Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/July 2006 completed

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub Sorting. Please move completed July discussions to this page as they occur, add discussion headers to each proposal showing the result, and leave any incomplete discussions on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals page for now.

Stub proposers please note: Items tagged as "rejected" are welcome for re-proposal if and when circumstances are auspicious.

Discussion header: {{sfp create}}, {{sfp nocreate}}, {{sfp other}}, or {{sfp top}} (for customized result description, use {{sfp top|result}}).
Discussion footer: {{sfd bottom}}

In the future, those who create a stub template/cat should be responsible for moving the discussion here. Any unresolved or rejected types can be migrated by consensus on the proposals page after a reasonable amount of time.

July 2006

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.

{{edu-org-stub}} / Category:Education organization stubs

Education stubs are oversized. Organization stubs are massively oversized. A preliminary search on both categories gives more than enough. Crystallina 23:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We already have school stubs and university stubs. What else would this include? --Sbluen 01:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
All the organizations related to education, teaching, etc - of which there are many, many more than you realize. Crystallina 14:06, 1 August 2006 (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 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.

{{hoops-team-stub}} / Category:Basketball team stubs

Making a formal proposal, as the number of teams in Category:Basketball stubs is massive. --fuzzy510 18:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Support, and there should also be stubs for soccor and football teams. Maybe also for cricket and hockey teams --Sbluen 18:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Stub types already do exist for soccer (football), football (American football) and ice hockey. Cricket is kinda sticky (no pun intended), since many of the teams are national teams and a better category might be in order there. --fuzzy510 19:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
But those are few in number, and few (if any) will still be stubs; in fact, I'd be surprised if many of the level below (county/state-level sides, and first class cricket in general) are, either. If there's many such stubs at all, they're surely mainly club sides, so a {{cricket-team-stub}} or {{cricket-club-stub}} seems at least plausible, if there's the numbers. Support original proposal, btw. Alai 14:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and create this, citing WP:SNOW. --fuzzy510 17:17, 4 August 2006 (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 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.

{{Parrot-stub}} and {{Passerine-stub}}

Subdivisions of {{bird-stub}}. 72 in the former. Haven't counted the latter but the fact that search gave 250 results and the fact that it's the largest subdivision means it'll certainly surpass 60. Crystallina 18:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I found only 12 stubs in Category:Passeriformes and 54 stubs in Category:Parrots There may be enough articles for {{Parrot-stub}}, but not for {{Passerine-stub}}. --Sbluen 18:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I looked again, this time deeper than 500, and I found 290 stubs, so that should be enough. I support them. --Sbluen 18:56, 30 July 2006 (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 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.

{{baseball-team-stub}} / Category:Baseball team stubs

Many of the stubs in the somewhat bulging Category:Baseball stubs are individual teams (certainly more than 60), so a separate stub type seems to be in order. --fuzzy510 06:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support for this and other popular sports as well --Sbluen 07:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm surprise this isn't already one. Like Sbluen said, maybe one for other popular sports.
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 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-film-director-stub}} / Category:United Kingdom film director stubs

After rooting around in the various categories I've come up with just over 60, not quite done yet. Film director stubs were oversized (now they're 4 pages), film biographical stubs are oversized, and of course UK bio stubs are oversized. Crystallina 04:00, 28 July 2006 (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 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.

{{UAE-stub}}/Category:United Arab Emirates stubs

Prompted by Thomas.macmillan and Picaroon9288, I decided to investigate this one and discovered 55 stubs for the UAE just in MEast-struct-stub, MEast-bio-stub and MEast-university-stub. I'm sure there would bbe waaay over 65 if all othr stub categories were tallied too. And, as both indirectly pointed out, there is a geo-stub category, so a general parent would make some sense... Grutness...wha? 02:05, 28 July 2006 (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 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.

Four more countries at the geo-stub threshold...

Four more countries have reached the 65 geo-stub mark. I'd like to propose:

Grutness...wha? 12:19, 27 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Hospital-stub}} / Category:Hospital stubs

{{Hospital-stub}} and Category:Hospital stubs are proposed for creation. (Please note {{Hospital-stub}} is currently a redirect to {{Med-org-stub}}). They would be a sub-category of Category:Buildings and structures stubs as well as Category:Medical organization stubs, the latter currently having a scope to include any "medical organization, hospital, or association". I believe this stub is meritted because Category:Medical organization stubs currently has roughly 550 articles in it, and could do with subdivision. Of the ~550 articles in the category, slightly over 200 have the term "hospital" in their name, demonstrating in excess a number of stub articles appropriate for the template. Lastly, hospitals themselves are clearly defined in the Wikipedia category structure due to Category:Hospitals. Kurieeto 22:53, 26 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Food-bio-stub}} {{Drink-bio-stub}}/ Category:Food and drink biography stubs

{{Food-stub}} has over 1,000 850 stubs currently. This new category would be for chefs, bartenders, bakers, restaurant owners, critics, cookbook authors, etc. I manually counted about 60 people stubs in {{Food-stub}} and {{Drink-stub}} after tagging 10 or so chefs and cookbook authors with {{Food-stub}}. --Usgnus 18:59, 26 July 2006 (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 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.

{{BurkinaFaso-party-stub}} / Category:Burkina Faso political party stubs

StubSense lists 66 stub articles here [3], Category:Africa political party stubs is oversized. Valentinian (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just glad I'm not an election official there :) Valentinian (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2006 (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 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 Created as revised..

{{Vermont-Route-stub}} / Category:Vermont Route stubs

I am proposing a Vermont route stub to compliment the newly-created Vermont Routes WikiProject WP:VR. Many of the current route stubs are listed under Vermont-geo-stub. There are 18 articles under Category:Vermont geography stubs alone and will grow with time now that a WikiProject has been established. Also, it is unknown how many current Vermont route articles are "untagged stubs". --TMF T - C 04:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Create template as {{Vermont-route-stub}} -- state route is not a proper noun. Or better yet, as {{Vermont-road-stub}} as this is undersized. Oppose category until this breaks 30, or better yet, 60, as this plethora of teeny-weeny road Wikiprojects on a per-state basis seem highly redundant. If all the "roadfans" were woking from one place, wouldn't there be better synergy -- and who knows, maybe even the critical mass to get a decent naming convention in place? Alai 05:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Based on the results of a nationwide WikiProject:U.S. Route poll a while ago to establish a national naming convention (which failed miserably), I wouldn't count on seeing a uniform nationwide state route NC anytime soon, if ever. The problem stems from the fact that the way the routes are referred to varies by region and by state. But, this isn't the time or the place for this rant. Returning on topic, I'll create the stub as {{Vermont-road-stub}} and I'll hold off on the category as requested. --TMF T - C 16:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed, that's why I was suggesting something as simple and generic as possible... no-one may agree what they're called, but I'm assuming everybody's on board for them still being "roads" of one sort or another. Cheers. Alai 13:28, 5 August 2006 (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 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.

{{SierraLeone-bio-stub}} / Category:Sierra Leone bio stubs

To help solve the Africa politician stub problem, I propose a Sierra Leone bio stub. By my count, there are about 50 bio stubs from under SierraLeone-stub, out of 144 total SierraLeone-stubs (there is already a SierraLeone-geo-stub). While I know this does not reach the standard 65 stub limit, i think its a step in the right direction and probably can be grown with time.--Thomas.macmillan 04:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not too upset by a potential population of 50 -- I've seen worse, indeed not far off... But how will this help with the Afr-pols, if they remain double-stubbed with same, as they really should do? Alai 04:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hm, I don't know where my mind is! you are quite right. Well, its still worth considering on its own.--Thomas.macmillan 04:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment You mentioned Sierra Leone in connection with the politicians. Do you have a count of how many of them are politicians? A -politician-stub without a "-bio-stub" is far from elegant, but it seems like it is going to happend for Liberia. Valentinian (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It's also long been true for many US states (admittedly a somewhat different instance). Alai 10:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Approximately 30 are Africa-politician-stubs, though i am consistently adding new politician stubs, as well as new non-Sierra Leone bio-stubs--Thomas.macmillan 12:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It's getting there, but still too thin, unfortunately. (Note to myself: I *really* need to do a new count of the -politician stubs. My old number for Sierra Leone was 10). But a -bio of 50 stubs with good growth potential is not bad, so weak support for that one. A first count for {{Kenya-bio-stub}} has around the same number btw. and it looks like Sudan and Tanzania are also creeping upwards. Valentinian (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me suggest a {{SierraLeone-politician-stub}} template, double-catted into Category:Sierra Leone bio stubs (assuming this is created), and Category:West African politician stubs -- this was already proposed, wasn't it? Alai 15:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I ever got round to formally proposing the regional templates (officially, at least). It would be nice to split down the African mess into tinier segments. The only problem is to determine if the African categories should use the old regions used by the -geos and the "real" article categories or the new system (which Grutness tells me is used everywhere else.) My hunch would say to use the new system (and prepare to update both -geos and article categories to it as well.) Valentinian (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I couldn't recall. The new ones are good for me, should someone wish to propose them (or if I get around to it myself...). Alai 21:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Created Stub and category...populated up to 56 with no SierraLeone-politician-stub--Thomas.macmillan 01:29, 1 August 2006 (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 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.

{{Nonfiction-writer-stub}} / Category:Non-fiction writer stubs

I created the template in a fit of oops-wrong-name distraction, but I think it's actually a pretty good idea: it'll have several existing or soon to be created sub-types, the writer-stubs are near to being oversized again, potential population is likely huge-ish, and if people use it to double-stub the country-writer-stubs, it'll aid further such splits. Alai 02:27, 26 July 2006 (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 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 created as revised..

{{TWMetro-stub}} / Category:Tyne and Wear Metro stubs

A number of articles about Tyne and Wear Metro stations have had {{UK-railstation-stub}} used in them. I have just been re-stubbing some of these with {{NorthEastEngland-railstation-stub}} (this stub category has been split on the grounds of size: see here). However, these articles are not really about railways but about the Metro system. I propose this new stub, to be used not only on station articles but on others related to the Tyne and Wear Metro system (in the manner of {{London-tube-stub}}). This stub category would probably have around 40 articles in it: I know this is fewer than normally used for splits, but my proposal is not based on size, but on the grounds that what is currently used is inappropriate. --RFBailey 14:20, 26 July 2006 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.

Category:Montana protected area stubs, possiblie

51 stubs in both Category:Montana geography stubs and Category:Protected area stubs; latter is oversized. Perhaps a MT gubernatorial order could supply another 9... Alai 06:32, 25 July 2006 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.

Category:Islamic studies book stubs

Exactly 60 in both Category:Islam stubs and Category:Religious studies book stubs. Alai 01:51, 25 July 2006 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.

Category:Tibetan geography stubs

Proposed this before, but Grutness was dubious, and no-one else seemed much interested. 89 of these are double-stubbed, with two oversized parents, Category:Mainland China geography stubs and Category:Tibet stubs. (Don't ask me what the scope of the latter is, I just work here.) Alai 01:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • My only real concern is with that scope. Tibet (historically) and Tibet (official Chinese region) aren't coterminous. I'd be very happy to see Category:Mainland China geography stubs split up into its official regions (as we do with other countries) - and the Tibetan region would be an obvious one to split off - but it needs to be stressed that things not currently within that region shouldn't be marked with tibet-geo-stub. Grutness...wha? 02:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • (My mistake, as above, the Tibet-stubs aren't oversized.) Grutness, see my comments from last time. Are you planning on doing anything to change/clarify the scope of {{tibet-stub}}, rename it to {{Zàngqū-stub}} (and thence {{Zàngqū-geo-stub}}), or otherwise resolve the current situation, which seems to be what you're actually objecting to? Or are we going to be in a loop on this for some time? Personally it seems somewhat logical that stubs with these names would scope to something more resembling Tibet, rather than Tibet Autonomous Region, but it's at any rate imperative that the two are consistent, and it would nice if the status quo in an existing type isn't an insuperable obstacle to creating sub-types of same. Alai 03:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • What I'm objecting to is pretty much the same situation as with the long-deleted Kurdistan-stub. We use official national and subnational boundaries for geo-stubs - Tibet's traditional boundaries would take in areas not currently officially in Zàngqū/Tibet Autonomous Region/Xizang Zizhiou/whatever. If I wasn't so busy with other things both in WP and in the real world, I'd happily start going through the china-geo-stubs looking for potential splits. All I'm really saying is yes, I support this - as long as it is clear that the stubs are for the T.A.R. and don't include any of the parts of traditional Tibet which are officially in Qinghai, Sinkiang, Kashmir, or wherever. That can easily be done by the wording on the template and a note in the category. Grutness...wha? 05:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
        • And what, I ask again, are you planning on doing about {{tibet-stub}}, which shows no sign of being scoped to mean the T.A.R., judging by its current contents and scoping statement? So far as I know, they are consistent with Chinese use of Zàngqū (which is quite different from the T.A.R., and seems to be at least some approximation to "cultural Tibet"). See also Category:Geography of Tibet, btw. As I say, if someone else wishes to rescope the existing Tibet stub type (I made no comment about China geography on that score), fair enough, otherwise let's work with what we've got, at least as a "work in progress". Alai 06:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, that's no different a situation than, say, WesternSahara-stub, which includes items related to Western Sahara that aren't in Western Sahara (including some Mauritania-geo-stubs). If and when there is a WesternSahara-geo-stub, it will only include places in Western Sahara. The same is true, IIRC, with Palestine-stub, Armenia-stub, Syria-stub, Turkey-stub... they all deal with items which may be relevant to current or former borders of the countries (which in the case of Turkey is quite a distance away from the current borders). The geo-stubs for those places all restrict themselves to the current boundaries of those places. I don't see any reason why Tibet should work any differently. It's perfectly acceptable to have things culturally relevant to Tibet marked with Tibet-stub, whether they are to do with things located within the TAR or Zàngqū boundaries - I'd still like to see Tibet-geo-stub used in the same way as every other geo-stub though rather than have it a unique exception to the rule. Grutness...wha? 08:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Still sounds like a recipe for scope-confusion to me; I'd prefer they be scoped consistently, one way or another, though admittedly a separate "historical" stub type may not be immediately viable for any possible spill-over, if we go with your TAR scope. Admittedly I may be somewhat biased in favour of the more "automatable" solution, but I'd prefer consistency, for the sake of consistency. If we go with different scopes, let's make this explicit at least in the cat names, and ideally the templates, too. (TibetAR-geo-stub, perhaps.) I've asked for input from the China and Tib. Budd. WPJs; perhaps we'll get some outside input. Though additional inside input would also be handy, too... Alai 02:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I would suggest a {{tibet-geo-stub}} with a scope that includes all of the areas that are officially designated as Tibetan autonomous areas, i.e. the yellow and orange areas from Image:Tibet-claims.jpg. That seems fair to both sides. Otherwise, we could always just make it {{TAR geo stub}} instead.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Works for me. I'm going to go ahead on that basis: regardless of whether it's ultimately the best solution, it at least moves matters forward, and it can be tweaked later if there's the will to do so. Alai 01:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I concur with Grutness. Geography stubs are sorted according to present-day boundaries. (Or else what would {{Turkey-geo-stub}} or {{Mongolia-geo-stub}} be like?) If {{Tibet-geo-stub}} isn't a good name, use {{TibetAR-geo-stub}} or {{TAR-geo-stub}}. Or else when geostub templates for Sichuan, Qinghai, etc., are created, those articles on places outside of the TAR will have to be double tagged. — Instantnood 00:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • And the present-day internal boundaries of China include not just those of the TAR, but of Tibetan Autonomous Prefectures and Tibetan Autonomous Counties. As everything I retagged into this type already had a {{tibet-stub}}, double-stubbing would have been necessary in any case. I don't have a strong feeling either way about the preferable scope, other than this way was more bang (in terms of reducing the size of the oversized stub type) for less buck (resorting effort). At any rate, what's done is done, but feel free to go to SFD to propose renaming and rescoping (especially if you're happy to provide the re-sorting labour). BTW, {{Anhui-geo-stub}} is current racing favourite for the first provincial type per se. BTBTW, try using {{tl}}. Alai 00:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Even the TAR, Tibetan autonomous prefectures and Tibetan autonomous counties combined, it is still not synonymous with the cultural, historical sociological and/or linguistic Tibet, or what the exile groups have claimed (see the map Nat Krause mentioned above). The name {{Tibet-geo-stub}} would still be ambiguous and subject to POVs. Why not follow actual political boundaries, and double tag those outside of the TAR with {{Tibet-stub}} and {{Foo-geo-stub}} (Foo being Sichuan or Qinghai, etc.)? — Instantnood 11:15, 26 August 2006 (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 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.

{{poet-stub}} / Category:Poet stubs

Much as below, unredirecting the existing template. Alai 23:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. --Usgnus 20:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Hmmmm. --Usgnus 21:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Would an article get double-stubbed with both poet-stub and <country>-writer-stub? That seems unnecessary. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Ideally yes, though only until such time as <country>-poet-stub is viable, then they can be merged. (Or alternatively, with <country>-bio-stub, or some other appropriate per-country if one prefers.) Some sort of country-specific template is always useful firstly, because they're (hopefully) useful for those editors whose focus is on a per-country basis, and secondly, because it faciliates said re-splitting later. (In fact that can now be done by bot, double-stubbed population permitting.) Alai 23:57, 24 July 2006 (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 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.

{{theat-bio-stub}} / Category:Theatrical people stubs

And/or {{dramatist-stub}}, though if we just have the one, I'd prefer the more inclusive. I don't have counts for this, but existing sub-categories would seem to argue for it in any case. Alai 23:01, 23 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Mexico-footy-bio-stub}} / Category:Mexican football biography stubs

Cocat reports 79 stubs with {{NorthAm-footy-bio-stub}} that have Category:Mexican footballers. Caerwine Caerwhine 10:13, 22 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Scotland-law-stub}}/Category:Scots law stubs

Please also note previous proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive8#Scots_Law_Stub.

Would be useful for the editors interested in this area. Slight query over naming of associated category though: I agree that the stub template itself ought to follow the standard "country-topic-stub" format, but I really do think that the category it feeds into ought to use the correct name: "Scots law".

Stub Sense throws up 324 articles, some of which are (as usual) nothing to do with the relevant topic, but I am certain that the 60-odd threshold will be easily achieved.

