Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of discussions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals for the month of February 2007. Please move completed February 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 February, 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.

American screen actor stubs headsup

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'm busy sorting American actor stubs and a lot of them are getting resorted as screen actor stubs. I expect that by the time I'm done, the screen actors will be well into overlarge territory (I'm expecting it to be 6 or 7 pages). So this is a heads up to Alai that we'll probably need to do per decade categories for the screen actors soon, just as we have for the US tv and film actors. It might be a good idea to use the same decades for all three groupings so as to simplify stub sorting, even if a few end up under 60 stubs. That would mean creating a {{US-film-actor-1990s-stub}} and stubs for the 20s-90s for the screen actors. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No reason we can't create all those templates, upmerged as necessary. I'll go crunch some numbers on the basis of yesterday's db dump. Alai 11:17, 10 February 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.

CVG → VG?

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 at cfd for renaming.
It looks like there's a renaming in progress over at Category:Computer and video games, to Category:Video games. Do we need to start thinking about redirects for the cvg-stubs? Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it looks like someone's trying to hijack it to their preferred name. The name change didn't go through CFD. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Appears the CVG people have decide to become just VG. I don't really care what they call themselves, but they really should have gone through CFD to avoid a reaction from people like me who are prone to suspect the worst. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It's in the CfD now. Please read the talk pages on Video game and the WP:CVG pages for the logic behind the change. BcRIPster 02:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Followup - The cfd proposals include the stub categories. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 6 February 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.

Romanian geo 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 is nearly 800, these seem to be the leading first-order subdivisions. Alai 03:47, 28 February 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:Ohio school stubs 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.
Oversized. We could split this up either geographically, perhaps on the same lines as we did the Category:Ohio geography stubs, or else into primary and secondary sectors. Alai 03:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Primary and secondary is unlikely to be a clean split given the existance of middle schools. A geographic based split is likelier to be clean. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
As it transpires, the numbers in the middle school and elementary school cats are teeny, so the geographical way definitely seems sensible. I've started with the 'Greater Columbus' CSA. Alai 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:North West England school stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
UK-schools are oversized Yet Again, this region seems to be next up. Five counties to be upmerged, totalling 85 between them at time of last db dump. Alai 03:28, 28 February 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:Guinean people 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.
Just did a hand count and found approximately 60; template already created per discussion earlier in month--Thomas.macmillan 14:16, 27 February 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.

{{country-food-stub}} versus {{country-cuisine-stub}}

These have been multiplying in the food-stub category to help sort it out. I'm in favor of it, but they ought be standardised - food-stub or cusine-stub, not both. Indian & Malaysian (an issue of its own, as the stub is Malay-food-stub) have food; Mexican, Turkish, and Spanish have cuisine. Additionally, a few of these do not seem to have an official proposal. Anyway, I propose standardizing to food stub because it's easier to type. Thus, I am proposing changing the other three and using food for any further splits of this cat. Aelfthrytha 14:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • We seem to have acquired a plain {{cuisine-stub}} at some point - early on, too - which is probably the source of the problem. Some rationalisation of cuisine, food and drink needs to be done. Perhaps a better solution would be to keep cuisine-stub and making the food-stub and drink-stub subtypes of it, and to have national-cuisine-stub types as the split by a second dimension (meaning changing the Indian and Malay ones, allowing us to tidy up the Malay/Malaysia(n) problem at the same time - we should try to fix on whether it's country-cuisine-stub or nationality-cuisine-stub, too). These can later, if necessary, have national-food-stub and national-drink-stub subtypes if numbers warrant it. Grutness...wha? 23:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


{{powerstation-stub}} / Category:Power station stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
See {{Australia-powerstation-stub}} below and already existing {{US-powerstation-stub}}... Would cover all other countries and have these as subcategories. Monni 15:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

    • Biggest countries that this "new parent" would cover would be Germany, UK and Argentina. I don't have exact counts yet, because there seems to be small overlap in StubSense with proposed {{pipeline-stub}}. Monni 17:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
If I counted correctly, for other countries there are 7 German power station stubs, 4 stubs for Poland and Czech Republic, 3 for the UK, 2 for Malaysia and 1 for Ghana, the Netherlands, Argentina, Russia, Moldova, South Africa, Taiwan, Bulgaria, Laos, Estonia, Slovakia, Croatia and Spain. I don't think there will be any overlap with proposed {{pipeline-stub}}. If we need split the {{energy-stub}} more, one possibility is to have also separate {{oilfield-stub}} for oil and gas fields. Beagel 18:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I only implied there was overlap in StubSense results. Usually that is because it scans too deep in results and ends up winding back to parent categories. I can support {{oilfield-stub}} as long as it is upmerged only... StubSense only reports 49 potentials, but on the other hand, StubSense is hardly ever correct in counts. Monni 18:52, 25 February 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.

{{pipeline-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 pipeline-stub + category, electric-power-stub + category, upmerge powerline-stub to Electric power stubs.
{{energy-stub}} consists right now approximately 450 entries of which 98 are oil or gas pipelines. I propose to create {{pipeline-stub}} as a subcategory of {{energy-stub}}.Beagel 14:46, 25 February 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.

{{Academic-society-stub}}

There are a lot of organisations that are academic societies that are currently being tagged as {{edu-org-stub}}. Academic societies are more usually research organisations, and I would like to separate the education and research orgs. An alternative would be to create {{research-org-stub}}. John Vandenberg 01:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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 by region.
This category has now reached five pages, and has four viable children at the moment. They all meet the threshold of 65 stubs, so I propose creating templates and categories for {{US-election-stub}}, {{Asia-election-stub}}, {{Euro-election-stub}}, and {{Africa-election-stub}}. South America is still under 20 stubs, as are Central America, the Caribbean, and Canada, so they don't need to be split off yet. That should get it back under control. Aelfthrytha 05:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are a lot more Canadian ones than that, but they're probably all listed under Canada-poli-stub or Canada-gov-stub. The Canada government wikiproject is a fiercely active one (nearly as busy as this one, IIRC). Grutness...wha? 22:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Support templates for all, categories for those passing threshold. I agree that Canada probably has significantly more than 65.--Thomas.macmillan 22:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
And seconds after I finished writing above, I found out that a Category:Canadian election stubs already exists and has over 100 stubs. --Thomas.macmillan 22:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It may be undersorted-to, mind you, since I bot-populated it from double-stubbing alone. (And support, btw.) Alai 19:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would sorting by type of election, such as presidential, parliamentary, gubernational, local, be useful? - Privacy 22:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Probably far less so than sorting by country. firstly, an editor is far more likely to know about the entire set-up in one country than to know similar levels of election in many countries, and secondly there are so many different forms of vgovernment that it would become overly fragmented. At least with countries we can divide them fairly easily into continents and subcontinental regions. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 5 March 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.

{{Gaming community clan stubs}} / Category:Gaming community clan stubs

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

The result of the debate was do not create.
well anyways i posted a artical on me and my frends clan that we made and now its facing certain deletion for not being important enough. but i think there should be a place for me to place my artical about the clan. Its not going to be an extreamly big artical and it would be nice to have this stub ill have the needed number of articals asap Revansrangers 23:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what this page is for. It isn't a place to save articles which look like they should be deleted - it's a place for proposing new splits of the legitimate articles here. if there are 60 articles on gaming clans that shouldn't be deleted, then we'd consider it, but it's very unlikely you'd find 60, since almost all gaming clans are not notable enough for articles. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. A lot of game stubs already exist, surely one will work for this game. My impression: Role-playing game stubs {{rpg-stub}} is the best fit although you haven't indicated the type of game I'd imagine clans are role playing their parts. Goldenrowley 03:12, 24 February 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.

{{Haiti-myth-stub}} / Category:Haitian myth stubs

Surprised a bit by this, but I found 61 with a hand count at Category:Haiti stubs.--Thomas.macmillan 21:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Doesn't surprise me - there are a lot of stubs relating to Vodun/Voodoo out there. In fact it might be better to split out those rather than make it specifically Haiti, since it might have a slightly wider range (including some West African myth stubsones, too). Grutness...wha? 22:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So perhaps Vodun-stub would be better? That might work. I noticed several of them were not Haiti specific.--Thomas.macmillan 22:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Support how about either a Vodun myth stub category - or - a Caribbean myth stub category. I was mystified how to categorize the Caribbean myths once before... I settled on African but its an odd mix of African and Caribbean. Goldenrowley 00:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC) ****Back with the article on Caribbean and to correct my errant spelling. Goldenrowley 00:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support creation of Vodun-stub. A lot of the god/goddess/spirit stub articles also apply to voodoo as practiced in the southern United States, so they are not specifically Caribbean. Jwillbur 21:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

{{Workday-Inc.-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.
Workday, Inc. is listed under a Workday consolidated entry, but does not have an entry of its own. ipsque... 15:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure you fully understand what this page is for - it is for the creation of templates and categories to be used by dozens of stubs (preferably 60 or more) - as such a "Workday-inc.-stub" is inapproriate, since there are unlikely to be 60 articles which could use such a template. If an individual stub article on Wirkday, Inc. needs to be added to Wikipedia, all you have to do is write it. Grutness...wha? 23:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ipsque, you're probably in the wrong place to propose this to us. But you can review steps to creating articles here, as well as review the notability guidelines for the encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article Goldenrowley 19:45, 23 February 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.

{{Oregon-school-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 notice that school stubs exists for various states, but not as yet for Oregon. As I intend to create stubs for schools in my city (and I am sure others on Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon would for their Oregon cities, too), I propose the above stub. While such a stub already exists in WikiProject Oregon, it does not as yet appear on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. If accepted, the proposal will thus formalize an existing practice. DocDee 17:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this one should be an official one anyway :) As to "making it official", it doesn't workexactly like you say, though the wording on the stub type list needs to be changed to explain why this is the way it is. Often, all of the stub templates for a subject (like all 50 state-school stubs) are created but many of hem are upmerged - that is, feed back into larger categories - because there are too few stubs to warrant separate categories. once they reach the threshold number of stubs, usually 60, separate categories are created and they are then added to the stub type list. In the case of Oregon, though, what seems to have happened is that the category was created once the 60-stub level was reached but someone forgot to add it to the stub type list! So yeah, I'd say this one's fine. Grutness...wha? 22:57, 22 February 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.

{{gender-studies-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.
Further to the recent discussion of {{Gender-stub}} and {{Masc-stub}}. Proposed creation of a new stub to cover gender studies stub article (Category:Gender studies & Category:WikiProject Gender Studies) not covered by {{fem-stub}}.--Cailil 23:39, 21 February 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.

