Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposals, April 2006

[edit]

Splitting {{euro-footyclub-stub}}/Category:European football club stubs

[edit]

I'm proposing {{Italy-footyclub-stub}}, StubSense finds 112. {{Scandinavia-footyclub-stub}}, StubSense finds 22 Nor, 38 Den and 53 Swe and {{Scottish-footyclub-stub}}, StubSense finds 81. --Eivindt@c 09:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support creating a tag for Scotland but I would prefer having it named {{Scotland-footyclub-stub}} for consistency, I also support the Italian stub, but I am opposed to the Scandinavian one, since I think it would be better to stick to splitting the cat by countries only.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 14:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it should be {{Scotland-footyclub-stub}}, I don't know why I wrote Scottish, guess my brain stopped working for a while. --Eivindt@c 15:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Astonishingly {{Belgium-footyclub-stub}} would also be viable according to StubSense (see here.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 14:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As apparently it can't be called Scotland-football-club-stub due to proponents of US English, and it can't be called Scotland-soccer-club-stub due to proponents of non-US english, and thus we're reduced to using absurd colloquialisms, obviously I can only support {{Sco'ish-fitba'-team-stub}}. Alai 19:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to our standards it would have to be {{Sco'lan'-fitba'-team-stub}}. --Eivindt@c 19:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, and one more glo'al stop: even better! Alai 19:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also support {{Wee-Sco'lan'-fitba'-team-ar'icle}} :) More seriously, yeah, if those countries are at the stage where they can be split off, go for it. Grutness...wha? 08:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and Scanidinavia as well. No harm in it. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Italy and Scotland, and Scandinavia too at a pinch, although I would prefer creating 5 templates:
... and:
... but bunging them all in Category:Nordic football club stubs.
Is the spelling not "footie" anyway? --Mais oui! 15:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have a preference either way for the latter one, but please make ensure consistency between the template / category and what's sorted into it: "Scandinavia" = Denmark + Norway + Sweden. "Nordic Countries" = Denmark + Norway + Sweden + Finland + Iceland (and the Faroes and Åland for that matter). Valentinian (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support creating categories for Italy, Scotland, and Belgium, and object to creation of {{Scandinavia-footyclub-stub}}. This is just an arbitrary grouping. Btw, Spain has 54 footyclub-stubs, finding another six will make another type viable. Conscious 11:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must admit i agree. "Scandinavia" is very ambiguous - I always learnt it as including iceland but not Finland. Similarly I'm not overly happy with grouping the faeroes andDenmark. Hopefully though several of those countries will be fairly close to threshold soon anyway. Grutness...wha? 12:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support creation of the per-country templates, as above, oppose a Scandinavia template. Support a common Scandie or Nordic category, fed by constituent templates. Alai 07:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble understanding consensus here, what temps should be created, I know Swe, Den and Nor. Fin and Ice as well? What about the Færoes? Oh BTW was {{NI-footyclub-stub}} proposed? Its cat is undersized (35), should I list it at discoveries? --Eivindt@c 21:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finland, Iceland and Faroes templates would be fine if they're fed into a common Nordic category until they're separately viable. NI- should probably go to /D, yes; it could always be upmerged to a UK clubs stub, "reparenting" the Scots and Sassenachs. Alai 03:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering stub

[edit]

I am amazed and apalled that Wikipedia doesn't have an Engineering stub. There are stubs for Science, Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics ... but none for Engineering!!

Much if the food we eat is grown using Agricultural Engineering techniques and using ammonia as a fertilizer. Ammonia production worldwide in 2004 was 109,000,0000 metric tons, all in chemical plants designed by Chemical Engineers.

All of the gasoline and diesel fuels we use in our vehicles is produced in the 700 or so petroleum refineries worldwide that process about 81,800,000 barrels per day of crude oil (about 11,200,000 metric tons per day or about 13,000,000 m³ per day). Much of that oil was found thousands feet underground and brought to the surface by Geologists and Petroleum Engineers. All of those 700 or so refineries were designed by Chemical Engineers.

The roads and bridges we drive on were all designed by Civil Engineers. The high-rise office builds many of us work in were all designed by Structural Engineers. The major dams used to store water and prevent floods were all designed by Civil Engineers.

Most of the machines used each day (food harvestors, kitchen blenders, kitchen toasters, ovens, stoves, ranges, motors, automobiles, trucks, buses, elevators or lifts, pumps, compressors, etc.) were designed by Mechanical Engineers or Automotive Engineers or Electrical Engineers.

The airplanes we travel in were all designed by Aeronautical Engineers.

The world needs scientists, physicists, chemists and mathematicians ... but it also need engineers.

Here are some articles that need engineering stubs (some of which already have been tagged with science or chemistry stubs which don't truly apply):

Catalytic reformer
Biomass to liquid
American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Coal bed methane extraction
Synthetic crude
Steady-state (chemical engineering)
Steam distillation
Pressure swing adsorption
Chloralkali process
Chemical plant
Acid gas
Cascade (chemical engineering)
Absorptive refrigeration
Emission factor
Engineering mechanics
Engineering notation
Flash freezing
Flotation
Gas flare
Dispersive mass transfer
Geotechnical engineering
Hydrostatic test
Noise control
Physical compression
Process Safety Management
Ton of oil equivalent
Tower testing station
Heavy crude oil
Synthetic petrol
Natural gas liquids
Natural gas condensate
Electromechanics
Economizer
Hydraulic engineering
Manning formula
Thermal hydraulics
Nozzle
Hydrotreater
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Falling film evaporator
Fire-tube boiler
NACE International

(Some of the above should be completely deleted. They only have a few sentences and even those few sentences are incorrect.)

What I think is needed is a "master" stub that says "This is an engineering stub ....." and that master should include an option for for deleting "an" and inserting "a mechanical" or "an electrical" or "a chemical" or "a petroleum" or whatever engineering discipline is applicable. -mbeychok 19:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@c 08:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eivind, thanks very much for letting me know that we already have an engineering stub. I had looked through WP:WSS/ST and it is not listed there. Is it okay for a newcomer to include it in that list between 2.12 Science and 2.13 Technology even though all of the 2.XX types following the new 2.13 Engineering would be incremented? Also, would it be okay for me to edit the procedure instructions in WP:WSS/P so as to include a link to Category:Stub categories and an instruction to check there first? - mbeychok 05:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm strongly opposed to any sort of stub template parameterisation, if that's what the "master stub" suggestion amounts to. Standard-issue sub-types, like say {{chem-eng-stub}}, {{mech-eng-stub}}, {{elec-eng-stub}} would make sense, if there's the numbers to populate them. I don't find the above list entirely convincing: most of the stubs under {{energy-stub}} seem better placed as they stand, than under engineering, for example. Several of them are no longer stubs at all. And if mbeychok is correct that several of them should be deleted, then that's many fewer to sort. We're in danger of hanging ourselves up on the perennial "what's science, what's engineering, and what's technology" question here. Alai 19:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alai, with all due respect, as a retired engineer with over 50 years experience as an engineer, I think that I am a better judge of what stubs should be categorized as engineering stubs than a non-engineer. I wouldn't dream of passing judgement on articles or stubs outside of my expertise and I simply cannot understand why other people blithely do so. As for some of the articles that I listed not being stubs at all, it is my opinion that they are very far from complete and they should be tagged as stubs. Other than computer software engineers, there is only a relative handful of engineering Wikipedians and I am slowly beginning to understand why. I don't know what you mean by "We're in danger of hanging ourselves up on the perennial "what's science, what's engineering, and what's technology" question here." Science, engineering and technology are three separate and distinct fields and there is no problem in distinguishing between them for people with real world experience in any of those fields ... although people without the requisite expertise certainly may have such problems. - mbeychok 05:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't bother with the "with all due respect" preamble if you're not planning on utilising any. Your characterisation of "without the requisite expertise" is patronising, and as it happens, quite inaccurate. You didn't even bother to reply to my specific examples, from which I'm inclined to conclude you'd rather (repeatedly) assert your superior judgement, than demonstrate it. As for them not being stubs: please see WP:STUB. A stub is not simply an article that's incomplete in some respect: if that were the definition, we wouldn't have 400,000 o them to deal with but more like 990,000. I refer you to the templates {{expand}} and {{sectstub}} for such cases, where the incompleteness is clear and pressing, but where the articles are more than stubs. Alai 06:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I pushed the wrong button. I have indeed gone to WP:STUB as you advised. Here is the first two sentence from it:
"Stubs are Wikipedia entries that have not yet received substantial attention from the editors of Wikipedia, and as such do not yet contain enough information to be considered real articles. In other words, they are short or insufficient pieces of information and require additions to further increase Wikipedia's usefulness."
Am I missing something? Or are we having a semantics problem? To me, that says plain as day that a stub is an incomplete article. "... do not yet contain enough information ..." and "... they are short or insufficient pieces of information and require additions ..." To me, that means incomplete. I might also add, that I have seen a number of engineering/technical articles in Wikipedia that have quite a bit of information but most of it is completely incorrect. If the incorrect material is deleted, because there sn't time to immediately correct all of the article and it is probably better to just delete material (rather than leave incorrect stuff there) until there is time to correct the article, then the article becomes much smaller and incomplete at the same time. Should such a depleted article be tagged as a stub? Logically, I would think so, but if there is a Wikipedia policy or guideline against doing so, please let me know.- mbeychok 07:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly all stubs are incomplete articles; that does not mean that all incomplete articles are stubs. I think the remainder of the guidelines sketches out in moderately descriptively evocative (though far from rigorously defined) terms what sorts of incompleteness it's appropriate to tag as a "stub". (Most especially, very short articles, though I confess I often don't bother to remove the tag from longer articles when doing batch re-sorting, where that'd lose useful categorisation information, or where the article is obviously a work in progress in other key respects.) Yes, it's certainly possible that an article might on occasion revert from being a non-stub to a stub, but I'd advise (on a general note, this has nothing to do with stub sorting) against deleting significant content unless the problems are clear, inarguable, and pressingly urgent. (For example, copyvio, the ever-popular gratuitous insertion of profanity, or the proverbial "patent nonsense".) Doing so in more marginal cases is likely to antagonise other editors -- or in extreme cases, could be considered "blanking vandalism". Better to flag the issue on the article's talk pages, or add {{accuracy}} or {{fact}} flags, at least as a first step. (Either as fair warning before taking more drastic steps, or until you're able to fix it if you intend to do so yourself.) Alai 08:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also strongly opposed to the parameterisation idea. Further splits of {{engineering-stub}} may be worth considering at some point in the future, but right now there are fewer than 150 stubs in the category, so it's not worth considering. As for the list above, there's nothing wrong with double-stubbing some of them by adding engineering-stub as an additional stub to what's already there, but there are few if any of them that should have the original stub removed. As far as "Some of the above should be completely deleted" is concerned, that's nothing to do with us - we only deal with the sorting of stubs and the creation and deletion of the templates and categories used to sort them, not the deletion of the articles themselves. For that, you should take the articles to WP:AFD... or better still, improve them! Grutness...wha? 08:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness, I agree that my parameterisation may have lacked merit. As for improving articles, I am doing just that as much as I possibly can. I note that the engineering stub does not have a graphic icon as part of the stub tag ... as do the science and chemistry stub tags. Could you point me in the right direction as to how that is done and whether I am permitted to do that? Or must that be done by an administrator? Thanks in advance. - mbeychok 05:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an icon to {{engineering-stub}}. It is probably not ideal but at least it is the same as the one used on {{engineer-stub}} - have you seen that category, btw? Anybody can change a stub icon, the image just has to be easily recognizable and a free image, i.e. no "fair use" images. Other possibilities might be tools, a technical drawing etc. And perhaps a picture of a famous engineer for {{engineer-stub}}? Just make sure the image isn't associated with anything else (e.g. an image of the Eiffel Tower might not the best idea :) The standard image size is normally set at 30 px. Commons has a category, so all images there can be used: commons:Category:Engineering Valentinian (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{geology-stub}}

[edit]

5 pages. Must split into several subtypes. Suggest a type for events (earthquakes, eruptions, etc.), geographical features of geological significance (craters, plates, faults etc.), geological concepts. Any others? How would we name these? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

features like volcanoes and craters shouldn't be in there - they should all be marked with some form of geo-stub, since they're places. Here are some possibilities for subcats - obviously they wouldn't all be possible, since several of them overlap, but they're possibilities to consider:
  • geology-term-stub (paralleling the geo-term-stub), for geological terminology
  • tectonics-stub, for plate tectonics and related articles
  • geomorphology-stub, for the movement of land through time
  • geophysics-stub, for geophysics (well, duh :)
  • geology-event-stub, as suggested by Crz.
Any of them sound reasonable? Also, is there a WikiProject Geology we can consult, see if they can come up with some ideas? Grutness...wha? 13:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
mmm. No there isn't, apparently. There is a Geologic Timescale Wikiproject... but I doubt there are enough stubs relating to that directly. They might well be interested in a geomorphology-stub, though. Grutness...wha? 13:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Skip that - that project's inactive :/. It may be best to go through some of the stubs in the category and see whether any common themes recur. Grutness...wha? 13:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from what I've seen, most volcanoes and craters in WP are double-stubbed geology and geo-stub, and I think it oughtta be that way. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with Crzrussian that a volcano (for instance) is interesting not only as a place but as a geological phenomenon. The attention of geologists may be even more useful than the attention of locals. TheGrappler 16:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