(Out of interest, I have just nominated Category:Scottish law for renaming, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_22#Category:Scottish_law_to_Category:Scots_law). --Mais oui! 08:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Further information: at 762 articles Category:Scotland stubs itself could do with a bit of subdivision, although this law proposal by itself will probably not be sufficient. --Mais oui! 09:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
At a quick glance, sorting the scotland-geo-stubs and scotland-bio-stubs out of it and into their correct categories would reduce that by about 10%. A couple of possible ways to reduce the rest (after glancing at what's in there) might be a {{scotland-sport-stub}} (I'd estimate about 100 stubs for that one). Other possibilities might be , or maybe a clan-stub. Grutness...wha? 14:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
A (very) rough count suggests 60-70 misfiled geo-stubs and bio-stubs, and about 75 potential stubs for a scotland-sport-stub. Grutness...wha? 14:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that Grutness: {{scotland-sport-stub}} looks eminently sensible, especially cos Wikipedia has barely even started to scratch the surface of that massive topic so far. (Note, we already have {{scotland-noble-stub}}, but I dare say that not all relevant articles, by quite a long way, have been sorted into it yet. If the wealth of nations was ranked by how many noblemen a country can poroduce, per capita, then Scotland would top the tables, perhaps only behind Poland.) Discovery Oh, look what I just found: a (slightly mis-formatted) {{Clan stub}} was created by one of my colleagues at the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board, User:Canaen, on 7 June. It is well populated with about 60 stubs, and as you have already noted, there are plenty of others that could be put in there. No accompanying Category:Scottish clan stubs though, and I wonder if it may be wise to rename the template {{Scotland-clan-stub}}, because I'm pretty sure other countries have clans too. --Mais oui! 04:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

They do indeed - and the word "Clan" can also conjure images of certain Southern gentlemen in white sheets. It's also named contrarry to stub naming standards - I'll take it to SFD for a re-hash. Grutness...wha? 05:08, 24 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Botswana-geo-stub}}

Another country has reached the 65 geo-stub threshold: Botswana. Grutness...wha? 06:28, 22 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Mauritius-stub}}

Briaboru

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 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.

{{Poland-geo-stub}} split update

Forgive me if I am not formatting this request properly -- this is my first time venturing into stub proposal land.  :)

There were recently a series of split stubs created off of {{Poland-geo-stub}}(Stub proposal discussion archive). However, the Polish editor who created them, created some with the Polish names for each of the regions, which is against the consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland, where it was determined that English/Latinized names should be used, instead of Polish. I am not asking to have the Polish-language stubs deleted, since I still think that they're useful, but I would like to create a few additional English-language stubs/categories, to reduce confusion, as follows:



Once created, the Polish-language stubs can be set to be redirects to the English-language versions. May I please proceed with this, or is further approval required? Thanks, --Elonka 21:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I've no objection, though technically this is really a renaming request: you're just not requesting actual deletion of anything. So for the sake of good form, and making sure all users of these are fully aware, you should tag the to-be-redirected templates with {{sfr-t}}, and the to-be-emptied categories with {{sfr-c}}, and note this at WP:SFD. Personally I don't see much point in keeping category redirects for cats that are populated from templates, but I strongly support the additional templates, either as canonical or as redirects. Alai 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to stubland, Elonka :) Alai's right that this is pretty much a rename case. I have no objections to having both options regarding the templates, but I have to admit I'm not a big fan on redirected categories (or even worse: duplicate categories). I have no preference if the categories should use Polish or Anglicized names, but I'd prefer to keep the categories very simple. Valentinian (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much to both of you for the advice. :) So, in terms of deleting the Polish-language categories, would that be a CFD matter or an SFD matter at this point? --Elonka 00:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
If they're stub categories they go to sfd. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I have added the move templates to all the stubs and categories, as requested, and started a thread at SFD. If there's anything else that I need to do to help things along, please let me know! --Elonka 02:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
(Update)
  • New stub types / categories have been created, with the one exception of Podlasie/Podlachia, since a naming poll is ongoing.
  • The new types have been listed at WP:STUBS, though population is going to take awhile (several pages at Category:Poland geography stubs that need to be split out).
  • The extra leftover Polish-language categories are currently marked as redirected categories, but will be deleted along with several other leftover categories from a Voivodship/Voivodeship move.
And if there's anything else that needs to be done, please let me know! :) --Elonka 00:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, there's the "waiting seven days for the discussion period and SFR outcome" part, though that would now require temporal displacement... Alai 02:34, 26 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Liberia-politician-stub}} / Category:Liberian politician stubs

56 of these just on the basis double-stubbing; oversized parent. Alai 06:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Weak support. This one is a bit thin but it is the only real candidate to cut down Category:African politician stubs which simply begs to be brought under some sort of control. The only reason I haven't proposed it already is that Liberia doesn't have a -bio stub (it does have a -geo) so if this is created as well, we'll get three undersized templates: {{Liberia-stub}}, {{Liberia-bio-stub}} and {{Liberia-politician-stub}}. But perhaps it would be wiser to ignore the missing -bio altogether? Valentinian (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
56's probably a conservative estimate though, unless double-stubbing is absolutely complete. The other bios seem very thin, so I certainly don't propose that for the foreseeable future. Alai 02:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Support. Agreed that the missing Liberia-bio is less than neat, but it won't kill us. As to the African politician behemoth, is there a precedent for splitting Africa by regions? --CComMack (t&#149;c) 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
There is - those countries without their own geo-stubs are split into Southern, Northern, Eastern, Western, and Central (AfricaS-geo-stub, AfricaN-geo-stub etc). It's a little problematical though, because the UN changed its designations on which African countries are in which region about a year ago and WP followed suit... except that the geo-stub categories still use the old designations since it would have been a pain to change them over and many of them were being pared down with separate country articles anyway. Could be done, though. (The reason they're AfricaS etc is so as not to confuse the region of Southern Africa with the country South Africa). Grutness...wha? 06:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Obviously at this point I'll make my standard argument for templatising by country, to facilitate changing our minds on such matters (among other things). Alai 07:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been thinking about cutting Africa into tinier pieces - (oops, that sounded like the Congress of Berlin). Grutness do you know of a list of the UN's new designations? In any case, the -geos and politicians should use the same system, but it might be an idea to change the African -geos if the Wiki has generally shifted to a new standard. I might be able to find a little time helping with it, and others will probably do the same. Btw, I also went through the Liberian categories a few months ago, so I don't know how much more material is available. Unfortunately, it's been some time since I last rechecked the politician stubs. Valentinian (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
(eight colons, right?) The new classifications should be on the respective articles (North Africa, etc.). Grutness...wha? 01:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Got 'em. I've added a little note on the relevant category pages about what needs to be done if we implement the change to the UN's new system. Given the many new templates, it looks like it wouldn't require *that* much work. I've noticed the "real" categories also use the old system, but moving the relevant bits will be even easier there. But perhaps we should get this show on the road, just to get it over with? In my book, both geos and politicians should use the new system. Valentinian (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to update everyone, I created the stub and category and populated it...64 total--Thomas.macmillan 04:48, 29 July 2006 (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 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-screen-actor-stub}} Category:American screen actor stubs

Variant on an earlier suggestion for a combined US film&tv actor stub; in this case, the name would be suggestive of making it a parent, rather than a child, of each of those. As existing parent and children use the dread "American" demonym for "United States", I'll bow to local consistency in this instance. Alai 04:45, 20 July 2006 (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 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.

{{gymnastics-stub}} / Category:Gymnastics stubs

Useful to split up the massive Category:Sports stubs - Jack (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2006 (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 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-compu-bio-stub}} / Category:United Kingdom computer specialist stubs

At least 74, lots of double-stubbing, both parents oversized, obvious naming controversy that apparently only Caerwine and I care about with any consistency. Alai 03:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Hrm, double-d'oh from me on this one. Firstly, I'd already proposed this as a category from the existing template, a week ago, so I went ahead and created it; secondly, they weren't not double-stubbed as such, but rather they use a single double-catted template, so there wasn't a lot to bot... Oh well. Alai
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 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.

{{Japan-gov-stub}} / Category:Japanese government stubs

Hand on heart I can only find 52 via StubSense, but both parents are oversized, and there's bound to be some that aren't catted both ways at present. Also, double-stubbing is quite high, and it'd give my current bot task something to chew on. Alai 02:02, 20 July 2006 (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 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-bridge-struct-stub}} / Category:United States bridge (structure) stubs

StubSense finds 368 {{bridge-struct-stub}}s in Category:Bridges in the United States. Naming is a bit odd, but should be kept for consistency, unless the bridge-struct-stub or its cat are re-named.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 19:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds like a good plan, if on the large size for a new type. I'd give serious consideration to {{US-west-bridge-stub}}, etc, upmerged per-state templates, and to renaming the (grand)parent to {{bridge-stub}}, if we can withstand the possible confusion with the card game. (I note that that sense of bridge passes the "isn't a disambig" sense.) At the very least, create {{US-bridge-stub}} as a redirect. Alai 01:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I would be wary of per-state upmerged templates on a category this small, (excepting particularly large states like California,) but I would also support giving consideration to {{US-west-bridge-stub}}. I remember proposing {{US-struct-stub}} be split along geographic as well as type axes, double stubbing where needed, and bypassing the middleman sounds attractive in this case, but I forget what became of that proposal. --CComMack (t&#149;c) 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll grant you that templatising isn't quite as urgent as if we were splitting a cat that was already 1000ish, but if we split four ways without per-state templates, then if and when each of those are populated further, and eventually re-split, it's just as many double-handling in the long turn. Plus the cognitive overload of which templates exist, and which don't. What's the downside to creating all the templates? Alai 07:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • How about {{US-rail-bridge-stub}} and {{US-road-bridge-stub}} for subdivision? --Usgnus 01:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Be nice if the former turns out to be viable; I suspect the latter would be so many of the parent as to make it not worthwhile as a split, though. Alai 22:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • a split by region would probably be more sensible, both in terms of keeping the categories similar sizes and also the old "local stub, for local people" theory. Splitting by type of bridge does have its merits, but I suspect we'd get stuck with a small handful that were neither road nor rail (aqueducts etc). That's all a way down the track (or road) though - a general US-bridge-struct-stub is a good idea, so support for that, at least. Grutness...wha? 06:56, 21 July 2006 (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 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-prison-stub}} / Category:Australia prison stubs

103 prisons in {{Australia-struct-stub}} according to StubSense.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Took the liberty of correcting your template and cat. Neither Category:Prison stubs nor Category:Australia buildings and structures stubs is close to being overlarge, so I can support only if it isn't going to languish on the to do list as a category to be populated. It does seem strange that Austrailia would be the first country to get a split of Category:Prison stubs tho. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Are we sure someone didn't get creative stub tagging what would normally be {{NewSouthWales-geo-stub}}s?  ;-) --CComMack (t&#149;c) 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
As the old joke says, Aussies are better than New Zealanders - in the old days, anyone could come to New Zealand, but Aussies were hand-picked by the best judges in Britain. More seriously, there ARE a lot of Aussie prison stubs - I noticed a huge number of them when I was populating Australia-struct-stub. Grutness...wha? 07:00, 21 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Germany-MEP-stub}} / Category:German MEP stubs

101 MEP's in {{Germany-politician-stub}}, according to StubSense.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. This comes up every time I run a "what's heavily double-stubbed" analysis. (Them stereotypically efficient Germans, I tells ya.) The MEPs aren't yet oversized (again), but "a stitch in time"...) Alai 18:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll also propose the following: they're not urgently needed, but they're "easy fills" from existing double-stub counts:
    • I'm assuming some non-double-stubbed stragglers will out the last two over threshold fairly quickly (hrm, though that might require waiting until 2009 for Poland... perhaps I'll hold off on that for now). Alai 16:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No more material exists for Poland since it has only held one election to the EP (and they return 54 representatives). Besides, I went through the lists from all 25 nations doublestubbing everything methodically. I've just rechecked the Spanish list and more untagged material is unlikely. However the list from the 1999 elections is full of redlinks so it can be created pretty easily. Support Germany, Italy, France, and Spain. No vote on Poland. Valentinian (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the penny dropped on the Poles just after I'd cut and pasted the counts, stopping at the "natural break" (the next largest was < 30). So short of a rash of by-elections... Alai 02:09, 21 July 2006 (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 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.

{{babylon5-stub}} / Category:Babylon 5 stubs

I think there are enough Babylon 5 stubs to support their own category (perhaps unlike Battlestar Galactica). StubSense reports 80 articles with {{sf-stub}} in Category:Babylon 5, and a total of 134. [5] With {{sf-tv-stub}} looking like it will soon be created, I'd like to get a Babylon 5 category created as soon as possible, to avoid the hassle of restubbing articles from sf-tv to babylon5. --Groggy Dice 14:56, 19 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Ecuador-politician-stub}} / Category:Ecuadorian politician stubs

StubSense finds 62 politicians in {{Ecuador-bio-stub}}--CarabinieriTTaallkk 11:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. I'd hoped the -bio would grow a bit more before splitting this one off, but this number has remained the same on my list for several months, so we might as well do it now. Valentinian (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2006 (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 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.

{{action-film-stub}} / Category:Action film stubs

Stub sense reports 425 stubs, although a little over 100 are false positives of actors from subcats concerning particular action films. Probably can also absorb some of the drama-film-stubs that haven't been assigned a genre. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:47, 19 July 2006 (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 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.

Olympics split

It's hard to say which of these make sense, and which don't, but at any rate, here's the counts and some possibilities. Parent is seven pages. Alai 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Category:Summer Olympic host city stubs since I think your count was inflated by the fact that Category:Beijing, Category:Berlin, and Category:Rome are in Category:Summer Olympic host cities. I also think that subcats inflated the numbers for Category:Olympic sport stubs inappropriately, so oppose that as well. Support the other six, plus a Category:Summer Olympics stubs even tho when combined with Category:Winter Olympic stubs that will likely leave very few stubs in the Category:Olympic stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Support Category:Winter Olympic stubs and Summer Olympic stubs by Olympiad only. I'm dubious of the viability of the other categories due to category scoping ideosyncrasies. --CComMack (t&#149;c) 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Support Category:Winter Olympic stubs and Summer Olympic stubs by Olympiad only (for starters anyway). I have my doubts about the other ones, so let's start a little slow. Valentinian (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2006 (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 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.

Drama films split

In this case, year-based is about all I can come up with. Alai 22:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As with the comedy films below, I'm opposed to a stub for upcoming films. I also question the need for per year categories. The drama films are woefully undersorted into genre-specific film cats such as the existing crime-film-stub and war-film-stub. A thourgh sorting into genre-specific cats while doing the per decade splits should prove most helpful, altho it might cause a need for a a per decade split of the crime films which are already in the 500 article range. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The need for per-year cats: well, note that if one splits by decade only, one gets 463 articles for the 2000s, which is probably an underestimate (sum the decades, and subtract from the size of the stub type). If this can be whacked down by re-sorting, or a different split, then all well and good, but creating a new type at three listings pages is not a good use of anyone's time. Alai 22:26, 18 July 2006 (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 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.

Comedy films split

I'm not wild about the per-decade (or per year) splits, but they're the existing categorisation that seems to give the most traction. Alai 21:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Support the per decade stubs, but oppose the per year for now. I also oppose the upcoming film stub. Wikipedia tries to avoid being a crystal ball, and with an area like stubs, that's doubly desireable. Neutral on short comedy and romantic comedy, given that the per decade stubs should bring comedy film stubs down to manageable levels. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not the stub type that's being the crystal ball: it's the article. If you can get 'em all deleted, then great... Admittedly it's built-in obsolescence, since given enough time, presumably they become either year X films, or they become films-that-never-were. Alai 22:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • ?? On the to-do list it says something regarding these splits has been approved...could someone clarify what was approved? thanks...♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and assume that the ones that were supported, and indeed the ones that weren't opposed, are approved. (The to-do listing didn't say "all", just "various".) For clarity I've now struck out the ones that seem to me to be "not approved at present". Speaking personally, as the per-decade seemed to be the most supported, and are the most automatable, I'm likely to create those, fill them by bot, and leave the rest of others' discretion. (With the possible exception of the 2000s, as a category that large strikes me as a bit silly when there's a further split readily available.) If you want to start with the romcoms, though, I've certainly no objection: that might be the more "meaningful" split. Alai 22:40, 4 August 2006 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.

Category:Canadian politician stubs split

Seven page parent, no subtypes at all at present. Most of the perm-parents do use provincial nouns attributively in this manner, btw. It might be argued that MPP may be a bit confusing, but that's following the existing category name too, and the abbreviation would be essential to a template name of reasonable length, in any case. I'll assume it's familiar enough as an abbreviation to Canadian editors. Alai 19:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with this proposal (other than the work of updating the articles to the new stubs :-) —GrantNeufeld 20:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, this is just too many. I can see maybe Ontario and Quebec having their own stubtypes, but beyond that, we don't need more. This just sets precedent to start one for every province. Ardenn 02:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Support all except the "Historical" one. I don't see that having 330 or so stubs in the Ontario PPP stubs category would be too burdensome. Grutness...wha? 03:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I would, but fortunately it's "only" 207; the above counts take no account of inclusions and other overlaps. Alai 03:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Support (except "Historical") per nom and Grutness. Agent 86 17:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Support except the "historical" one. (Although I normally dislike TLAs) Valentinian (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Support all except historical, per Grutness. --CComMack (t&#149;c) 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Support except historical. Are politicians not in any of these sub-categories to be kept under the parent directly? Schrodingers Mongoose 05:48, 2 August 2006 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.

Category:Baseball biography stubs split

I'm not sure if the last two are really necessary; I include them as the counts seem to indicate large numbers of outfielders, in particular that don't have more specific categories. The perm cats are split first into major league players, and only only then by position, so these are probably substantial undercounts. Alai 08:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest Category:Baseball manager stubs. --Usgnus 19:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't have the numbers for managers and/or coaches, but if someone else can confirm a reasonable population, I'd be all in favour. Alai 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I went through the Gs and found 42 managers/coaches, so I'm sure that there's 60 there. Since there's been no complaints here, I'm going to go ahead and make categories for each of these, including the general infielder and outfielder categories. Sorting through, there are plenty of players who are just listed as utility infielders or general outfielders, and I think it'd be better to do that then double-, triple-, or quadruple-tag some of the stubs. --fuzzy510 22:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Good plan. I'd suggest leaving them as infield and out- if they'd otherwise be tagged with more than one, but sorting them more specifically if they're only notable in one position. Alai 23:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
That's my plan. I'm also putting a note in the individual categories for each individual position that the player should only be sorted there if it was their primary position. I'm sure some will still be tagged multiple times, but hopefully this will cut down. --fuzzy510 23:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of stubs for GMs, owners, etc. Maybe one for "executives" or team-related personnel is in order? (Broadcasters might also be worthy, but there are far fewer of those than the aforementioned.) Woodshed 09:41, 4 August 2006 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.

Category:2000s rock album stubs split

I realize this is a split of split of a split (anyone remember the quaint old days when the album-stubs were just one category?), but at eight pages, seemingly it has to happen, and by (sub)genre seems to be the established pattern. And yes, I don't doubt that overlapping, subjective, missing, and plain whacky categorisation will be afoot. Alai 07:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The only one that I object to is indie rock album stubs, and that's only because it's an incredibly vague genre that many people have many different definitions for. Support the other three stub types, and I support indie rock as well as long as there's a firm definition for what qualifies. --fuzzy510 03:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I rather agree with you, and I'm not sure I can help much; likewise, if not moreso, "alternative" rock. The only comfort is that the above is based on existing categorisation, so in theory ought not to be too "controversial". FWIW, Category:Indie rock albums defines its scope with respect to the article indie rock, if that helps at all... Alai 04:14, 24 July 2006 (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 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.