{{weightlifting-bio-stub}} / Category:Weightlifting biography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
CeeGee 19:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit late, having already made them... For those of you who haven't been keeping track at WP:WSS'D, Weightlifting-bio-stub is listed there along with Category:Weightlifter stubs. Rather than waiting for it to go to SFD, it looks like CeeGee has madfe a new category for it - it still hasn't been decided whether it should be kept though. And now he's created a new Category:Weightlifting stubs / {{Weightlifting-stub}}. Very, very messy... Grutness...wha? 05:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we should keep this one... Has potential to have 60 stubs. I guess it's upto admins to clean rest of the mess. Monni 06:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Cat:Korea stubs : {{history of Korea-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.
Daru of Baekje, Giru of Baekje, Gaeru of Baekje, Saban of Baekje, Chaekgye of Baekje, Bunseo of Baekje, Samguk Yusa, Buyeo languages, Buyeo County, An Hyang, Hugh McKee?, Gongsun Du?, Gaya - Silla Warsm Kdammers 06:30, 20 February 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.

{{fantasy-story-stub}} / Category:Fantasy short story 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.
Further to the recent "Fantasy novel stub" debate earlier this month and to deliniate a major section of fantasy literature. Currently stories get lumped in {{fantasy-book-stub}} or even in {{fantasy-stub}}. As far as I can tell this should amount to about 100 entries. It would as correspond to the style of category used in {{sf-story-stub}} and have a very similar scope, except for it's own genre. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, although the category name should surely be Category:Fantasy short story stubs, similar to Category:Science fiction short story stubs, given that there's a Category:Fantasy short stories, but no Category:Fantasy stories. Alai 13:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Changed in response to Alai - although I notice the sf template does not included "short", presumably to keep is "short" lol. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Très drôle. :) Yes, I don't think it should go in the template name: that would be overkill. Alai 14:28, 19 February 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:Asia road stubs: {{Asia-road-stub}} / Category:Malaysia road stubs: {{Malaysia-road-stub}} / {{China-road-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.
Propose split from {{road-stub}}. I have found 102 144 pages for the category, listed at User:Swpb/Asia road stubs. Possible seperate templates Propose template and subcat for Malaysia-road stub (49 71 pages) and template only for China-road-stub (26 30 pages). — Swpb talk contribs 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Support and Hong Kong can be moved into it as a subcat. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking that as well. — Swpb talk contribs 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought I'd actually proposed this several months ago... seems I didn't, but did mention it's possible usefulness (see here). Support, anyway. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
What about the Malaysia and China templates? — Swpb talk contribs 02:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I had no intention of making seperate cats for Malaysia and China, just the templates to make a future split easier. — Swpb talk contribs 16:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • On second thought, now that I've found 71 pages for Malaysia, I'd like to modify the proposal to include a Malaysia subcat. Sorry for the sloppy revising.
Also, {{China-road-stub}} was apparently already created this morning by Alai as a child of Category:Road stubs and Category:People's Republic of China geography stubs, but is used on only three articles. I would suggest making it a child of Category:Asia road stubs, assuming it's approved, rather than the more general Category:Road stubs. — Swpb talk contribs 18:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I just didn't want to entirely jump the gun by creating the category "early", too. (To be honest, I thought we already had a China-road-stub, until I "sorted" a China-geo-stub... and got a redlink. So I went for the 'in for a penny' approach...) Now, if someone were to come up with a few more of these, we'd have reason to move them out of the oversized PRC-geo-stubs... Alai 01:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have 30 at User:Swpb/Asia road stubs to start with, plus whatever roads there are in PRC-geo-stubs. — Swpb talk contribs 02:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we need a Wikipedia:Wikiproject Chinese roads. :) Alai 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I note, with as little editorial comment as possible, that Instantnood has decided this "ought" to be rescoped a "Mainland China" roads (for which we have no corresponding permcat: instead it's Category:Roads in the People's Republic of China. I feel we need to get as definitive a resolution as soon as is possible, since revert wars in template-populated categories are bad for both tempers and servers. Alai 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I bet you did participate in the previous discussions regarding similar stub types, and you may already know these permenent categories have long been matter of controversy. :-) — Instantnood 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
And you feel the best way to resolve this "controversy" is to ignore the permcats, and create other category structures that ignore and contradict those? Alai 01:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
So is it better to ignore the controversies around the perm cats, and to ignore the established system stub types have preserved? It's even worse the stub types were recently modified without any discussion, and you kept their changes and stayed silence with such challenges. — Instantnood 20:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm out of my depth on that one, so no opinion here. I think the list of China road stubs I put together could be labeled PRC or Mainland stubs with equal accuracy. — Swpb talk contribs 22:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The reason why you put only Mainland China roads to your list was that mainland China is usually known simply as "China". Passer-by 10:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
33 as at the time being. I've in fact found some rather short articles too, but they're not tagged with any stub types. Should they now be tagged with {{China-road-stub}} too? :-) — Instantnood 21:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The original {{China-road-stub}}, before its deletion a year ago, used to be fed into category:mainland China road stubs (cf. [1]). User:Alai recreated the template and rescope in the way he prefers, which is consistent with his stance to similar stub types in previous discussions. — Instantnood 21:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Before its deletion, indeed. Can't "rescope" a deleted type; this is a fresh proposal, for a stub type that actually conforms to the existing category structure. (If I thought for a moment it'd be Instantnooded, I'd have made a point of leaving the proposal for the full five days, for the avoidance of all doubt. More fool me.) My "preference" and the consistency of my "stance" is hardly just a whimsical choice on my part. This is how the permanent categories are organised, and is the organisational methodology for which there seems to be what-little-consensus-there-is on the matter. If there emerges at some point a decision to organise the PRC into "Mainland China" on the one hand, and "the SARs" on the other, I'm fully in favour of implementing that, "consistently". What I find to be completely unacceptable is this "fighting retreat" approach, where each separate article and category turns into its own revert war and subsequent discussion, and the lack of any acceptance of a once-and-for-all solution implemented consistently across the wiki. Alai 01:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
As mention else where, you said "up merge" in your edit summary when you recreate the template. It's reasonable and logical to be thought of as a continuation of the deleted template. The existing and established stub type structure is to create mainland China stub types whenever appropriate. This is the product of consensus. " What I find to be completely unacceptable is this "fighting retreat" approach.. " - It's simply because some folks have always been refusing to preserve the status quo ante, and keep creating new troubles to spark new fire everywhere they feel nice. — Instantnood 20:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Asia stub, Asia category and "china-road-stub" - by "scope" it looks like it was just the country of China. I do not see reason to oppose. Its standard to do country-specific road stubs, and here with have a country "with over 1.31 billion people, it is the most populous country in the world".Goldenrowley 04:19, 23 February 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.

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpgCategory:Film editor stubs : {{film-editor-stub}} / Category:Screenwriter stubs : {{screen-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.
A high amount of film editor articles are stubs and there are thousands missing!!!!!! Hundreds all over the world are primarily involved with cinematic editing solely yet there is no stub category!! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a film-director-stub and a generic film-bio-stub. I don't see any cinematographer-stub, nor any screenwriter-stub, nor any film-producer-stub, all three of which are more important. We should either create all four, or stay with the generic film-bio-stub. Hoverfish Talk 23:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
It would probably be best to either split them up like Hoverfish said it or to leave it as it is. Is there one for directors as well? --Nehrams2020 00:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Note thoughTemplate:Film-producer-stub Template:Cinematographer-stub Template:Film-director-stub Template:US-screen-writer-stub exist it is only film editor and Screen-writer-stub in general missing. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:18, 18 February 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:Australian environment stubs : {{Australia-environment-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 australia-powerstation-stub, do not create australia-environment-stub.
I have recently added an Environment section to the Australia page Australia#Environment and there is a Category:Environment of Australia.

The stub-Australia and stub-environment are too general to assist in providing Australian environmentalists with an easy way to identify articles to work on. The creation of this stub would assist in providing easy identification of Australian environment stubs among Australian environmentalists, promoting the dramatic improvement of this area of Wikipedia.

Pages would include, eg:
Environment of Australia
Wind power in Australia
Solar power in Australia
dinghy 02:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No idea if there are 60 stubs that this would use, but I have corrected the proposed template name to match the naming guidelines. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Stubsense shows massive amount of possible false positives (2000+) starting from Category:Environment of Australia but only 2 possible stubs that don't have more specific stub template already. Both are environmentalists (5 potentials including ones with other stubs than {{environment-stub}}). Monni 14:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
A search in Wikipedia of: environment AND Australia shows 5895 results. I have no doubt based on this and the stub sense results above that there are 60 stub pages in this proposed Australia-environment-stub. I would expect that the 2000+ possible false positives are also possible true positives, but I am no expert on Stubsense. 47 of 100 and 678 out of 1000 pages scanned were categorised stubs of some description, but who knows how many are uncategorised stubs? dinghy 20:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess only way to really know is to compile list that contain atleast 60 possible candidates and how this stub is better than the current stubs already in those articles. I do understand that I didn't take account possible subcategories of Environment, but that would have taken quite a while and I didn't have that time back then. Monni 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Biggest problem I see is that we create one stub type that will get oversized really fast and then have to wait again for sub-stub to be accepted... I see atleast {{energy-stub}} and its children having lots of stubs under Category:Environment of Australia.
One possibility could be separating out {{Australia-powerstation-stub}} / Category:Australian power station stubs (94 with little possibility of false positives). Monni 17:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Here are the counts I could get from StubSense about possible candidates:
I guess that pretty much tells there is either substantial undersorting even to existing categories, or StubSense is heavily buggy. Monni 22:12, 25 February 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:Military intelligence stubs : {{mil-intel-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 espionage-stub.

Others have suggested a non-military stub, but there is nothing representing military intelligence currently, and I expect that there are articles where {{mil-intel-stub}} would be preferable over {{mil-stub}}, or other stubs. I would prefer to have the military reference, as it is perhaps easier to use open sources to characterize military intelligence systems and personnel. Plus, I'd hate to add to any Walter Mitty-esque enthusiasm for European torture jaunts and TS/SCI-directed global human abbatoirs by utilizing {{spy-stub}} or {{espionage-stub}}. Thanks! JPatrickBedell 14:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment The current template, {{Milintel-stub}}, is up for renaming at sfd. Support {{espionage-stub}} until enough mil-intel-stubs can be found. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You lost me latterly, there. Are there 60 such articles? If so, support, if not, the wider type seems better-advised, perhaps with a double-upmerged {{mil-intel-stub}} template in addition. Alai 13:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, Category:Military intelligence (17 articles) is a parent cat of Category:Espionage, which has over 200. Should this be rearranged, and if so, how?Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, neither is a proper subset of the other -- though attempting to shoe-horn the category system into meaning anything more than "is kinda related to" is probably doomed for the foreseeable future. The permcats should probably be siblings, though I'm not sure if there's a natural parent. As to the stub types... would either be populable? Alai 15:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like about 77 articles under Category:Espionage and 43 under Category:Military intelligence. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Support {{espionage-stub}} with associated category. Monni 19:18, 25 February 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.