This one was upmerged less than 14 days ago (the template was kept). However, a lot of the material relating to this country was only stubbed with generic templates or not at all. Now it's over 60. Will anybody be terribly offended if I give this one a proper category and add it to WP:WSS/ST ? Valentinian (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems here - perhaps we need to check more thoroughly in future! :) Grutness...wha? 01:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've populated several categories listed for deletion recently and my impression is that much more material often exists. Or to put it differently, much material isn't tagged in the best of ways - or not at all. Perhaps we should investigate a bit more before reaching for the axe :) StubSense and CatScan might come in handy here. E.g. Ecuador doesn't even have a template, but it actually has 60 stubs relating to politicians. I'm pretty sure a generic Paraguay stub would be above threshold as well. Recently, my list of Czech politicians jumped from around 10 to 63 since they'd all simply been tagged with {{Czech-bio-stub}} and it was the same story with the Bulgarians. We should double-stub everything so articles relating to people will be tagged with both profession and nationality. Valentinian (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you could find a few more geo-stubs from those countries which haven't yet got separate categories, then it could push a few more of them over threshold, too... :) Grutness...wha? 10:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a wise plan on someone's part to keep the template. :) Alai 03:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm keeping it in mind, G. For now, I've recreated the category. Valentinian (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R&B song stubs

[edit]

Listen up music fans; RNB is one of the broadest and most ambiguous music genres. subgenres of RNB include Doo-wop, Motown, and soul. A * denotes a subgenre of RNB that already has a spinoff stub type.

Subgenres of soul music include: Funk, Disco, Hip Hop (rap)*,

I want some spinoff stub types made for articles with those RNB subgenres so people can be less ambiguified by the genre. Also, many articles for hip hop songs with the RNB stub type should be diverted to the Hip hop song stub. I believe other stub types for RNB genres shall be created when Wikipedia is heavily populated with the others. --Nintendude 21:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StubSense says there are 146 RNB song articles tagged as a stub. --Interiot 22:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which are too few to require further splitting, and very nearly too few to permit further splitting. Category:Hip hop song stubs have already been split off, I don't see the others as being immediately viable on size. Alai 23:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{North-Korea-company-stub}}

[edit]

also {{South-Korea-company-stub}}.

There is a current {{Korea-company-stub}} which is used for both. I recently modified this stub, since it previously featured a South Korean flag, to use the unification flag as seen in other non-political Korea-related stub templates. It was suggested after my edit that the two should be separated, if only because the realities of doing business in the two nations are radically different and dependent on the political divide.

Most articles currently stubbed as {{Korea-company-stub}} would move to {{South-Korea-company-stub}}. We have quite a few North Korean company stubs:

— AKADriver ☎ 18:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a more precise estimate of how many stubs would fall under each? Aelfthrytha 18:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Approximately 200 in South Korea and 20 in North Korea. — AKADriver ☎ 19:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too small for now then, really. Can I suggest you create the N.K. template, only, feeding into the same category, which would allow "flagging" the two differently, as well as facilitating a future full-fledged split when the northern companies get to around 60? Alai 22:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Alai. Shouldn't it be {{NorthKorea-company-stub}} and {{SouthKorea-company-stub}}, just to be consistent? Valentinian (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea. There is definitely potential for more DPRK corp-stubs in the future, and having the template already in place would greatly simplify things. -- Visviva 04:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the icon is concerned, we have a standard non-political icon we use for the Korean peninsula as a whole - have a look at the template now. Personally I don't really see a need for separate templates if there are only 20 DRK stubs. Grutness...wha? 05:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Furry-Fandom-Stub}}

[edit]

Ok, I either haven't noticed that there is; - A stub template already made
- Someone's already proposed to create the template, or
- There is just nothing about it to date.
Anyway, what I propose is that we create a template for stubs regarding the furry fandom, which has a number of articles relating to it on Wikipedia such as comic books, artists, etc. So what do you people think of the idea? Beno1000 20:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I want to know: what is said number? Note the size guidelines on this page, and on WP:STUB. The capitalisation also seems incorrect, if the "fandom" qualifier is even needed. Alai 23:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I find ~50 articles tagged with stubs under Category:Furry, and I don't think all of them could be resorted here. --Interiot 00:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seriously doubt a separate furry fandom stub is necessary (Category:Furry and its subcats does contain 152 articles - excluding Wikipedian user pages - but over half of these are better sorted as comics rather than fandom, and as Interiot suggests, not enough of them are stubs anyway. If any form of fandom could do with a separate stub, sf-fandom would be the most obvious one to split first. As Alai says, too, if it's made, the second "f" needs to be lower case. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So should the S: {{Furry-fandom-stub}} Valentinian (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Quebec-tv-stub}}

[edit]

Québec television industry distinct from English Canadian television industry, due to it's French language and culture. It also performs much better than English Canadian television. As there is no category already, and hundreds of television programmes, both French and English or bilingual (notably Juste pour rire/Just for Laughs, Comment c'est fait/How it's Made), that are produced in Québec (though many articles may need to be created). Abeneal 20:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not under that name, and not unless there's at least 60 such articles currently in existence. {{canada-tv-stub}} has less than one full listing page, so there's really no need whatsoever for this. Alai 21:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonetheless, a distinct category does exist. Quebec television, arguably, is not Canadian television. I see that you are from Scotland, I assume that Welsh, Northern Irish, Scottish and English television are all distinct in some way broadly from UK Television. Sometimes those outside of Canada do not fully understand why Quebec television might be different from Canadian television, but I assure you to someone living in Quebec the distinction is quite obvious. This is an argument that English Canadians might disagree with as well, but the Quebec television industry is booming and arguably there is really not that much quality english canadian programming out there. Quebecers, in numerous studies, will choose to watch home-grown television programms over Canadian (english) or American programms whenever given the choice. There is a well based Quebec star system, which English Canada is completly lacking. There are distinctly Quebecois celebrities that are certainly not Canadian and are not known in English Canada. I understand as well that there is some sort of numbering threshold, but I believe that the point of this project is to create correct and descriptive categories, not incorrect ones. Abeneal 22:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This should at least be a subcategory of Canada Tv stubs. There are at least 30 articles already on that that are produced in Quebec or have obviously French names on that page. There are probably countless uncategorized articles floating around out there. I really believe this is an important stub category for Wikipedia, especially to educate English speaking Canadians about their own compatriotes and there booming television industry. There is an absolute dearth of information in English regarding French Canadian culture on the internet, French shows are almost never subtitled on English channels, and this is an important source of information for English Canadians to understand French Canada better, as well. Abeneal 22:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This project is for stub-sorting, not for categorisation-for-categorisation's sake. If we had a stub type for every permanent category, it really would be completely self-defeating. Our goal is to create a feasible number of feasibly-sized stub types, not to create unnecessary (and especially not undersized) types for polemical or pedagogical reasons. I don't see anything "incorrect" in classifying TV programmes from Canada as being from Canada. Alai 23:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe support, StubSense finds 61 articles marked as stubs under Category:Quebec television, many (but maybe not all) of which could be sorted to this one. I too might prefer to see a more inclusive name (french-canada-tv-stub?), but I don't know the region, and the name is consistent with the existing category. --Interiot 22:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may not be the expert on all this Québec, but I am a political science student studying in Montréal. The term French Canada is a loaded one, the more accepted and proper usuage, prefered by those living in Québec, is Québécois. French Canadian is a term used in the United States much more today than in Canada, though it may be used to describe French speakers living outside of Québec. There really isn't much television production by French Canadians outside of Québec, though it exists, it is different than television made in Québec. Abeneal 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • (after edit conflict) We don't question if tv from Quebec is different from other types of Canadian tv. You might know more about that topic than the rest of us combined. Alai's concern is that the most important requirement for new stub templates is that at least 60 articles must benefit from such a template - before it is created (this is established practice, please see the beginning of this page). We use that method to avoid a ton of small templates only used by 5 or 10 articles, which will be difficult to maintain, and be of little use to editors. The second problem is that according to the system used on template names, such a template should be named {{Quebec-tv-stub}} (just to use the proposed name as an example), in order to achieve consistent spelling / format with {{Canada-tv-stub}}, {{Quebec-stub}} and other similar stubs. But the main point is that we pretty much need 60 existing stub articles that could use such a template. Do we have that many at the moment? Valentinian (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I totally accept the naming convention {{Quebec-tv-stub}}, and if you click the links to the categories Category:Quebec television as well as look under {{canada-tv-stub}} I think that 60 stubs would exist? Am I supposed to list all of them here or allow others to see for themselves? Abeneal 23:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alai- what exactly is your issue here if these stubs exist? "don't bite the newbie" here (I've never proposed a stub category before and am not particularly familiar with the process). Your comments "I don't see anything "incorrect" in classifying TV programmes from Canada as being from Canada" indicate that you might not be particularly familiar with Canada. See Canada, Quebec, Culture of Quebec and especially Television of Quebec for more info on why it might be appropriate to make that distinction Abeneal 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not meaning to jump in here, but I think the main concern is that - with a lot of stub splits - we split by country and type. Having split the country off by making a canada-tv-stub, the most likely thing we would try to do next is to split off by facet of television (e.g., programmes, networks, stations, people) rather than by a subnational region (and - just in case you are a staunch Québecois - I mean no offence by referring to it as such! :). I must admit I am in two minds about this for the same reason, but I wouldn't object if it were made. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no objection if this is viably sized: see my original comment, "not unless there's at least 60". Your followup to this, and subsequently, seem to address every point but this (including my alleged lack of knowledge of Canada: could the "newbies" please refrain from biting others?), and seemed to be a "special pleading" argument, which I responded to as such. If no special pleading is required, no especial problem. Alai 06:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh people please. it's about stub managment, not about categorization. Hell we put everything (except UK) out of Europe under one tv-stub. In my eyes unless Canada-tv-stub becomes unmanageably large, there is no reason to split Quebec out of it. (I personally don't care much for the 60 minimum rule. I don't see it as a reason to split, i see it as a prerequisite) - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people stubs

[edit]

Includes:

And no other states/territories. I propose to delete and upmerge these misfits by type of person. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 22:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To give a concrete example, George W. Jenkins would go from Florida-people-stub to Category:United States business biography stubs. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 22:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather go with double-stubbing them. I agree that the above isn't much of a scheme, but it beats dumping them back into a parent that still extremely oversized (albeit no longer not the all-time champion). BTW, it won't be long before we're splitting US-business-bio- (or, at least needing to). Alai 23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Puerto Rico is a special case, and was proposed. It wasn't proposed as a subcat split of American people stubs (the stubs were never in there to start with) - it was a subcat split of Caribbean people stubs - we treat Puerto Rico as a separate entity from the US as regards stubs. I'd support keeping that one at least (or if it is upmerged, upmerge it back into the Caribbean category it came from!). The others I'm more ambivalent about. Grutness...wha? 12:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fine, keep PR, but the other three - tell me, what makes a Utah person? Birth? Residence? Voting resgistration? This is bizarre. I could fit under bother NY and NJ people with ease. Plus, there are so many more other Utah people! We must upmerge - it is the only solution. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that "proposing" an upmerge is in effect nominating the associated stub category for deletion, so if you want to go ahead with this (despite the above-noted objections), it should really be on SFD. Alai 21:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep Puerto Rico. I'm not really sure what to do with the other three. Valentinian (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-composer-stub}}

[edit]

Both parents oversized, will probably meet threshold. Crystallina 04:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Japan-album-stub}}

[edit]

{{album-stub}} is still oversized and even its subcategories are getting oversized. There's been quite a few more Japanese albums added, and I think it'll make 60. (This avoids geographical sorting because J-pop/J-rock have become musical genres unto themselves.) Crystallina 03:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{labor-dispute-stub}}

[edit]