{{pop-singer-stub}} / Category:Pop singer stubs

141 candidates. I note, however, that as Category:Singers by style has only 223 articles in or beneath, and Category:Singers by nationality only 438, this could really do with more categorisation, and/or double-stubbing. Alai 04:31, 17 July 2006 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.

Category:United Kingdom writer stubs split

Similar caveats to those proposal below; this parent is a mere 7 pages, though. Alai 04:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I support at least the UK-poet, UK-novelist, and UK-non-fiction writer stubs as similar to the US split. I agree that the England/UK split might be a bit pointless, so we might want to hold that off for a little while. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I just checked and we do have a {{Scotland-writer-stub}} so maybe splitting England off isn't too bad of an idea. (side note:Scotland-writer-stub isn't lised on WP:STUBS tsk tsk @ Alai =P) ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:21, 17 July 2006 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.

Category:British actor stubs split

I hestitate to suggest these, as it can do none other but provoke another round of naming arguments, most likely once again without definitive resolution, but as this is ten pages, and has zilch subcats at present, it seems pretty pressing.

I'm not especially keen on "by home nation" axis of split, and in particular the English ones seem distinctly pointless, but we do have several existing splits, so I dutily report the analysis per existing permanent categories. Alai 03:54, 17 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Engineering-stub}} and/or {{Materials-science-stub}}

After improving the Ramberg-Osgood relationship article, I looked for the appropriate stub template, and noticed that there are no categories that have anything to do with engineering or materials science. Since these are very broad and important subjects, I thought they ought to have categories.

  • The former exists (and I've applied it); it's not listed on /ST, though. I assume that's just due to it not having been proposed, but I'd think we've "adopted" it by this point... Alai 04:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Aha, thank goodness. I too was looking for something like that to apply to Double subscript notation and couldn't find anything. Perhaps some kind soul will add it to the lists of stub-types so that others will be able to find it? Bookgrrl 02:40, 25 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Brazil-geo-stub}} splits

{{Brazil-geo-stub}} is at just over 1000 stubs. I think it would make the most sense to split it by state; splitting it by region would also be possible, but I would prefer states. It was hard to find viable splits because the cats of most states don't have very many articles. But the following three are definately viable and would reduce the number of stubs Brazil-geo-stub a lot:

--CarabinieriTTaallkk 12:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support those, and templates for all the rest of the states. Maybe also {{SaoPauloCity-geo-stub}}, as I assume the city is pushing up the numbers for the state. Categorising by region seems reasonable if people want to get the numbers down further. Alai 17:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
How about {{SaoPaulo-geo-stub}} for the city since it's definately better known than the state?--CarabinieriTTaallkk 14:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I can imagine confusion either way, but I wouldn't object to a redirect from same. Alai 21:25, 17 July 2006 (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 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.

Organisation stub split

These are studendously oversized: I float the following for your consideration:

These are doubtless riddled with false positives, overlaps, and I've no idea if they're congruent with whatever the thinking for how to split this is, but... Alai 06:36, 15 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Belgium-geo-stub}} split

I have been sorting a lot of stubs into this category, and there are now about 760 of them. I suggest creating stub templates for the 10 provinces and the capital region:

I expect that a number of these have enough stubs to create a separate category (at least West and East Flanders, Antwerp, Flemish Brabant, and Liege); the others can upmerge to the existing cat until they reach the treshold. Eugène van der Pijll 01:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. No problems here. Valentinian (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Kenya-bio-stub}}

StubSense finds 25 footballers, 22 politicians, 3 musicians, 2 writers, 2 businesspeople, 2 singers, an actor, an athlete, a boxer, a crime-related person.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 17:41, 14 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Tanzania-bio-stub}}

StubSense finds 48 politicians, 11 members of royal houses, 3 musicians in {{Tanzania-stub}}.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 17:34, 14 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Lithuania-history-stub}} / Category:Lithuanian history stubs

StubSense finds 170 articles that are stubs and have a History of Lithuania category. Lithuania as a state has more than 750 years old history. It deserves a separate stub. Juraune 19:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Denmark is 1500 years old but does not have a separate -hist-stub. I can't imagine 60 existing stubs for this one. If we have 60 relevant articles at the moment then by all means. Otherwise oppose Valentinian (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
We now have 60 articles, changed to support. Valentinian (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Lithuania was one of the largest countries of Europe in 13-15 century having the features of Empire, see book 'Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire Within East-Central Europe by S. C. Rowell, 1994' [6]. It is bad that the article stubs about medieval rulers of Lithuania and other historical figures are in the same category as, for example, Lithuanian basketball players within Lithuanian people stub. It creates a sorry state of mess, and it is hard to find and work on these stubs and on other history stubs that are in a very general category of Lithuania-stub. Lithuania-history-stub would give a possibility to sort out various stub articles and to link them to the relevant main articles. The Category 'History of Lithuania' is in a developing state in Wikipedia and there will be a need for history stubs in the future too. As to finally convince the opposition of Lithuania-history-stub, I decided to do all the hard routine work and list at least 60 stub articles for you to see:
1 Kingdom of Lithuania 2 Battle of Aizkraukle 3 Siege of Christmemel 4 Battle of Pabaiskas 5 Battle of Vedrosha 6 Battle on the Irpen' River 7 Pukuwer 8 Vytenis 9 Skirgaila 10 Vaidotas 11 Gimbut 12 Yuriy of Ruthenia 13 Vaisvilkas 14 Towtiwil 15 Svarn 16 Sigismund Kestutaitis 17 Dymitr Korybut 18 Sigismund Korybut 19 Aldona Ona of Lithuania 20 Astikai 21 Giedraičiai 22 Butaw 23 Butvydas 24 Goštautai 25 Jewna 26 Jaunutis 27 Koriat 28 Kęstutis 29 Lubart 30 Mingayl 31 Monwid 32 Dowsprunk 33 Steksys 34 Wolk 35 Ryngold 36 Skirmunt 37 Treniota 38 Traidenis 39 Narymont 40 Daumantas 41 Butigeidis 42 Narimantas of Novgorod 43 Sophia of Halshany 44 Bykhovets Chronicle 45 Polish-Lithuanian Union 46 Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth 47 Pact of Vilnius and Radom 48 Union of Grodno 49 Union of Mielnik 50 Union of Horodło 51 Constitution of May 3, 1791 52 Wilno Pact 53 Wilno Uprising (1794) 54 Vilnius Cathedral 55 Castles in Lithuania 56 Kazys Grinius 57 Antanas Merkys 58 Aleksandras Stulginskis 59 Lithuanian-Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic 60 Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic
Juraune 11:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks like most of these are in fact not in Lithuania-stub, they're largely tagged with Lithuania-bio-stub. Why it's an improvement to move some stubs out of the (less than one listings page) Lithuania-stub, and some others out of the (also less than one listings page) Lithuania-bio-stub, into a marginally viable (and even more markedly less than a listings page) grab-bag of bios and others, truly beats me. But as several editors seem determined that they want it, and it does seem to just about creep over the numerical threshold, I won't oppose as such. Alai 12:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Just for the record, I'm no enemy of Lithuania. I've been there and I consider Lithuania a very friendly place with an interesting history. Back to the stubs; parts of this list could also be described as a grab bag, while some items are highly relevant. In the case of other nations, the former rulers are normally sorted as -bios and -royals (or a hybrid of the two), so my concerns are basically the same as Alai's. On the other hand the Republic of Two Nations could probably push the number up, since I presume parts of this material is only tagged with Polish templates. I'm not going to oppose this one as such, but the list is somewhat non-standard. Valentinian (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly you are withdrawing your oppose vote above? M.K. 09:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Valentinian, don't get me wrong too, I am not for reviving Empire of Lithuania and not for declaring all Grand Dukes of Lithuania as Kings :) I agree with you and Alai that the list is somewhat a grab bag, but to review all the articles of Republic of Two Nations history that have no Lithuania history stub and to find ones relevant to Lithuania would take a week or two with my current time resources (I am only a human and I will definitely try to do it in the future). Lithuania has only one officially recognized Royal Mindaugas, and pre-Christian rulers (those that ruled before him or those who rejected Christianity and stayed Pagan)are not called royals according to the current state of historiographic tradition. How to work on the articles of History of Lithuania, a country, which by its ethnical boundaries is a medium-small size compared to other countries in Europe and has accordingly less potential editors than Poland or Belarus in English wikipedia, but also, the size of the country, now called Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 14 century was this: [7]. Lithuania was an equally important part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Lithuanian-Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, otherwise the creators of these countries wouldn't call them Republic of Two Nations or Litbel. Isn't Lithuania as a state not equally important as Poland and Belarus, isn't its history less important? Does the size (of territory, etc.) and number (of stubbed articles, etc.) are always the most important factors? And BTW, why I find both of you, in the Poland-mil-stub support list which was confirmed just in one day??? Juraune 23:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a fair cop, you've rumbled us both as Lithuania-haters and Polonophiles. Eh? Poland-mil-stub was created about two weeks after it was proposed, not one day; are you suggesting we ought to have supported it more slowly, or something? I made my reasons for being in favour of it fairly clear, I thought: for one thing, the military stubs have been oversized more than once, and will be again if we don't keep splitting off sub-categories as they become viable. The Lithuania stubs, on the other hand, are extremely modest in size, as I already pointed out, and I don't see any other coherently defined stub category this would be helping to empty. Who does it benefit to take categories out of the small and clearly-scoped Category:Lithuania stubs, and the equally small and equally clear-scoped Category:Lithuanian people stubs, to put them into an (even smaller) category that's as broadly, vaguely, and miscellaneously scopes as this one? This isn't about the importance of a topic, it's about organisation of the currently existing articles. Creating stub categories because articles ought to exist (Ambi's "systematic bias" argument, oft-vented here and elsewhere) is highly likely to be counter-productive, as it'll lead to numerous sparsely-populated articles, which become easy to ignore if they then get little "foot traffic". A better means of handling that would be a consolidated list of requested articles on a wikiproject page, say. Alai 00:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
No, for God sake, no, Alai, I don't think you are Lith-haters or Pol-philes, and silly me, I thought approvals can take 1 day :) Appreciate both of you explanations on the idea of stub in Wikipedia, it is a great help, since I don't have the luxury of time to read lengthy manuals and like Alice in the Wonderland experience strange adventures. Still, here we talk not about body-building stub, it is a history of a country with Poland and Belarus as neighbors. Either all three deserve a history-sub, or I can foresee a battle in virtual reality, where Lithuania will be overtaken by the Polish military :D Juraune 05:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
We have enough material, so I've changed my vote to support (see above). Juraune, it is true that I know most about the Polish view on events but that is only because I haven't had more time to read on the Lithuanian and Belarusian material yet. Regarding the last part of your post; if all sides recognize that Poles, Lithuanians, Belarusians etc. *share* a common history rather than cutting the history of the former Republic into tiny pieces in an attempt to make them fit current borders then lots of problems can be avoided from the start. Please don't read this as anything else than 1) one of my personal beliefs; that all ages have the right to be judged on their own terms and standards and 2) my hope that such a spirit can avoid some of the problems that have traditionally plagued Danish and Norwegian history writing (our situation is now improving, thank God.) I don't question that Lithuania played an important role in the Republic of Two Nations (or in Litbel for that matter). Btw, some time ago, I was the one sorting through the Lihuanian grand dukes and the Galician material. In that regard, I sorted the Lithuanians as "royals" for the sake of simplicity rather than "nobles". If you disagree, please resort the material as you find it most appropriate, but I simply went by the "sovereign nation" (= "royalty") / "fief of another entity" (= "nobility") distinction. I know the story about Mindaugas and that Vytautas the Great was almost crowned, but I doubt the average reader knows of these details, so I just called all of them royals for simplicity. Happy editing. Valentinian (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Support --Lokyz 15:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Update. I completely forgot to check the format of the proposed stub. In order to be in line with the similar templates, it should be {{Lithuania-hist-stub}} and Category:Lithuanian history stubs (the Belarusian template is oddly named since it was created out of process). Valentinian (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I've moved this (though I've left the redirect), lest it encourager any more of les autres. But it's also tiny (and unproposed), shouldn't we upmerge it, or at least poke people into populating it? Alai 00:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Given that Lithuania now gets its own template, perhaps this one might pull through as well? Anyway, a little friendly poke would do no harm. Valentinian (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the last part of your post; if all sides recognize that Poles, Lithuanians, Belarusians etc. *share* a common history rather than cutting the history of the former Republic into tiny pieces in an attempt to make them fit current borders then lots of problems can be avoided from the start. I completely agree with that and also love history presented in strict chronological order. There are 3 more articles of the proposed category Rokantiškės Castle # Coat of arms of Pogoń Litewska # Lithuanian Coat of Arms? AFAIK, other Lithuanian editors are also creating stub, wonder why StubSense indicates same 170 Juraune 18:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
StubSense moves in mysterious ways :) Valentinian (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Libya-stub}}

57 stubs listed here.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 14:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Already proposed a little further down the page: [8] ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:34, 14 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Brazil-footy-bio-stub}}, {{Argentina-footy-bio-stub}} and {{Paraguay-footy-bio-stub}}

{{SouthAm-footy-bio-stub}} is well over 500 stubs, not quite 800, but enough to split it IMHO. According to StubSense Brazil will get 143, Argentina 136, and Paraguay 55, but I'm sure there are at least 5 more.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 14:24, 14 July 2006 (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 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.

{{sf-tv-stub}} Category:Science fiction television stubs

I suggested this in connection with the SFD debate over {{Bsg-stub}}, and it already has an expression of support from Alai, so I thought I would officially propose it. The SF stubs have already been broken out into {{sf-novel-stub}} and {{sf-book-stub}} subcategories, and it seems logical to separate out television-related stubs as well. There are enough potential entries in this category to make it instantly viable. Regardless of how the Bsg-stub debate turns out, I think this stubcat should be created. --Groggy Dice 07:43, 14 July 2006 (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 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-med-bio-stub}} and {{UK-compu-bio-stub}}

I noticed this existed but isn't a stub category per se, but rather UK-bio and med-bio stubs respectively. Not sure why - both parents are oversized and I'm sure I can come up with at least 60 for this. Crystallina 02:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Same for UK-compu-bio.
comment European countries like Armenia and Georgia are not in the list. We need "Georgian people", "Georgian writers" etc.
Comment Both {{Armenia-bio-stub}}, {{Azerbaijan-bio-stub}}, and {{Georgia-bio-stub}} already exist. Valentinian (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

CW's created a number of these; I've already noted {{UK-radio-bio-stub}}, there's also:

I've no problem with these being created as double-catted templates: seems a sensible thing to do while a split may be creeping its way towards viability. In the case of the architects they already seem to be, so let's propose that as a separate cat, too. Alai 04:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, I think UK-med-bio is almost ready. A search of "British" and "med-bio" alone nets 55 results, and I'm sure there are at least 5 stragglers that didn't get caught. (Note: I know search is not perfect by numbers alone but I still think there are 60.)Crystallina 13:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I support the above two noms, too. Alai 16:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I created those 6 to help with sorting out the UK-bio-stubs, now down to less than half the size when I started. I did them as double cats as while I was fairly certain that they would have enough, I wasn't certain, so I was only willing to create the templates out of process. 01:45, 14 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Ottoman-battle-stub}} / Category:Ottoman battle stubs

Another one to consider: quite a few battles at Category:Ottoman Empire stubs, and note that the 'actions' are also battles (probably should be renamed?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment The name of the proposed category was not in line with the normal system. I've updated the name and notified the proposer. Valentinian (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Weak support Some of the articles are a bit long to be called stubs, on the other hand there are just above 60 or so articles tagged with both {{Ottoman-stub}} and {{Battle-stub}}. Valentinian (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2006 (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 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.

{{mil-unit-stub}} / Category:Military unit stubs

Looking at the Category:Military stubs I was supprised to see no stub for military units. There are quite few there, and many more in national categories (see for example Category:United States military stubs).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment The name of the proposed category was not in line with the normal system. I've updated the name and notified the proposer. As noted above, these articles are normally sorted by country, but a top level cat. might be an idea. Valentinian (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I proposed this months ago, and I believe there were no objections, but never got around to creating it, so this could in theory be done immediately. Category:Military unit stubs though please (unit singular). Double-stubbing by country should indeed be the norm, certainly. Alai 04:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right. It was proposed back in September ([[9]]). Provided the articles are also double-stubbed with the relevant nationality, I can see no problems. It can probably be created immediately. Valentinian (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2006 (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 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-battle-stub}} / Category:United States battle stubs

Considering how large the Category:American Civil War battle stubs, I am sure we could use a parent category to go between it and Category:United States military history stubs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment The name of the proposed category was not in line with the normal system. I've updated the name and notified the proposer. Please note that the parent category is called Category:Battles of the United States The categories regarding the US military generally use "United States" rather than "American" so I've used this one. Suggestions for a better category name anyone? Valentinian (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2006 (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 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.

{{WWII-battle-stub}} / Category:World War II battle stubs

Lots of battles from Category:World War II stubs could go there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment The name of the proposed category was not in line with the normal system. I've updated the name and notified the proposer. Valentinian (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
My first count said around 64-65. Support Valentinian (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Germany-battle-stub}} / Category:German battle stubs

Now that we have begun to populate {{Poland-battle-stub}}, I was suprised to find we don't have a corresponding category for Germany. It would surely relive some pressure from Category:German history stubs and related stubs cats.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment The name of the proposed category was not in line with the normal system. I've updated the name and notified the proposer. Valentinian (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Support. It is over 60 (but I lost track of the exact count). Regarding the name: stub types have pretty fixed names and they generally start with a country name, so it should be {{Germany-battle-stub}}. If we go by a standard text (This article about a battle in German history is a stub ...) this should solve it. I've taken the liberty of fixing the category name to the correct format. Valentinian (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Taiwan-bio-stub}} or {{ROC-bio-stub}} / Category:Taiwanese people stubs or Category:ROC people stubs

Right now, according to Category:People stubs by nationality, "China (either China P.R. or R.o.China/Taiwan), use {{China-bio-stub}}." However, I don't believe that is the current actual understanding of the community, because there are so few ROC/Taiwanese people whose biographies are marked as {{China-bio-stub}}. Further, it creates POV concerns about whether Taiwan is part of China. (I admit that a new category of {{Taiwan-bio-stub}} or even {{ROC-bio-stub}} may create a similar issue, but it would at least clarify things and hopefully get people to tag things properly; right now, these biographies are crowding Category:Taiwan stubs. As prior consensus allowed the creation of {{Taiwan-stub}}, I think the same applies here.) --Nlu (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Examples -- right now, without a bot at my disposal (being someone who doesn't know how to program one), I am not sure that I can find a "good number" (defined as 60 or more), but what I see as examples include (all of these come from Category:Taiwan stubs):


  • I'm not sure the question is so much "is Taiwan part of China?" as "which definition of China is that, then?" As this is viable I'm happy to split it out, though: I'd prefer the {{Taiwan-bio-stub}} variant, as ROC- would possibly drag in historical R.O.C. personages, which is definite edit-war fodder, and is TLA, to boot. (Even if you go with the ROC- template, please spell out "Republic of China" in full in the corresponding category name.) Alai 04:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
{{Taiwan-bio-stub}} is better since it conforms with the parent template. Valentinian (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

{{Taiwan-bio-stub}} has been created, with {{ROC-bio-stub}} as a redirect to it. Please take a look. --Nlu (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Libya-stub}} / Category:Libya stubs

Just another african country that might need it's own stub

Briaboru

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 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.