Canadian politicians by province

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

The result of the debate was create.
Oversized again, we've started splitting by province, another batch are now viable:

Alai 23:58, 14 February 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 naval ship 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 as revised by Alai.
Tthese are now somewhat oversized, and there's no shortage of well-populated subcats by which to split them up:

or:

In the case of the first group, there's also "Royal Navy" subcats with essentially identical names (CFD in its eternal wisdom has decided to keep both -- don't ask me), if people have a particular preference for that naming. Alai 23:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm listing towards the first grouping.ALR 21:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing the "patrol vessels" proposal for now: too much overlap. I've also named the sub sub-cat (geddit?) Category:United Kingdom military submarine stubs for coherence as a subtype of {{UK-mil-ship-stub}}. Possibly Category:Royal Navy submarine stubs would have been clearer in this instance. Alai 21:50, 8 March 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:Apiales 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 has been pointed out elsewhere, the ever-growing plant-stubs are nearly at 800, yet again, and this seems to be order de jour at 104 articles. Come to that, just the Category:Apiaceae stubs would be viable at 74, at the family level. Alai 21:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Apiales appears to the more stable in membership of the two options as far as what you proposed, but ideally neither should act to reduce the size of plant stub as they should already have {{asterid-stub}} if they were fully sorted. Still, the Asterid stubs are up to 340, so another child of it would be forward looking. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There's in fact over 200 unsorted asterids, including these (not even counting the uncategorised ones, of course). However, this seems a pretty clear-cut case where an additional, narrower type now will avoid some double-handling later. (If I were going to be really thorough, I'd start creating upmerged templates for every order with any sort of population.) Alai 00:44, 15 February 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.

African Singer Stub

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

The result of the debate was create.
This is my first stub proposal, so forgive me if I'm not doing this correctly. I've been searching through the singer stub category since its really large and I've been finding a lot of African singers, around 20 a page. I haven't been able to keep a count though since there are so many pages of stubs in this category. Zemalia 18:56, 13 February 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.

Test (student assessment) 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 deleted.
I didn't know I was supposed to propose a stub before creating it. Oops. I made it already at {{test-stub}}. There's a conversation about it over here. Now that I've been informed about the criteria for new stubs, I don't think it will get 60 pages. I was going to use this page to identify new tests that I find out about (especially state tests). For example:

I still think the stub would be quite useful in categorizing pages that need to be expanded about tests. — Chris53516 (Talk) 15:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It would, but there really does need to be 60+ articles before the stub type should be implemented. You can always use the {{expand}} tag for now. How about keeping a list until they hit 60? Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. I'll be using Category:Standardized tests for new entries, and if I get up to 60 stub articles, I can remake the stub category. — Chris53516 (Talk) 17:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Pesky disappearing comment! If you feel strongly this will be growing rapidly, you might consider an upmerged template, to spare retagging effort later. But please don't call it {{test-stub}}: quite honestly, "student assessment" is about the third topic that occurred to me when I saw this listing. I'd suggest instead {{edu-exam-stub}}, or perhaps {{edu-test-stub}}. Alai 19:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I like the last proposed name. What do you mean by "upmerge"? I'm new to making stubs... — Chris53516 (Talk) 21:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
By 'upmerged'. I mean feeding into Category:Education stubs, as a duplicate template. Alai 21:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I think many of the articles have both. We should just delete it. — Chris53516 (Talk) 21:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I mean, 'duplicate' in the sense that it's an additional template in that category; I don't suggest adding it in addition to {{edu-stub}} on any given article (indeed, as you say, they should be removed). Alai 14:31, 19 February 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.

Spain 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 upmerge.
Ooops, I've too fast creating the stub for the Asturian related articles, I'm so sorry. Anyway, I've noticed there's no specific stub category covering various general stuff related to asturias (art, education, economy, images, etc...), so I propose to create a generic one: Category:Asturias stubs. -- · Ravenloft · (Talk) 11:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • What's the likely population? I note that of the current seven, half are not really by any plausible criteria stubs at all. Alai 12:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I see there is {{asturias-geo-stub}} already, so I guess having template wouldn't hurt, but it needs to be upmerged if there isn't enough existing articles that apply. Also, if a lot of the articles would be biographies, better would be to make {{asturias-bio-stub}} instead. Monni 20:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • uhhh no it wouldn't! Biographies are not split by subnational region, except in cases where a person is specifically tied to a location (e.g., politician stubs). Biographies should not be included in Category:Asturias stubs at all, not evenm as a subtype. In contrast, geo-stubs are split by subnational region. The reason is simple - individual people move around a lot more than towns do. An Asturias-stub is a reasonable idea, but upmerging is likely unless there are 60 or so stubs. Grutness...wha? 05:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I did mention "that apply" meaning I already ruled out normal biographies... What came to my mind is indeed politicians and members of royal house, which kinda are interestingly less moving people. I just didn't want to offer zillion small stub templates as an alternative. Monni 21:36, 16 February 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-business-bio- 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.
I thought these were already 'pending', but I can find no earlier proposal for them:

At any rate, they seem to be urgently needed, unless someone has a better idea of how to split this nine-pager. I also note that there's very high double-stubbing of this tag and US-rail-bio-. That seems rather redundant to me, though I wonder if we can tweak things to make this more explicit. Alai 02:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not rendundant at all as the rail bio include both the owners and the notable workers, inventors, engineers (both civil and train), etc. Best split would be by business sector, and since you say there's significant double stubbing with US-rail-bio-stub, that suggests starting with {{US-rail-business-bio-stub}} → Category:American railroad executive stubs → Category:American railroad executives. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I suppose there's a few engineers in there too, true. I shall hold out for US-rail-business-bio- when the (actual or potential) double-stubbing gets that bit more extensive. By-sector occurred to me, but it's not at all obvious how clearly categorised people are on that basis, in addition to which there's the "if you think I can't manage something I know nothing about, you know nothing about management" factor: lots of these won't be particular to a given sector in any recognisable sense. Alai 12:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Support the chief executive stubs. Those seem fairly clear-cut. Crystallina 02:28, 14 February 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 Tennis-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.
Tennis bio stubs are over 500 with only one subcat (US). No country has 60 articles but I propose

Waacstats 14:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Alai 21:26, 11 February 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 screen actor 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.
In line with what Caerwine notes at the bottom of the page, the US-screen-actor-stub type is almost at 800, and the following are immediately viable:

It would make sense to create at least templates over the whole likely range, and as there are already some subcategories, we should bear that in mind when assessing category viability. Alai 13:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Add to this templates for the 20's, 30's, and 90's, plus a template for film actors of the 90's. This would give us a consistent set of templates for screen, tv, and film actors that covers the 20's thru the 90's in each case. I got sidetracked from stub sorting by creating an article for the Joe McDoakes series of film shorts, so I still have 5 pages of American actor stubs to process, and with this proposal now made official, I'll await the outcome of this before doing the rest so as to avoid double sorting. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:40, 10 February 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.

Fictional Dog 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 .
In The Current List Of Dog Articles Which Are Stubs, Many Of Them Are Films, Cartoons And TV Programmes. I Propose We Make {{Dog Stub-Fictional}}. ACBestMy Contributions 08:46, 10 February 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 athletics-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 splits of various athletics cats
From Asia-athletics-bio-stub
{{China-athletics-bio-stub}} and Category:Chinese athletics biography stubs (63 articles)
{{Japan-athletics-bio-stub}} (45 articles)
From Oceania-athetics-bio-stub
{{Australia-athletics-bio-stub}} and Category:Australian athletics biography stubs (81 articles)
From Africa-athletics-bio-stub
Category:Nigerian athletics biography stubs (62 articles)
{{Morocco-athletics-bio-stub}} (43 articles)
From Caribbean-athletics-bio-stub
{{Trinidad-athletics-bio-stub}} (40 articles)
and finally as the only continent not to have its own category
{{SouthAm-athletics-bio-stub}} and Category:South American athletics biography stubs (56 articles)
I know this is a bit small but I think it is needed for completeness and it is not to far off 60
Waacstats 00:08, 10 February 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:Alberta school stubs

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

The result of the debate was transfer to WP:SFD.
There was already a template for it, but no cat, and that didn't make any sense to me. So I created one. Kevlar67 23:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I really must add that paragraph to WP:STUB on "stub types that are deliberately upmerged to the parent until such time as they're an appropriate size". Oppose, too small (and since this is a "self-discovery" rather than a proposal, take to WP:SFD). Alai 01:07, 8 February 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.

European ethnic groups

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.
Though Category:Ethnic group stubs isn't really in any hurry to be split up, I note that probably 1/3 of the stubs in it (about 120 stubs) seem to be for European ethnicities - many of those for ancient tribes. A {{Euro-ethno-group-stub}} might be a very useful split. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 7 February 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:Asian film biography stubs

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

The result of the debate was postpone until after Japan-film-bio-stub has been populated.
I count 73 candidates, not counting a number of unsorted Indians. Parent is just barely below 800. Alai 03:44, 6 February 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:Local government 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 .
I don't see any government-by-country splits that look feasible, aside from some undersorting to the US, but this looks like a runner, with 114 candidates. Alai 11:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Define "local". In the U.S. at least, the term "local government" does not usually include "State government". (Note: the permacats for Government look like they could use some serious reorganizing as far as differentiating between national and subnational government and the various levels of subnational government.) Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
In Category:Local government. Alai 12:31, 12 February 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.