For labor disputes, such as strikes or protests. This would be in support of WikiProject Organized Labour. Without a stub category such as this, the articles are bloating the next-best options, such as United States history stubs. Bookandcoffee has been kind enough to put together a list of 30 current articles from List of strikes and Category:Labor disputes that meet this criteria. As the project progresses, I imagine many more articles may be added. --JerryOrr 02:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we have the problem of Labor dispote and Organised Labour here. Perhaps something like simply {{strike-stub}} would be better? The template can be worded to make it clear that it's not just strikes that are covered. Grutness...wha? 05:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, though I personally get sick of all the American vs British spelling disputes. The union stubs (such as {{UK-labor-org-stub}} and {{US-labor-org-stub}}) use labor, so I would think that would be most appropriate. The project I referenced is, however, WikiProject Organized Labour, which would support using labour.
I personally couldn't care less whether it's labor or labour; honestly, I used labor without even thinking about it, being inherently Amero-centric myself. I do think we should stick with labo(u)r-dispute-stub (instead of something like strike-stub). I think it's more important to be clear about what the stub is meant for than to worry about offending the vocal minority that cares about American vs British spelling. I don't like the idea of using an over-specific categorization like strike-stub, then expecting people to know that it's also meant for other labor disputes (such as protests, riots, etc). If enough people care, I'll change it to labour, though I think labor might be better as it keeps in sync with the union stubs. --JerryOrr 11:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. Neither of those stubs was proposed, and if they had been then I;d have said the same thing there and would have outright opposed any possibility of the ridiculously named UK-labor-org-stub. We deliberately avoided the use of the word labour when it came to the activism stubs, using worker instead. Those two stubs need to be renamed and renamed ASAP. In fact - AARGH! The person who created them seems to have created at least eight different stub templates and categories! Grutness...wha? 13:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Now this is weird... skip that - they were proposed. Though they were never proposed with those names... I've put them up for renaming anyway. Grutness...wha? 14:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, in light of the desire to rename those stubs... if the existing worker/labor stubs are renamed as you have proposed, then how about {{worker-dispute-stub}}? --JerryOrr 14:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they were proposed with that name. Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive20#WikiProject Organized Labour. I agree that the spelling issue is pretty minor, but I would be concerned about using Worker here because this is an issue related to both workers and capital. I use labour myself, but {{labor-dispute-stub}} isn't a word, it's a tag, so I'm not bothered in the least about the spelling. Which, incidentally, was why I left {{UK-labor-org-stub}} and {{US-labor-org-stub}} spelled the same way. (And it was a nod to my neighbors to the south so they wouldn't complain about the name of the project :)) Bookandcoffee 21:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

id definately prefer worker-dispute-stub or strike-stub. and tho youre right that labor-org was proposed, that was done after other better names had already been proposed and (i thought) decided on. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I've read that proposal a half dozen times today. And I can't for the life of me see how there was any indication that better names had already been proposed, much less decided on. There's nothing there but a continuing conversation. I don't know, maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm missing something. - Ah, but I'll quit grumbling here. I'm off topic, and not acomplishing much. :) I'm for creating the stub, whatever the name. Bookandcoffee 11:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, it does look like a conversation that hadn't really decided on anything. Most of the problem is probably that there are so many stubs proposed that trying to keep track of them all is the devil's own task. Sorry I accused you of not proposing them. You're right that the stubs are needed - especially if - as you say - the Oceania ones are still being dealt with. I still think that worker-org is a better name though! :) Grutness...wha? 12:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like the result of the rename proposal was an no-consensus/keep. Thus, my "new stub proposal" remains {{labor-dispute-stub}}. Since a week has passed, and the only standing objections were to labor vs. worker, I assume it's safe to go ahead and create this stub. If I don't hear otherwise, I'll go forward with it. --JerryOrr 14:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since there were no objections, {{labor-dispute-stub}} has been added. --JerryOrr 23:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{emergency-stub}}, Category:Emergency services stubs

[edit]

For fire/ambulance (but maybe not police) stubs. Per StubSense, there really isn't a good stub for articles under Category:Emergency services. Per CatScan, there are perhaps 135 articles that could be sorted here. --Interiot 23:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Police should currently be going under {{crime-stub}}, as I understand it, but if this is viable without, or the existing one is rescope, sounds like a good plan. Alai 23:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's definitely viable without police. I went through just the firefighting ones, and easily got 60. The stub is a little fuzzy though. I think the best description to use would be "This firefighting, ambulance, or search-and-rescue-related article is a stub". Currently, I think things like Category:Fire suppression agents, lifeguard, and search and rescue could be included, and that police, maritime search and rescue (eg. Coast Guard) and {{disaster-stub}} could be excluded. --Interiot 02:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support revised proposal Valentinian (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support (and it might be worth considering a separate police-stub). Reason for tentative: I suggest you track down whatever wikiproject it was that created the disaster-stub before doing anything, see if they've got any input into this debate. Grutness...wha? 12:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Message posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management. Though I do think they cover slightly different topics (emergency services is tactical and disaster management is strategic?) --Interiot 13:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support in the WikiProject we currently use {{disaster-stub}} with a large scope, including articles like Signal Preemption and USAR Teams which would fall under emergency services. I see room for an emergency services stub under the disaster stub but just like with the disaster stub, I do not find the name 'emergency' intuitive and that it will be confused with 'disaster'. I do however not have any constructive suggestions. BTW Interiot is not wrong in his analogy although the terms usually are 'disaster management' and 'emergency management'. rxnd ( t | € | c ) 15:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could be {{emergency-services-stub}} or {{emergency-management-stub}} if that would make it clearler. Though the stub text has more latitude to make it very clear (listing fire/ambulance, for instance).
Also, where do things like Great Hinckley Fire or Capitan Gap fire go? They're both directly related to fire departments, but were also larger disasters. --Interiot 16:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer {{emergency-services-stub}} since it follows the category terminology. We should discuss the exact division between the stubs with the others in the WP. Currently, I do not see individual fires as being part of the new stub. Emergency services are related to all disasters. There could be a need for an additional category to describe individual events. There is a clear hierarchy of subjects here, so we should be able to figure something out. rxnd ( t | € | c ) 18:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's only 20 fires marked as stubs right now, and most of them are sorted into geographical areas, which may be the right thing to do. --Interiot 19:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So let stick with {{emergency-services-stub}}? BTW I am considering to change the WikiProject name to Emergency management, since that is the commonly used term on Wiki, it is also a bit more descriptive since ppl tend to think of the disasters when they hear disaster management. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 15:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Georgia-bio-stub}}

[edit]

The {{Georgia-stub}} (Georgia = the country) now has more than 70 -bio articles in it. The template is modelled on the standard for the country's two other templates, but the main category is named Category:Georgia stubs and the -geo cat. Category:Georgia (country) geography stubs. My personal favourite would be imitating the first one, but I'm aware the U.S. also has a state by that name, so I'd like some input on this one. Valentinian (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The parent category is Category:Georgia (country), so it's probably better to go with that. It's a clunkier title, but we're trying to keep them pretty much aligned with the main cats. Grutness...wha? 12:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created and populated. It is a pretty clunky title, alright. Guess I'm not winning any Nobel prizes for that one :) Valentinian (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker, Snooker bio stubs

[edit]

I just found this page, after I created the stub templates, so if the templates do not get approved, you can delete them. I would like to propose {{Snookerbio-stub}} (for player and people articles) and {{Snooker-stub}} (For other snooker related articles). There are many Snooker articles on Wikipedia that are too short such as players listed on List of snooker players, and I'm suprised that there are no Stub templates at all for Snooker, so that is why I am proposing these two. - Nick C 19:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see I came to this party late and duplicated efforts above. Grrr. I am a professional player as well as the main writer of Wikipedia's billiards article and Glossary of pool and billiards terms among others articles in the area. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US indoor sports venues, music venues, and/or "misc venues"

[edit]

This is going to be one of my vaguer proposals, but bear with me. Large numbers of the US structures seem to be about indoor sports venues, indoor music venues, or -- and here's the rub -- places that are a combination of the two. I'd like to propose an {{US-indoor-arena-stub}}, or a {{US-arena-stub}} (leaving it implied that a "stadium" is outdoor, and an "arena" is indoor), to take care of the former; and an {{US-music-venue-stub}} for the second. Or else, a {{US-venue-stub}} for the fuzzy stuff in the middle (or indeed for the whole kaboodle). If anyone has any better ideas, I'm all ears. Alai 17:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember proposing US-arena-stub previously for the same reason. There are quite a few "combinations" in US-stadium-stub currently. Crystallina 19:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, you were proposing a rename of the stadia, which I think is well worth keeping separate (even if the indoor/outdoor thing gets fuzzy in places too). Granted there's going to be overlaps however we draw the lines, but I don't think it's desriable to end up with out-and-out sports stadia in the same category as out-and-out concert halls. Alai 23:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
huh? what would happen with indoor stadiums? and those that are outdoors but have retractible roofs? US-music-venue-stub might be worth it since we have music-venue-stub, but splitting stadiums on the basis of indoor and outdoor isnt a good idea. think about ice hockey rinks, basketball, netball, badminton, volleyball, and olympic-sized swimming pools. theyre stadiums and theyre indoors. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
mmm. I see the point for the suggestion, but I tend to agree. Keep things that are primarily sports venues at US-stadium-stub (some stadia are indoor stadia), and create a US-music-venue-stub for places that are primarily concert venues. of course, that still leaves the problem of things like debating chambers and civic chambers, but hopefully it's not too big a problem. Grutness...wha? 12:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest sorting any self-described "indoor stadia" under Category:Oxymoron stubs. :) Retractable roofs are one of the fuzzinesses I had in mind, but frankly that's nothing compared to the inescapable ill-definedness of "primary use". Everything on BL's list is an "arena" to my mind, not a "stadium". Or at any rate, they're sufficiently clearly distinct types of structure from the "outdoors sports venue with a ball-game pitch in the centre and/or a full-size running track around the outside" (and by analogy, the semi-outdoors or faux-outdoors ones too) that it's not in practice difficult to distinguish them, independently of the issue of preferred terminology. Scrutinise the articles stadium, arena and list of indoor arenas, if you would. (The terminology can be made explicit in the category name and canned text, but it's not a great idea to have to type indoor-arena-stub or outdoor-stadium-stub as tags.) Having only "stadium-stub" and "music-venue-stub" would leave a lot of stuff that's a-bit-of-both-nut-not-quite-either (or insufficently described to be able to tell). Alai 21:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing oxymoronic about it at all. A stadium - according to the first dictionary I picked up, is a "large, often unroofed structure, where sports and other events are held." Note the use of the word "often". Certainly all the things on BL's lists are stadia - the nearest such structure to me (about one kilometre from here) is the Dunedin Stadium - formerly a basketball, netball, and volleyball venue, it has been converted to hold an ice rink. Grutness...wha? 06:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that these things occasionally have "Stadium" in their name, but I disagree that the usual meaning of the term takes in that list-of-types-of-sports-venues. My OED's in the office, but the online sources that come to hand say "(mostly) outdoor", and "large, usually open", (my emph) which strikes me as merely a necessary caveat in the era of astroturf and sliding roofs, not an indictation that it's generally understood to comprise the full gamut of sports venues in general. Alai 06:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's yet another different country, different language thing. Indoor stadia are relatively common in New Zealand. Certainly the places where major netball and basketball games are played are stadia - and always indoors. Grutness...wha? 06:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the terminology thing, as I was trying to say earlier, is somewhat secondary: the real issue is, do we want to distintinguish between the "ball parks and full-size athletics venues" on the one hand, and the "miscellaneous smaller indoor sports venues" on the other? Alai 07:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animals Mythical, United States stub

[edit]

Their should be a {{usa-animalmyth-stub}} to not confuse them with the {Americas-myth-stub} which is the category for stub articles relating to Native American myths or legends. The Animals Mythical, United States stub would be for pages relating to creatures from American folklore like the Paul Bunyan's blue ox Babe, the Squonk, Hoop Snake, and Hodag. Which are constantly being put in a category with cryptids, which they don't exactly fall under. William T. Cox's Fearsome Creatures of the Lumberwoods, with a Few desert and Mountain Beasts (1910) alone there are mentions of at least twenty such creatures! Unfortunately it's a shame that American folklore is not taught in America's schools (especially America's fabulous beasts.) So it would nice to see the information easily locatable somewhere and as an added plus I even have a picture that would work great for it. --Tripodero 10:45 AM, 23 April 2006 (UTC5)

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

[edit]

The Czech material is now up to 63 stubs. The proposed template is worded in line with the bio-stub. Valentinian (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created and populated. Valentinian (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Band Member Stubs

[edit]