Two more country-geo-stubs

Two more countries have reached 65 geo-stubs and are ready for splitting. Prett straightforward, but in the case of one of the templates, I'm suggesting (shock! horror!) using an abbreviation!

I suppose we could go for {{UnitedArabEmirates-geo-stub}}, and it might make a reasonable redirect, but I think UAE is known worldwide as an abbreviation and I don't know of anywhere or anything else which has that abbreviation, so UAE-geo-stub shouldn't be a problem. Grutness...wha? 12:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Support both with the full name as a redirect to UAE. Valentinian (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2006 (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 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.

{{genetic-disorder-stub}} / Category:Genetic disorder stubs

WikiProject Medical Genetics needs this stub type. List of some articles: 49 XXXXY syndrome, Abetalipoproteinemia, Phocomelia, Familial hypercholesterolemia, Engelmann syndrome, Hurler syndrome, Sotos syndrome, Tietz syndrome, Timothy syndrome, Warkany syndrome 2. NCurse work 08:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The 66 does not include the 24 genetic disorders nor the 5 muscular dystrophies.TedTalk/Contributions 13:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right. I changed it to {{genetic-disorder-stub}}. It seems to be the best. Thanks. NCurse work 10:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Good idea to separate medical genetics from genetic biochemistry stubs. --apers0n 13:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • On the articles I mostly edit, the words "disease" or "disorder" will both create problems. How about genetic conditions, which should cover just about anything. Sandy 18:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Condition is too wide. I think disorder is between disease and condition. That's why, it would be the best solution. NCurse work 20:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
That's far from clear to me: in what sense is "disorder" wider than "disease" in this context? And to what sorts of articles would "condition" be more applicable, and is it desirable to include them in this same stub type? Alai 04:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Disease is a more serious expression than disordes. Condition can refer to nearly everything. I can't understand why don't you agree with disorder? NCurse work 07:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
What Sandy said is true for the articles in medical genetics that I watch--so much so that we have had edit wars on Down syndrome over those words. Eventually, it settled down to genetic condition (although only after some editors quit). Since these are for stubs, it will never appear on pages with large advocacy groups, so I'm not really sure it matters. For whatever it is worth, on Wikipedia, genetic disorder is a main page, while genetic disease is a redirect page. TedTalk/Contributions 12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You may consider that it sounds "more serious", but there's no clear distinction in scope. I have no objection to "disorder" in the category name, but it seems logical that a) it should be a subcategory of Category:Disease stubs, just as is the case with the corresponding permanent cats, and that the template name should be consistent with the existing one. If people want to have redirects (or duplicate templates feeding into the same cat) from {{genetic-condition-stub}} or {{genetic-disorder-stub}}, for reasons of common terminology and/or sensitivity reasons, I'd have no objection. Alai 16:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Let it be disorder as a subcat of diseases. BTW Alai +1... NCurse work 17:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all the comments. The template is ready. It's in categories of Diseases and Genetics. NCurse work 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I filled it with 60 articles. It means a great help to WikiProject Medical Genetics! :) NCurse work 17:56, 16 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Gabon-stub}} / Category:Gabon stubs

There is a geo-stub for Gabon but no general stub. Gabon stubs are all over the place and I believe could easily be 50 within a matter of a few minutes. --Thomas.macmillan 01:59, 11 July 2006 (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 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.

Middle Eastern actor stub

The category Category:Actor stubs is very large and needs subcategorizing. The proposed category will have 80-90 stubs: at least 24 Egyptian actors stubs (almost all blue links are stubs), 2 Lebanese stubs, 1 Syrian stub ,around 30-35 Israeli actors stubs and 30 Turkish actors stubs. It is of course subject for expansion when more actor stubs are added in any of the middle eastern countries. Similar stubs exist , for example {{MEast-bio-stub}}and {{MEast-royal-stub}}.--Wedian 04:11, 10 July 2006 (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 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.

Holy Central Asia Stubs, Batman!

As a part of the recently created WikiProject Central Asia, I've gone through all the articles in Central Asian country categories and tagged all the stubs with {{CAsia-stub}} as should have been done a long time ago. None of the countries in the region has anything other than a geo-stub, and that's hindering creation and organization of information - information for six countries falls under {{CAsia-stub}}. Also, I'd like to take the opportunity to remind my fellow stubsorters that countries without an appropriate stub after this split (only Turkmenistan, really) should have all relevant information tagged as {{CAsia-stub}} until they have their own tag so that some way to find it exists. One category - Tajikistan - is a little bit under, but there is a Wikiproject, and it is only 8 stubs short of 65. On to the proposal:

  1. {{Kazakhstan-stub}}/Category:Kazakhstan stubs - 118 stubs
  2. {{Kazakhstan-bio-stub}}/Category:Kazakhstan biography stubs - 78 stubs
  3. {{Kyrgyzstan-stub}}/Category:Kyrgyzstan stubs - 92 stubs
  4. {{Mongolia-stub}}/Category:Mongolia stubs - approx. 110 stubs
  5. {{Tajikistan-stub}}/Category:Tajikistan stubs - 57 stubs
  6. {{Uzbekistan-stub}}/Category:Uzbekistan stubs - 65 stubs
  7. {{Uzbekistan-bio-stub}}/Category:Uzbekistan biography stubs - 80 stubs

Aelfthrytha 04:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Apparently {{Kazakhstan-stub}} already exists, but I never saw it formally proposed. Aelfthrytha 04:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Support all. {{Kazakhstan-stub}} is only a redirect not an actual template, btw. Valentinian (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the count for Turkmenistan btw? It is a bit messy it is the only one missing. Valentinian (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Bodybuilding-stub}}

70 stubs suited for this category (and that was just looking at the bodybuider bios alone) tho few are tagged - 60 pages according to stubsense

May I please propose {{bodybuilding-stub}} as a new category. I have just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Bodybuilding to improve the quality and quantity on bodybuilding and bodybuilders as wikipedia is currently massively deficient. This means a whole lot more articles are in the works. Currently, articles on specific bodybuilder bio's are being tagged as {{sports-bio-stub}}, which is fine but not ideal. However, articles on bodybuilding subjects such as bodybuilding supplements are being tagged with everything from {{Food-product-stub}} (such as MET-Rx) which is factually incorrect, to something such as {{biochemistry-stub}} (which is an odd category for say, a protein powder). One only has to look at the List of professional bodybuilders to see the number of articles that have been started or are red linked for creation - without 2 or 3 exceptions virtually all those articles are stubs (though few are marked as such). - Glen 19:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. I looked through the list and there is quite a few short articles with no stub category, but I'm not sure if it's a suitable amount. --*kate 10:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If the Wikiproject is a going concern, a suitable amount would be 30, so this sounds sensible enough: support. Please continue to double-stub with <country>-sport-bio-stub where appropriate, though, please. Alai 04:39, 11 July 2006 (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 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.

Sport-bio splits

Counting existing sport-bio-stubs, only. Alai 04:32, 6 July 2006 (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 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.

{{madagascar-geo-stub}} / Category:Madagascar geography stubs

This stub is needed because most of the current 114 Madagascar-stub's are geo-related. I just went through the Madagascar-stubs and added the AfricaS-geo-stub to many of needed articles. By my count, I found at least 70 possibly linked stubs. Madagascar needs to be sorted out and I am sure there are more than enough stubs for both the regular and geo-stubs.--Thomas.macmillan 03:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. This sounds as if it'll leave the parent a little light, but 40-50 articles + 1 child isn't as disgraceful as many. At the very least, create a double-catted template feeding into the two types mentioned. Alai 05:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • support - but only if there are 65. I'm very surprised at this. I keep geo-stubs under very close watch to see when countries reach the standard 65 stubs needed for a split, and I regularly update any multi-nation geo-stub categories every two weeks, something which I last did for Madagascar on June 26th. At that time it increased Madagascar's total to 41 stubs. If there are indeed the standard 65 stubs necessary for individual country-geo-stubs, then I'll support - it there are less than 65, then there's no harm in it waiting along with the many other countries with 40 geo-stubs which haven't yet got their own sgeo-stub (currently Benin, Senegal, UAE, Comoros, Botswana,Bahamas, Cambodia, Republic of Congo, The Gambia, Jamaica, Jordan, Laos, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, New Caledonia, Niger, Sao Tome & Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, and Syria). Grutness...wha? 05:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe that the limited number of Madagascar stubs you found was because most of the Madagascar stubs were labeled incorrectly. If you browse the cities in Madagascar category, you will the large number (they are almost all stubs) that I base my 70+ off of. In just the past day, I have correctly labeled over 30 more stubs for Madagascar. I believe that I could populate the category with over 100 Madagascar geo-stubs when/if it is eventually created.--Thomas.macmillan 04:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Whee - you're right. there are now 94 Madagascar geo-stubs marked with AfricaS-geo-stub. Good work. I'll load up the stub-splitting list (for non-regulars here that's at User:Grutness/Ongoing geo-stub splits) so that when the new template is made there's a ready list to go through. Grutness...wha? 11:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
So anyhoo, I found the template had been created, and a few articles already stubbed, so I went ahead and created the category, and re-stubbed everything else on the list (along with two other editors). I haven't looked through any of the other Madagascar categories to look for stub articles, though. Mindmatrix 14:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to let everyone know, the Madagascar geo stubs have reached 100 and the Madagascar stubs have only fallen to about a little over 60. And, like most of Africa, there are probably unlabeled articles floating around, not to much the seriously large number of Malagasy politicians and other people that should have articles..--Thomas.macmillan 14:27, 7 July 2006 (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 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 more country-level splits

  • Brunei 60 by a rough count. StubSense says far more, but its count looks flawed.
  • Gambia 105 according to StubSense [11] incl. c. 40 geos. I'd prefer {{Gambia-stub}} instead of {{TheGambia-stub}}.
  • Malawi looks very close as well, and it has a viable -geo category. Parts of the material is not categorised properly, so more material is likely.
  • Niger 97 according to StubSense [12]
  • Samoa 71 according to StubSense [13]
  • Swaziland 63 according to StubSense [14]

All numbers listed above are including -geos so these articles should be double-stubbed. Valentinian (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Support - and I agree about Gambia-stub. Since we have things like Maldives-stub it shouldn't cause too much concern. Grutness...wha? 05:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Btw, to be consistent with the main category, the name of the stub category will be Category:The Gambia stubs Valentinian (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

All templates have been created now but only Gambia has been populated, so if anyone fancies a little sorting ...

Valentinian (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Bhutan-stub}} / Category:Bhutan stubs

StubSense lists 63 stubs within Cat:Bhutan. [15] It would be listed under South Asia under this. Amalas =^_^= 17:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, it looks like User:Kitia just created the template and a corresponding cat Category:Bhutan Stubs... Ugh. I'm going to put them up for deletion, so they can be created properly later. Amalas =^_^= 19:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
deletion link Amalas =^_^= 20:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
There's no need to delete the template. I've populated it and it is above 70 now, so Keep / Support for that one. The category should be renamed to the standard form. Valentinian (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Alberta-stub}} / Category:Alberta stubs - {{Saskatchewan-stub}} / Category:Saskatchewan stubs - {{Newfoundland-stub}} / Category:Newfoundland and Labrador stubs

There are stub templates and categories for seven out of ten provinces. It makes sense to have a stub category for each province (similar to the U.S. states stubs) and no sense to lump the three remaining provinces together under one or two stubs or to leave them as Canada-stubs (if their scope is limited to the province itself). Like the stubs for the 50 U.S. states, some provinces are far above the threshold while others may be lower. Like the other provinces, the geo-stubs and airport-stubs can be sub-categories of the provincial stubs. Agent 86 18:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No objection to the templates, but unless there are sufficient stubs for each type breaking out the separate categories should be left for a while (as per standard stubbing practice). As it is, several of the other province categories were created without being proposed and several of them should be at SFD since they are severely under the necessary threshold for creation (Nunavut's category in particular is far more of a hindrance to editors than a help). Grutness...wha? 23:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I did not condone the creation of the provincial stubs listed at SFD (PEI, NB, Manitoba) without the proper proposal procedure; however, I think that there are now enough articles within those stubs to merit their retention. Given that, it makes no sense for three provinces to be left under the "Canada" stub, especially since it appears there are ample stub articles to fit within these three new proposed stubs. I note that Alberta and Newfoundland & Labrador each has its own wikiproject, which lowers the threshold. Agent 86 02:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you confirm "ampleness", i.e. >= 30/60 stubs for each, as appropriate? If so, support per proposal, if not, create templates only, per Grutness. Alai 05:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
{{Manitoba-stub}} is apparently up for delete, although it's been there since June 20--I guess it was forgotten about. I don't know if I support simple stubs for the provinces. There's no doubt that, for instance, Newfoundland and Labrador has hundreds of stubs. We have {{Newfoundland-geo-stub}} for towns and the like. I would rather several stub categories, in particular, {{Newfoundland-bio-stub}} and {{Newfoundland-history-stub}} instead of a broad stub category. I'm sure there are enough stubs for a bio stub category. History, I don't know, but if you lump everything that's not geo or bio into history, there probably is. OzLawyer 13:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Manitoba, NB, & PEI stubs were nominated (with some territories) for deletion (see SFD discussion here) on June 9. Those had been created without the proper proposal, but as they were there I figured I may as well populate them. It's a big task, but I think I've got enough in each of them to merit their being kept. FYI, the geo-stubs would be sub-stubs to the provincial stubs (as per the other provs). Agent 86 15:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yup, that's standard practice. It isn't standard practice to have separate history or bio stubs for a subnational region, though (even one which was once a separate country), so I'd be against the idea of a Newfoundland-bio-stub or Newfoundland-history-stub. Both of thse things are normally split within country by type. Many items are erroneoulsy listed as "hist-stub"s when they should be bio-stubs, law-stubs, geo-stubs etc, and beyond that there are things like battle-stub and mil-stub which can take them. As for bio-stubs, there are a few subnational-bio-stub types, but they're generallly frowned on. They're usually far better split by occupation once they're at the national level - people move around, and it's far easier to classify someone as, say, a Canadian artist or writer than a Newfoundland person. Grutness...wha? 01:56, 7 July 2006 (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 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.

Split of {{Canada-school-stub}}

{{Canada-school-stub}} has reached 6 pages in length (1,028 stub articles). It's probably time for a split. I propose to create individual stubs for each of the 10 provinces, sort, and create categories as is appropriate. If some provinces don't have at least 65, I won't create the category and instead will feed them in to {{Canada-school-stub}} until it is appropriate to create the category. Here are the proposed templates:

Aelfthrytha 15:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That many schools??? Support. Valentinian (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
well educated lot, these great northerners :). support templates and splitting out categories when thresholded (thresheld?) Grutness...wha? 12:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
You know what I meant G. :) Valentinian (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Support per nom, and also suggest a multi-templated Category:Canadian Maritimes school stubs and/or Category:Canadian Territories school stubs if those would be viable, and constituents wouldn't. Alai 05:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Per Grutness, create any of these that meet the threshold requirement. I'm not sure if the territories would meet the threshold yet, even if combined. Mindmatrix 14:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If I create the templates, can others help sort this one? I can't create these until Monday the 10th if I want to comply with the one week rule, but I'll be getting on a 13 hour flight on Wednesday so things might be busy to say the least. Any takers? Aelfthrytha 04:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll help populate. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Category:Canadian school stubs has been sorted. Yay. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 21:55, 10 July 2006 (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 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 created as revised.

{{music-company-stub}} / Category:Music company stubs

This would include music publishers, management agencies, instrument manufacturers, etc. Stubs would be sourced from ...

... totalling 79. --Bruce1ee 07:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This one has the problem of not having a suitable non-stub category. Category:Music stubs is not overlarge and doesn't need a split urgently. Since music publishers should have {{publish-company-stub}}, management agencies {{service-company-stub}}, instrument manufacturers, {{manufacturing-company-stub}}, all that you would be doing would be replacing one double stub with another. Given all this, I'd have to oppose a music company stub. However, Stub sense does report 74 stubs in Category:Musical instrument manufacturers with {{musical-instrument-stub}}, so I would support a {{musical-instrument-company-stub}} Caerwine Caerwhine 16:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The non-stub category I was going to use was Category:Music industry, but I'm happy to restrict my proposal to {{musical-instrument-company-stub}} with Category:Musical instrument manufacturers as the corresponding non-stub category. --Bruce1ee 05:51, 4 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Czech-writer-stub}} / Category:Czech writer stubs

StubSense lists 52 articles in Category:European writer stubs marked as {{Czech-bio-stub}} and 3 more as {{Czech-politician-stub}}. There are definately at least a few dozen more which would fit {{Czech-writer-stub}}.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 12:01, 2 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Norway-writer-stub}} / Category:Norwegian writer stubs

StubSense lists 61 articles in Category:European writer stubs marked as {{Norway-bio-stub}} and a few more as {{Norway-politician-stub}}. Clearly reaches threshhold, since I'm sure there are plenty StubSense didn't get, since a lot of them I only double-stubbed properly recently.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 11:58, 2 July 2006 (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 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.

{{sf-writer-stub}} / Category:Science fiction writer stubs

Considering we already have the {{US-sf-writer-stub}}, I was suprised there is no sf-writer-stub for the non-US sf-writers. Thus we have quite a few writers stubbed with {{sf-stub}}. That category can use depopulation, and I counted around 20 writers in just the letters A-D.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:30, 1 July 2006 (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 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.

{{Ireland-painter-stub}} / Category:Irish painters stubs

This would in effect merge the {{painter-stub}} & {{Ireland-bio-stub}}.--Coil00 14:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I corrected your template from being the stuff that would go in the category to an inclusion of what would be the two parent stubs. I also corrected the spelling of your proposed stub category name. I'm doubtful that this one will have the 60 stubs we want as a minimum for a new stub type, but I could be wrong. Caerwine Caerwhine 14:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Stub Sense lists 2 painters in the Irish people stubs cat and vice versa. Amalas =^_^= 14:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose. There are only 76 articles in Category:Irish painters and its subcat - and many of those are well past stub level. It's extremely unlikely there are anywhere near 50-60 stubs for this stub type. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 4 July 2006 (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 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.