TV character 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 is now at exactly 800. (Or was when I last looked.) Alai 07:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. Aelfthrytha 16:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Support; revised per naming convention. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops. (Though you removed one of the wrong s's!) Alai 18:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Double oops. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Doubleplus oppose on these specifics as way too POV and open to dispute. There has to be a more neutral and incontrovertible way to subcategorize. Seen Fight Club? Is that a drama? Or is it an action movie? Or a comedy? Or... Support notion, strongly, of splitting an 800-stub category somehow, no doubt. At near-midnight my time I don't have a better idea; just saying I have faith that there must be something less open to interpretation (ergo near-inevitable editwarring). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
These are a) how the permcats are already organised, and b) how these stubs are already categorised. If you want to expunge all notion of genre from the category structure, you'll be having a busy (and I imagine, "interesting") time at CFD. Alai 13:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Support per nom. Valentinian T / C 22:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States television producer 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 US-tv-producer-stub and US-tv-writer-stub.
I've just made Category:United States television biography stubs spill onto its sixth page by mass-moving lots from its parent, making further splits of it in turn seem like a plan. This seems the most promising, with 56 in the permcat at time of last db dump (will have to be checked if they're primarily producers, but I'm sure we'll need this sooner or later. I wonder also if we should look to split the "screenwriters", which currently has both a TV and a film parent, into one of each Category:United States television writer stubs or Category:United States teleplay writer stubs, or something to that effect. I'm refraining for the time being from suggesting a "personalities" or "entertainer" subtype, but... Alai 06:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Support {{US-tv-writer-stub}} / Category:United States television writer stubs as more commonly used round these parts. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support narrowed version, but question. I.e., S. per Pegship, but why "writer" (but also why "producer"? Bears on someone else's suggestion elsewhere that "sportspeople" be used to subsume people who aren't actually sportspeople by the usual definition of the word, such as sports writers and commentators. I find this a bit curious, but assume there must be a rationale for it. As for "television writer" and "teleplay writer" I don't think anyone outside of the Hollywood industry would recognize a difference, nor between those two combined and screenwriters, script writers, etc. It's just too industry-geeky a set of distinctions. By way of comparison, we don't have different categories for (notable, if there are any; let's say wouldn't have them for) system adminstrators, systems adminstrators, network administrators, systems and network adminstrators, etc.; or separate ones for people in public relations, media relations, member relations, constituent relations, etc. (they're all "PR flacks"). "Congressional lobbyist" or "senior network security engineer", maybe (inversely respectively), but even that's iffy. To get back to this nomination, yes we need to distinguish actors from production-side people, but every SAG-recognized sub-occupation doesn't necessarily need its own category here, or we'd soon have Category:Second wardrobe assistants. WP's not IMDb, after all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • On "sportspeople" and similar cases: basically it's so there's someplace topic-related to sort them, when there wouldn't be enough to give them a category of their own. Strictly speaking they should probably then be called something like "sport(s) biography stubs" (which doesn't precisely correspond to any particular permcat, but equally, nor does the present scope). In this case, television producers are categorised differently from TV directors, executives and writers (see the immediate descendants of Category:Television people), so it'd require some of an active decision on our part to do some lumping to have a broader scope. If there's a large amount of overlap between the various off-screen roles, it might be beneficial to do so. (I'm certainly not proposing we sort to anything finer than the permcats in these cases.) Alai 14:27, 10 February 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:Television documentary 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 by subject.
I half-heartedly half-propose this, as much as anything in the hopes that someone will have a better idea (or firm up on and follow-through with this themselves). The docs are over 800, and categorisation seems, like the punchline of the old British Leyland joke, to be "about half" (and not very fine-grained at that). There's 33 of them catted like this, and after that come "American", "Canadian" and "BBC", none of which seem like great axes. Alai 06:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How about stubbing and catting some based on subject matter like we've already started with {{music-documentary-stub}}?

This list of subjects seems like a possible starting point. However, I already have enough stub sorting on my plate to do anything more than suggesting a split at this time. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Those'd be the categories I mentioned being miserably populated (or, not existing). I'll cast the net a little wider, on the off-chance... (Though I'm really hoping that someone (else) will take it on themselves to do something, the old-fashioned (i.e. hard) way...) Alai 07:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Support by subject, and I can help. Let me just get my shovel...Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Qualified support: If the numbers are there, sounds good, and way better than trying to do it by US/UK/Azerbaijani, or BBC/NBC/TBS (what on earth would one do with Walking with Dinosaurs, which exists in one UK, BBC, version and not one but two (one under another name) US A&E versions, plus the BBC/A&E crossover DVDs? That road lies madness I tell you, M@DN3SS!!! Or something like that, anyway. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:40, 9 February 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.

{{Unitarianism-stub}} and {{Universalism-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.
As the phrase "Unitarian Universalism" is a registered trademark of an organization (the Unitarian Universalist Association) the use of the UU stub to classify all entries related to Unitarian or Universalist theology, regardless of their relation to the UUA, is somewhat misleading. "Unitarian Universalism" as an organizational trademark is quite distinct from the theologies of Unitarianism and Universalism, neither of which continue to be core principles of the UUA, even though they are important to specific UUA-affiliated groups.

Although there would be significant overlap, articles related to the theologies but which have no relation to the UUA should not be identified by the UUA trademarked phrase, while articles related to the UUA, but unrelated to the theologies of Unitarianism or Universalism, should solely be identified by the stub tag using the trademarked "Unitarian Universalism." Articles relating to the American Unitarian Association and Universalist Church of America, which joined to form the Unitarian Universalist Association in 1961, should be UU-stubbed for their relation to the UUA and stubbed for their respective theologies in order to connect them to other religious groups not affiliated with the UUA that also promote Unitarianism and/or Universalism. Nelsonleith 16:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • "Significant" would be putting it mildly. I don't think the implication that the term "Unitarian Universalism" is particular to the UUA is correct; if it really is a registered mark, their enforcement seems to be a little... liberal. If you're in effect proposing a type for Unitarian topics that aren't Unitarian Universalist topics, and one for Universalist topics that aren't Unitarian Universalist topics, I can't help but wonder whether either is going to have a "viable" number of stubs, especially without "unpicking" the UUA into precusor bodies, which will get unnecessarily messy. I'd suggest upmerged templates feeding into a common category, which can make scoping nuances clear without splitting things up unduly, or leading to an excess of double- (and triple-, etc) stubbing. Alai 23:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename at least the existing cat to Category:Unitarianism stubs, Delete {{Universalism-stub}}. If UUA stuff is sufficient, Keep {{Universalism-stub}} and have it file things in a New Category:Unitarian Universalism stubs subcat. Or just upmerge them into Category:Unitarianism stubs if the numbers are too low; whatever. Easy-peasy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the UUA is pretty diligent about the use of its trademark, which is only proper. Technically, you have to defend a trademark, or else the trademark could lose its legal standing. On the matter of overlap, I would think that all UU stubs could be clustered under Unitarianism (Universalism is, I grant, a much smaller category) but this could be perceived as a sectarian/political maneuver rather than merely an effort to clarify the difference between Unitarian theology and the UUA. 24.99.218.69 03:38, 5 February 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.

{{Cue-sports-bio-stub}} + conforming twiddles

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

The result of the debate was create as revised.
See discussions at WP:SFD and stub naming guidelines.
As per discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cue sports#Stub templates and categories, proposing creation of this stub. As noted in the text there, there is already a draft version that can simply be moved (don't bother copying; we'd just have to do a MfD to get rid of the old one). There are 47 50 62 68 75 and counting <I estimate 75-80 within 2 5 days) cue sports-related biography stubs. Also requesting:

  1. Rename of existing {{Cuesport-stub}} to {{Cue-sports-stub}}, in keeping with the rest of the templates relating to this active WikiProject ({{Cue sports project}}, {{Cue sports nav}}, etc., etc. Only the main article at Cue sport uses the singular (because WP art. naming conventions require that), and none of the related articles, categories, etc., uses the term run-together as "cuesport". The naming inconsistency is a real thorn in the side for the active editors.
  2. If the -'s in the stub template name are not mandatory (they don't seem to be - I see loads of stub templates without them), leave them out, i.e. {{Cue sports stub}} vs {{Cue-sports-stub}}. We are not generally using dashes like this in template names more generally, so the usage is confusing and hard to remember. Yesterday I was trying to add a stub template to an article, and it took me seven tries (cue sports stub, cuesports stub, cue-sports-stub, etc., etc., until I got it right!)
  3. Please don't upmerge the bio stubs into the larger category, or there's no point in having two stubs. The bio stubs are going to continue increasing at a fast pace, and we'd like them in their own new subcat under Category:Cue sports stubs, i.e. Category:Cue sports bio stubs
  4. Rename Category:Cue sport stubs (which isn't consistent with the template or the project) to Category:Cue sports stubs
  5. Conforming changes to the snooker sub-project ones, i.e. move templates from hyphenated versions to {{Snooker stub}} and {{Snooker bio stub}}, and have {{Snooker-bio-stub}} feed into its own new Category:Snooker bio stubs under Category:Snooker stubs. There are 72 77 snooker biography stubs.