What do you think of stubs for members of bands, or even specific instruments that they use, like {{band-member-stub}} or perhaps {{band-vocalist-stub}} and {{band-guitarist-stub}} or something like that? J. Finkelstein 06:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is covered by musician stub, but the musician stub category is very large, and I believe that some articles could be clarified with this tag. In addition, members of bands don't quite fit into the band stubs category. J. Finkelstein 15:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's already existing splitting by country, genre, and instrument; if we create this too, we're in danger of having to quadruple-stub people on the grounds of their musicianship alone (and never mind if they have multiple nationalities, overlap genres, play more than one instrument, and have played both in and out of bands -- and heaven help us if they're actors, writers, activists and/or businessmen too). The musicians do need split and sorted further, but I don't think this is a great scheme for it. Alai 00:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll buy that. J. Finkelstein 02:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Manufacterer stub

[edit]

I think their should be a {{Sports-company-stub}}, or {{Sports-manufacterer-stub}}, or {{Company-sports-stub}}. Any one would work but please don't make all three. --Yarnalgo 18:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true - but they usually get made without being proposed and then later sent to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. As you'll note at the top of the page, we like to have 60 or so stubs before a new stub type is made. Grutness...wha? 14:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean it's not going to be made...*sniff* --Yarnalgo 00:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
I'd not be opposed to creating a stub template, only, so as to facilitate tagging for a possible future split. But 30 is too small for a full-fledged stub type. (It's just barely what we consider sufficient if there's a wikiproject.) Alai 22:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! (sorry for the late response) --Yarnalgo 03:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont politician stub

[edit]

Suggest creating {{Vermont-politician-stub}} because Vermont is just about the only state without such a stub type. It's a small state, but Wyoming (which is smaller) has its own stub type. --Fagles 18:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons that we need a VT politicians stub is that without one, it is difficult to find out how many stubs there are about politicians from Vermont. There are a lot of pages that should be labeled as Vt. Politician stubs:
12 pages in category Members of the Vermont House of Representatives, of which 9 are stubs
20 pages in category Governors of Vermont, of which 17 are stubs
6 pages in category Lieutenant Governors of Vermont, of which 4 are stubs
23 pages in category United States Senators from Vermont, of which half are stubs.
9 pages in category Members of the United States House of Representatives from Vermont, of which 6 are stubs
6 pages in category Vermont State Senators, of which 4 are stubs
13 pages in category Vermont politicians, of which 11 are stubs
This is an overestimate, since some people are in more than one of these categories. It is also an underestimate, because some Vermont politicians have not been put in any of these categories (e.g. Scudder Parker, a Vermont state senator). 33 names on the List of Governors of Vermont are blue links, yet there are only 20 pages in the category Governors of Vermont. Efforts to clean this up will be aided by a Vt. politician stub category. Right now, most of these pages are in American Politician Stubs. There are only 13 pages in Wyoming Politician Stubs, yet it has its own stub type. --Fagles 15:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support. Sounds like it's at least in the ballpark, and the size of the parent inclined me to err on the side of doing it. Alai 17:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An extra reason for this stub is will be a useful tool for WP:Vermont. According to the guidelines for new stubs, the page threshold is waived if the stub category exists as a tool for use by a WikiProject.--Fagles 18:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support per Alai. I made a sample with the governors and found several untagged stubs. It looks like this one will end in the right range, the parent category is pretty full, and the category has good proposal to grow (since e.g. half of the governors don't have an article.) Valentinian (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently categorizing US Politician stubs for states and territories which do not have stub types already created. I am keeping my tentative results on my politician stubs page. Will this help? Thanks! Panchitavilletalk 05:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job. A budding young Geones-- eh, Grutness! Alai 06:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. I'm tracking the non-U.S. material, so best wishes from here. Valentinian (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the well wishes! (Although given that the median age of Wikipedia appears to be about 18, young could be a misnomer!) Panchitavilletalk 04:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give my answers to the stub questions.

  • Is there a stub for this topic already? -- No to Vermont and all on my page.
  • Will the new category be well-defined enough to help editors identify articles that they have the expertise to expand? -- Yes. These are very easy categories to sort and use. There may be a need for more subcategories for those who served in the Executive branch of the Federal government, but this is a step in the right direction.
  • Does the new category cover ground not covered by other categories, or create a well-defined subcategory that does? -- Yes.
  • Will there be a significant number of stubs in this category; are there enough article stubs to warrant this new type? -- This is probably the only sticky situation. Projecting from my current list sort, I suspect we will see some states with 100+ politician stubs and some with perhaps only 30-40. But, let's also bear in mind that there are ones that are created which have numbers in that range, and these could be useful categories for political or US geographical WikiProjects.
  • Would your new category overlap with other categories? -- Not much that I can see. I could be swayed here, though.
  • If you are breaking a subcategory out of a pre-existing category, will the new stub reduce the size of the parent category by a significant amount? -- Given that I'm barely on E in my list now and the subcategories would already break down the parent category significantly, this is very much a yes.

Based on these criteria, I support not only a Vermont politician stub category, but also politician stubs for all the states and any territories that might reach the numerical threshhold for subcategory creation. Panchitavilletalk 04:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's an excellent case for creating at least templates for every state, for least-surprising tagging result; if they reach 60 tagees, category creation should be a given. Alai 13:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 61 Indiana politician stubs at my page. As there is consensus for creating any that reach 60, I will go ahead and create one for Indiana. I'm still looking for potential stubs for other states. Panchitavilletalk 02:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, normally we propose such splits first and then wait a week. Regarding the threshold, I've always used a threshold of 60. Well, this seems like a completely uncontroversial split, so support from here. Valentinian (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I got confused as to if this was a discussion just for the Vermont-politician-stub or all the state ones. I'll try to understand more in the future! Panchitavilletalk 21:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. We've all made errors, so nobody's trowing stones here :) Valentinian (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed 60 Vermont Politician stubs at Panchitaville's page.--Fagles 04:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think some splits really ought to be so uncontroversial as to be speediable. If there's already an {{fooer-stub}} by occupation, and a {{Barland-bio-stub}} by country, then creation of a {{Barland-fooer-stub}} when of a size should be pretty much a given, especially if the foos and/or the bars are oversized. Though that hasn't always stopped people griping before... Even more so, if we've already started splitting the {{Barland-geo-stub}}s into the universally agreed Subdivisions of Barland, then creation of each as they hit threshold hardly requires the full nine yards of process, surely. Alai 18:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that {{Vermont-politician-stub}} has been created, so I went ahead and listed all the VT politicians on my page under {{Vermont-politician-stub}} and deleted them from my page. You'll note there are as of right now 67 entries under {{Vermont-politician-stub}}. Panchitavilletalk 01:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian politician stub

[edit]

Oops, sorry! i was a bit too hasty and created the stub template (but not the category) before this procedure. There is enough content for the stub btw. Barbov 17:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When has it reached 60 stubs? On 11 March, I counted a mere 9 potential stubs. And it's not used at all. Valentinian (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (although slightly thin.) I've sorted the lot, and there's now 57 articles double-stubbed with {{Bulgaria-bio-stub}} and {{euro-politician-stub}}. Many - if not most - of these articles were created during the last month, so a category will clearly be viable. I'm placing a note on WikiProject Bulgaria asking for a few more stubs. Valentinian (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created and populated. Valentinian (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy/Playmate stub

[edit]

Since the model stubs are rather large, why not create an article for models specifically in Playboy? It would reduce the model stub category significantly. Ohyeahmormons 15:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • They should be split by nationality at least in the first instance; Category:United States model stubs exists, and is clearly underpopulated, for example. Let's resort to narrower, bottom-up categories only when necessary. Alai 17:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't necessarily agree that the models should be split into nationalities, mainly because the vast majority of them are from the U.S. However, the need for a Playboy/Playmate-related stub is great. More than 600 women have been Playmates, but the info on many of them, particularly those before 1965, but also others, is scanty. There's always the chance people who know or knew these women could contribute info about them through Wikipedia via the stubs. And since many of the Playmates aren't actresses or regularly working models, but Playboy doesn't cross into the realm of standard porno, a special stub is fitting to straddle the middle. --3finger 23:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Methinks "vast majority" may be an understatement, though granted it's grown a heckuva lot for a type that's only a month old. Types like that are a practical necessity, though, otherwise they just linger in even larger categories like {{US-bio-stub}}. I'm not entirely opposed to further splits (or double-stubbings), but it's certainly not yet urgent on size-of-parent-type, and nor has it been demonstrated to even be viable: how many such articles exist at present? (And even if I agreed with the principle of creating them "in advance of the need" -- which I don't -- I don't think "wikipedia needs more articles about glamour models" is a sustainable proposition from a countering systematic bias point of view.) Alai 17:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martian Geography

[edit]

As part of the Martian Geography WikiProject, I request a {{MarsGeo-stub}} to sort associated stubs. It would become a subcategory of the existing Category:Astrogeology stubs. Some articles that would use the new format would be those currently listed in Category:Mountains on Mars and Category:Craters on Mars. --GW_Simulations 12:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been over a week, I count 5 in favour, 0 against, therefore I will go ahead and create {{Mars-stub}} and Category:Martian stubs--GW_Simulations 17:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

I believe we should have an stub on pageants. - Patricknoddy 8:20 April 22, 2006 (EDT)

How many articles would fit into it? (Corrected your spelling :) ) --eivindt@c 12:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I count less than 30 stubs under Category:Beauty pageants that aren't sorted under {{model-stub}}. --Interiot 02:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States buildings and structures stubs split

[edit]

According to User:Alai/Stub-counts, there are 1524 stubs in this category. That should be more than enough for a split by the standard NE/MW/S/W regions, and by state where appropriate. CatScan (reliable enough for this task, I think) shows 118 in California (including one false positive) and 62 in Texas, so I'll propose

for now; other states to follow as appropriate. --CComMack 07:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more inclined to split it first by type of structure. There are surely plenty of US stadium-stubs, church-stubs, bridge-stubs... Doing it on a state-by-state basis would be reasonable though. Grutness...wha? 10:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, but that might be non-trivially harder, mostly because of (ironically) lack of double-stubbing. CatScan gives only 6 in both Category:United States buildings and structures stubs and Category:Bridge (structure) stubs; a perusal of the latter yields many more, enough to completely eviscerate that category. Category:United States stadium stubs already exists. For buildings-by-type, what may be required is a long manual slog, double-stubbing by type and location, or otherwise categorizing by both. --CComMack 10:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, without prejudice to also splitting by type. The "under-double-stubbing" cuts both ways: large numbers of stubs seem to be sorted by type, only, as well others as by country only. Note that US-stadium- has already been done. Alai 17:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British guitarist stubs

[edit]

Looks to be at least 91 of these. Alai 07:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium split

[edit]

I think these are "under-double-stubbed" in a big way, so someone would need to count 'em by hand to get a more accurate idea of what's splittable, but any rate Category:European stadium stubs and Category:Asian stadium stubs are viable. Alai 06:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There will definitely be enough for Europe - Asia there'd probably be enough for, too. BTW, if anyone wants to take over the tallying of struct-stubs from me, I'd be overjoyed. The geo-stubs are no hassle, but counting up the struct-stubs depresses me every time. Most people seem to have got the hand of putting the geo-stubs into country-specific subcategories, but struct-stubs of all varieties end up in the main struct-stub category. Grutness...wha? 10:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's copper-bottom-guaranteed to be enough for Asia, from China and Japan alone. Alai 00:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. Stadium subs is really overflowing, and this would certainly be an effective split. --fuzzy510 02:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about Australia? I can help also. --Blackjack48 23:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Christian clergy stubs

[edit]

CatScan finds 83 possibilities. Alai 06:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese politician stubs

[edit]

CatScan turfs up around 75 of 'em. Alai 06:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tread gently with this one... which China are we talking about, and if it's China PR, will we need to separate out HK and Macau? Grutness...wha? 06:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This would be the China (or Chinas) of Category:Chinese people stubs and Category:Chinese people, whichever those are. Alai 16:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with G. I think it covers both Mainland China and (mostly) Taiwan as well. Apparently not Hong Kong and Macau, since they have completely separate categories.) I haven't checked recently, but I found these numbers one month ago [1].) Well, I must admit having a generic template (without a flag) but double-stubbed with Taiwan, whenever that's relevant, would be much easier to deal with, since it would solve the problems with overlaps between Imperial China, the pre-1949 republic, and the current situation. The categorisation of other Chinese categories seem to follow this pattern as well, so why not this one? Valentinian (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the very limited nature of this material, I support this proposal. We don't have material for 5-6 politician categories. We have a mere 75 stubs. Let's make a generic category like {{China-stub}} and {{Korea-stub}} (no flag, no insignia, and let's keep HK and MO out of the equation for the time being.) Discussions about HK and MO can wait, so they are not included in this proposal.
This procedure will leave us with 1 category which corresponds to the similar Chinese categories for other stubs. And which will correspond to the parent Chinese stub category. Material relating to Taiwan will still be double stubbed when relevant. And I'll suggest we speed this process up. We've been debating this one for 6 weeks now, and we still only have material for 1 single category. Valentinian (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been and gone and created this, and sorted the double-stubees. Many of them are indeed RoC types, though not necessarily the modern RoC. I think re-splitting them is a ways off, and a clear scheme is my no means obvious even given more "material". Alai 04:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As at 06:50, May 6, 2005, the category has the following articles:
 