{{nazarene-stub}} / Category:Church of the Nazarene stubs

This stub would be used by the Church of the Nazarene WikiProject for any non-bio Nazarene related articles. This would be a child of Category:Christian denomination stubs. Kevin Rector (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment How many known stubs are there? Considering that we don't at present have stubs for some far more numerous denominations, I'd want to see the 30 known stubs we exepct to see at a minimum from a Wikiproject. Finally, in line with the other denomination stubs, the parent should be Category:Christianity stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Guidelines are based on numbers of existing stubs, and for good reason, as CW notes. It's not so much a matter of credibility of individual editors, as the proverbial "good intentions" syndrome. But I wouldn't personally be especially opposed to a template, upmerged in the first instance to reli-stub, to be re-catted as per the proposed as and when there's 30 stubs. (Thereby obviating the need to changed any of the tagged articles.) As for the bios, please just double-stub with existing types until there's enough for a full-blown split, i.e. both categories with a potential population of at least 60. Alai 06:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There are currently 47 Nazarene related stubs. Kevin Rector (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support 47 is more than enough for a Wikiproject's singular stub. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:11, 5 July 2006 (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 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.

{{nazarene-bio-stub}} / Category:Nazarene biography stubs

This stub would be used by the Church of the Nazarene WikiProject for any biographical articles about Nazarenes. This would be a child of Category:Church of the Nazarene stubs. Kevin Rector (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2006 (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.

{{internet-forum-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was do not create.

I believe an exclusive Internet Forum stub is required because there are many Internet Forum articles that are small enough to earn stub status and as of now they can only use the generic Internet Stub. This stub would allow a better way to organize Internet Forum articles that are stubs. Popcorn2008 02:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Popcorn2008

  • How many such would there be? Alai 13:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well if you go to the Internet forums category and check out a few of the forums you can see that many are stubs that have only one section or less. Here's some examples: 6park, AV Talk, Google Earth Community, Google Earth Hacks. Though some of the examples arent stubs as of now, if this new stub were to be created then they could be classified into this category because of their small length. I believe that some of these article creators didnt place a WWW stub on these articles because they didnt think it was appropriate or they didnt know there was a WWW stub. A more specific stub could and would help the Intenet Forums category out significantly. --Popcorn2008 16:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • StubSense lists 79 stubs total in Category:Internet forums, but only about 67 of them are probably relevant (website-stub, software-stub, web-stub, compu-stub). [16] How would {{internet-forum-stub}} be better than the 4 that I listed? Also, 67 is cutting it pretty close regarding threshold (assuming all of those are distinct articles). ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well this new stub would help better organize this specific category of internet sites. Because internet forums are not specifically just websites but are more like communities with various members. A new Internet Forum stub would also help people like me who are more intreasted in adding information to just internet forums and not websites in general. Also, as you can see 67 articles are currently stubs, and there are also many more articles that I would classify as a stub even though it is currently not listed as such. While 67 is very close to the threshold, the number may increase because people will see that they can add this new stub to their own article pertaining to internet forums. --Popcorn2008 16:48, 1 August 2006 (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.

{{Warhammer-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 warhammer-fantasy-stub and feed into wargame-stub.

A Warhammer-40,000-stub already exists, but as all hobbyists know, there is a distinct difference. I propose the creation of a {{warhammer-stub}} or a {{warhammer-fantasy-stub}}. Arctic-Editor 16:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • StubSense lists only 42 stubs in Category:Warhammer Fantasy [17], 36 of which are already using the fairly-appropriate {{wargame-stub}} (wargame-stub is a parent of Warhammer-40,000-stub). Perhaps a rename/rescope of {{Warhammer-40,000-stub}} to {{Warhammer-stub}} (which would, of course, include Warhammer 40K) would work. Just my 2 cents, as I don't know much about Warhammer. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Rescope existing type, per Amalas. This keeps coming up, to the same general conclusion, though perhaps the number of stubs is slooooowly increasing. I know there's a difference too, but not so great that both aren't describable as being in a "Warhammer" category. I'd not oppose an upmerged template {{warhammer-fantasy-stub}} feeding into the renamed and rescoped Category:Warhammer stubs, which I'll tag for such. Alai 13:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose to any change which merges Warhammer 40,000 and Warhammer Fantasy stubs. While the games are similar, my experience on Wikipedia (particularly as a participant in WikiProject Warhammer 40,000) is that there are few editors who have the required level of knowledge about both games. Merging the stub types will just make it harder for editors to find suitable articles to work on, with no real gain. Cheers --Pak21 13:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I think I understand the difference between Warhammer 40K and Warhammer Fantasy, but would a {{Warhammer-stub}} be acceptable to apply to both for now? Then later, you could split out the two into {{warhammer-40,000-stub}}} and {{warhammer-fantasy-stub}} if Category:Warhammer stubs go too large. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Or to be precise, those templates would be in any case distinct, even initially, and get separate categories when both are >= 60 (or when each has a wikiproject, indeed). Pak, the gain is that there's then a coherent stub type that covers the scope of the original the proposal, which would still be much less than one listing page, so not really any less usable for the 40Kers, without creating what would be an undersized WHF type. Alai 15:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
        • The problem I have is that I don't see how a combined Fantasy and 40,000 stub type is going to help to improve any Warhammer 40,000 articles, and I can definitely see how it will make life more difficult, by mixing in articles I know nothing about with articles I do. Surely there must be a better solution to the problem that is facing the Fantasy editors than making life more difficult for 40,000 editors. Cheers --Pak21 15:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
          • There's no gain for the (exclusively) 40K editors, certainly. Nor am I claiming the overlap in likely editors is necessarily large (I'm more than familiar with enthusiasts of the one expressing disinterest/contempt for the other (and I'm not speaking of wikipedia editors here)). However, I really don't see how it makes anything "more difficult" (much less life), it's a coherent scope for a category (being two series of games by the same company, with similar names, and overlapping content), and it has the benefit I've just described. If it were being proposed to add 30 articles into an existing stub type with 700, that would be a different matter, clearly, but < 200 articles is not in the realm of "we have any pressing need for two separate stub types for these related subjects". Alai 17:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If I understand correctly, Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000 are only marginally related wargames, right? Then why not create {{warhammer-fantasy-stub}} and feed into Category:Wargame stubs until there are enough stubs for a new category?
    • Somewhat more than "marginally", but that's exactly what I propose, Usgnus. Alai 23:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I must now admit I'm confused. What exactly is being proposed here? Cheers --Pak21 09:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Exactly (by me, at least): a single Category:Warhammer stubs, fed by both the existing {{Warhammer-40,000-stub}} (not renaming this, per Amalas's original suggestion), and a new {{warhammer-fantasy-stub}} (or perhaps that should be {{Warhammer-Fantasy-stub}} or {{WarhammerFantasy-stub}}, actually). Worst comes to the worst, you'd still be able to see the 40K-only stubs with what links here. Alai 14:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Given there are ~80 40,000 stubs and ~120 wargame stubs, of which ~40 are Fantasy stubs (thus meaning there are ~80 non-Fantasy wargame stubs), I still don't quite see what the advantage is of merging the Fantasy stubs in with the 40,000 stubs: it will be just as hard for Fantasy editors to find them in a combined Warhammer stubs category as it is currently, and harder for 40,000 editors to find what they want. Why not just create {{warhammer-fantasy-stub}} (or whatever you want to call it) feeding wargame stubs, and leave everything else unchanged? Apologies if I'm being more stupid than usual here... Cheers --Pak21 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
            • I agree. No need for the extra "warhammer" layer. Just create {{WarhammerFantasy-stub}} and feed it into Category:Wargame stubs. When there gets to be 65 or so stubs, create Category:Warhammer Fantasy stubs, a subcategory of "Wargame stubs". This way has no effect on the Warhammer 40,000 folks and helps the Warhammer Fantasy editors somewhat. --Usgnus 15:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Pak, the WarhammerFantasys are too small for a separate category at present. There is no separate category for them at the time being. If you don't see an advantage to them having a stub type (albeit shared), then fair enough, I've present such argument for it as there appears to me to be. Usgnus, what "extra layer"? I'm proposing a single stub category for both (with "upmerged" templates), not an additional stub type. Alai 00:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
                • The "layer" is that Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000 stubs are being commingled in the Warhammer category. I think we should mix the Warhammer fantasy stubs with the Wargames stubs instead of with the Warhammer 40,000 stubs. Have the Warhammer fantasy template feed Wargames and have the existing Warhammer 40,000 template feed the existing Warhammer 40,000 category. But that's just my compromise suggestion. --Usgnus 00:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
                  • I have no objection to upmerging in that direction either (though I still don't get the "layers" argument, sorry). Note, however, that if there are any WHFRP stubs out there, that would be confusing (and indeed incorrect) in those cases. Alai 00:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
                    • It's just me. A layer is the way I visualize it. I think of the stub templates as a layer. As for the issue at hand, if Pak21 is happy with your way, I have no objections. --Usgnus 00:51, 4 August 2006 (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.

{{Rave-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was do not create.

I have started to create many stubs related to rave, jungle and happy hardcore musicians but the only stub that I can use is an electronic music stub yet there are many types of electronic music that are very difrent from each other, I would only use the electronic music stub for electronica music and techno but a rave stub for rave and music like that. All hail cale 12:22 AM July 30th

  • If this is made, it should be {{rave-music-stub}} to stay within normal naming conventions. Before that though, are there 60 articles here? Also, is it clear what exactly counts as "rave music"? I'm certainly not a music expert, but I've never heard that term used before. --fuzzy510 18:28, 30 July 2006 (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.

{{degrassi-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.

I recently created WikiProject Degrassi, and was wondering, since they is a good amount of Degrassi articles, and many new ones will start out as stubs, that it would be a good idea if there was a Degrassi stub. andrew 08:08, 30 July 2006 (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.

{{carnivora-stub}}, {{ungulate-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create as revised.

Of the first 120 mammal stubs (out of 689), 38 are about ungulates and 30 are about members of order Carnivora (excluding Pinnipeds). assuming these represent anything near the proportions within the category, this should cut the mammal-stub group down by half by removing approx. 218 ungulates and 172 carnivora animals. Eli Falk 07:12, 30 July 2006 (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.

{{invention-stub}} and {{U.S. Patent-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.

Wish I could get through all the volumes of instructions, etc., but this is a mountain that should have been a molehill. In plain Enlgish, there are no stubs for inventions and U.S. patents, thus I suggest both. Meanwhile, Jaap Penraat's page on Wikipedia mentions it is a stub about architects. Hardly! This man was noted for his work in the resistance (or underground) in Holland during the Nazi occupation. I hope I am signing off the right way. Yvonnefitz 22:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's a good reason for that - most inventions are things which are automatically covered by other stub templates. A new tool will gain tool-stub. A new industrial process will get an industry-stub. Something invented as an improvement to a car will get an auto-stub, and so on. As for u.S.Patents, the same applies (if we were to have such a stub it would be US-patent-stub, BTW). I've fixed the Jaap Penraat stub message BTW. Architect was right, it it isn't the main thing he's known for, so it needed an extra template. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Putting an extra stub on every device wouldn't be be useful. Extra categories should do the trick. But if there enough articles for it, {{Patent-law-stub}} might be OK. --Sbluen 02:20, 30 July 2006 (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.

{{whisky-stub}} / Category:Whisky 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 revised by Usgnus (see the "tree").

I propose {{whisky-stub}}, as a daughter to Category:Drink stubs and a sister to {{tea-stub}}, {{coffee-stub}}, {{wine-stub}} and {{beer-stub}}. The main category could do with splitting at 645 articles. Googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +"drink stubs" +whiskey -whisky" gives 38 hits, googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +"drink stubs" -whisky +whiskey" gives 40 hits. Only a few hits, like Acquired taste and Half and half, do not fit this restubbing, but that still leaves us with well over 70 articles for the new stub category. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 19:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC) 

                     drink-stub
                 alcoholic-drink-stub                              tea-stub     ...
distilled-drink-stub    wine-stub    beer-stub
--Usgnus 21:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I wasn't clear. My preference is to omit the alcoholic-drink category, but I illustrated your suggestion as something I can accept. --Usgnus
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.

{{disney-song-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.

As there are Disney releated items in this stub categorey, I was wonderif it would be a good idea to start one regarding the songs on Disney, as Disney has heaps of songs and for those who do start pages on them can add this to the bottom of it to be more prescise. Drakehellman

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.

{{ice-stub}} or similar

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

The result of the debate was create template, upmerge cat.

The recently started WikiProject Glaciers created a glacier-stub which is now on SFD, since we don't normally split by landform type. However, it got me thinking... Category:Geology stubs does need splitting, and there are probably a good number of stubs relating to glaciology, glaciation, and the ice ages there (definitely enough since there's a WikiProject - I'd estimate about 45-50). I'd like to suggest an {{ice-stub}} - preferably under a better name - to cover these topics. Grutness...wha? 11:27, 28 July 2006 (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.

{{Methodism-stub}}/Category:Methodism stubs

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

The result of the debate was create template, upmerge cat.

There is a series of articles on Methodism, but yet no stub for Methodism per se. This is unfortunate, because, despite the current virtual integration of the fundamentalist churches in the US, there remain significant differences between the various churches. Also, I believe that members of this church would be much more likely to add to articles relating to their church if they wouldn't have to sift through all the Christian denomination stubs to find them. Badbilltucker 13:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I've taken the liberty of hyphenating your suggested template name, per the stub naming guidelines. I'm a tad confused with the use of "fundamentalist" to be synonymous with "Methodist" -- they ain't. This would be a coherent enough stub type, if it also meets the size criteria: how many such stubs are there at present? Alai 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The only problem I see is how broad should the scope be, given the intermixture of Methodism with the other strands of Protestantism. It would be helpful if there were a WikiProject Methodism to give some shape to the scope. As for "fundamentalist", while not arch-conservative (as a whole), Methodists still believe in the Bible as being divinely inspired rather than merely a nice collection of historical and philosophical writings, as some of the more ecumenical denominations do. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • But not all Methodists are fundamentalists, in any of the usual senses, and certainly by no means are all fundamentalists, Methodists. This may speak to the scoping point: I assumed the intent was, self-indentified Methodists, denoms with "Methodist" in their title, etc, rather than attempting a monophyletic sub-taxon of Protestantism. Alai 23:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
My only intention in linking Methodism with fundamentalism in my original statement was to point out that while the so-called fundamentalist churches, which all adhere to the five fundamentals, may have recently been, to varying degrees, downplaying their real differences, those real differences do exist, and that it makes no sense to have them all grouped together into a non-denominational "Christianity." Also, the people and articles that I would include in this group would be primarily those who are clearly and undeniably linked to the Methodist faith, by virtue of being bishops, ministers, members of congregations, whatever. As for how many there might be now, I think that it would be rather difficult to point out a specific number, although I have no doubt that it is substantial. Also, I think that there would probably be much more interest in creating a Methodist WikiProject if Methodists were to see how much work there was to do in their own field. The same would probably hold for the other major Christian denominations, as well. Badbilltucker 13:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It makes much less sense to split them between "fundamentalist" and "non-fundamentalist" however, given how problematic that would be. On the new type as proposed (as I understand it, i.e. without reference to fundamentalism, but to self-described Methodism): if you can't confirm that this would meet the size guidelines, I'll have to oppose. Creating a stub type to encourage a wikiproject to create more stubs to justify the stub type is a little too circular (and uncertain) for my liking. Alai 18:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no intention of trying to encourage a project. However, I have on me a list of some 200 names and short biographical pieces of prominent Methodist clergy, most of whom are not so far as I can tell already mentioned, as well as some additional names from a Who's Who book. It was my intention to create the stub so that it could be used on these stubs. However, as it seems that the creation of a new stub type before the fact is unlinkely, I shall attempt to create the stubs and then call for a stub template later. Badbilltucker 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
What I suggest in that circumstance is that you create the template, only, feeding at present into the next likely parent (I assume, Category:Christianity stubs), to facilitate tagging these articles as they're identified and/or created. Once that hits around 60, a separate category should then be a formality. Alai 03:26, 8 August 2006 (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.

{{Seismology-stub}} and Category:Seismology stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

Category:Geology stubs has almost 1000 articles and is way too big. Category:Seismology has 75 stubs and is good enough for a stub category. --Sbluen 23:39, 26 July 2006 (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-museum-stub}} and Category:United States museum stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

Museum stubs and US structure stubs are both oversized. A rudimentary search reveals over 122 results. Crystallina 02:21, 26 July 2006 (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.

Caribbean country 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.

It would be a good idea if Wikipedia had more stubs relating to Caribbean countries. Stub coverage of the region is somewhat under-represented on this site, and there are somehow too many pages that fall into Category:Caribbean stubs, as well as Category:Caribbean geography stubs and, to a lesser extent, Category:Caribbean people stubs.

Below are some of the suggested stubs by country, along with accompanying categories:

(We need not go into detail with those for Haiti, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guyana, Belize and the Cayman Islands, as these territories already have stub categories.)

It would be a very helpful thing if we put more effort into Caribbean topics on this site, and do grateful service to residents of the countries in question. Hopefully, I will help create more articles that fall into any of those categories, and possibly some more Wikipedians like Guettarda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and CaribDigita (talk · contribs · count) can help me out on this task. In the meantime, I will try to asign existing Caribbean stub articles to their new places. Tell me if that proposal is a little too much for WP to handle. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose on several grounds. First of all, the two categories you mention are pretty small by stub standards - we use 600 stubs as a standard for splitting and often categories are far bigger than that before they are split. These two categories have only 610 combined and Category:Caribbean stubs has only 214 stubs. Second, none of these countries yet has enough stubs to make separate categories worthwhile (in the case of the geography stubs, I only counted them yesterday, and only the Bahamas and Jamaica break 50 and neither of them comes close to the 65 we use for splits. Montserrat has seven. What's more several of the names you suggest are against the stub template naming guidelines (USVirginIslands-stub, TurksandCaicos-stub, SaintVincent-stub, etc etc). "The Alai solution" of templates feeding back into the Caribbean stubs category is possible (indeed this already happens with Jamaica-geo-stub), but separate categories? No. As to putting more effort into Caribbean topics, some of us are already doing that - I know several people at WP:WSS who have added quite a bit of information to Caribbean articles, as well as creating quite a number of Caribbean stubs themselves. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose separate categories, as per Grutness; support "the Alai solution" of upmerged templates, as per, well me, I suppose. Though please note that that should be {{StKitts-stub}}, etc, per the naming guidelines, and oppose bvi-stub as failing the TLA-test (BVI links to a disambiguation page), being too cryptic, and again not complying with the naming guidelines. IMO the best way to attract attention to an underrepresented topic is to flag up a need to populate the existing types: keeping them in a single category of reasonable size means at least that editors of related topics are likely to notice them. Splitting them up into nano-stub-types makes them easier to ignore, both for populating and expanding them -- hence the size guidelines in the first place. Alai 02:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
StKitts or SaintKitts? I'd suggest the following names as being more in keeping with the naming guidelines: As above, except -
Grutness...wha? 02:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest covering our bases on the Saint/St thing with redirects, and likewise a redirect from {{Dominica-stub}}. Alai 04:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Um...I don't follow. I've no objction to a Dominica-stub template... what are you planning to redirect it to? Grutness...wha? 04:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Ooops, I'm getting my Antilleses muddled. (Now actually, an Category:Antilles stubs holding category might not be too bad an idea (or at least, a less-bad idea than the proposal). Alai 04:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Support - Great suggestion, it makes sense. It better breaks up that mass tangle of 'any' and 'all-kind-of' stubs that have just been thrown into Caribbean stubs. Instead it puts them into their relivent country for better ease of collaberation-projects on an island by island, or country by country basis. CaribDigita 03:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see the stub size guidelines, and my comments above. Alai 04:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose It would be a waste of space on the list. The categories should be enough. --Sbluen 05:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. We need more material about the Caribbean, sure, but creating around 20 hardly used templates looks like the wrong way to go. Valentinian (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2006 (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.

