It makes about as much sense as separate stubs for rugby league and rugby union to my eyes. Caerwine Caer’s whines 16:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I take your point, though if there's significant numbers already tagged with a "US" and "Canadianfootball" type, that might need resolution of some sort. League and Union are a tad more distinct (at least to my eyes) -- and not just because of the larger difference in numbers of players. A few years ago the split between them would have been near-perfect, though partly through sociological reasons rather than strictly sporting ones. But small matters like contested scrums are a pretty big difference... Alai 18:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Firstly apologies for not waiting 5 days to create these, but I found myself with time on my hands and decided to get on with this (and there was a suggestion to speedy). I have created and populated the first four templates (not the candaian football as there was a questionmark over that) from US-sport-bio with some extras from golf/cycling/martialart-bio-stub and all four have reached 60 see above for proposal.Waacstats 10:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

England-bio-stub

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.
On a similar note as below, I stumbled across {{England-bio-stub}} today and found that it has slightly more than 1000 articles in it. Any thoughts on how to break it down? Without checking, I'd guess a clergy and noble/royal stubs?--Thomas.macmillan 19:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Clergy are getting there at 46, and there might well be be enough undercatting for this to be viable. Nobles seem clearly viable at 147. There also seems to be significant undersorting to the writers (95), and to the politicians (90). I'm dubious these would be false-pos-free enough to be bot-populated, but I can upload lists if any AWB fiends want to tackle them on that basis. Alai 21:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Asia politicians

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

The result of the debate was create Pakistan-politician-stub only for now.
I would like to see {{Pakistan-politician-stub}}, {{Afghanistan-politician-stub}} and {{Malaysia-politician-stub}} created. Category:Asian politician stubs is overpopulated. --Eastmain 23:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Not quite, but getting there (nearly 600). How many from each of those countries? Usual deal of, support templates for all, categories for all > 60. Alai 00:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't done a count in a long time, but one year ago, two of them were around 20 each (with more unsorted material in the case of Pakistan). Malaysia was at 30+. Support templates, categories when 60. Valentinian T / C 02:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Please *don't* create more categories before we have 60 relevant stub articles. I don't believe we have this for the Pakistanis, and we certainly don't have it for the others. It looks like we have to delete the category again. Valentinian T / C 22:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
On the basis of permcatting, there doesn't look to be much more than 20 of 'em. Since it's currently used on all of two, I'd support either SFD, or indeed just speedily upmerging. (And repeatedly removing WPJ notices on the templates: put 'em on the categories, please!) Alai 04:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Both ideas sound fine to me. Valentinian T / C 10:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I've just taken a look and OMG, Category:Pakistani politicians is huge! Many articles are stubbed although too long, others are undersorted, and for some reasons, articles appear in both parent and child categories. However, I found 40 articles in a non-exhaustive search. It is very likely that we will find 60 stub articles here. Any help on sorting this material would be great. Valentinian T / C 23:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Kabbalah-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create template, upmerge until 30+.
There are exactly 50 Kabbalah articles that are stub-worthy for my project Wikipedia: WikiProject Kabbalah. As a note the 50 are wholly devoted to the Kabbalah. Could someone direct me as to where I list the articles. Lighthead 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again :) You could list them here, but generally we just take your word for it. As anyone who reads WP:WSS/D knows, this one already exists, but it needs a specific stub category (Category:Kabbalah stubs), which I'll fix up if this stub is agreed to here. Given that there's a wikiproject, 50's more than enough. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems OK to me. BTW, "my" wikiproject? OWNership, or short-staffing? :) Alai 04:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

More Illinois geography subcats

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

The result of the debate was create.
Illinois-geo is bigger than ever, despite the splits per this earlier proposal. I suggest first of all, continuing with the USCB statistical area based splits:

the following aren't quite there yet, but I'll "pre-propose" them now:

Much of the state isn't in a statistical area, though, or is only in single-county ones. So, based on less formal regions, I'll also suggest:

I'll check with the IL WPJ that this at least vaguely reality checks. Alai 23:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Pre-1930 drama film stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
The '20s weren't quite over threshold, the '10s nowhere near (about 10, in fact), and the (previous) 00s have exactly one stub, so on established pattern of splitting the drama stubs by decade, and the meta-pattern of smooshing several little decades together to make one good category, I've created the above catch-all, with upmerged templates. Talking of the '00s, Category:2000s drama film stubs is very nearly overfull... Ideally, we probably want to try to re-split by sub-genre (as easy and cheesy as it would be just to split by individual years). Alai 18:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Russian actor stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
66 articles currently using the double-upmerged {{Russia-actor-stub}}. Alai 06:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Historic Westminster constituencies in Ireland stubs