  • Aisin-Gioro Ch'i-ying
  • Bai Jianghua
  • Cao Kun
  • Chang Ch'ün
  • Chen Deming
  • Chen Fang
  • Chi Haotian
  • Deng Nan
  • Dong Biwu
  • Du Xigui
  • Duan Qirui
  • Ebilun
  • Gao Lingwei
  • Guan Zhong
  • He Zizhen
  • Hu Weide
  • Huang Fu
  • Hui Liangyu
  • Ji Pengfei
  • Li Keqiang
  • Li Lanqing
  • Li Zhaoxing
  • Liu Qi
  • Liu Shou-ch'eng
  • Lu Zongyu
  • Luo Ronghuan
  • Mao Guanglie
  • Qian Qichen
  • Rao Shushi
  • Song Renqiong
  • Song Xiuyan
  • Tan Yankai
  • Tang Jiaxuan
  • David Wang
  • Wang Guangya
  • Wang Qishan
  • Wen Zhong
  • Joseph Wu
  • Xu Kuangdi
  • Xu Yongyue
  • Yan Huiqing
  • Ye Qun
  • Yu Hung-Chun
  • Zeng Peiyan
  • Zhang Shaozeng
  • Zhao Leji
  • Zhou Ji
  • Zhou Ziqi
I've to say it's funny and ironic. As mentioned before under the section below, imperial mandarins (e.g. Aisin-Gioro Ch'i-ying, Ebilun), early Republican era warlords (e.g. Cao Kun) and communist technocrats are hardly politician in the English and modern sense. That was the reason why I suggest politics-bio-stub as an alternative. Another bad thing is that we're marking modern Taiwanese people, especially the pro-independence ones, like Joseph Wu with this stub type. It can be very controversial. — Instantnood 06:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be a year out. I'd have no particular objection to renaming and rescoping to {{China-poli-bio-stub}}, but note that these were already tagged as {{China-bio-stub}} and {{politician-stub}} (in every case I can recall at least). Simply merging those two tags into their intersection doesn't seem in the least controversial, if the original taggings weren't controversial prior to that point. Given that the scoping statement points to China, one might who these referred-to-in-the-passive-voice people who might find this so controversial actually are. Alai 19:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were too many politician stubs to have these funny cases discovered. It's like finding a needle in a haystack. — Instantnood 09:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This stub type is useless and meaningless if these concerns were not addressed. — Instantnood 20:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather say that the only "useless and meaningless" policy here (to use your own terms) would be to use one set of criteria for China and a completely different set for the rest of the world. If this stub is used - as you say - for mere warlords etc, then sort the stubs. I am a bit puzzled though, since you recently proposed 6 templates and now you say that we don't even have material for one category. (I.e. - I presume - if we continue to exclude HK and MO, but you seem pretty determined on this bit.) Regarding your concern for some categories being mainland-centric, that seems like pretty much simple maths to me: Chinese history + 1,3 bill. people vs. around 20-30 mill. on Taiwan. Naturally, the vast amount of edits will fall into the first category. But stub templates use the current national borders of the nations of the world. Since both the PRC and ROC claim to represent both parts of China, we should use that definition of China.
Most important point: The definition of a politician is also "a holder of public office" (nomatter how he / she got to that office in the first place.) This definition is used throughout Wikipedia and there's no reason to make special rules for China in this respect. I might not think highly of a politician in a banana republic, but my personal feelings are beside the point. If the person in question is a holder of public office, that makes him a politician, full stop. I agree that the distinction to a bureaucrat is often fluent, but Count Metternich is also considered a politician, although I pretty much doubt he had to run an "Metternich for Parliament" campaign. Again, the definition of a "politician" is used in a very broad sense on Wiki. Were the cabinet ministers of the People's Republic of Poland politicians? Yes, because they occupied a public office. Again, if the template is used on e.g. warlords, then correct that use by using {{china-bio-stub}} and {{mil-bio-stub}} instead. This is part of the process of stub sorting. Nobody can stop you from proposing to delete it altogether, but I'm pretty sure several other editors will oppose such a move. Valentinian (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting to have five six stub types as for the time being, nor am I suggesting to have a completely different set of criteria. Quite the contrary I was talking about future options, and was trying to apply the same criteria, the same global criteria. — Instantnood 22:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

´

I don't really understand the controversy bit, as the situation stands at the moment. 1) Regarding the TW issue: Taiwan and the Mainland both claim that they represent "China", and that only one China exists. If Taiwan changes her position, that will be a new situation, but that has (not yet) happened. 2) The category is generic, and so are other Chinese categories. The template uses no flag and should stay that way. 3) Scope: When I sorted the politicians, I can't recall adding {{politician-stub}} to any Chinese material, so the material had been tagged this way by other editors. What did surprise me was that colonial governors in Latin America were also pretty consistently tagged as politicians, and so were cabinet ministers from absolutist nations in Europe. E.g., I've never heard Sergei Witte referred to as anything else than a Prime Minister of (Imperial) Russia. I am no fan of Fidel Castro, but in my book, he is a "politician", and so are the leaders of the PRC. When I sorted all the {{politician-stub}}s the first time, I noticed that editors prefer to use a very wide definition of this term. I was a bit surprised at first, but it is a general trend for many countries. It appears that the main difference between a {{politician-stub}} and a {{poli-bio-stub}} is that the latter might be influential / knowledgeable, but exercises no actual power = a member of an NGO, an activist or an individual currently standing for e.g. parliament, but not yet elected. In short, the "politician" occupies a position of power (in most case elected) and / or an influential position within a political party. I gave the matter a bit more thought, and since I consider a mayor or a mere uninfluential member of a city council to be a "politician", I had to conclude that e.g. a Danish colonial governor occupied a no less powerful position. He might not have been elected, but few people were elected back then. That issue has to do with recruitment, not with the functions of the office exercised. Politician begins with this line: "A politician is an individual involved in politics to the extent of holding or running for public office." That definition includes mere holders of an important office, and Fidel and the PRC leaders definitely hold public offices.
A further problem with renaming this one is a that since we already have -politician templates for something like 35 countries, editors will naturally expect China to have the same, so even if this one was deleted / renamed, a new template with the same name is bound to turn up again - sooner rather than later. I'll oppose a rename or deletion. Valentinian (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand restricting the word politician to mean people who takes part in election or are elected to public offices is a bit western- and English-centric. Nevertheless in those not so democratic polities, high ranking officials are still, at most time, bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can hardly be considered politicians. I prefer poli-bio-stub, for its more all-encompassing. Readers' expectation is the next thing (but not the top priority) we've to consider.

As for the Chinese stub categories, as explained below, whether or not they're generic for the geographical and cultural China really depends on every single situation. As for general categories, quite a lot of them are indeed mainland China-specific. — Instantnood 09:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be provisionally in favour of renaming and rescoping to {{china-poli-bio-stub}}, with a redirect kept from the current name, but this "depends on every single situation" stuff is not in the least bit helpful: this isn't rocket science. There's not the numbers to further split, it would be entirely counterproductive to delete it and "desort" the population, and it's entirely well-scoped within the sense of the article China and the category Category:China. Alai 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As a matter of fact nobody is asking for its deletion. — Instantnood 22:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The direction of furture splits will probably depend pretty much on what kind of material will be available when the category has grown some more. At the moment, we should concentrate on finding some more material to populate it. I still prefer the -politician variant for the reasons above, and given the current rate mysteriously-appearing unproposed templates, I'm pretty sure a China-politician-stub would reapprear by itself, even if a -poli-bio also exits. Right now, I'll much rather focus on locating more material to make the category grow. Valentinian (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nigerian politician stubs

[edit]

Double-stubbing finds 54, and CatScan 57; there must be a handful more someplace to push it over the top... Alai 06:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I've sorted the lot, removed the non-stubs and created a few more, so it is now up to 61 articles. Unfortunately, this is the only real possibility to chip off Category:African politician stubs which has more than 800 articles. Btw, the scanners can't see the new material, since the tool server's database is 6 days behind (just in case any of you were wondering). Valentinian (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created and populated. Valentinian (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A problem which refuses to go away

[edit]

Kosovo-geo-stub was re-created recently, and I speedied it. I also protected the template from re-creation, due to the edit-warring over which template to use on a number of the articles on which it was placed. I've since been receiving a broadside from one particular Kosovan, User:Hipi Zhdripi (made harder to deal with because English is not exactly his first language). He also demanded a reinstatement of the template, but RFU refused it. The whole issue is, of course, very thorny, but I'm wondering whether it might be better to do what has been done with Kosovo-stub - that is, have a Kosovo-geo-stub template but have it feed into Category:Serbia geography stubs. The problem with that is it sets a dangerous precedent (we've got Transnistria-stub on SFD as it is, and the possibility of stubs for everywhere from Ossetia to Puntland doesn't raise a nice warm glow). I've received some good input from User:Ilir pz, but more input would be welcome (I'm aware, for isntance, that most of the input so far has been from the Kosovan side of the fence - it's equally important not to annoy Serbs and Albanians). Any thoughts? Please? Grutness...wha? 04:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say let's make it, but it should feed into Category:Serbia and Montenegro geography stubs. --Eivindt@c 07:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also say let's make it, but it should feed into Category:Serbia and Montenegro geography stubs. Kosovo is a very clearly defined, highly autonomous (de facto independent) territory, with easily available maps telling you what geo features are, and are not, in the territory. In the circumstances it would seem rather odd not to have a geo stub, if it reaches the numbers threshold (of which the proposer has made no mention).But facts are facts, and legally there is no doubt whatsoever that Kosovo is internationally recognised to be part of the state of Serbia and Montenegro, so all Kosovo stubs must go in that supercat for now. If reports I have been reading are accurate, they will not be in that supercat for very long. --Mais oui! 09:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Of course if Kosovo fans concentrated on actually writing good, comprehensive, well-sourced Wikipedia articles, rather than expending a lot of energy campaigning for stub templates, then we would not need to even consider this, but stub sorters seem to live in hope rather than expectation. --Mais oui! 09:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with Mais oui! on all points. At this point, Kosovo is clearly legally a part of Serbia and Montenegro. If and when this should change, Wikipedia will reflect this change then and only then. As to the stub template, I say create it if it's over threshold; no opinion if it's not, and if the template is created, be prepared to have it spend most of its life protected. --CComMack 09:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38 stubs - not close to threshold. And yes, protection is almost certainly go in there. As to Mais Oui!'s comments about the clear definitions of what is in Kosovo and what isn't, that's all well and good - but some of the editors involved in this dispute don't claim to be in Kosovo - they claim to be in Kosova. One small letter for the name, one giant mess for the politics. So the maps may well define something in one way, but the people may well define the region in a completely different way. The other problem of course is that if Kosovo gets its own stub templates, should Vojvodina? Grutness...wha? 10:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"38 stubs": Mmmmm.... well, in that case, maybe not! "... should Vojvodina?" Yes, but again, how many stubs are we talking about. (If it is Kosovo in most English language contexts, then Kosovo it must be on the stub template.) My advice to Kosovo-fans is get writing some more decent geo stubs! You can find good advice at Wikipedia:Stub. If you work hard for a few days then you will easily get over the 50-60 stub threshold! --Mais oui! 10:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not at all enthusiastic about this one. Articles stubbed with it will be class 1 candidates for a fierce edit war between Serbs, Albanians, and their respective friends. Problems are knocking at the front door, and we're inviting them in, and setting an uncontrollable precedent. Sorry if I sound too alarmist or if the following reminds you too much of a Teutonic stereotype. IF the template is created, it must fulfil the following requirements: 1) have more than 60 stubs, 2) be a child of the SerbiaMontenegro category, 3) the spelling "Kosovo" should be used, 4) No flag / insignia should be present, 5) Both the template, category page, and the Serbian-Montenegrin category page should be fully protected so neither the template nor the category page become objects of an edit war, and to ensure that the category is not removed from the Serbian-Montenegrin category. But on the whole, I have extremely bad feelings about this one. Valentinian (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should pretty much summarize our take on things; assiduously do nothing until the category meets threshold, then be really sure the stub doesn't become another battleground in this running fight. Stub templates are powerful, which is why this project exists; we should make absolutely sure this one is untouched by POV-pushers. --CComMack 07:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ive had a couple of comments on my user talk page too. but have a look at Grutnesses page. it gives some idea of the problem. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 19:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT UPDATE: user:Hipi Zhdripi has taken Kosovo-geo-stub this to Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Kosovo-geo-stub Grutness...wha? 08:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So after all this discussion, suddenly you decided to delete the whole stub? Based on what facts? After checking for other stubs, I noticed that that the Wales, Serbia, Montenegro, etc (neither of these independent countries) have their stubs I consider it a violation of Wikipedia rights to not allow Kosovo-stub. If you change this unilateral decision, I would appreciate Wikipedia more. If not, it proves that you are serving double-standards here, which is not good at all. Thank you for readingIlir pz 14:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact this issue was debated extensively on WP:SFD, and the deletion of the template was a result of this debate. A user then didn't accept this decision and recreated the template. Grutness deleted it again citing the decision on WP:SFD. This was challenged on Deletion review and several users from WP:WSS commented the case there again. So in fact this one has been debated extensively. The point is that WP:WSS is pretty firmly opposed to contoversial stubs, and I think we agree that Kosovo is a controversial topic. Wales was only created to decrease the size of a very big UK category, and is recognized as a constituent country by the British government. Montenegro, Baden-Württemberg, etc. are internationally recognized sub-national entities and uncontroversial. The purpose of stub sorting is not to create templates that will become the objects of revert wars between e.g. Serbs and their friends vs. Albanians and their friends. According to the UN, the region is (still) de jure a part of Serbia and Montenegro. It is very likely to change, but it has not happend (yet). A Chechnya stub or similar would also be a very poor idea. If the UN changes Kosovo's status, it will be a new situation. Valentinian (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Category:United States television station stubs