{{Markup-languages-stub}} and Category:Markup language 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 stub template would be for articles in Category:Markup languages. It would help to reduce the size of Category:Computer language stubs, which has about 700 articles. --Sbluen 16:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think so. Category:Markup languages is the largest subcategory of Category:Computer languages that is not highly ambiguous or questionable. --Sbluen 02:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm neglecting Dr Phil's excellent advice on grammar, and failing to put verbs in my sentences. I meant to ask, what is the likely population? If it's >= 60, I'm in, as it is at least coherently scoped. Alai 03:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought you were asking if the stub category was likely to have population done by others. I looked on the stubsense page and saw {{Compu-stub}} used 36 times, {{Software-stub}} used 32 times, and {{Compu-lang-stub}} 31 times and a total of 142 stub articles. --Sbluen 03:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
That looks a little false-pos-prone, but if it helps at all with the compu-stubs and software-stubs, I say go for it, and hopefully it'll be at least thereabouts. Alai 03:54, 26 July 2006 (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:Greek Olympic medalist 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.

There's 55 of these just by double-stubcat-membership, so I assume this will be viable with a bit more scratching around. Oversized parent. Is it the axis we want to split the medalists on, however? (As opposed to say, by sport/event.) Alai 06:53, 25 July 2006 (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:German World War II 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.

80 articles in Category:German military stubs and Category:World War II stubs. Oversized parent. Alai 06:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Support Another good stub type. --Sbluen 03:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I see a few problems with this one. 1) A lot of new military templates have recently been passed but not yet created. A battle somewhere in the USSR could *potentially* be tagged with both {{Germany-battle-stub}}, {{Russia-battle-stub}}, {{Soviet-stub}} and {{WWII-battle-stub}} (in reality, it'll probably end up being tagged with the three -battle templates). I'm not sure more templates will be a good idea at the moment. 2) The name doesn't specify that it is not to be used e.g. on biographical articles on civilians (which would probably use {{Nazi-stub}} + a second template.) Valentinian (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Looking down the list, they seem to be more military units than anything else, though there's the odd person and operation and the like in there too. I'm open to suggestions as to what to do with them, and/or if you tweak the stub tags (or the list), then the 'bot won't get 'em (if and when I do this). Alai 20:06, 5 August 2006 (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:Bird paleontology 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.

There's 85 stubs doubled into Category:Bird stubs and Category:Paleontology stubs, which I can only presume makes them... (Both parents are oversized.) Alai 01:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I found only 37 stubs that were almost all double-stubbed in Category:Prehistoric birds. The stub category should be Category:Ornithological paleontology stubs if the stub is created. --Sbluen 01:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Why, especially given that there's no Category:Ornithological paleontology? Wouldn't Category:Prehistoric bird stubs be a more logical alternative, if anything? (I'm not really getting the "if" part, though.) Alai 13:35, 2 August 2006 (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.

Compassionate Communication

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 misplaced article proposal.

this is a proposal for a entry on Non-Violent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg, Ph.D under Social SCience, Psychology; this blurb is already on wilipedia: Marshall Rosenberg's model of Compassionate Communication also known as Non-Violent Communication (NVC)[1] makes the distinction between universal human needs (what sustains and motivates human life) and specific strategies used to meet these needs. In contrast to Maslow, Rosenberg's model does not place needs in a hierarchy.[2] In this model, feelings are seen as indicators of when human needs are met or unmet. One of the intended outcomes of Rosenberg's model is to support humans in developing an awareness of what life-sustaining needs are arising within them and others moment by moment so that they may more effectively and compassionately find strategies to meet their own needs as well as contribute to meeting the needs of others. I will add to this from the cnvc.org website if you create the subject category...thanks...I don't know how to do this. bjoybead@hotmail.com

This sounds like a proposal for a stub article: you don't need this page for that, just click on the link, and edit away... Alai 07:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Note that new editors (those without usernames, at least) cannot create new aricles themselves... If you have a username, reading Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia#Create new articles and the links around it will be useful; if you don't have a username then Wikipedia:Articles for creation is the place you need to head. Grutness...wha? 12:06, 24 July 2006 (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.

{{Festival-stub}} in need of splitting

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 number of stubs marked with festival-stub is well into four figures - it needs some form of split fairly soon. I haven't counted them up, but at a quick glance, it looks like the following would help to relieve the burden considerably:

Any thoughts or further possibilities are most welcome! Grutness...wha? 05:51, 24 July 2006 (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.

{{Health-org-stub}} / Category:Health organization stubs

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

The result of the debate was do not create.

This is a proposal for a Health organization stub. This would be a child of Category:Health stubs and Category:Organization stubs. Currently we have on Wikipedia Category:Medical organization stubs, but as per Category:Health sciences, Category:Medicine is just one specialized branch of this field. This leaves many subjects outside of the scope of Medicine and Medical organization stubs, such as public health, health promotion, and more. This new Health organization stub would fill the present void by entering the stub system as a child of Category:Health stubs, and having a child of its own in Category:Medical organization stubs. Below is a list of 65 articles where this proposed stub is presently needed:

  1. Action on Smoking and Health
  2. Afghan Ministry of Health
  3. American Diabetes Association
  4. Bloomberg School of Public Health
  5. Brain Tumour Foundation of Canada
  6. Brazilian Society for Health Informatics
  7. Brittle Bone Society
  8. Canadian Blood Services
  9. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse
  10. Canadian Diabetes Association
  11. Canadian Health Coalition
  12. Canadian Health Network
  13. Catholic Health Association of India
  14. Canadian National Institute for the Blind
  15. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
  16. Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
  17. Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services
  18. Department of Essential Drugs and Medicines
  19. Department of Health (Hong Kong)
  20. Department of Health and Ageing (Australia)
  21. Eating Disorders Association
  22. Family Health International
  23. Federal Ministry for Health and Social Security (Germany)
  24. Florida Keys Health Fairs
  25. Harvard School of Public Health
  26. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
  27. Health Alliance International
  28. Health department
  29. Health, Welfare and Food Bureau
  30. Inflammatory Breast Cancer Association
  31. Institut de radioprotection et de sûreté nucléaire
  32. Institut de veille sanitaire
  33. Kidney Foundation of Canada
  34. Metropolitan Board of Health
  35. Migraine Action Association
  36. Migraine Trust
  37. Ministry of Health (China)
  38. Ministry of Health (Denmark)
  39. Ministry of Health (Manitoba)
  40. Ministry of Health (Singapore)
  41. Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (Ontario)
  42. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (Japan)
  43. Ministry of Health Promotion (Ontario)
  44. Ministry of Public Health (Netherlands)
  45. Ministry of the Interior and Health (Denmark)
  46. National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians
  47. National Asthma Campaign
  48. National Non-Smoking Week
  49. Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment
  50. Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services
  51. Pain Relief Foundation
  52. Pan American Health Organization
  53. Public Health - Seattle & King County
  54. Public Health Agency of Canada
  55. Royal Society for the Promotion of Health
  56. Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute
  57. School of Rural Public Health
  58. SingHealth
  59. Society for Health Education and Health Promotion Specialists
  60. Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare
  61. The George Institute for International Health
  62. Transatlantic Partners Against AIDS
  63. UC Berkeley School of Public Health
  64. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority
  65. World Federation for Mental Health

--Kurieeto 16:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that a rescope of the medical organizations stub is the best choice. Medicine is a specialized sub-field of health, and so it makes sense to have a category for organizations of the broader field of the latter. Hospitals are tricky I agree, I intentionally omitted them from my list above. I would leave that for Wikipedians to decide if they fit best as health organizations or medical organizations. As another example of how health is distinct from medicine, one does not need medicine to be in a state of good mental health. Therefore, a mental health organization may not touch on medicine at all in its programs. It would therefore be most appropriate to classify this organization as a health organization, and not a medical organization. I believe the above listed articles are most appropriately termed "health organizations". Kurieeto 18:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disputing your "most appropriately termed" assertion, or that "health" is indeed a broader term; however, you haven't really addressed my point at all. I'm suggesting rescoping to include both, explicitly. If "health" is adequately inclusive, then by all means use that as the name of the rescoped category, or "medicine and health", whichever (though keep the existing template in addition to any others). What I'm not seeing is any particular upside to having two separate categories if the best that can be done to separate their scopes is to say "leave that for Wikipedians to decide". If you're not able to give a straightforward scoping statement that would cover such basic cases as hospitals, I'm going to have to oppose the creation of separate categories in a way that seems highly likely to lead to some confusion and considerable inconsistency between the two. Alai 18:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
What I meant by leaving it for Wikipedians to decide is that I don't profess to have the definitive answer of if hospitals are most properly health organizations or medical organizations, and that I would follow whatever consensus arises from any future debate on the matter. My personal belief is that hospitals should currently be categorized as health organizations, because their place in the hierarchy on Wikipedia is currently as follows: Category:Hospitals -> Category:Healthcare -> Category:Health sciences -> Category:Health. Beyond that, stub category structure should defer to the category structure of the main namespace, and so an appropriate article for a {{Health-org-stub}} would be any small article in Category:Health organizations that is not also under Category:Medical organizations. There needs to be a broader-level stub that the contents of other sub-cats of Category:Health organizations can be tagged with, such as Category:Nursing organizations, Category:Dental organizations, and Category:Disability organizations. If Category:Health organizations belongs in the encyclopedia distinct from Category:Medical organizations, as it currently does, then I believe this should be deferred to and a stub for this category be created given the number of appropriate articles listed above. Kurieeto 23:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
We're apparently talking past each other: I keep asking why why need two separate types, and you keep telling me why we need a broader type (to which I repeat yet again, broaden the existing type). That fact that you're in effect arguing that most of the current population of {{med-org-stub}} are actually health-orgs should really underline what a lot of work this would be, for no concrete benefit, and indeed likely detrimental outcome. This "defer to the permanent" categories line of argument is being deployed independent of any reasonable rationale for why this would be appropriate: "there's a permanent category and 60 possible stubs" would lead to us creating about 100,000 stub categories. Please review Wikipedia:Perfect stub article#New stub categories, and rationalise your proposal, or better still, address my counter-proposal, in those terms. Alai 00:18, 25 July 2006 (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.

{{Brisbane-suburb-stub}} / Category:Brisbane suburb 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.

I created this template before realising that the process on this page existed. I have counted 71 stubs listed at Category:Queensland geography stubs which could be assigned to this new category and template. There are more than 71 because there are several which I missed. There are also a significant number of red links at List of Brisbane suburbs which will fall into this category. This category and template will become associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Brisbane There are currently over 800 stubs in the Queensland geography stubs category and this would remove some of those and assign them to the new category. -- Adz|talk 05:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


Sigh. As previously mentioned to WikiProject Brisbane, we would be happy to make a {{Brisbane-geo-stub}} when one is needed. We did that at the same time as other city-related stubs were changed from the incorrectly named XX-suburb-stub style. A Brisbane-geo-stub would cover both suburbs and other geographical features directly relating to Brisbane (such as parks, hills, streams, etc). This stub now needs to go to SFD so that it can be changed over. Grutness...wha? 06:48, 23 July 2006 (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 Kingdom Roman Catholic parish stubs, or some variant thereon?

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

The result of the debate was do not create.

I notice that there's 80-odd double-stubbed with RC-stub, and with UK-hist-stub; there's also 80-odd with RC-stub and with England-stub. And funnily enough, most of them are the same articles, and many of them are very, very short -- so much so that it's not entirely clear if the scope is the parish church as such, or the parish as a whole (I'll assume the latter). The gratuitous triple-stubbing should be fixed regardless, but I'm uncertain if the best solution here is a new stub type, or mass deletion (or listification and redirecting, perhaps). Alai 02:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Ouch. That's about as close as you can get to content-free. Listify and redirect. --CComMack (t&#149;c) 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd agree with you - but this isn't really the forum for such votes (AfD is third door down on the left). What I will say, though, is that parishes should surely get county-geo-stubs rather than england-stubs. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • AfD isn't the right venue for merge discussions (either). Do we really want them as geo-stubs? We could end up with heckuvalotta different (and of course inconsistent, in some cases with the counties themselves) subdivisions rattling around the same categories that way. Alai 07:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Be bold: listify and redirect. A clear case of where integration makes sense, and you don't even have to take it to AFD. Caerwine Caerwhine 11:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Seemingly these are being expanded (if very slowly), but their scope seems more concerned with the churches than the parishes. I'm inclined to re-tag as {{RC-church-stub}}, though splitting off {{UK-RC-church-stub}} might be prudent, too. Alai 21:35, 15 August 2006 (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.

{{Disney-film-stub}}/Category:Disney 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.

There are some Disney films that could belong in many other categories. Note that some Disney films are for adults as well and don't have to be in the childrens film stub category. My proposal is that I create a Disney film stub so that we can combine all of the films related to Disney. --walkingencyclopedia 15:44, 20 July 2006 (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.

{{Podcast-stub}} / Category:Podcasting 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 revised by Pegship.

With the number of podcast stubs increasing I feel it would be useful to have a Podcasting stub. A Wikipedia search for podcasts shows many results. PodShow.com contains many examples of encyclopedia worthy podcasts. Several include: The Random Show, Geek Brief TV, Daily Source Code, Pacific Coast Hellway, Tikibar, This Week In Tech, 7th Son, Scott Sigler (Podcast novel writer), Yeast Radio, and Rocketboom. Many of these articles need attention and therefore a {{Podcast-stub}}. Djsteen 23:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • This was created before, and deleted in February, so I'd like strong evidence of numerical viability (and ideally, some evidence of it actually being needed). Likewise, we've had unproposed stub types for blogs, and even for "vlogs", that have seen very little actual use. Can we at least squish them all together to make one good(ish) one? Alai 00:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I suppose this is what the {{Internet-stub}} is for. Djsteen 08:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Turns out this seems to be a little more populous than I'd have guessed: StubSense finds 47. I'd still prefer a slight upscope, if this can be done in a coherent manner, merging with the existing (though pending deletion for being too small) {{blog-stub}}. Is there a recognised umbrella term for blogging, videoblogging and podcasting? Alai 08:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
What about {{internet-bcast-stub}}, or {{internet-publish-stub}}? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 14:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds plausible to me, if a little hard to bound precisely. Alai 21:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A serach of Wikipedia for "podcaster" and "stub" gives me 431 hits. That seems like plenty for it's own stub tag. I'm trying to get to this Stubsense to check those results. However, I am unable to find a link to the actual program. A Wikipeida search for stubsense comes up with no artitcles, and Google gives me thousands of talk pages with "Stubsense says ..." or "Stubsense shows..." so I can't figure out how to get to it. Ultimate ed 17:49, 28 August 2006 (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:Recording 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.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobj7 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 18 July 2006 (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.

Television biography stub split

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.

There may be some overlap between some of these, obviously. Alai 22:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, besides the usual UK/British and US/American rant, there's the fact that Television personalities is a subcat of Television presenters, so unless you factored that already into the above, I see no reason to have both. I'm not sanguine about splitting actors by medium as it has led to a good deal of double stubbing with film and TV to date, enough that I think screen actors would probably be a better cat there, and the same with the writers. On the other hand, TV and radio have a good deal of overlap in the journalist category, altho moreso over in the UK than the US, since they still have a significant amount of radio journalism thanks to the BBC. Anyway, despite the likely heavy double stubbing, given that it follows what the perm cats are doing, support Category:Television writer stubs, Category:Television producer stubs, Category:Television journalist stubs, and Category:Television actor stubs. Defer the four others for now and bug WP:TV to decide whether they want presenters, personalities, or both and what the difference is supposed to be. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Those counts are totals, so the personalities would be subtracted from the presenters if both were created, though on the face of it both would appear to be separately viable, the latter to the tune of 147. Bear in mind that these are all already tagged as particular to TV, so there's no issue of additional stubbing at least in these cases (future use I can hardly legislate for). I've no objection to a screen actor combined category; my earlier suggestion for the large US overlap is tantamount to the same thing, but I think separate categories in addition are still useful. Alai 03:43, 19 July 2006 (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.

English football internationals

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

The result of the debate was create by position.

I'm drawing thin on this one as far as the perm-cats are concerned. Further bright ideas welcome. Alai 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Might be better to do what we've done with other sports -
And have these irrespective of whether the players have played internatonally. At least there should be permanent cats for these. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, the subcats of Category:Football (soccer) players by position. Doing a count by those, I get:
Which really just proves they're very undercategorised... There would also be a certain logic to parent types by position, too. Alai 02:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Given the number of stubs we have, this looks like severe undercategorisation. What's more, since you'd logically expect several defenders, midfieldes and strikers per goalkeeper, if you have 32 goalies the rest should all romp past the threshold. Grutness...wha? 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree with these, and also create the non-stub parent categories at the same time. However to match Category:English footballers and Category:English football biography stubs The cats should use English and not England. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I was carelessly generalising from the international cats, and/or from G's suggestion. Updated. Alai 22:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
whoops. good point. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Since it seems like these were sadly neglected, and the category is way out of control, I'm going to go ahead and make these by position, since that seems to be what people agreed on. --fuzzy510 03:48, 15 August 2006 (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.

{{Poland-sport-stub}}/Category:Poland sport 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.

317 stub articles found under Category:Sport in Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Three things.
  1. We don't have any approved per country sport stubs.
  2. How many would fit in a possible {{Poland-sport-bio-stub}} or the existing {{Poland-footy-bio-stub}}?
  3. Did you get your count from Stub Sense? I just now did a query on Category:Channel Islands and got back a list that included 313 Russia stubs!
I'd prefer that a sport biography stub be created first. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
We do have a template for Argentina, but it is listed on SFD for renaming. I too would prefer a -bio-stub (for starters anyway). Caerwine, you're right that parts of the toolserver database is still ...... up. Until that's been fixed, stub sense will from time to time come up with something completely off the mark. Valentinian (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2006 (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.

{{Sf-char-stub}}/Category:Science-fiction character stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

There are few hundreds sf-stubs and over a thousand fictonal character stubs. A child category for both seems only logical.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:10, 17 July 2006 (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.

{{Fict-stub}}/Category:Fiction 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.