Some of this was discussed w/o any input from me or other WP:CUE participants, at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/December/28#Cue sports mess, because in my case I was travelling, and I guess the others just didn't notice. So this is kind of a renewal/extension of that discussion. Anyway, this is all part of a larger cleanup of this entire article- and category-space (the next step being the renaming of all the high-level "Billiards something" categories to "Cue sports something" in conformance of the top-level article's move from Billiards to Cue sport, due to the treble ambiguity of the term "billiards"). PS: The snooker stub templates do need to exist and go to their own categories, as the overlap between this pair of topically parent-and-descendant WikiProjects is just about nil; the average WP:CUE member doesn't know enough about snooker to contribute meaningfully to stubs in that topic, and arguably often vice-versa - snooker is its own world. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
PS: If (I really don't spend much time in here...) there really is a genuine consensus that all stub tags should have hyphenated names for some reason, I don't intend to fight that; just ignore those parts. If there is no such consensus, then please don't ignore those parts.  ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Refactored to remove moot issues/suggestions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Updated 23:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Strongest possible oppose of the template renames. You may have a wikiproject naming convention, but so have we: WP:WSS/NG. And as it affects 3000+ such templates. "No spaces" is something we've just about gotten consistent, the last thing we want to do is start making ad hoc exceptions afresh. One could make an argument for {{cuesport-stub}}, {{cuesports-stub}} or {{cue-sports-stub}}, however. (That distinction is subtle enough that a redirect from the others to chosen one might well be a good plan.) Also, this is the wrong venue: you'd want WP:SFD, and to tag them appropriately. You want complete consistency? Move the rest. I'll help.
  • On (ahem) {{cuesports-bio-stub}}: what's the current number of these? That's the whole rationale for a separate type, and the one piece of information there's no hint at. (If there's not 60, then... upmerge.)
  • Are there enough bios for both a "snooker" and a "cue sports" category, separately? Again, you give no indication. If there's 60 (of both), fair enough, but a better name would be Category:Snooker player stubs, following the permcat, or if you want to be slightly more inclusive, Category:Snooker biography stubs.
  • I think Category:Cue sport stubs is consistent with Category:Cue sports; it's just avoiding a redundant plural. Is this a "singular of 'sports' is 'sports'" thing? Now admittedly, the overall parent is at Category:Sports stubs, so I'd have no objection as such. (At SFD.)
  • For the previous renamings, the affected templates and categories were appropriately tagged during the discussion period, so if no-one participated (or noticed...). (Now admittedly, I wasn't exactly mega-active that week myself...)
  • I'm a bit boggled by the "nil overlap" statement. If "cue sports" isn't supposed to cover snooker, why is it so tortuously named? Where does "English" billiards (I can't quite believe that's where the article has ended up...) fall into this UK/US nice clean split? I'm beginning to wonder if we weren't better off before the first iteration of all this, with separate pool-, billiards- and snooker- types, without the neologising and supposed consolidation... that doesn't actually consolidate anything? At any rate, our objective is to organise things consistent with the permcats and the size criteria, so...
  • Why do you have a "stub template" in the wikipedia project space? (Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Template:Cue sports bio stub) It's not transcluded on any articles, but it certainly makes the stub category look strange. Oh, wait, that's the draft, right? Alai 11:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And lastly... what's with the WP:OWN-fest that is {{CatMaintainPageWP}}? A more standard-looking wikiproject banner would be highly preferable; and such entities really shouldn't be on "permanent" categories at all. (Put them on permcat talk pages if you wish.) But I'm getting a little off-topic... Alai 11:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Comments: Yeesh. I'll try to just take all this in turn:
  1. If there really is a putsch to make all stub tags use dashes, I've already said that I have no problem with it. Moot point. {{cue-sports-stub}}, {{cue-sports-bio-stub}}. Next.
  2. By my count there are 47 id'd WP:CUE bio stubs, but I'm still in the process of going thru the snooker bio stubs and seeing which of them also need WP:CUE stubs (because they are not just snooker players); that seems to be about 1 in 5 or so of every snooker bio stub I look at, and there are LOTS of them. And, see WP:CUEBIOS; the other most-active participant in WP:CUE is very intent on creating at least stubs for everyone on that list (see also the "New article" section at WP:CUE; a number of them are in fact bios and bio stubs from this list; the process is already ongoing).
  3. There appear to be 72 (identified) snooker bio stubs; WP:SNOOKER is pretty prolific.
  4. Category:Cue sports was in fact modelled on Category:Sports, so, yeah, Category:Cue sports stubs is what we were after. And they are multiple sports, from a community/organizations/tournaments/rules/history/etc. perspective. So it's not a "singular of sports is sports" issue at all.
  5. The holiday period isn't necessarily the best time for big changes. Heh. Anyway, I don't think that prior silence somehow auto-invalidates present activity.
  6. Re: 'boggled by the "nil overlap" statement' - I'm referring strictly to participants in these wikiprojects. By and large the WP:SNOOKER members have no Wikipedian cue sports interest outside snooker, and to date most of the WP:CUE members are interested in pool and carom games amost exclusively and are happy to leave the WP:SNOOKER crowd to their own devices. I think I may be the only person in both of them. WP:SNOOKER is only a descendant wikiproj of WP:CUE in a categorization sense (which is also why some bios are being tagged as stubs under both; a player bio languishing under WP:SNOOKER might get the attention it needs under WP:CUE if the player in question is also a Mosconi Cup nine-ball player).
  7. English billiards does not mean "billliards as played in England"; it is a unique (just unfortunately named) game, that is a hybrid of carom and pocket billiards, with its own unique ruleset, history, tournaments, pros and so on. There really isn't anything else like it anywhere. If you dig deep into the categories, you'll find Category:English players of English billiards, etc, because "English English billiards players" would just look like a typo. This naming ambiguity resolution method is getting conventionalized as we speak: [2]
  8. Neologism? Um, no. See more than adequate sourcing at Talk:Cue sport demonstrating that "cue sports" is in fact international industry-standard terminology, and the only such term that isn't ambiguous. Next.
  9. Re: 'Why do you have a "stub template" in the wikipedia project space?' Yes, it's the draft as I already said, stored there for project member comment and editing until such time as it needs to be moved into Template:space. See also the first link I mentioned in the nom, where a regular here suggested we propose it as a real stub template. Please forgive me, but I'm getting the strong impression that I'm just being attacked on every topic you can think of an attack about, whether you've actually looked into their background or not... Which brings us to:
  10. {{CatMaintainPageWP}} and {{CatMaintainTalkWP}} are simply less rudimentary versions of {{CatMaintain}} and {{Monitored category}} which have been around a long time; if you disagree with their usage or existence, maybe take it up on their talk pages. The point of them is to direct people to a project before making major changes to categories that affect that project, to discuss it at the project. It's not any more WP:OWN than WikiProject Stub sorting's assertion of "regulation" of not only stubs but categories relating to stubs, to such an extent that Cfx won't even touch them any longer and sends everyone here. Regardless, yes, it's ugly, and will be replaced (in these particular categories) with {{WikiProject Cue sports}}; just hasn't been a high priority. If someone wants to TfD those CatMaintain* templates and their parents, be my guest. Next.
  11. ANYWAY, the gist is: The extant stub cat for WP:CUE is malnamed. The extant stub template is too, in a differerent way (and no I'm not speaking of hyphenation any longer; I conceded that point as totally moot). The new bio tag and cat are aguably justifiable in that there probably definitely really are 60 cue sports bio stubs, some of them just haven't been tagged yet, way more bios are coming, and there are only a handful of genuinely active editors at WP:CUE; it's not like WikiProject History, so anything that helps keep things organized is a boon. If the new bio tag is rejected, I'd still like the have the other two issues dealt with. And as a WP:SNOOKER participant, too, I'd like to see snooker-bio-stub put things in a subcat, because there are over 60 bio stubs and they drown out all other stub work WP:SNOOKER needs to deal with.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Update: {{CatMaintainPageWP}} and {{CatMaintainTalkWP}} have been removed from all the relevant cats. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Would prefer Category:Cue sports bio stubs over Category:Cue sports biography stubs and same for Snooker, since it will parallel the template names better, and these cats are for editors, not readers, so plainest-possible longwinded English isn't really needed. If there is a hard and fast WikiProject Stub sorting rule that "biography" should be spelled out, I have no objection and withdraw this sub-request, and don't need to be flamed by anyone about that either, thank you.  :-/ — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Howabout Cue sportspeople stubs? Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Doesn't seem in keeping with the conventions around here. But more importantly, these bio stubs and stubcats are for more than sportspeople, including writers, announcers, notable industry giants, etc. - the people in (and destined to be in; my next article will probably be Robert Byrne (billiards writer)) Category:Billiards non-player personalities (under CfD as we speak to become Category:Cue sports non-player personalities), for example. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment We've been including more than just the players in other categories in the Category:Sportspeople stubs hierarchy, so including non-players as well would be not just acceptable, but expected. Possibly Category:Cue sports people stubs would be more in line. The rule is to generally follow the parent cat as closely as possible, but that's not possible when there are two categories that would be the parent. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Then "sportspeople" as a term in those categories is being misused. I'm not sure I see what the debate on this point is really about. I'm not asking for a new naming convention, just consistency. These categories don't exist for encyclopedia readers, but editors, especially WikiProject or otherwise organized, focused ones trying to improve an entire category of stubs into real articles, for whom consistency (i.e. "Cue-sports-bio-stub = Cat:Cue sports bio stubs") is way more useful than encyclopedic longwindedness just for its own sake. If (multiple) people are really, really going to feel strongly about not liking "bio" in the cat. names, fine, call them Category:Cue sports biography stubs and Category:Snooker biography stubs, and I'm sure we'll be able to deal with it. But, please, not "sportspeople"; that would be genuinely erroneous. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: At WP:WSS/NG#xx-xx-stub the "complex/compound" argument there simply doesn't apply; there just are not possibly enough sub-topics of this topic area to ever generate, much less justify, complexity of the sort envisioned there, so running-together of the name (e.g. as cuesport[s]) is not justified, per with that guideline's own counter-examples: "e.g., DC-Comics-stub, Opera-singer-stub" (and actually, given the wide range of conceivable DC Comic subcategorizing, I think that counter-example is very telling!) The stub names requested are also consistent with the '#Hybrid/complex/composite/compound stubs' section in the same guideline; it's a very simply "just tack it on" process. Cf. also: "Preferably, these [stubcat names] should be in a similar form to their non-stub parent categories", '#General form' in same guideline, thus again "cuesport[s]" is contraindicated. Lastly, in #Abbreviations, same guideline, the only examples given are in fact of acronyms, and even the guideline says such constructions are in use in stubcat names and does not condemn them; meanwhile bio is not an acronym, and is in suffiencent use as to have a solid Wiktionary entry; from a usage perspective it is an actual word, as in "do you have the new copy of the executive director's bio ready?", not a simple abbreviation (*bio.); ergo, there is no compelling reason to use the longer word, especially given that stubcats are not intended for readers, but editors. Can we please move on now? The WikiProject Stub sorting guideline (which does not appear to be an actual Wikipedia Guideline in the first place, just an internal WPSS document), largely supports, and nowhere conclusively contraverts, the requests in this nomination. Why all the fussing? I think this is the third time I've asked this question, in one form or another, either here directly or in edit summary, and I've yet to get any answer, much less a compelling one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Question: At CfD[3] It has been strongly implied that no action at all will be taken with regard to renaming the Category:Cue sport stubs category to Category:Cue sports subs because I somehow did not follow the correct stubs-for-whatever process this WikiProject insists upon. If this is actually the case, I'd appreciate confirmation (from someone other than Alai, who made the assertion in the first place); otherwise, I have better WP things to do, like actually working on articles, than jump through hoops to re-propose a rather obvious cat. maintenance rename. From what I can tell here, and in the real, policy-based XfD processes, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with moving for additional cleanup (renames, etc.) when proposing something related at the appropriate place, as I have done here. Notably, Alai himself has done just that (and I've complied - removal of templates he disagrees with and fixing self-ref WPP categorization in an article category; see "Update" messages at above URL). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I do see a lot of "Whatever biography subs" cats — not exclusively, but enough that it suggests a nascent convention — so I won't argue any further for the abbreviation. Current proposal stands at:
  • Template:Cue-sports-stub ⇒ Category:Cue sports stubs
  • Template:Cue-sports-bio-stub ⇒ Category:Cue sports biography stubs
  • Template:Snooker-stub ⇒ Category:Snooker stubs
  • Template:Snooker-bio-stub ⇒ Category:Snooker biography stubs
Are we all happy now? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Clear and near-identical precedent: {{Water-sports-stub}}, Category:Water sports stubs — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion at stub naming guidelines. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Request Please close this in favor of the revised proposal. Any further discussion of the wider sports/arts/etc. naming issue, and WP:WSS processes, that may or may not arise at the NG's talk page (thus far, I don't see any interest in the topic, though I'm considering proposing an NG clarity revision) should not hold up this proposal any longer - Wikipedia is not a fillibuster as someone else said recently. The proposal is demonstrably supported by the numbers and has no objections to the revised version after 12 days now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:34, 19 February 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.