[edit]

This is oversized (over 900 articles), and I notice that there are 37 double-stubbed as NBC-, 33 as CBS-, and 32 as ABC-stub. I'm guessing these are potentially undertagged, and these might be viable as splits, if anyone wants to investigate further. (Come to that, there are 40 double-stubbed with Category:United States broadcasting stubs, which seems a tad redundant.) Alai 03:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ireland-actor-stub}} / Category:Irish actor stubs

[edit]

There's 43 of these on the basis of double-stubbing, which is a pretty rock-solid lower bound; CatScan finds 190, which seems a little airy-fairy, but is still some evidence of viability. Alai 03:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish writer stubs

[edit]

Double-stubbing counts 48 of these, CatScan 130. The truth may lie in between -- or elsewhere -- but this looks pretty plausible. Alai 03:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Again, I'd say it was far nearer the 130 mark, and probably over it: I keep finding new stub Scottish bios which lack appropriate categories on a regular basis (and I am probably not finding anywhere near all of them). I bet a hunt through the many subcats of Category:Scottish writers would turn up quite a lot of bare articles lacking a stub template at all. --Mais oui! 10:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African stadium stubs

[edit]

49 are double-stubbed: any advance? Alai 03:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nigerian politician stubs

[edit]

54 are double-stubbed: I'll lay odds someone will come up with another 6. Alai 03:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is a copy-paste error. The same proposal - with the same date - exists further up on this page. Please place any discussion there. Valentinian (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Florida television station stubs

[edit]

59 according to double-stubbing alone. Alai 03:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{India-singer-stub}} / Category:Indian singer stubs

[edit]

50 explicitly double-stubbed, CatScan finds 74, almost certainly more still. (The Indians are oversized.) Alai 03:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ethiopia-royal-stub}} / Category:Ethiopian royalty stubs

[edit]

This is clearly very topical, given two of the proposals below: 103 articles in Category:Ethiopian people stubs and in Category:Royalty stubs. Alai 02:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of this one myself. Support. Valentinian (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created and populated. Valentinian (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{comics-char-stub}} / Category:Comics character stubs

[edit]

There's 76 articles in both Category:Comics stubs and Category:Fictional character stubs, which is probably as 'Oui comments below, the sort of systematic undercounting this method tends to produce. Alai 02:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Catalonia-geo-stub}} / Category:Catalonia geography stubs

[edit]

Category:Spain geography stubs is oversized, so a more general discussion of how to split might be in order, but certainly there are 60 articles double-stubbed with Category:Catalonia stubs, so at least that's feasible. Alai 02:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Scotland-org-stub}} / Category:Scottish organisation stubs

[edit]

There's 74 articles in both Category:Scotland stubs (which is oversized), and in Category:UK organisation stubs. Alai 01:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have as much time as I thought today, but in less than 15 minutes I found approx 15 that were not double-stubbed (they are now). I would have found more, but as is my wont I got very distracted doing other minor edits, instead of just stub-sorting. I now consider that there must be well over a hundred of these (perhaps 150?): for example, a lot seem to be double-stubbed with UK-gov-stub or UK-law-stub etc, instead of UK-org-stub. --Mais oui! 12:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splits from Category:Auto racing biography stubs

[edit]

This is oversized, and from double-stubbing counts it seems that Category:Formula One people stubs would have 81 articles, and Category:NASCAR people stubs 113. Alai 01:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Internet stubs

[edit]

Already existing are {{internet-stub}}, {{web-stub}}, and Category:WWW stubs. {{internet-stub}} currently dumps things into Category:WWW stubs, but has over 150 articles using it, which should be more than enough for its own category. Also, there are a number of people who would find the {{internet-stub}} => [[Category:WWW stubs]] connection somewhat jarring/incorrect. --Interiot 14:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{runningback-stub}}

[edit]

Yet more sorting of {{amfootbio-stub}}. Now that the linemen are out this looks like the next one to go. Crystallina 04:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{Turkey-geo-stub}}

[edit]

{{Turkey-geo-stub}} currently has 1,011 articles. I spoke with WikiProject Turkey, and they suggested splitting it along the lines of six regions set forth by the Turkish government (see Geography_of_Turkey). The specific provinces which fall into each region are listed in the Turkish Wikipedia, and I will list them on the stub pages. So, the stubs I propose (which I assume will need some formatting help) are:

Aelfthrytha 04:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here as long as they reach threshold... shouldn't that be Aegean? Grutness...wha? 05:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Geography_of_Turkey#Regions Agean is Aegean, and Turkey has 7 regions and the missing one is Southeast Anatolia, it can be SEAnatolia. Here is a list of proviences in regions tr:Türkiye'nin bölgeleri currently in tr:wiki but i'll add it to Geography of Turkey --Ugur Basak 08:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, both of you were right, I fixed it. That was why I said I'd need some formatting help. :) Aelfthrytha 23:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, naturally. However, I don't know if it is necessary to write the entire word "Turkey" all the time. Marmara, CAnatolia, SAnatolia, and SEAnatolia don't need them, since they can't be confused with other regions. As for the Aegean, Black Sea and Mediterranean, how about e.g. {{BlackSeaTR-geo-stub}} (parallel situation to {{LimburgNL-geo-stub}}). An alternative would be to lose a hyphen, e.g. {{BlackSeaTurkey-geo-stub}}, but my personal favourite is the TR version. Just a thought. Valentinian (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the TR version but I wasn't sure if it would have another unintended meaning.Aelfthrytha 06:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine one. Three of the abbreviations listed on TR refer to Turkey, and the meaning is pretty easy to guess. Regarding the Black Sea, no other country there starts with a T so, that should be pretty much in the clear. If we one day make a stub for the Greek part of the Aegean, I guess it would become {{AegeanGR-geo-stub}}. Re. the Mediterranean, the abbreviation needs to be TR (not "T" since we also have Tunesia.) Just my two cents. Valentinian (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking. Proposal amended accordingly. Aelfthrytha 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not quite. the proposal youve got still saus BlackSea-TR-geo-stub, Aegean-TR-geo-stub and mediterranean-TR-geo-stub. they should be BlackSeaTR-geo-stub, AegeanTR-geo-stub and MediterraneanTR-geo-stub. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, correct. Fixed again hopefully for the last time.Aelfthrytha 05:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splits of {{royal-stub}}

[edit]

{{royal-stub}} is over 850 stubs and that's excluding the Europeans! Besides, I really need an {{africa-royal-stub}} to sort out this material. Don't be fooled by the lack of royals in {{africa-bio-stub}} - the great majority of them (e.g. the Ethiopians and Zulus) - are stubbed as "royal" plus a national -bio-stub. While we're at it, I propose an {{asia-royal-stub}}. The African one is clearly above threshold, and I can't imagine the Asian one being a problem either given the number of monarchies in the Middle East, and the number of former countries in Asia. I suggest creating both templates first, followed by the actual categories when they reach threshold. Any new categories will become children of both Asian / African people stubs as well as {{royal-stub}}. Valentinian (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I would support creating {{MEast-royal-stub}} right away, feeding into such a category as is appropriate for threshhold purposes. Otherwise, support. --CComMack 23:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't done a serious count for the Middle East (and Asia), but I was considering that one as well. Given that we have 850 stubs outside of Europe, it seems a rather safe bet that the Middle East will be above threshold as well. (I know I haven't counted them, but I don't really feel I have the time.) However, the medieval Empires of Nicea and Trapezunt as well as Ancient Israel and the Crusader states must belong here as well, so the plot's thickening ...
    • Revised proposal I propose an {{africa-royal-stub}} {{asia-royal-stub}}, an {{africa-royal-stub}}, and a {{MEast-royal-stub}} (template first, category when 60). Valentinian (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wouldn't worry too much about Asia. Don't forget India and China :) Valentinian (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (after edit conflict)Support these three (I take it you mean one of those "africa"s to be "asia" :). I don't think there'll be any trouble getting any of these to 60. I've done a quick tally-up of the first column on each page in the category - there were 75 African, 65 Middle Eastern, and 104 other Asian ones (give or take a handful, depending on where you draw the boundaries). These all look like they can be split now. There were also a lot of European ones still there, and one or two other regions (such as India/South Asia, and Assyria) may be close to splitting already. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Copy-paste, isn't it wonderful? Hmm, I thought I'd sorted out (most) of the Europeans by now. When I start splitting, I'll go through the lot again. Assyria & Babylon have less than 40 stubs in total, so that ... If we add the Sassanid Empire, and Ancient Israel, perhaps? I haven't checked India yet, but some of the material there is simply stubbed with {{India-bio-stub}}. Valentinian (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The European ones left seem to fall into three groups - either ancient ones (Sparta, Thrace, etc), Byzantium - which might be borderline Europe/Middle-East, and Moorish Cordoba, which might be borderline Europe/Africa. Also, no doubt a few new ones have arrived since you sorted them (same as I keep having to do with the geo-stubs). Leave Assyria in MEast for now, I think. Grutness...wha? 05:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three splits have been created and populated. I've added more material relating to India, so that one is probably about threshold as well. Valentinian (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular biology stub

[edit]

Some stubs fall between the two stools of biochemistry and genetics. Please see molecular biology for clarification.

{{biology-stub}} seems a bit general, although I can't find many stubs that would fall into a proposed {{mol-bio-stub}}, so perhaps it's not necessary.

Here's an example: yellow fluorescent protein (I wrote it, so I'm clearly biased...).