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

The result of the debate was 'create as Ireland-UK-hist-constituency-stub / Historic Westminster constituency in Ireland stubs'.
Category:United Kingdom historical constituency stubs is oversized, these are comfortably big enough to be split off (130). (Stub-grammarians please do mangle the suggested category name to taste.) Scotland isn't quite viable, Wales is further off, England is big enough to be worth thinking of splitting by region (for which there are permcats), rather than en masse. (The North West, West Midlands and South East would all be immediately over 60.) Alai 15:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The conventional minimal mangle would be Category:Historic Westminster constituency in Ireland stubs to eliminate the double plural. However, what do we mangle the template to? do we have any convention for stub templates relating to Ireland when it was part of the British Empire? {{Ireland-hist-constituency-stub}} would to me seem to at the very least include stub articles in Category:Constituencies of the Parliament of Ireland (to 1800) and possibly be limited to just those (not that such a stub category would be viable at this time since the permcat has only 49 articles). Best I can think of is {{IrelandUK-hist-constituency-stub}} or {{Ireland-hist-Westminster-constituency-stub}} though neither appeals to me. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
It's also somewhat conventional to get rid of the "in", but that looks like it'd be rather too painful in this instance, so I'll concur with your modification. The template I didn't even want to think about. A hyphen would seem more natural in the former case, but I have no strong preference between {{Ireland-UK-hist-constituency-stub}} or {{Ireland-hist-Westminster-constituency-stub}} (and no great love of either, and no better ideas.) Alai 17:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{chromalveolate-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create.
Those articles that would use this (haptophyta, various brown algae, various water molds, some ciliates, etc.) are currently listed under protist-stub, which I feel is too general. Werothegreat 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

{{monorail-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create upmerged template.
Associated with my little wikiproject. Most monorail articles are currently stubs, but have a variety of tags.--MrFishGo Fish 20:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I just counted 21.--MrFishGo Fish 13:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a bit small; normal creation threshold would be 30 with a wikiproject, and 60 without. Plus there's the issue of whether railways are better sorted by location, rather than by type. Would you be amenable to creating just the template, upmerged for the time being, and double-stubbing with <country>-rail-stub? Alai 16:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes.--MrFishGo Fish 15:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1940s baseball pitcher stubs & Category:1950s baseball pitcher stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Per this proposal to un-upmerge 1960s and 1970s and per this SFD rename, I proposed un-umperging the 1940s and 1950s as well. This might even be considered speediable, but I wasn't sure. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

{{Kyrgyzstan-bio-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create.
As an upmerged template, at least - about 50-55 of the stubs in Category:Kyrgyzstan stubs are bio-stubs. Grutness...wha? 07:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Japanese Geography

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

The result of the debate was do not create.
I propose making some Japanese geography stubs more descriptive:

Municipality stubs, former Municipality stubs (many are out of date as of the last merger), railroad station stubs, etc.

I have never made a stub category before but have realized that there are way too many general "geography of ____ prefecture" stubs. Any help would be appreciated.

-- Ehroru 2 April 07:43 UST

  • I'm not quite clear what you're wanting here - Municipalities and former municipalities are categorised according to which prefecture they're in. Few if any of the municipalities would have enough articles to warrant their own stub categories (how many municipalities would have 60 articles?), and few if any of the prefectures has so many stubs that their categories need splitting. The "general 'geography of ___ prefecture' stubs" categories are for any articles about any geographical location within a prefecture - mountains, towns, villages, rivers - not just for the prefecture itself. And exactly what do you mean about them being "out of date"? Grutness...wha? 07:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • When I say "out of date", I am talking about the recent municipal mergers that have taken place across Japan. Many of the villages and towns listed are no longer officially in existence. I am not saying they should be stricken but I am saying that within a single prefecture there should possibly be splitting between current and former municipalities.

Ehroru 3 April 00:21 UST

    • I still don't really understand why that would make the templates out of date unless some of these municipalities had moved to different prefectures due to border changes. And if they had, that would simply mean changing to another currently existing template, not creating a new one. The prefecture stub categories aren't in need of splitting, and if they were it would be by smaller areas within the prefectures - we certainly wouldn't have specific templates such as "ex-municipality-stub", since this isn't splitting a region by a subregion. Grutness...wha? 02:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/April_2007&oldid=1138356641"