While category Category:Fiction is not to big, I recently stumbled upon quite a few articles which are stubs but don't necessarily fall under {{Fict-char-stub}}, {{{fict-location-stub}} and {{sf-stub}}. Not to mention that the first two need a parent category for ease of sorting (are there any other fict-stubs I missed? Consider ficitonal vehicles, items, timelines and other such items. Many of them are not tagged as stubs, so Stub Sense is not best to use here, but the reachness of sf-stub category suggest that its parent category would surely not be wasted, especially as most of literary genres are missing their own stubs at all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:10, 17 July 2006 (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:Magazine stubs split

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.

Parent is seven pages. As with a number of these proposals, there's two distinct axes of split here, we needn't necessarily go with both at once. Alai 07:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support all as I'm currently slogging through the {{lit-stub}}s... ♥ Her Pegship♥ 14:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As I discussed with Peg off-page, my counts above seem to be somewhat inflated, so I've just gone with the broader categories. However, some of these are very broad... If people can uncover more of these, it might be a good idea to revive the somewhat more meaningful and narrow categories. (I've had more comments on my bot's talk page about the art-mag- stub type than about the rest of its 10,000 edits combined...) Alai 05:36, 10 August 2006 (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:Plant stubs split

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.

Don't blame me for the names, blame the perm-cats, and Linnaeus. Alai 07:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be easier to split only taxonomically and not geographically, i.e. take Category:North American flora stubs and Category:Australian flora stubs from the list.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 15:02, 17 July 2006 (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:Medicine stubs split

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 seems to be undersorting to some existing categories in this case too (I had a look for blue-links this time). Alai 06:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've created a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine for stub types here. It'd be important to cooperate. For example we have neuroscience-stub, why would we need neurology-stub? We have anatomy-stub and zoology-stub. Why do we need human or animal anatomy-stub? Anyway good ideas. :) NCurse work 08:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The neuro- one may indeed be duplicative, or substantially overlapping. However, the existing anatomy stub type I'm well aware of, which is why I didn't include the 5 or 6 hundred articles that are in or under the Category:Anatomy category, and currently tagged as med-stub. (Said categorisation may or may not be indicative of primary notability, of course.) Not to mention the small detail that that type is itself significantly oversized, so a split into human and animal anatomy, as with the perm-cats, seems a pretty basic step forward. At any rate, at eight pages, several hundred articles ought to be hauled out of there one way or another. Alai 09:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It will be an enormous job, but I start to create them. Any help is welcomed. :) NCurse work 17:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure I follow all the objections above, but at least some progress is being made. You may be correct about coming of these being duplicative, but at any rate they may be evidence of significant undersorting to those types. And if we're not to split along the lines of the permanent categories, then how? Note that it's still seven listing pages, so a long way to go. At any rates, I further suggest:
  • Category:Medical treatment stubs 117

You'd think that'd be larger, but what do I know... Alai 08:01, 18 August 2006 (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:Song stubs split

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.

From the singer, to the song. The last might be a tad on the broad side, but I've working with what I have, here... Methinks a little bit of undersorting at work here. Alai 05:16, 17 July 2006 (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 {{Canada-icehockey-bio-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.

As expected, splitting the ice hockey bios made this one oversized, and I haven't even split them 100% thoroughly. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to split this one, being unfamiliar with ice hockey. Suggestions? Crystallina 15:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

or

See Category:Ice hockey personnel --Usgnus 06:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The latter, please (or else split by "era", or something along those lines). By province is very likely to be problematic: people tend to be mobile, professional sportspeople especially so. Alai 07:01, 17 July 2006 (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.

{{Pipe-band-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was do not create.

This is a very under developed area of Wikipedia, but there are about 50 stubs that would fit into this catagory, and they are asscociated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Pipe Bands. Pipe bands are extremely similar to eachother no matter what part of the world they are from, which would make an inependent subcatagory of the band stub more appropriate than a nation based band stub. --Musaabdulrashid 12:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, especially after seeing a number of these in Category:Stubs. The articles would probably get double-stubbed with a country-band-stub anyway, but at least a pipe-band-stub would bring them all together in one place for the WikiProject. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Changing my vote: After looking at Category:Pipe bands, I found a total 31 articles that would even fit this (assuming all of the articles I counted were actually stubs). I know there's a WikiProject, but I think you're going to have to find/create a few more articles before this gets approved. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:48, 19 July 2006 (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.

{{Māori-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.

For Māori customs, issues, and people. I found 65 such stubs without much trouble, 34 from {{NZ-stub}} and the rest from browsing Category:Māori. -- Avenue 03:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I must admit to bias on this one, but there probably are enough... But I'd suggest using the form without the macron ({{Maori-stub}}), simply because we usually avoid accents and diacriticals in stub templates (not all keyboards are set up to use them easily). It might even be better to make it {{NZ-ethno-stub}} (although New Zealand is a special case given its lack of pre-European diversity), to avoid any potential edit-warring re: Moriori articles. Grutness...wha? 03:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I saw an article related to the Maori earlier today and I think I marked it as {{IndigenousAustralia-stub}}, which is presumably incorrect now that I think about it. StubSense reports 68 stubs. [23] Support {{NZ-ethno-stub}} ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 03:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
That's actually what prompted me to suggest this. :) I still prefer {{Maori-stub}} because of its tighter focus, similar to {{IndigenousAustralia-stub}}. Admittedly the Moriori are an issue, although probably a pretty minor one. But I'd accept {{NZ-ethno-stub}} if that's what others prefer. -- Avenue 12:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Support. I'd be inclined to go with NZ-ethno- as the most general, and conforming to the established pattern, but add redirects from both the other orthographies. Alai 03:48, 15 July 2006 (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.

{{Musical-stub}} or {{Musical-play-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 musical-theat-stub.

For all those small-time musicals and small-time musical stub articles, we need to tag them out instead of merely calling them {{play-stub}}, when they are so much more. Jfingers88 23:48, 14 July 2006 (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.

{{Powerplant-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.

StubSense reports 70 in {{US-struct-stub}} alone.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:05, 14 July 2006 (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.

{{Palace-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.

StubSense reports 45 in {{Austria-stub}}, 19 in {{Euro-struct-stub}} and I count another 40 total in several next countries-stubs or contry-struct-stubs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:01, 14 July 2006 (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.

{{Castle-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.

While 18 of the StubSense findings overlap with {{Fort-stub}}, I think Castle-stub can be a good subcat of Fort-stub (not all forts are castles, but all castles are forts). Note that we have {{England-castle-stub}}, {{Scotland-castle-stub}} and {{Wales-castle-stub}}, and that stub sence found 37 hits in {{Euro-struct-stub}}, and about 60 total in Japan, France, UK, Poland and MEeast-struct stubs alone.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I think there's a certain inevitable logic to this, give the existing sub-types. (BTW, not all castles are really fortifications, many are post-med ostentation that wouldn't withstand a half-dozen cheesed-off peasant, but close enough for categorisation purposes, I suppose.) Alai 22:39, 14 July 2006 (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.

{{Monument-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.

With redirect from {{Memorial-stub}}. I just discovered stubscan and started using it on some categories which I thought would deserve stub. Full (4k) scan of Category:Monuments and memorials revelas 86 articles in {{Ancient-Egypt-stub}}, 39 in {{Archaeology-stub}}, 26 in {{Protected-area-stub}} and dozens of others. Some are not structures, I think we easily have more then 60.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:01, 14 July 2006 (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.

{{City-stub}}, {{Town-stub}} and {{Village-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.

While the stub to indicate articles about cities would be useful, it is also needed simply to serve as a parent category for such stubs like {{Quebec-City-Stub}}, {{NYC-stub}}, {{Warsaw-geo-stub}}. Beacause there is no parent category, there is also apparenty no naming scheme for such stubs. I think they should have 'city' prefix and belong in the 'geo' family, just as struct-stubs do. We may also consider {{Village-stub}} as a logical extension, and perhaps {{Town-stub}} as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Why do we need a parent category for cities? Splitting by city, rather than larger region, is the exception, not the rule, and has generally been done by a wikiproject, or unilaterally, rather than WSS ever coming to any conclusion they were systematically necessary. No need at all for parents of villages and towns. We absolutely don't need these templates: as next to no location stub categories are split on those lines, these would either be double-stubbed onto tens of thousands of articles, or applied in a haphazard fashion with some articles tagged with both, some by location, and some by size: a nightmarish vista. The terms are also used completely different from place to place, making confusion a near-certainty. As no-one realistically has "all towns" as an area of interest or expertise, they're also useless for expansion purposes. Strong oppose. Alai 22:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Why do we need a parent category for cities?" If for nothing else, then for order. Let's say I am teaching urban science and I want to assign my students to work on city articles. Alas, although there is Category:Cities I can't easily find related stubs, unless I know about the existence of the sub senser, which is rather unlikely for most people out there. Unless you are going to argue that Category:Cities should be deleted, I see no reason why it should not be accompanied by its stub category. Last but not least, Stub sense idicates huge potential for this category, especially suggesting many national subcategories with {{Cz-geo-stub}} being the leader with over 200 hundred cities, Brazil second with 127...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
      • It's quite remarkably fallacious to suggest that I can't oppose a stub category without calling for the deletion of the corresponding permanant category. Indeed, if every category had a stub counterpart, it would be utterly unmanageable. The "huge potential" is exactly my point: huge population, useless axis of split (as I think the contrived nature of your example of expansion along same demonstrates). Playing around with StubSense on random categories is all well and good, but ideally splits that get us some way along our to do list would be handy, rather than just re-shuffling articles that are already sorted entirely sensibly, i.e. by country and by where necessary by region. Alai 00:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONGLY AND VOCIFEROUSLY OPPOSE. There is absolutely no reason why these stubs should exist or even be contemplated. Aboput 75% of geo-stubs are villages, towns, and cities - to have a separate stub for them would amount to creating a template for use by some 80,000 articles all of which are far better split by their location. To do so on a subnational basis, which would be the other option, would drain the country-specific geo-stubs to the point where many of them would be no longer viable. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, especially the plethora of three different stubs, with no clear or universal guideline between what gets which one. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Strong oppose. These are way too vague and we split by geography anyway. Valentinian (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2006 (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.

Protected area split

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.

I missed one clear possibility here: Category:Australian protected area stubs would have 115 stubs, and scratch one oversized parent. A very large number of the remainder are in the US, and will have to be split soon enough enough, though. Several US states seem to be "bubbling under"; if we split by US region, we'd get a pretty massive US-west sub-cat immediately. I'm more inclinded to suggest splitting the US by type of prot-area: for example, we have a bootleg {{NPS-stub}} which fails the "TLA redirect" test for ambiguity, and which seems not to have fully sorted all the national parks in the protected areas, so I'll propose a {{US-NationalPark-stub}} to take both those groups. Likewise for assorted other types: I'll hopefully be back shortly with some more counts. Alai 18:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC) OK, as threatened, I'm going to formally propose all of the following:

I'll also mention the following, in case there's a large undercount, or someone wants to do some "lumping together":

Hopefully someone with a clearer idea of any additional structure and hierarchy here will chime in and clarify. Alai 19:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • This seems fine to me...only I wouldn't make a {{US-NationalPark-site-stub}} since only about 55 out of over 400 units managed by the National Park Service are actually National Parks...the rest are "sites" that are differently named such as National Historical Park, National Battlefield...etc. The rest seems fine to me...but I'm not entrenched on any aspect of this so whatever works best is fine with me.--MONGO 04:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Additionally, United States National Site stubs category should be seperate since I believe that some of these sites are not managed by the National Park Service. National Grasslands are all managed by the U.S. Forest service, and National Recreation areas are managed by numerous agencies so they could get a stub I suppose. Wilderness areas number about 500 or more, and most of them are still yet to be written, but the vast majority of them are stubby. Same is true for National Wildlife Refuges both in terms of number and the quality of the articles. Most areas managed by the National Park Service that have articles are not stubs anymore...since they generally have a couple of paragraphs, a picture and references. Please let me or the Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas folks know what comes of this so we can properly link to categories so they can be cleaned up...thanks.--MONGO 04:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • By request of the creator of the NPS template, we went with the name {{US-NationalParkService-stub}} rather than the above, perhaps for similar reasons. I wasn't assuming that any of the rest of these had anything to do the NPS, other than those labelled specifically as "National Park" something-or-other; I'm not familiar with the relationship between the different bits and pieces, so am just counting based on the permanent categories. I don't propose to do anything about the rest of these for the time being: the parent's back down below the magic size of 800, so I'm at present in no hurry, but if the wikiproject feels any of them might be useful... Alai 06:35, 7 August 2006 (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.

Cornwall-related article 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.

{{Cornwall-stub}} We have a {{Scotland-stub}}, {{Ireland-stub}}, {{Wales-stub}}, and a {{France-stub}}, but no Cornwall-related article stub ? see...... List of Celts Pediac 15:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

2 things: First of all, all the things you mentioned are countries, and Cornwall is not. Secondly, we do have a {{Cornwall-geo-stub}} for locations within Cornwall. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Is this a requirement ? for example please see {{Atlanta-stub}}, {{Chicago-stub}}, {{California-stub}}

Pediac 17:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't even know abou the Atlanta and Chicago stubs, but I can see your point by relating it to the California stub. Stub sense lists 384 stubs under Category:Cornwall, but 281 of them are Cornwall-geo-stubs, leaving 103 potential stubs. That normally would be enough, but I'm concerned because StubSense lists 6 articles as having the {{Cornwall-stub}}, which is impossible because it doesn't exist. StubSense query ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, here we go: it's recently deleted as seriously undersized, and StubSense is suffering from severe toolserver db duplication lag. So oppose until there's strong evidence of numerical viability. Alai 18:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
(ec)It's not a requirement, but while there's something of a presumption that countries ought to have a stub-type, that's not necessarily true of sub-national entities. However, if you have 60-ish articles that are primarily notable in relation to Cornwall (and aren't locations, which as noted there's a more specific type for)... Alai 18:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Support, sounds like there's enough to warrant, plus, though it might not be a country, it is a distinct cultural region like Wales that had its own distinct Celtish culture and language.plange 18:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd take the 103 number with a pinch of salt: many of those are bios, and will therefore be "highly variable" in their Cornish-relatedness. For example, take Jim Barnes, who seems to be in a Cornish cat due merely to having been born there. In the extreme case, people might be in this hierarchy due only to having been born in say, Devon (part of ancient/cultural Cornwall, but not the modern division), giving significant scoping problems. Alai 19:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. it might be worth noting that those other subnational regions you mentioned with their own stub types all have their own wikiprojects, which is the only reason they had stub types in the first place. Is there a WikiProject Cornwall? Grutness...wha? 02:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - there isn't currently a Wikiproject Cornwall. I started a Wikiproject Penwith (a district in west Cornwall) a few months back. I have been thinking about starting a Cornwall Wikiproject for some time however I would say that there probably isn't sufficient interest from Cornwall editors. Most contributions tend to be of the "adding increasingly long and off topic links to the external links section" type or the "edit war over the precise terminology used in the first paragraph, or the position of a flag" type. To be honest this puts me off starting one - this is an encyclopedia not a soapbox, and as most of the editors who currently contribute to Cornwall seem happy to play with these minutae rather than tackle jobs like actually improving the content of articles or making maps, I think it would be a waste of time! I would love to be proved wrong on this (apologies to anyone I've wronged in that sweeping generalisation who actually does add significant contributions ! - if you do, and I've missed them, then I'd love to hear from you - maybe we could organise a collaboration?) Take care Mammal4 09:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

further comment - sorry forgot to mention -there is a Cornwall portal that was started recently, however I seem to be the only person who actually edits it, so I base these comments at least in part on this Mammal4 09:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose for now at least. I don't think that there are sufficient articles to warrant an extra stub type. There easily could be enough articles to populate this stub if editors started adding more content though Mammal4 09:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Support - a lot of Cornish editors are unaware of many of these articles and if they were quickly identifiable and in one place as a Cornwall-related article stub this would help. There are many other articles which could be written about Cornwall and anything which encourages more contribution is a good idea !!! Blaid 22:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment lots of articles could be written but as I said they generally aren't because people would rather squabble over detail. The Cornwall portal was supposed to encourage this sort of thing, but in reality only I edit it and I'm guessing nobody looks at it. Articles first, then a stub category - show me the money! ;) Mammal4 08:42, 18 July 2006 (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.

{{car-rental-stub}} Category:Car rental 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.

I suggest that there should a stub for car rental. -- Patricknoddy 8:58am July 14, 2006 (EDT)

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.

{{Vermont-artist-stub}} Vermont Artists 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.

At Project Vermont we have a stub category for Vermont politicians, but nothing for other notable residents. I would like to have a broad category for our many musicians, writers, filmmakers etc. and think that this would satisfy the need. H0n0r 00:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually it wouldn't, for several reasons. First of all, in keeping with the naming guidelines a {{Vermont-artist-stub}} could only be about people in the visual arts. Musicians, writers, filmmakers, etc, would all be excluded form such a stub. Secondly. Category:Vermont stubs with only 11 stubs is hardly overflowing. Once that gets large enough to warrant a separate {{Vermont-bio-stub}}, I'd support that, but I doubtful about any other per state bio-cats other than the generic and the politician. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • sounds good - I guess I'll use the tools available and see how I go - thanks for the suggestion. For future reference, is there an acceptable category of "cultural contributors" or are artists instantly split into specific fields? Thanks againH0n0r 03:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • actually, we don't normally split even bio-stubs at a statewide level, since people tend to move around too much (politicians are an exception, since they usually stand for one particualr place). For now, a double-stbbing with Vermont-stub and US-artist-stub (or US-writer-stub, US-musician-stub etc) is the best way to go. Given that we tend to use a threshold of 50-60 stubs for what is a viable category, Cat:Vermont stubs needs a bit of filling anyway! Grutness...wha? 03:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • People should really only be being tagged with a state-specific stub type of any sort if they're notable in connection with that state, or otherwise very strongly associated with it: we don't want to end up with a grab-bag of stub tags associated with people who were born in one place, went to school in another, did something notable in a third, and are now living someplace else, etc. So as Grutness says, use Vermont-stub for the time being -- but sparingly... Alai 04:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Will do. I was thinking specifically of authors/directors etc. who live in, and focus on, the state in their art, like Howard Mosher. Thanks so much for everyone's input - it has been an education for me. Can I now withdraw the proposal? Thanks again. H0n0r 12:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
      • That looks like a completely appropriate tagging, no problem there; 60 of those and a -bio-stub would be no problem. I was just illustrating the potential problems with regional bio-tags. (The proposal will probably languish here for a couple of months until it's actually archived, just in case someone else has a related brainwave, but withdrawal noted.) Alai 00:43, 15 July 2006 (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.

Music Video Compilation 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.

There doesn't seem to be a stub category for music video compilations. A "compilation album" one exists, but a released collection of videos wouldn't quite fit in that category. Just64helpin 19:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You can use {{music-video-stub}}, which currently only has 90 stubs. How many music video compilation stubs do you have? --Bruce1ee 06:09, 14 July 2006 (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.