Would be glad to know what you think. HilJackson 18:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well mol-bio-stub wouldn't be a good name, to start with, since bio-stub is biographies (though we do have cellbio-stub...which probably needs renaming! I don't really see too many problems with simply giving these biochem-stub - although that is getting to be quite a big category now (just shy of 1000 stubs) and does need splitting. It's not an area I know much about, but given that molecular biology does overlap other disciplines, and that the only split of Biochem-stub so far has been enzymes, perhaps it would be better to split off things like protein-stub first. We do have cellbio-stub, as I said, and also genetics-stub, and I fear that a molecular biology stub might overlap these a bit too much. Grutness...wha? 05:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, Grutness - I'm a very newly registered user so apologies for not knowing much about stub-nomenclature! I think a protein stub is a really good idea: the problem with cell biology as a category being that it indicates to me (not a cell biologist, though) more cell organelles than molecules. Should I file a new proposal for a protein stub? HilJackson 17:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian airport stubs

[edit]

Category:Canadian airport stubs has over 1300 articles in it. I propose sorting by province/territory,

creating all templates now and categories as per threshhold. --CComMack 20:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-charity-stub}}

[edit]

I thought of creating this stub when I came across the article on The Children's Society. Originally it had the {{uk-org-stub}} however this did not correctly identify the organisation. There are, of course, many thousands of charities in the British Isles (according to the Charity Commission and a number of them on Wikipedia have little information. I have proposed a template for the stub though this can be amended. --Totallycrazyman 18:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are either of the parents oversized? (Those would be {{charity-org-stub}} and uk-org stub as mentioned above. Crystallina 21:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded US-band-stubs

[edit]

There are 200 bands in the United States rock musical group stubs category, and hundreds in the musical group stubs category still being sorted. Although there seem to be newer subcategories just put in, many bands are mislabeled under "rock" or nothing at all because they are part of artistic movements that counter traditional musical groupings. A "US-experimental-band-stub" or "US-noise-band-stub" (if not both) seems to be in order. Possible candidates include: List of noise musicians and List of experimental musicians. For more bands, see their subject pages: Noise music and Experimental music. Furthermore, a "US-folk-band-stub" category would be a lot more fitting than the subcategories that folk doesn't fit into as the US-band-stub category slowly fades. mxdxcxnx T C 20:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually > 700 bands in {{US-rock-band-stub}} but I agree it could be split. I would prefer "US-experimental-band-stub" to "US-noise-band-stub" as it covers more ground, but do you have at least 60 band stubs to populate it? {{US-band-stub}} (5 pages) itself is also in need of further genre splitting and potential candidates I can think of are "US-folk-band-stub" (as you metioned), "US-country-band-stub", "US-jazz-band-stub" and "US-orchestra-stub", but again, counts need to be done first before proposing. --Bruce1ee 07:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we ever decide on categories for these, they might be helpful for splitting {{2000s-rock-album-stub}} as well. Crystallina 23:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the lists alone (List of experimental musicians, List of noise musicians), the sheer amount of performers speaks for itself. Personally, I think that US-band-stubs for "experimental", "folk", "country", "jazz", and "orchestra" are overdue. The genres speak for themselves! There are well over sixty bands/orchestras that can fill these categories. Others up for proposal would be "rap" (puke), "noise", "blues", "gospel", "ska", and "reggae", if not others under subcategories if they are worthy enough. But the other ones, I would have expected those by now... the proof is blatant—US-band-stubs and US-rock-band-stubs are overflowing! mxdxcxnx T C 04:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it would help to take a glance at Category:Musical groups or Category:Musical_groups_by_genre|by genre. There are MANY other worthy sub-stubs. Hell, look at "heavy metal" as a genre! Others, like New Weird America have very few in its category as of right now, but the list is almost sixty! Albums would have to split accordingly by time period, too. It's a long road ahead. mxdxcxnx T C 04:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of creating and populating the above stub categories. --Bruce1ee 11:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{indy-film-stub}}

[edit]

While trying to attach a stub to the new Wassup Rockers article, I noticed there's no stub category for independent films. Given the number of new articles we're likely to see about this topic, I think it would be appropriate to create one.Bjones 17:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done and ready to populate. Her Pegship 16:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University stubs

[edit]

Category:University stubs has 800 and a dozen geographical kids, some of which are undersized (Taiwan 24, NZ 39). I proposed {{Europe-university-stub}}, {{AsiaPacific-university-stub}}, {{NorthAmerica-university-stub}}, {{SouthAmerica-university-stub}}, {{Africa-university-stub}}. I hope Africa reaches 60. All others I am sure will. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 17:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 46 African ones just going by the names alone, so there's a very good chance of there being 60 overall. There may also be enough for a separate MEast-university-stub. New Zealand's close to 60 now, so I don't really think that should be upmerged, though that does leave the problem of the Oceania ones. But there will be some problem ones no matter what (Bermuda College, anyone?). I'd say yes to:

That should drain the main category quite nicely. I'd also suggest doing what we've done with other stubs and rescoping the strangely named ROK-university-stub to include both Koreas. Grutness...wha? 03:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Oceania-university-stub}} would then hold just basically Aus and NZ children and one or two colleges? Is that what we want? - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 18:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bermuda is NorthAm. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 18:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And how can you have MEast and Asia? Would Asia be the parent of ME? What about Far East then while we're at it? South Asia? Is it wise to split like that? - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 18:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same way you can have MEast-struct-stub as a sunbcategory of Asia-struct-stub. There seem to be enough asian ones that to split off a region with plenty makes perfect sense. As to Oceania-university-stub, note that I didn't list it as a possible split. As it is there are more than 60 NZ university-stubs - the other oceania ones, along with any Central American and Carribean ones (and Bermuda College) can quite happily stay in the main Category:University stubs. In fact I'd go one stage further - we don't need a NorthAm-university-stub. A Canafda-university-stub would be a better split. That would give the following as a quite reasonable hierarchy:

The main category would be left with generic stubs relating to tertiary education, along with any for places in Central America, the Caribbean, Mexico, Oceania, and any other small island nations not otherwise covered. Pretty muich the same way that struct-stub is split, really. Grutness...wha? 04:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's been no objection to this, I'll make these now (except for the Korea one, which probably neds to go via SFD as a rescope). Grutness...wha? 05:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness, since you're an admin, wanna bypass CfD and zap the Taiwan cat? No objection here for >5 days. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, as I am sorting, the next two countries to go ripe for splitoff will definitely be Pakistan and South Africa. Pakistan may be already ready now, we'll see once the sorting is done. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More German state geo stubs

[edit]

Browsing through {{Germany-geo-stub}} I saw many stubs for Saxony-Anhalt, Saxony, Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. I guess they'll reach the 60 limit soon, if they haven't already, so I propose {{SaxonyAnhalt-geo-stub}}, {{Saxony-geo-stub}} and {{Mecklenburg-geo-stub}}. {{Brandenburg-geo-stub}} already exists, but directs to Category:Germany geography stubs. Markussep 13:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support the templates, but not at present the categories until they actually have 60 stubs. As you note, the Brandenburg template already exists, but has a tiny number of stubs that include it. If the remaining 300ish in the parent category are systematically "templated" by the remaining seven states (assuming they're not strays from the existing nine), separating them out into distinct categories when they reach the threshold will be greatly facilitated. Alai 16:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is the way to go, and so I've created the remaining templates (including the Bundesländer not listed above: {{Hamburg-geo-stub}}, {{Berlin-geo-stub}}, {{Bremen-geo-stub}}, {{Saarland-geo-stub}}). --Stemonitis 16:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scheisse! We're supposed to wait 7 days before creating new templates, not 7 minutes! It's written on the beginning on the page in big letters. I'm supporting Alai's suggestion, and I have no problem with most of the templates, but it should have been {{MecklenburgVorpommern-geo-stub}} to be consistent with other templates (ultra correct would have been {{MecklenburgWesternPommerania-geo-stub}} but that's almost unbearable). The purpose of this page is to *discuss* new templates so we can *avoid* fixing errors later. I propose an immediate rename of the Mecklenburg template. Valentinian (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (at any desired speed), but keep the just-created name as a redirect. It may not be strictly correct, but it's at least typeable. Alai 17:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have {{RhinelandPalatinate-geo-stub}} :) I've already listed it on WP:SFD, and I still believe we should stay consistent. I'll buy the redirect, if that'll make everyone happy. Valentinian (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to be hypercorrect, surely {{MecklenburgHitherPomerania-geo-stub}} Septentrionalis 21:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that term's a bit too archaic. Both the Bundesland's offical webpage [[2]] and the local tourism board [[3]] use "Western Pomerania". Valentinian (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About Mecklenburg-Vp: as long as the text it displays, and the category it directs to are correct, I don't really care what's the name of the template. Is there a good reason to change it? Markussep 20:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the name should be consistent with the similar templates. "Mecklenburg" was the name of two former German duchies, not of the Bundesland. E.g. we have {{RhinelandPalatinate-geo-stub}} and {{NorthRhineWestphalia-geo-stub}} (not e.g. {{Pfalz-geo-stub}}.) Valentinian (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It says somewhere else, "be bold", so I was. These buggers were going to be made sooner or later. This way we get all the discussion done in one place and at one time. It's not like it's a new idea to split the German geography stubs by Bundesland. The categories can be made as and when needed (and that need can be easily checked once all the articles are using the new templates), and everything's dead easy. No more need to bother this page with individual Bundesland split-offs, no more confusion as to which Länder get their own stub template... The exact wording of one of the Bundesländer may be up for debate, but since redirects are cheap, even that's not such a huge problem. --Stemonitis 06:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Bhutan-stub}}

[edit]

Most countries have a stub category yet this is none for Bhutan, seeing as many of the pages associated with it need to expanded, I'd suggest this would be a good stub category to create.--Horses In The Sky 12:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support template regardless, but keep upmerged to parent until such time as there's at least 60 such articles. Alai 17:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the template. The category should wait until we have 60 stubs. Valentinian (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support template - with the usual caveat that geo-stubs should be double-stubbed with asia-geo-stub. Bhutan's slowly moving towards having one of them too. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we create said {{Bhutan-geo-stub}} template (only) on the same basis? Alai 01:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{multi-star-stub}}

[edit]

Being lazy, I don't really feel like going through all the star stubs to find variables and then doing it again for binary and multiple stars. So I propose {{mult-star-stub}} for binary and multiple star systems, of which there are MANY (easily more than 100) in {{star-stub}}. Then I'll sort out the variables and the multiples at the same time. A2Kafir 00:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible to me, though I'd think {{multi-star-stub}} might be a slightly better name. Alai 01:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a redirect from binary-star-stub might also make sense in case of a possible split later. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both comments; title altered to {{multi-star-stub}}. A2Kafir 21:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{compu-soft-stub}} splits

[edit]

I've gone through the first 500 items in this category and I propose the following splits which could potentially be of suitable size:

{{database-software-stub}}

[edit]

For databases and database-related items. 16 found so far. Examples: Adabas D, Alpha Five, Aqua Data Studio.

Created on the 23rd of April. --TheParanoidOne 05:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{graphics-software-stub}}

[edit]

For graphics-related software (2D/3D/vector etc). This would be related to the existing {{compu-graphics-stub}}. While that stub would be for concepts in graphics, this would be for specific software. 14 found so far. Examples: Corel PHOTO-PAINT, Adobe LiveMotion, Aladdin4D.

Created on the 25th of April. --TheParanoidOne 05:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{network-software-stub}}

[edit]

This one is not as solid as the other two. It is intended to be an umbrella for all types of software that use a network such as web browsers/servers, FTP, IRC, file sharing, etc. Roughly 40 items found so far, so the potential to break away at least one page from the main category.

If this umbrella is deemed too wide a scope (or indeed, too vague) then the most common items within this group are web browser (9 stubs) and file sharing (9 stubs). These by themselves might be worth creating. --TheParanoidOne 11:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the next batch of geo-stubs

[edit]

It's that time again... another tally-up and a handful more countries have reached the magical 65 mark. I'd like to propose:

A couple of these also tie in well with their non-geo equivalents, which were proposed a couple of days ago. As with them, the somalia-geo-stub would include all the areas internationally recognised as being in Somalia (i.e., including both Somaliland and Puntland). Grutness...wha? 05:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

plus a proposed geo-stub change

[edit]

I'd also like to propose a change to one rather ungainly geo-stub category: Category:British Overseas Territories geography stubs. At the moment it covers a rag-tag of colonies and territories across the planet, many of them double-stubbed with things like caribbean-geo-stub or oceania-geo-stub. If the British Indian Ocean Territories were moved into the EastA frica category (where Seychelles is, which they're often considered alongside), then the only ones not double-stubbed are all British South Atlantic Territories - South Georgia, the Falklands, Ascension, etc. I'd like to propose moving BIOT's stubs and renaming the category and template (the latter from BrOT-geo-stub to UK-Atlantic-geo-stub). It would lower the category's size to slightly below threshold (about 50), but it's a short term thing which would lead to better categorisation over all. Grutness...wha? 05:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five days with no objections - I'll move this to SFD for any further comments... Grutness...wha? 01:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{dm-stub}} Disaster management

[edit]

Disaster management including individual disasters as well as the underlying natural and man-made hazards. There are 100+ stubs. Sorry for not following protocol on this one, it is the first time I create a stub and I had some problems. --Drdan 18:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with both the name (not ver specific, see DM) and the scope (to specific), I feel that {{disaster-stub}} would be a better name. Eivindt@c 23:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with Eivind. Say "dm" to me and I instantly think "dungeon master", then perhaps "DeutscheMark" or "Damgermouse". I wouldn't think disaster management in a million years. {{disaster-stub}} is a far better name. Unfortunately, it looks like you've gone against the instructions and created this anyway, making more work for us all... Grutness...wha? 01:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is settled now. I am happy with the outcome. Cyde used a bot to change the entries to {{disaster-stub}} which saved me a lot of work. Thanks all! rxnd ( t | € | c ) 11:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several Japan geo stubs

[edit]

All of the other prefectures have stubs, but these don't. Potentials in parentheses following each potential stub.