"PRC", née "Mainland China" locations oversized again

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 raised an eyebrow when I saw "Category:People's Republic of China geography stubs 7" on the to-do list: it seems that one of the "one China, two entrenched positions" editors has been busy again, not just upmerging China-geo-stub to there (which I favoured, but there was hardly a clear consensus for when we discussed it recently), but also double-catting the HongKong- ones in there too. However, even after undoing the latter, it's still a little oversized, and no single province (or first order division, or thing remarkably like a first order division you'll be talked to death for describing as such) has even 30. Long term way of fixing that is probably to add per-(thingie) cats to all those lacking them: a list! However, that lacks the swift satisfaction of a resolution anytime before, oh, the next db dump or some such time, so I have a quick fix for now: {{South Central China geography stubs}}, which would get about 109 stubs from 6 upmerged templates. Alai 03:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Perhaps we should write the the Chinese government asking them to restructure their regions to something more suitable for stub sorting ;) Grutness...wha? 04:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree - I did a full (laborious) count of this and found different results. The following provinces have more than thirty: Hebei (30), Heilongjiang (39), Henan (40), Hubei (39), Hunan (40), Jiangsu (33), Shandong (41), Sichuan (41), Yunan (35). I would be in favor of giving these their own upmerged templates because they're close enough. Even if we creat those and upmerge them into your proposed stub also, it would be a good step considering the tendency of stubs to multiply. Less work in the future, and all that. If you want complete count details for all provinces except the urban cities, I can provide that upon request. Aelfthrytha 16:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Upmerged templates is exactly what I proposed. (It's just that upmerging it to the main cat kinda gets us nowhere in terms of it's size in the medium-term...) Alai 18:41, 5 February 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.

Splits of Category:Software 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 templates; create cats for those over 60.
I've starting looking at our current largest stub category, and I've quickly come to the conclusion that it needs more sub types if it is going to be brought down to <800. I'm not certain of the counts so I propose starting these as upmerged templates in case my initial perception has played me false. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See also this earlier proposal, also including the business type. Alai 01:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I've re-crnched the numbers, and here's the first-level subcats of Category:Software by domain that break 30,
The trouble being, that that category hierarchy is lamentably underpopulated: 505 total, out of a 12-page type. On that basis, one might quadruple the counts (with a huge margin for error). Other counts: Statistical software, 26; Utility software, 16; Financial software, 16; Educational software, 16; Credit Collections software, 15; Data compression software, 14; Cryptographic software, 11; Communication software, 10. Alai 22:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
As for the big 5 you found, here's how I see it. The science software is likely to have severe overlap with simulation software, which would also cover engineering oriented software, and the remainder likely overlaps with educational software so I don't favor that for a first iteration of sorting. As for text editors, I'd prefer creating {{programming-software-stub}} → Category:Computer programming tool stubs → Category:Computer programming tools which is a parent of Category:Text editors. I support a {{music-software-stub}} and we already have a {{graphics-software-stub}}.
Net result add:
to my original proposal. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
In the db dump, the "science software" and the "simulation software" (of which there were... 4) don't overlap at all. Unless your recattings have changed things rapidly... Biggest groups are computational chemistry software, physics software, the aforementioned statistical software... Alai 08:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is based on inspection of the first 50 or so stubs, and I'd prefer to not have to look at each article twice and have keep track of it on the first go around. Since my perception might play me false, that's why I'm suggesting they start as upmerged templates and expand to have cats if my intuition proves true (despite being of the wrong gender for effective intuition). Hand stubbing is not fun, but in a case like this where there is undercategorization, it's essential. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:32, 5 February 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.

Templates (and a couple of categories) for African biography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create template & cat for Namibia, upmerged templates for others.
All the countries listed below need templates, but not categories (yet): Mozambique, Chad, Guinea, and Benin. They have between 40 and 53 bio-stubs. Namibia needs its own bio-template and category (59 by hand count).--Thomas.macmillan 19:20, 1 February 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:Trail stubs : {{trail-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.
When I was doing a stub sort for a new article(Lansing River Trail, I noticed that there are no stub types (that I can find at least) about hiking/ATV/snowmobile/ski/etc. trails. They are categorized according to location using {{location-geo-stub}} which only shows that the subject of the article exists in a geographic location. There may not be quite enough articles to warrant the creation of {{location-trail-stubs}} but look at a list like List of rail trails which is mostly stubs and redlinks(future stubs) shows that there should be at least 40-60 stubs. Mr.Z-mantalk 21:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as they remain double-stubbed with their location-geo-stub, I don't see much of a problem if there are 60. There may well be, there are quite a few related to tramping tracks in other parts of the world (I know there are several New Zealand ones). There may even be a few misclassified as road stubs. The difficulty might be classifying where road stubs stop and trail stubs start. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

PS - Here are a few of them (I've started with NZ, since it's the one I know best - I've since added the Aussie ones) - feel free to add to this list, since I'm not convinced that stubsense would be able to help us find them all given their current categorisation. if we can find 60... Grutness...wha? 00:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  1. East Cape to Cape Egmont Traverse
  2. New Zealand tramping tracks
  3. New Zealand Great Walks
  4. Te Araroa Trail
  5. Abel Tasman Inland Track
  6. St James Walkway
  7. Routeburn Track
  8. Rakiura Track
  9. Australian Alps Walking Track
  10. Great Ocean Walk
  11. Warburton Trail
  12. Heysen Trail
  13. Strzelecki Track
  14. List of Bush walking tracks of Tasmania
  15. South Coast and Port Davey Tracks
  16. Hume and Hovell Track
  17. Katoomba to Mittagong Trail
  18. Tops to Myall Heritage Trail
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:Argentine actor stubs : {{Argentina-actor-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.
Well over 150 stubs on actors and actresses for Argentina -this is far less than 1/10th of what will eventually be covered. Argentina has a major film industry of its own and many many notable actors. Although Category:South American actor stubs exists which has 88 not many people know about it and argentine actor articles usually have argentina-bio-stub and actor stub to which both categories have a HUGE amount and need sorting. The stub category would use the same film picture as Category:Argentine film stubs. Trust me on this soon enough there will be hundreds and hundreds and Brazil has a major film industry too!!. I remember the debate over Category:Argentine film stubs because there were only 43 -6 weeks ago -well now there are well over 225!! There are a number of other editors working on Argentine actors so this a must

Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

support StubSense verifies there is enough existing stubs. Monni 20:07, 14 February 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.

{{Guyana-bio-stub}} / Category:Guyanese people 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 category is not overly large but, from taking a look around the category, I can tell there are more than enough people stubs. Also, the category is extremely poorly sorted.--Thomas.macmillan 03:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: How many is "more than enough"? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
More than the 60 which is the norm. I just haven't done a precise hand count or sorted the category properly yet.--Thomas.macmillan 06:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I did a hand count and partial sort of the category and found between 70 and 80 potential bio stubs.--Thomas.macmillan 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Support Valentinian T / C 22:48, 11 February 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.

{{String-theory-stub}}/ Category:String theory 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 propose a stub for articles relating to string theory. There are at present 84 articles in the string theory category, many of which are stubs. The other point is that articles on string theory are expected to increase. MP (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. Very popular topic being expanded at the moment due to the shows on TV lately. Goldenrowley 02:37, 8 February 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.

{{fantasy-novel-stub}} / Category:Fantasy novel 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.
This template has existed for quite some time and deliniate a major section of fantasy literature. Currently it redirects to {{fantasy-book-stub}}. It is long overdue that it should take a life of it's own and should support the well over 250 articles that use the template. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, those items are the main ones that are "books" but don't forget "novels" are not strictly speaking "books" any way they are just normally delivered that way. Anyhow, that asside don't forget all the short stories, anthologies and short story collections there are. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
To second Kevin, yes, books about the fantasy genre, as well as short stories, are what we're talking about, and there are plenty. Take a look at Category:Science fiction books for a parallel example. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:27, 9 February 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:Popular culture book 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.
Slightly small (at 59), and rather broad... best-looking split I can find from the non-fict-books (still oversized). Alai 20:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I may have an alternative to this annoyingly-broad category. Stay tuned. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
(later that same day) How about Category:Sports book stubs (41), Category:Travel book stubs (53), or Category:Art book stubs (39)? Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose popular culture due to the trouble and POV of defining a "popular culture". Support the stubs counter-suggested by Pegship as bookstore type categories. Goldenrowley 02:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
O./S. precisely per Goldenrowley. The Pegship-narrowed categories are so obvious I can't believe the don't exist already. Only caveat would be that "art books" is likely to want to split into "Books of photographs", "Books about photography" (painting, etc., ad infinitum.) Eventually needed anyway, just saying "expect it". But "popular culture" books isn't cutting it (makes me think "Hunter S. Thompson", heh). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, shall I create {{travel-book-stub}} & Category:Travel book stubs, and upmerged templates for the others? Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:18, 11 February 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.

Skate-bio 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.
Five off hitting their fifth page, these subtypes seem viable:

I had a feeling the speedsters had been proposed before, but no link to the above cat, at least. Alai 07:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. Aelfthrytha
Support, with qualm: The numbers back it. I really hope, though, that the parent stub template isn't really called "skate"; I thought this was about skateboarding when I saw that; too ambiguous. No qualms about the cat. names proposed here, including the and/or's, just to be clear (but assuming there is a cognizable difference between a figure skater and an ice dancer; I don't know enough about the sport(s) to offer an opinion myself. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I was imprecise in my choice of header; the template corresponding to the parent is {{skating-bio-stub}}. For most of them, {{skater-stub}} would be applicable, the broader descriptor presumably be to take in coaches and any other such related people. A "figure skater" are a type of "ice skater", and an "ice dancer" is a type of figure skater, as I was trying to indicate with the bulletting. Alai 14:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Question: Is there a reason they are "figure skater" instead of "ice skater"? Just for brevity, the latter seems preferable to me. If these are industry terms of art or something I have no issues with it. Whatever the sports mavens watching this topic want, really. (I labelled this "question" rather than even "comment" for a reason; disregard it for even a hint of consensus-guage purposes, please.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
My guess would be to distinguish these skaters from, say, speed skaters. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:56, 10 February 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.