{{WWI-battle-stub}} / Category:World War I battle 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.

Lots of battles from Category:World War I stubs could go there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment The name of the proposed category was not in line with the normal system. I've updated the name and notified the proposer. Valentinian (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose way too small. The parent cat. doesn't even have 150 articles and on a first glance I can only see little more than 30 of these. Valentinian (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Update: My last count was 46 stub articles. Valentinian (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2006 (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.

{{Technology Organizations}} or {{tech-org-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.

A category for stubs that deal with technology orientated organizations. This would be a sub-category of the current organization category, which is currently 13 pages long and in need of splitting. It would help with the splitting.--Jaysscholar 15:52, 12 July 2006 (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.

{{MLB-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.

Used to identify short articles related to Major League Baseball. Mostly Rainy 11:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Not wild about the name; a tad cryptic, though admittedly passes the "not a disambig" test. How many of the existing {{baseball-stub}} would this 'take'? Sorting the existing category (I notice numerous misplaced bios, for example) and splitting on a finer criterion might be more useful. Alai 04:37, 13 July 2006 (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.

{{industrial-design-stub}} / Category:Industrial design 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.

I think an industrial design stub would be useful. I cant believe there isn't one already, but I have looked around and cant seem to find one. (I am a bit of a wikipedia beginner- so I hope I haven't overlooked some thing) Here are some articles that it would suit: cifra 3, Anglepoise lamp, Juicy Salif, Model 3107 chair --Trounce 11:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is {{engineer-stub}} which reads: This article about an engineer, inventor or industrial designer is a stub. But, that's really about a person as opposed to the process. I just checked Category:Industrial design and there's a whopping 25 articles in it (plus a few in the sub-cats), so I can't see how there could be 65 stubs out of all that.
Hmmm.... According to StubSense [24] there are indeed 351 stubs in that cat, but a majority of them already use good stubs:
And it just gets smaller and smaller from there. So, for now, I'm going to oppose because I don't think there are enough stubs to warrant this. Unless someone comes up with a better way to find stubs, then I might rethink my vote. (As a complete side note, I fixed the proposal -added a hyphen- to conform to naming conventions) ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I assume by extension, {{engineering-stub}} should cover anything that an {{engineer-stub}} might do, in cases where the above aren't more appropriate, as Amalas mentions. I'd like a clearer idea if there's really a viable pop for which this would be the most applicable stub. Alai 21:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia, so bear with me! My understanding of stubs is they are to ctagorize unfinished articles so that, say an engineer could browse engineering based stubs and see if he could add to any articles. I just thought with certain products such as cifra 3, Anglepoise lamp, Juicy Salif and Model 3107 chair, although they are basic things, like a clock or a chair, their quality of design has set them above and apart from other similar products. Take Juicy Salif for example, it's a simple fruit juicer that really wouldn't merrit a wikipedia article by itsef but for its design. There are people (strange, obsessive people!!) who would have an understanding of those products from a design perspective, and if they are filed under furniture or kitchen utensil or whatever I think we would be making it harder for those people to contribute to those articles.--Trounce 12:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur that there certainly are articles for which this would be the most appropriate stub types (and your examples look plausible), it's just not 100% clear to me that there's 60 such. Could you compile a longer list of candidate articles, perhaps? Alai 04:47, 13 July 2006 (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.

{{diplomacy-stub}} / Category:Diplomacy stubs and {{diplomat-stub}} / Category:Diplomat 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.

Despite the Category:Diplomacy, articles on diplomacy are spread out across Wikipedia. The stubs are accordingly disparate, falling into Category:Government stubs, Category:Politics stubs, Category:Military stubs, Category:International organization stubs, etc. In addition, there are dozens of stubs that aren't listed as such, since there isn't an appropriate category.

Into the new Category:Diplomacy stubs would go (amongst others) dozens of pieces of terminology (from eDiplomat); 43 articles on New Zealand's missions abroad; and a great many on embassies, 'Foreign relations of Foo', etc.
Into the new Category:Diplomat stubs (which would be a subcategory of the above), would fall most of the 508 stubs identified by StubSense.

Further sub-categories could easily be justified in due course, but these are the two most pressing. Bastin 17:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This could be a tricky one, as it's the sort of category that may be applied correctly to someone, without it necessarily being their primary area of notability, if they're also, as you note, a politico, military person, or whatnot. But 508 is a goodly safety margin, so that seems likely enough, so long as people don't go mad with unnecessary double-stubbing or inappropriate restubbing, sounds good. Alai 03:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
These already got proposed back in June. There's not any problem with {{diplomat-stub}}, which had as of then had only about 300 potential stubs idetified by StubSense, and could certainly be created now based on that previous proposal. There was a mild disagreemeent over whether to have a diplomacy stub type or a broader international relations stub type, and I've been trying through CFD to get the perma-cats better organized first before resolving that. Phase 1 awaits merely an admin to close out two uncontentious CFD upmerges. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:53, 11 July 2006 (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.

Nutra Pharma 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.

The proposed stub will have information about their research and pipeline and will include links to organizations that focus on the particular diseases. This will fit within the category List of Biotechnology Companies and Medical Company Stubs. There is currently a large list of stubs for biotechnology companies medical companies and I see this fitting well within those categories. -- Isserdude07 08:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Not quite sure what you mean by all of that. This page deals with stub templates and categories - neither of which have "information about their research and pipeline" or links. In any case "nutra-pharma-stub" is far too obscure and ambiguous a name. If I understand you correectly you're asking for a stub for biotechnology companies, in which case biotech-company-stub would be a more logical name. How many stubs are there that could take this? If there are over 60, it seems reasonable, but I'd like to know whether I've interpreted your request correctly first! Grutness...wha? 23:39, 10 July 2006 (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.

Family Guy

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

The result of the debate was do not create.

I am currently working on a Family Guy WikiProject and I would like to create stubs relating to the show.

  1. {{FamilyGuy-char-stub}}/Category:Family Guy character stubs-6 so far, but the project will be expanding the number of character pages, so the number will go up exponentially
  2. {{FamilyGuy-episode-stub}}/Category:Family Guy episode stubs-0 so far, but as new episodes are added to Wikipedia, we will need this tag
  3. {{FamilyGuy-stub}}/Category:Family Guy stubs-1 so far--these will relate to miscellaneous FG things, so it as well will be more often used

-PhattyFatt 18:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose There doesn't need to be 3 categories based on a cult tv show. Maybe one, but I personally think that the fictional character stubs and categories work just fine for this purpose. --Burgwerworldz 19:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong OpposeAbsolutely no way. You don't even have enough existing stubs to justify one stub, let alone three. 30 stubs is the minimum for a Wikiproject's first stub and after that the number needed to justify goes up to the same 60 per stub type as for any other stub type. Get it up to 30 stubs, and I could marginally support a single stub type. In any case, there are better ways than stub types to identify articles of interest to a television series Wikiproject. The main one would be a template to place on each article's talk page. I did take the liberty of renaming your proposed stub templates to conform to the naiming guidelines, but frankly, except for {{FamilyGuy-stub}}, I can't see any of these being created.Caerwine Caerwhine 19:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose as per Caerwhine. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose as per Aelfthrytha. Great show but too few articles. Valentinian (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. If the project does grow to the stage of having 30+ stubs, then one stub template for the series is a distinct possibility - but three is overkill. Note that no television of film series has more than one stub type - there's only one Star Wars stub type, only one Harry Potter stub type, only one Buffy stub type... and the vast, vast majority of series - even cult ones - don't have any separate stub types. With small numbers of stubs like you currently have it makes far more sense to keep a list of them on a project sub-page anyway, rather than making a whole separate stub type. That way detail can be added indicating what actually needs to be done to the articles as well. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Grutness, though point of information: {{stargate-stub}} and {{stargate-episode-stub}}. Alai 03:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The SG templates are probably a good idea (the episode stub is definitely big enough and the other is 50+) but the category pages are more than a bit hideous. There's no stub category for either of them, just a list of templates. Valentinian (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The Stargate people had split out a child category but done so incorrectly. I've updated the code on both templates and cat.s, so it should be better now. Valentinian (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2006 (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.

Splitting {{UK-noble-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.

This is just under 1300 right now, and will probably exceed it soon as I continue to sort UK-bio-stub. We already have a Scotland noble-stub, but that is proving insufficient. Based on counts provided by StubSense I recommend the following rank based stubs.

Baronet is a UK only noble rank, which is why the categories for the baronets don't include British. We may also wish to consider

as a sub type of Category:British baron stubs since that proposed stub type isn't all that far from beoming overlarge themselves. The few pre-1876 life peers with ranks higher than baron either have no articles or better than stub articles, and we can include some boilerplate to make it clear that it applies only to the post-1875 life peers. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that split's necessary yet, though the main one clearly is. And please... Alai, I know you're annoyed at Caerwine's suggested namings, but can we keep that debate from spilling over into the proposals? Grutness...wha? 23:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • As said actions (and said annoyance) started here, not really, no. And as it happens, this case is as good an instance as I could have made up from whole cloth as to why "UK" = "British" is problematic, and "follow the permanents", regardless of any inconsistency therein, or naming issues induced thereby, should not be an iron-shod rule, so short of a meatball:GoodBye or a wikibreak under heavy sedation, refraining from comment on this was never really an option. Alai 04:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't think there'd be anyone here who'd see that as a good solution... we may not agree on all things, but you're very useful to this project and have done a ton of work for it. As to naming, UK vs GB vs British is always going to be a problem, especially sinvce you've also got pre-UK history and current nationalist/devolutionist sentiment to cope with, and any "solution" we come up with for the stub and main category names is bound to be a compromise. Hell, with even things like Cornwall and the Orkneys getting in on the act (as recently happened at SFD) it's a logistical nightmare. Grutness...wha? 06:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
      • United Kingdom vs. Britain is one issue, and yes, on occasion a thorny one, if not to say a historically confusing given the two (or so) states with variations on the former title. Having variant templates for each incarnation of said country is going to be worse though, especially if it's applied inconsistently across different categories. But above and beyond that, what we can absolutely do without is the explicit equation made by templates called "UK-something" feeding into "British some-related-category", which is just to add cognitive dissonance, occasional controversy, possible scope confusion and double-takes, for no material benefit that's discernable to me. Especially if this just acts to further encourage "let's dump NI-related articles into "Irish"/"Ireland" categories of not-explicitly-specified scope. Alai 07:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, there never was a United Kingdom of Great Britain tho a redirect exists for those who think there was. The style of that state that existed from 1 May 1707 to 31 December 1800 was simply the Kingdom of Great Britain, however, as long as we're discussing United Kingdoms, let's not forget the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves or the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. As an additional asides, under the law of the United Kingdom the people of Northern Ireland are officially British citizens, so at least as far as people are concerned using British is certainly not a problem. Now to get back to the point at hand I believe that the terms Peerage of Great Britain and Peerage of the United Kingdom are the standard terms used here, and not arbitrary Wiki-ventions, tho I do hope the good folks at WP:PEER will respond to Alai's invitation. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I included the link partly as the article discusses that term; I'll not repeat that here, other than to note my disagreement with your assessment. I'm not clear what your other examples might be intended to illustrate. It beats me how anyone can use the example of the citizenship question and terminology of Northern Irish people in the same sentence as "certainly not a problem", much less blithely assert it; UK official government POV is not neutral (nor terminology, consistent, come to that). At no point did I suggest the distinction was an "arbitrary Wiki-ventions", but rather that it's needlessly obscure, and apt to cause confusion. Splitting oversized stub categories by century and/or decade is, on the other hand, extremely clear, and has significant precedent in other such. Alai 07:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As a note, baronets aren't really nobles and shouldn't be in this category in the first place, unless they hold a higher title. This would be a good opportunity to filter them into their own stub cat. Mackensen (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Re: Caerwine's point above, I think that "United Kingdom" is fairly universally understood to mee the UK of GB & NI, despite other "claimants to the throne", as it were, in much the same way that you can say "United States" without many people thinking initially of Los Estados Unidos do Mexico (ISTR that Brazil is also now a "United States"). "British" does have one extra problem, though - those British citizens who reside in Bermuda, the Falklands, Gibraltar, etc. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 12 July 2006 (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.

Criminologist 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.

I am proposing criminology and criminologist stubs. "criminology-stub and "criminologist-stub" is essential, especially many of it are marked in the sociology or psychology stubs or catagories. --Cyril Thomas 18:56, 7 July 2006 (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.

Misc. nationality/occupation splits

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.

Based on counts from the country-bio-stub parent, only. Alert viewers will notice the biography/-al flip-flopping; these are following the existing occu-stub parent. If we want a systematic scheme, we'd better decide which. Alai 04:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Shouldn't that be Category:British music biography stubs? Caerwine Caerwhine 04:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Why? There's no corresponding permanent category, even to apply your own proposed scheme. Alai 05:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Because the naming conventions call for categories of people to use adjectives to indicate nationality (where available), so if there was a corresponsing non-stub category it would use British and not United Kingdom. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Would you be referring to WP:NCCAT, which explicitly says: "In situations where multiple adjectives are possible, please note that no official policy exists as to which one is favoured."? And links to a list of same which gives "American, U.S." for Those United States? Obviously I have some edit-warring to do to get "U.K." on there too... Alai 08:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • support - preferably with "United Kingdom". How is the word "jurist" used in Canada, BTW - the US sense (attorneys and judges) or the British sense (legal academics and writers)? Grutness...wha? 11:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I was a little queasy about that too. Probably we should rename the existing cats to, and create this at, "... law biography stubs", just to keep things nice and simple, and include a scoping statement to rule out some of the woolier interpretations. Alai 02:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
          • The perm-cats use jurist primarily, but they also have some legal professionals because of the lack of usage of the perfectly good word jurist as word for legalists in Commonwealth English. There is even a duplication with both a British jurists and a British legal professionals category. Once again I find myself wishing we had a en-US and a en-UK wiki. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, we have the word all right. We just use it to refer to something completely different. A jurist is someone who writes, researches and/or lectures in the law and its history. Why use it elsewhere when there are perfectly good words like "judge" and "barrister"? Grutness...wha? 06:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Pity we poor residents of Ireland, Australia, etc. Looking at the history, the "British jurists" one seems to be a recreation of an earlier CFD, and the other a result of that same discussion. (Perhaps there was later discussion about recreating this, perhaps it was a "solo run", I'd have to poke around more to tell.) There are guidelines that supposedly affirm the use of generally understood language rather than either Commonwealth- or US-specific terms, so by any reasonable criteria the whole hierarchy ought really to be at Category:Legal professionals etc. The Canadians, however, are singularly at "Category:Canadian legal professionals". Alai 06:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Just another example of why it might be better of there were separate Wikis for American and British English like there are for Norsk bokmål and Norsk nynorsk. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
                • There's rather more difference between those than just bickering about the meaning and appropriate use of "alternate", "alternative" and what-not, but it is somewhat ironic that the two largest wiki-communities (or two out of the top three, at any rate) have to cohabit in often sulky fashion on a single wiki, while numerically very much smaller dialects split out ad infinitum. (How many Former Yugoslav Wikis of Serbo-Croatian are there these days?) I've certainly pondered more than once whether preference-based #ifexprs or similar might not be the ultimate solution to -our/-or, -ise/-ize, petrol/gasoline [optional "," here] and logical/aethetic quotes (or is that esthetic?). At any rate, a little above the proverbial pay grade of WSS/P. Alai 05:19, 11 July 2006 (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.

Entertainers by country

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.

Once again, based on counts from (oversized) country-bio-stubs, that are in or under Category:Entertainers:

In the case of the larger ones, there might be narrower types that can be split out first, and/or some undersorting to existing types. Alai 03:34, 7 July 2006 (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.

Radio people by country

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.

On the basis of country-bio-stubs that are also under the category of Category:Radio people, the following look plausible:

For the UK case, in fact there's already a double-catted template {{UK-radio-bio-stub}} with more than 60 usages, so it's certainly viable. The others might be overcounts, if the perm-cat doesn't relate to their primary notability (or undercounts, if there are numerous such stubs lacking occupational categories). Alai 18:35, 6 July 2006 (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.

Yet more mil bios

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.

Similarly. Alai 04:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

biographical or biography? Grutness...wha? 05:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Proposal is following the existing parent. If you'd prefer the other, I'm game, but please SFR said parent first. I take your point though, there does seem to be a fair bit of inconsistency about between the two. Alai 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
If we went by the parent cats we would end up with a hodge podge of either X military people stubs or X military personnel stubs. I'm going to head over to the Military history project and try to get them to decide whether they want the main cats to use X military people or X military personnel with an eye to organizing an umbrella renaming over at CFD. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:27, 7 July 2006 (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.

Film bio split

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.

Based on counts only from the film-bios... Alai 04:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

again, biographical or biography? Grutness...wha? 05:55, 6 July 2006 (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.

{{Antarctica-stub}} / Category:Antarctica 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.

Let me state off the bat that I expect this stub to have only about 30-40 stubs at first, populated from {{Antarctica-geo-stub}} and {{explorer-stub}}. However, there is no appropriate parent stub, and in its lack we have the anamolous situation of non-geo-stubs being tagged with {{Antarctica-geo-stub}} (which has slightly over 400 stubs). Caerwine Caerwhine 15:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

yeees... there won't be that many - although you could probably find a few marked explorer-stub that could do with double stubbing. And there is a child category which is getting fairly near needing some form of split (RossDependency-geo-stub, perhaps?). Tentative support if we can scrape together a few more stubs - it would be hypocritical to support this one while objecting to the ones above unless it's considerably coser to threshold. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 4 July 2006 (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.

{{Fict-org-stub}} / Category:Fictional organizations stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

There are plenty of fictional organizations out there, from super-hero teams to groups on television shows. Jfingers88 23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

But are there plenty of stub articles about fictional organizations? Caerwine Caerwhine 00:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Probably. But I would assume they're merely listed in a broader category, such as {{Tv-stub}} or {{comics-stub}}. Jfingers88 21:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Then please find them first. Because of the nature of fictional organization articles, I'm not certain there will be many stubs. An organization found in only a single work of fiction shouldn't be broken out of the article on that work unless there is more than a stub's worth of article. Only in the case of organizations found in multiple works should there even be stub articles. I realize that this ideal of what should happen with subtopics is not always followed, but I'd like something firmer than "there ought to be enough stubs" in this case. Caerwine Caerwhine 07:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
There are 111 articles under Category:Fictional organizations which qualify as stub size (less than 512k, fewer than 7 wikilinks). Of course, I don't know if they merit anything larger than stub size, but there it is. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 20:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Equivocal. There seems to be the population, as Peg notes, but I fear that this won't do much to reduce the size of existing large types, and will probably just increasing double-stubbing, as few topics are primarily notable for being "fictional organizations", and most are probably quite correctly sorted as tv-stubs, comics-stubs, etc. Alai
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/July_2006_completed&oldid=1132891340"