All of these are associate with WikiProject Japan. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 22:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are too small to be "splittable" by the size criteria in the guidelines. I don't think the wikiproject consideration comes into play as it's not specific to any of these stub types. I suggest we create all of them as templates, as above, but only {{Kanagawa geography stubs}} and {{Miyagi geography stubs}} as categories. (That is, feeding the other templates back into the parent category until they grow above threshold.) This way, sorting on a uniform basis is made possible, and future splitting facilitated, without creating several undersized stub types. Alai 00:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, eventually all stub categories should be rendered unnecessary, and for that reason, I think all of them should be created. As it is, they all dump into Category:Japan geography stubs, which has 185 stubs in it. I think you're splitting hairs with regard to the size of the potential categories. WPJ covers all Japan-related topics, and we have several people who work on location articles. It would be much more useful to these editors to have them sorted according to prefecture (the equivalent of a state in the US), allowing them to more easily focus on one prefecture and take care of the stubs found there. One of the goals of WPJ is to expand all Japan-related stubs so they are no longer stubs. As all 35 of the other prefectures in Japan each already have their own stub category, this only makes sense. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 00:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's far from splitting hairs. The lowered creation threshold for Wikiproject stub types is entirely to do with a stub type specific to that wikiproject, for locating all the stubs associated with them, not to give licence for any and all sub-types they wish to create beyond that. Just about every possible stub type has some sort of indirect relationship with a wikiproject, so if we go with the the "this argument has 30-odd stub types associated with it" argument, we're in effect saying that any stub type can be created with 30 articles (or even smaller, as some argue for "special pleading" for). I completely agree that all stub categories should be rendered unnecessary, eventually, but: eventually may be a long time. Most location stub types are growing, not contracting. Furthermore, this is exactly why we want to keep some sort of sane size threshold: if an existing geo-stub shrank to thirty (or even, to say three) articles due to all the other stubs having been expanded, it would only be logical to upmerge it back to the parent category, which is exactly analogous to what I'm suggesting here. 185 is by no means a large amount of stubs. Indeed, there's no motivation whatsoever for splitting the parent category further on size, the only possibly justification is uniformity in templating, i.e. to avoid the annoyance and confusion of the "unexpected redlink" when tagging by province, where a number of province-specific templates already exist. Alai 01:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with Alai - 185 is a fairly small number of stubs to sort through for ones in a particular prefecture; the original category with several thousand stubs was definitely splittable, but is now down at a very reasonable size. As it is, several of the stubs suggested may soon reach a splittable size (two of them already have), but until they do, I don't see any need to do so. Consider an extreme analogy: currently several countries are marked with Oceania-geo-stub. one of them is Nauru, which has one stub. If categories were created for all the countries in this category, it would take no time for a dedicated editor to empty the category. So we'd have to delete it. Then what happens if another stub is created? Do we recreate the category 9only to have it deleted again), or leave it without a category (i.e., the situation as it is now)? And think of the editors. If someone is interested in editing some articles about Pacific island geography, what is easier to sort through, a category with 100 stubs, or 100 categories each with one stub? The situation is exactly the same here - we want the categories primarily to be a useful size for editors, which is why we have a threshold lower limit and a preferred upper limit to category sizes. Grutness...wha? 06:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: the category is nearly 4 pages long. (But is had been over 20 pages before we split it.) Conscious 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks: 185 sounded low to me, but I didn't have the initiative to go check! (... or to add up the listed counts: d'oh). Splitting the two that are >= 60 will help significantly, but if we want it below 4 pages, then splitting the remainder by Regions of Japan is a feasible option. Category:Chubu geography stubs, Category:Kansai geography stubs and Category:Kyushu geography stubs all look immediately viable. Alai 21:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to withdraw this "request" for the moment. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 02:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Also, I object to splitting it by region as that's not as useful as splitting by prefecture, and will just create an unecessary level to the stub tree (especially when the prefectures each get enough stubs in them to be on their own). It will only cause confusion for people trying to sort the stubs as the stubless prefectures are scattered all over the country. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 02:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, as said above, a couple of these are definitely viable now, and given time the rest should be - probably fairly soon. I still think the Kanagawa and Miyagi ones are well worth proceeding with, and if someone is willing to keep track of when the others are splittable, then they should all gradually appear (anyone?). Grutness...wha? 03:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case (and in a addition to {{Kanagawa-geo-stub}} and {{Miyagi-geo-stub}}), I think {{Nara-geo-stub}} and {{Wakayama-geo-stub}} should be created as well, as they are both very close to the arbitrary threshhold of 60, having 59 and 57 respectively. I'll be happy to watch the rest of them, too, and create the stubs as soon as they reach 60. It will make our job easier. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 04:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair as far as I'm concerned - although as a courtesy it'd be good to mention here when the remaining splits are going to go ahead (pretty much like I do with the national splits - e.g., here). Unless there are any objections from the others here in the remainder of the one week discussion period, I don't think there'd be any problems with this. Grutness...wha? 09:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to the two "near enough" ones NJ mentions. Note that my by-region suggestion isn't meant suggest any upmerging, or to preclude splitting out further prefectures as they hit (or at least approximate) threshold. If all the templates are created, then regardless of category no part of the country is "stubless", so there should be no confusion. Alai 00:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per suggestion above, I'm posting here to let people know I've created the following stubs (and associated categories) from the list above. The number in parentheses indicates the number of stubs in that category, excluding the stub template itself:

Looks like I understated two of them by a bit...(^_^). I'll take care of the others as soon as they reach the appropriate threshhold. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 23:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 185 number quoted above is wrong -- that is just the number that showed up on the first page. All told, there are 520 now, and that is after the 300+ were sorted into the four new categories created above. Miyazaki Prefecture already has 62 stubs listed in those pages. Neier 00:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went with your number and created the stub and category for {{Miyazaki-geo-stub}}, but I couldn't find 62 stubs for it. Will you try to find the others? I've got around 50 or so. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 04:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also only get 52 this time too. ??? But, perusing the atlas, I see several articles which can be created if getting the count above 60 is a priority. (Two highways, three national parks, one airport, not to mention 95 train stations listed in Japan wikipedia (0 currently in ours)). Given that last number, I think it is just a matter of time before the article counts climb. Neier 13:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an easy way to count the stubs in a given set of categories? I just manually counted them, so my counts at the top may be off, just as I found out with the stub counts for the four new stub cats. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 01:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I typed a prefecture name into google toolbar, and had it highlight it on the page. It's easy to count blocks of bright yellow.  :-) Neier 05:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One caveat, is that this count wouldn't include parks, mountains, or other geographical features which aren't named "XYZ, PREFECTURE" in wikipedia. Neier 05:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not with the toolserver down. --CComMack 05:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the comments above, I created the remaining stubs and pointed them at their respective prefectures instead of to categories just for the stubs. Once they reach the limit, I'll create the individual stub cats and update the stub templates. Now I've got to plow through all the stubs in the main {{Japan-geo-stub}} cat and clear that monster out. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 04:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding a stub template into (only) a non-stub category isn't a good idea; it rather defeats the purpose of stub-tagging in the first place. I've added Category:Japan geography stubs to each of the new templates, where they should stay until such time as they hit said threshold for category creation. Alai 04:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should they be piped so that they are sorted (more or less) by Prefecture? Neier 05:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't like the prefecture category being added to just those 8 or 9 stubs, while the other 40 don't. Since stubs aren't usually categorized in "real" categories, I think the solution is to remove the prefecture category. But, it would be ok with me if the prefecture category was added to the others instead -- I just see a bit of inconsistency in the present situation. Neier 05:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly usual for stub articles to be in real categories, it'd just be problematic in many cases to add permanent categories to stub templates, since often there are more specific categories that'd be more appropriate. For example, Category:Fukui Prefecture doesn't have any articles for specific places within it in the main category, they're all sorted into Category:Cities in Fukui Prefecture, Category:Districts in Fukui Prefecture, etc. On the whole I'd favour removing the permanent category from the stub type, so that the more specific and appropriate category can be added by hand. Alai 06:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good. Thanks for correcting that (both of you). --日本穣 Nihonjoe 19:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While sorting the remaining stubs, the count for Saga increased to 60. So, I went ahead and created Category:Saga geography stubs and modified the stub template accordingly. Neier 05:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for Shiga. Neier 10:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US writer sub-stubs

[edit]

Category:American writer stubs is gargantuan and has only one sub-cat, Category:American journalist stubs. I propose:

Her Pegship 19:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and also support creating non-US counterparts as feasible. Crystallina 03:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; I suggest we at the very least create every (non-US) template as above, regardless of strict viability as a full-fledged type, to avoid "surprising results" for stub-sorters inferring the existence of the one, from that of the more specific type. BTW, {{US-nonfiction-stub}} does not seem a satisfactory names, surely that should be {{US-nonfiction-writer-stub}}, or at a stretch, {{US-nonfiction-bio-stub}}? Alai 03:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right! I have revised the code; in the interest of brevity, what about {{US-nf-writer-stub}}? Or is that too obscure? Her Pegship 16:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps {{US-nonfict-writer-stubs}}, following the pattern of the other "fict-" stub templates. Alai 16:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to start making some of these templates and categories, considering they make sense and there has been no objection. I was going to propose similar additions...good call, Alai; great minds think alike. J. Finkelstein 02:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I noticed an annoyance — I noticed that someone already has put a number of articles in Category:United States science fiction writer stubs, while I think Category:American science fiction writer stubs would be a better place for them, because it conforms to previous category names, and also it makes more sense with respect to English grammar. Do we have to move those articles? J. Finkelstein 03:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be me, acting not on the basis of this proposal, but of a much earlier one. I think that attributive use of "United States" is entirely usual and acceptable grammar (witness the many US institutions that use such forms to self-describe), and makes a good deal more sense give the ambiguity of "American", and the template name being of the form "US-". So IMO, no we do not. Alai 04:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see, that's fine. You are correct. It just annoyed me cause I had already made one that said "American" before I noticed that there was one already named "US" :D. J. Finkelstein 19:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, valid point. I think this page is getting to the point where co-ordinating related proposals from one end to t'other is getting to be... challenging. On the upside, "great minds think alike" on the template name! Alai 22:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there's no {{screenwriter-stub}} type I don't have an accurate double-stub count, a {{US-screenwriter-stub}} may be viable: there's 66 double-stubbed as film-bios and as US-writers. Some of these will be "false positives", though: critics, actors who are also novelists, and what not. Might be worth someone looking into, though. Alai 21:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo problems

[edit]

We're having some problems with a couple of patriotic Kosovars editors removing SerbiaMontenegro-geo-stub from articles related to the geography of Kosovo. There aren't nearly enough of these stubs to warrant a separate category (currently about 25), but what I'd like to propose is making a separate {{Kosovo-geo-stub}} that will feed into Category:Serbia and Montenegro geography stubs. That way if and when there are enough stubs (or a decision on the region's future) we'll have everything ready. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support in the interests of peaceful wikiing. (wikying?) Her Pegship 03:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Support. There's a mini-mess here: there's a large {{Serbia-geo-stub}}, and a slightly undersized {{Montenegro-geo-stub}} (which could easily be upmerged): and a smattering of stubs in the parent, {{SerbiaMontenegro-geo-stub}}, which would on the face of it seem to be redundant. (Kosovo's certainly not in Montenegro...) Or is leaving them there just marginally less unacceptable for political reasons than tagging them with Serbia-geo-stub? Alai 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
those are the kosovo ones i sorted there - they kept on having serbia-stub removed from them so i thought serbiamontenegro might be a little less objectionalbe. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before you dised about the geo-stub you must know wat is that? I can not understend how you are sorted samthing wat you dont know wat is that? Only becose sombody in the past has prasentied Kosovo as a part of Serbia and Montenegro with out argumet. I think is better to let the two user PANONIA and Iliri_pz to disede that. This users have tried to make a gut work in this problem and they know the sitution and wat is better vor Wikipedia.--Hipi Zhdripi 18:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pleace see this page:Talk:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia--Hipi Zhdripi 20:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{media-company-stub}} / Category:Media company stubs

[edit]

We have a Category:Film studio stubs, but there are stub articles about film distributors, cinema chains, and companies which do not produce films but provide services (such as effects, sound etc.) to the film industry. I haven't even checked the television categories yet. There are about 100 articles so far that would fit here. Her Pegship 22:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I know this isn't my usual objection, but... Is this possibly too widely scoped? As written, it would seem to take in all of the above, plus radio, newspapers, journals... (Not necessarily a serious problem, we can always resplit later.) Alai 23:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Company stubs is 13-14 pages yet has about 20 categories. I think we need less narrowly scoped categories. Crystallina 02:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objections to broader stub types for grouping purposes, and I've no problem as such with this one, but if it's obvious that a stub type is going to be many hundreds when created, then it's pretty much going to be pre-under-sorted, so it might be somewhat preferable to create several types at once (top-level grouping included). Alai 05:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a lot fewer stubs...OK, how about {{film-company-stub}}? Her Pegship 04:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Created {{film-company-stub}} / Category:Film company stubs and will populate. Her Pegship 18:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive25&oldid=1108719962"