Ohio 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 as revised.
This is now oversized, having grown spectacularly recently (it was <400 at the last db dump!). I suggest per-county templates, upmerged to suitable regions... though I'm not quite clear what those are. There's a couple of metro. areas, and the article Extreme Northwest Ohio certainly defines a crisp-sounding region as a list of counties, but I confess my geographic knowledge of the state isn't the best. I'll ask for more input at the appropriate WPJ. Alai 06:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable - IIRC California-geo-stub is split by counties. I'm leaving the sub-state level geo-splits to our 'merkin editors. If it's smaller than state-sized I figure someone else is likely to be in a far better position to know what's right. Grutness...wha? 06:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as official splits on anything other than a county basis is concerned, I don't know. I suspect a lot of these new stubs are the work of WikiProject Ohio townships since there are over 1300 of them, of which a fair number have articles. If so, this means there likely are few if any of Ohio's 88 counties that have over 60 stubs since the ~1000 stubs will be fairly evenly split with an average of 12 stubs each. Perhaps a separate stub type for the Wikiproject? Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd made a similar calculation as regards per county cats. I didn't know about the wikiproject: I've left them a message, too. It seems they're actually almost all the work of one editor (or at least, the "new growth" is). Alai 07:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It has 5 members listed, tho I have no idea how active they all are. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm the editor who created all of those new township articles, although I was unaware of a townships wikiproject. I respectfully disagree with the idea of regionally-based stub categories, since we don't have any specific geographical boundaries in Ohio that can easily be defined by counties. I'm from Logan County, Ohio, barely half an hour from Allen County (mentioned in the Extreme Northwest article), and I've never heard of an "Extreme Northwest Ohio" region being specifically delineated nor see why Allen County, for example, would fit therein. If we have a basis (such as census) for such boundaries, that's different, but I'm not aware of such a thing. As the Northwest Ohio article says, "Just like any other region, there is no universally agreed-upon line for NW Ohio, as the entire area is defined differently by the opinions of multiple people." Since several of the regions on the {{Ohio}} template extend over multiple states, and since none of them (except the uncertain Northwest, and possibly the Black Swamp) claim to include specific counties, I can't see how we could determine these regional boundaries in a NPOV manner.

Instead, I would propose a {{Ohio-twp-stub}} stub, since a large number of these stubs are townships (witness the ones that I've done). I think such would break down the backlog in the geo stub without the inherent subjectivity of a regionally-divided set of stubs, and there really isn't much that can be done to increase the list of township stubs once all township articles are created (over sixty of the eighty-eight counties have articles on all their townships). Since some township articles are developed past stub status, such as the ones for Logan County, I can't see a reason that the rest couldn't gradually be developed in the same manner. Nyttend 14:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of a separate township type, either a) from the point of view of the stub-sorting project, if we just end up with an over-large "Ohio townships" type, rather than an over-large "places in Ohio" type; or b) from the point of view of Ohio editors, unless they happen to have a systematic preference for editing articles about townships vs. non-township places, as against places they're familiar with on a geographic basis. Your argument against the particular Extreme Northwest type is admittedly fairly compelling, though, and makes me wonder about the bona fides of that article -- possibly a POV split about definition of "Northwest Ohio"? But surely we can use USCB's definitions of metropolitan and statistical areas? At least the latter are supposedly defined in terms of numbers of whole counties, and where they cross state lines, we can just consider the portion within each separately (or ignore them, if what that leaves is too titchy). (I don't think NPOV is a huge worry, since these categories are there for editorial convenience, rather than as encyclopaedic statements per se (just so long as they don't cause actual offence or start brushfire edit wars over them). For example, the USCB define Greater Cleveland as five counties, so I'd suggest using them as the basis of a Category:Greater Cleveland geography stubs, or a Category:Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor geography stubs if one wants to use their terminology (or Category:Cleveland-Akron-Elyria geography stubs if one uses the broader CSA. Alai 16:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem with using the Census bureau's MSA's or CSA's is (as you pointed out that some of them such as Cincinnati's cross state borders. Worse, they're not static and are adjusted every decade. The latter problem is merely irritating, but the former is a problem as using MSA's for the next level of organization would mean that a {{Cincinnati-geo-stub}} would need to be a child of Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. There is one region that can be easily defined in a non POV manner, the Western Reserve. Unfortunately, it's only easily defined at the township level, not the county level. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
My whole point is that I knew of no official divisions of Ohio by any agency other than the 88 counties established by state law. Aside from the problems Caerwine notes, I would say that the MSAs or CSAs would be a perfect way to divide, except that ones such as the Bellefontaine micropolitan area and many others likewise are just one county. As far as NPOV, I'm simply thinking that it wouldn't be good to have arbitrary divisions if possible; I'm not worried about having people getting angry over whether their county is in one region or another :-) But yeah, I'm sure that any fixed and sensible official divisions would be a good idea. Nyttend 19:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I worried about this when we split various US types into the four large USCB regions, but aside from some grumbling at one point about Delaware not really being in the South, it seems to have been relatively rage-free. ("Don't blame us, blame your Evil Federal Government" is my standby retort.) I don't like the multiple-parent MSA/CSA solution; for the case you mention, I'd suggest having separate Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky stubs, as children of their respective states, only (ignoring the odd Indiana county), making the precise definition explicit on the category pages, rather than necessarily trying to encode it in the stub type name. Alai 02:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd strongly oppose a -twp-stub (surprise surprise), especially if (as suggested) most of the stubs are townships - in which case splitting them out wouldn't really help much. Perhaps separate upmerged county templates would be the answer, and if at least some of the substate regions are uncontroversial then splitting those out would be a reasonable move. At least that would reduce the main category some. Grutness...wha? 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm being too picky or argumentative or something. I'm well aware that I'm not familiar with stub sorting, so maybe my ideals are rather different from those of most of you :-) I just figure that, by their nature, the township articles can easily be destubbed. Virtually every village and city in the country has a basic structure with name, county, geographical location, and demographic statistics (for a completely random example, see Dighton, Kansas) and isn't a stub. According to something on the Ohio townships wikiproject page, by using a bot, one could take information from a specific website and put such information onto any Ohio township. I'm just thinking that, unlike generic "locations", there are a specific and limited number of townships in Ohio, and therefore that they could be just put in their own stub category and left for the category gradually to be cut down. Nyttend 23:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Normally I'd oppose a {{Ohio-township-stub}}, but since in this case it does have an associated WikiProject, I see it as a good idea as I see it more as a WikiProject template than as the precedent for a whole series of {{*-township-stub}}s. (It's a strange idea for a WikiProject to my mind, but there are those who think we stub sorters are strange too.) Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not as radically opposed to "by type" splits as (ahem-hem) some, but I still struggle to see the benefit in this case. There seems more likely to be a benefit for, say, mountains, which are very possibly likely to be expanded by peak-bagger who'd ignore mere flat human geography, and such like, as against one form of local government entity or another. I also think there's a limit to the extend that we should defer to other wikiprojects in determining the precise scope of stub types, as the tortuous structure and naming of the US-road subtypes illustrates quite nicely. Alai 02:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It does seem far more of a candidate for WP-specific talk page templates than actual stub templates. And it does set a nasty little precedent. The main question that really should be asked is whether an average editor would be more likely to look for articles to expand based on type of feature in Ohio or location within Ohio. I'd still think it more likely that someone in, say southwest Ohio is more likely to know about features of all sorts in that part of the state that features of a particular kind statewide. Understandably, a Wikiproject dedicated to one type of feature is likely to have different goals to that, and anyone associated with that wikiproject is likely to fall into the opposite type of editorship to the one I described. But given that, a stub type - as used by editors across the board, would more logically suit the subregion approach, whereas a talk page template for a specific wikiproject can target just those features dealt with by that project. Grutness...wha? 04:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly not a bad idea, as long as we can decide on a basis for organising them systematically. How shall we do that? I'm not sure, so I hope you have better ideas than I do :-) At any rate, I hope that we can resolve this fast; I've been waiting on creating new articles for some days, instead systemetising others' work, but there's not too much of that left. Should I continue waiting, or should I just go ahead and create new articles and hope that somebody will come up with a bot to tag them? Nyttend 07:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's perhaps a way to divide the state, as seen on the map (forgive me if my colors are off; I'm partly colorblind):

Ashland and Richland counties are up for grabs, since they're on the line between the metro areas. I've used the CSAs and merged Cincinnati and Dayton so as to get the widest areas possible and to keep the southeast and the northwest from joining, to prevent more anomalies such as Ashland and Richland counties. Nyttend 14:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks perfect to me. I suggest as a first step that we create per-county templates, so that you can tag future articles with them (although bot-tagging isn't likely to present any real difficulty, as far as I can see). If you let me know which counties you're working on, or about to start working on, I can help creating those in some sort of priority order. Then as I second step, I suggest we upmerge to categories corresponding to the regions you've identified, or in the case of "spare" counties, ones it's not possible to assign to a region, or where the region would be too small, just upmerge to the parent. Alai 15:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
All counties now have templates except for Franklin (Columbus) and the counties bordering it. I'm looking to create articles on townships for other counties without all township articles: Clermont, Preble, Montgomery, Greene, Fayette, Knox, Muskingum, Coshocton, Holmes, Tuscarawas, Carroll, Jefferson, Columbiana, and Mahoning. In response to an idea of Alai, I filled out the Brown County townships and made all of them {{BrownOH-geo-stub}}. What do you think? Nyttend 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I created the above template, and fed it into Category:Greater Cincinnati geography stubs, which I'll now create the remaining templates for. If anyone has any divergent views on the category name, I'm personally pretty flexible on that... Alai 15:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've created about half or so of the by-county templates (all of the form<county>OH-geo-stub), covering all of the central and west. I've deviated somewhat from Nyttend's map in and around Cleveland, as it doesn't seem to quite match up with the statistical areas; Dayton takes in some of that, as a separate CSA, which I've created as a subcat, as it passes 60. Toledo doesn't yet seem to, so I've just lumped that in with the "Northwest", which seems to be a reasonably natural region; being at least vaguely defined in the Northwest Ohio article, and being fairly clearly delineated by the four CSAs. The eastern part of the state I've yet to tackle; depending on how good a source there is for the Ohio River and Appalachian regions I'd be happy with those, or else just a generic "eastern" one. Alai 21:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! All Ohio townships (as of this morning) have articles now, so there should be plenty of such stubs :-) I didn't intend to announce that the Ohio River counties are an official region by anybody's standards; I simply grouped all counties (other than in the Cincinnati area) that have a line on the Ohio River, and anything else southeast of the Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland corridor went into the Appalachian area. I guess you could say that my "source" is the boundaries of those metros and the line of the Ohio River :-) Nyttend 16:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the image update: we can use that on the various category pages. It's now off the triage priority list, and if it's not longer rapidly growing might remain that way for a while. Still, if people have ideas on either how to subdivide the southern and eastern/Appalachian/Ohio River counties, or simply what to call that as a single subcat... Alai 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's the new color codes for the map for putting on the category pages:

Nyttend 18:26, 12 February 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.

{{West Virginia-stub}} and Category:West Virginia stubs

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

The result of the debate was do not create.
Something like this: This West Virginia-related article is a stub, you can help Wikipedia by expanding it. - Patricknoddy 20:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. - Patricknoddy 20:59, 14 February 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 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.
Last April, most of the Category:Japan geography stubs were sorted. Four prefectures did not have enough to warrant their own category, but templates were made anyway. Now, two of the four are above 60, with the other two in the 50-60 range.

Category:Fukui geography stubs (currently 70)
Category:Ishikawa geography stubs (currently 64)
Category:Kagawa geography stubs (currently 52)
Category:Tottori geography stubs (currently 57)

I propose to make all four categories, for completeness. I don't think that there is any disagreement for the first two... Neier 07:50, 12 February 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:Japanese war biography stubs / {{Japan-war-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.
Similar to the film bios below, I also noticed several figures from WWII (and WWI) with stubs. GHits for "Japanese biographical article is a stub" + "world war" yields 82. History is not my strong suit, but, that seems to be a logical split of the Japan biography stubs. Neier 10:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful {{Japan-mil-bio-stub}} / Category:Japanese military personnel stubs would be the appropriate stub for people in the Japanese military and a glance at Category:Asian military personnel stubs shows that unless there's some severe missorting going on there aren't enough for a Japanese military stub yet. You probably hit a bunch of false positives for people who had a significant event in their life happen during a war but who are not notable because of war. Caerwine Caer’s whines 15:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the current level of mis-sorting. Of the first four hits I found in Category:Japanese people stubs, only one is sorted into the Asia military bio stub category. I'll add the Asia military tag to the Japanese articles, and, see what the count looks like after that. Neier 23:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't look good to me, either. We do have a WW2-bio-type, which eventually we might have to split off the Japanese from, but I think lumping world wars together isn't a good idea. (Even if Niall Ferguson would approve.) Alai 15:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

After running through the Japan bio stubs, there were 46 articles that I was able to add to Category:Asian military personnel stubs. Rough count of Japanese members in that category is now 68. The Asian military category is not so large as it needs subdivided, but, it would help to get those articles out of the Japan biography stubs (>750). Neier 02:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I should add that I'd support this under the -mil-bio- scope, as suggested by CW. Alai 03:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Support Japan-mil-bio-stub. As someone that handsorted around 500 of the military personnel stubs, it would be quite useful!--Thomas.macmillan 03:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The {{Japan-mil-bio-stub}} / Category:Japanese military personnel stubs suggestion is fine with me. I didn't mean to break a naming convention. Neier 04:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought you had in mind a different scope, too... Wires crossed, no problem. Alai 06:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Support Since my only concerns were about the name/scope and whether there would be enough, and both points have been addressed. You know, this is an example of everything this proposals page is supposed to do, and for once it did it! Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Support concept, per Neier's numbers; don't care what it gets called as long as it makes sense compared to Chinese, Botswanan, American, Chilean, etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:21, 9 February 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.

Subcats of Category:Japanese railway station stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
A few Japanese prefectures were earlier created, due to volume (Category:Miyagi Prefecture railway station stubs, etc); a few were templated and up-merged, {{kanagawa-rail-station-stub}}, etc). There are now >80 stations in Category:Tokyo geography stubs, and that number will likely grow, as I sort through Category:Japanese rail stubs. Category:Japanese railway station stubs is at ~500 articles, and will also grow per the above. At this point, Category:Tokyo railway station stubs and Category:Kanagawa Prefecture railway station stubs are required (around 80 transclusions of the Kanagawa template right now). The other prefectures have varying amounts, so, I don't know if now is the time to make all forty-odd templates (for each prefecture) or not. I'll leave that point for discussion. Neier 03:43, 8 February 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:Japanese film biography stubs / {{Japan-film-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.
An inordinate amount of producers and directors in Category:Japanese people stubs. There are 143 GHits for "director" + "Japanese biographical article is a stub", and there are others (producer, screenwriter) which would fall through that particular search. It would also be a child of Category:Film biography stubs, or perhaps the proposed Category:Asian film biography stubs below. Neier 09:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As some of the "director"s were of video games, I appended "movie" to the google search: 96. Neier 09:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Support: Seems well justified even by the culled bio-count figure, and the relief from the bio-swamping of the general stubcat ought to be conducive to identifying non-bio articles that need work. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:13, 9 February 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.

{{Georgia (U.S. state)-road-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 over 120 Georgia State Route articles currently using the less specific {{South-US-road-stub}} template and more will be added as the WikiProject progresses.--HowardSF-U­-T-C- 14:28, 3 February 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:Barney & Friends episode stubs and Category:United States reality television stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
I've created upmerged templates for these, the former already over 60, the latter in the 50s. That's just populating from the US-tv-progs, which are oversized. Alai 23:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I love you; you love me; we're a happy family! Support. Aelfthrytha 16:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Support if only to remove The Purple One from my sight...Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:19, 5 February 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.

The latest geo-stub round-up

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

The result of the debate was create.
No countries have got past threshold for new categories, but two more Caribbean nations are up to the 30+ mark where upmerged templates looks reasonable:

Grutness...wha? 01:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Class-action support. Alai 01:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Per nom Valentinian T / C 23:37, 2 February 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.

Splits of Category:Anatomy 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.
This category too also needs some new stub types. I recommend the following, again, starting out as upmerged templates.

I chose the name pattern established by {{circulatory-stub}} and while there might be other potential splits, such as reproductive, endocrine, and urinary, but a first glance didn't convince me that there would 60 in any others, though I wouldn't mind doing upmergerd templates for them as well if there is support. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The first two of these would seem to be speediable: see here and here. (The second is marked as NC, but that looks like an oversight.) Spot the lack of enthusiasm on my part for following through on these proposals, but I completely support such a split, if anyone's going to do the slog... Alai 01:12, 2 February 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:Yorkshire and the Humber school stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
UK schools are 2 off being at 800, again; these are at 73 from the various bits and bobs of Yorkshire "proper", but for consistency with previous splits, the English region seems the better category to go with, from ceremonial county templates. Alai 06:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. Aelfthrytha 16:10, 5 February 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.

{{manuscript-art-stub}} / Category:Illuminated manuscript 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.
We just started "manuscript stubs" and its off to a flying start (?) and full enough to allow a split off of illuminated manuscripts (hand-illustrated books), apart from the all the other many codex. I've identified 60 to 90 under that category. The parent article will be illuminated manuscript and I would place it under "art history" and "manuscripts" as subcategories of those two stub categories. Goldenrowley 05:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - although as I've bored some of you all today by saying, the trouble is most of the category are stubs, and likely to remain so for a good time! Anyway, thanks for listening Johnbod 05:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not a problem as such, unless they're "very short article of which it's claimed they're not really stubs at all" (which seems to be something of a theme at present). If they're the latter, is merger a feasible option? Alai 16:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Not really - many important manuscripts actually only have a few illuminated pages, and there is a limit to what can be said, outside a thesis. Even very short articles may well be the most complete source of information outside a full academic library - which of course will delay any improvement. Especially if they have a picture, they can be much more comprehensive (relatively) than much longer articles on bigger topics. So far I haven't disagreed with any stub/not-stub calls I've seen, that I can remember. Merging would be unhelpful. Johnbod 16:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Although they are not lenghthy more could be said on each of the ones I've seen, a good art editor might for instance expand on the art style, and anything original found in the manuscript, as well the historical importance of each. Most were already stubbed just not identified as art ^I mean as illustrated books^ before.Goldenrowley 02:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Coming as I do from a family with connections in the illuminated manuscript business, I'd say support :) Grutness...wha? 04:45, 8 February 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.

{{designer-stub}} / Category:Designer 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 reached, suggestion to propose one just for graphic designers..
I can't beleive we don't have this one yet. Anyway it can be filled and alleviate some of bio stubs and artist stubs hopefully. Goldenrowley 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems a tad broad, no? Alai 20:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking we need to start with having a top level designer stub, and index it under Category:Design stubs. If the bio calls them a designer we can tag them designer. Later if the set gets large we can identify the communication designers from the engineers and such.Goldenrowley 20:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems exactly like something we don't "need" at all. Who'd this type be of use to, that would lump together Category:Game designers, Category:Interior designers and Category:Muppet designers? I think these are much better located under categories relating to that-which-is-being-designed. Alai 20:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a tough call. The design disciplines that clearly fall under a specific field or industry with their own categories wouldn't need to be included. However, there are newer broad disciplines that cross industries and specialties such as information design that belong in the broad category. Currently, there isn't an information designer article or stub yet, but there may be in the near future. On the other hand, much of the design"er" material will be included in and redirected to the design"ing" article, since those articles are only relevant to the designers of those disciplines, as is the case with interface design and interface designer. Either way, I don't see why It would hurt to have the stub. Oicumayberight 20:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I must admit I have the same concerns as Alai. Any stub type which could suit Vivienne Westwood, Lawrence Llewellyn-Bowen and Ferdinand Porsche is just a bit too vague. Grutness...wha? 22:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I have viable count on Graphic designers but to be inclusive hoped to identify the communication designers (as they can be cross trained to do all at the same time - web, print and media). Option B I can propose {{comm-designer-stub}} / Category:Communications designer stubs which will do this and keep the muppet designers and engineers safely out of it. Option C even narrower is propose {{graphic-designer-stub}} / Category:Graphic designer stubs which is the narrowest but still large enough to start the stub category with. Goldenrowley 23:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Suggest we start with {{graphic-designer-stub}} per Goldenrowley. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
OK by me. Goldenrowley 23:25, 13 February 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.

{{graphic-designer-stub}} / Category:Graphic designer 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.
It looks like the group was leaning in this direction when I braught up designer idea last week. Graphic designers have many viable candidates inside the Category:Graphic designers categories. The only potential downfall I see is that "art directors" want to be known as "art directors" not merely graphic designers, and the art directors are potentially the more notable and powerful people. So I'd like to say the stub is for "graphic designers and art directors" in its definition line. This will alleviate some of generic bio stubs and artist stubs... hopefully. Goldenrowley 01:02, 18 February 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/February_2007&oldid=1053700863"