Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive3

Subdivision of {{food-stub}}

See the beginning of this discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria/Archive16.

Proposal

Okay - this one has sat fallow for long enough, so, to see whether this can spark some yays or nays, here's a proposal:

{{food-stub}} as present - food, drink, cuisine-related in general
- {{drink-stub}} - all drinks
  - {{beer-stub}}
  - {{wine-stub}}
- {{food-utensil-stub}} - subcat of both food and tool categories. For cooking apparatus
- {{fruit-stub}}
- {{vegetable-stub}}
- {{confectionary-stub}} - sweets and biscuits (erm, candy and cookies)
- {{dessert-stub}}
- {{meat-stub}} - for meat and fish
- {{dairyfood-stub}} - butter, cheese, etc

I'd see all but the last three of these as worth doing now - the last three might be worth doing later if the numbers look viable. Any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)

A number of them are already done, though. Of the ones that aren't I think I'll just go for confectionary-stub for the moment, based on a quick browse through food-stub. --TheParanoidOne 7 July 2005 05:35 (UTC)

I'd agree that that's probably the most useful one - I think getting all the drinks separate would also be handy. Some of the ones done have been done for a long while (only vegetable-stub is new) - I was just trying to put them into a logical framework. Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 06:08 (UTC)

I had a quick look though the {{food-stubs}}, and I don't see the need for a {{dairyfood-stub}}, but would propose a instead {{cheese-stub}}, and perhaps something in the line of {{sweet unnecessary calorie intake stub}}, sorry a broader-minded {{sweet-stub}} including confectionary, desserts and cakes Lectonar 7 July 2005 06:30 (UTC)

Update: I've just made {{drink-stub}} - now it needs populating. I've gone through all the "A"s in the parent category, and that alone yielded 21 stubs. As to the others... cheese-stub sounds reasonable, and I'd like a few more views on the dessert/confectionary/sweet business. One stub or two? Grutness...wha? 10:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on my own on categorizing "food and drink stubs" articles for the past several days without realizing that others were also trying to sort out this massive category at the same time. Personally, I would've preferred to see a liquor-stub category just to get all the stuff about cocktails and booze brands in one place. If one is going to go through the articles systematically, it is best to have a more specific category breakdown in place first, instead of having to touch them all again later. Dr.frog 15:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past few months I've found it's actually far easier to work the other way round. Okay, things sometimes need to be stubbed twice, but you get a far better idea of what smaller categories need splitting once you've done the major split. Alcoholic drinks may be a good subcategory of drinks, but many of the cocktail articles should simply be transwikied to WikiCookbook or whatever it's called - they're not really articles as such, just recipes. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point is that I've already just made a pass through the entire {{food-stub}} category, so I do have a pretty good idea of what additional subcategories I'd like to see there. In any case, I'm done with this for now and am moving on to some cleaning up in the main food category hierarchy, so you guys do whatever you want with the stub hierarchy. Dr.frog 13:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A few other thoughts based on what I've seen so far: {{cheese-stub}} would be a good idea. I'd also like to see {{restaurant-stub}}. What do other people think about categories like {{chinese-food-stub}}, {{japanese-food-stub}}, or {{indian-food-stub}}? Dr.frog 15:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{restaurant-stub}}.... while there are a lot of restaurants in food-stub, they don't really belong there. I've been moving any I find into retail-stub. Perhaps food-retail-stub would be a better name, with both categories as parents, since not all food outlets are restaurants. There are also quite a few corp-stubs in the food and drink category. As for the separate cuisines, perhaps a more general asia-food-stub would be better, since it would cover a lot of other countries - aprticularly those in Southeast Asia, none of which would be big enough for their own separate categories. And let's face it, we'e talking about a parent with (currently) only about 1300 stubs - we don't need to fracture it too much. Once the drink stubs come out it should be down below the 1000 mark. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since we discussed it before, I created cooking-tool/food-utensil/cook-tool -stub. I went with "cooking tool" as the primary version (the one where the other two redirect) because that phrase is the most popular on google, and because our food utensil article doesn't exist, and utensil points to eating utensils. Some of those things could be cleared up as well. --Joy [shallot] 11:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disambiguated utensil now. There's also the phrases 'kitchen utensil' and 'kitchenware' in this topic. --Joy [shallot]

Or we could simply and generically go with 'food-prep(aration)-stub'? --Joy [shallot]

Preparation and serving. Damn. :) --Joy [shallot] 11:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

as a child of the Science-stub, with which I just tagged Neo-locality (not my article, BTW). Update: someone just changed the template to {{socio-stub}}, I'm not sure whether that's correct. Any anthropologists/sociologists care to comment on this? --IByte 4 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

As someone with some education in anthropology, I can say, though there has been some overlap in recent years, the two are definitely not the same.--Pharos 4 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)

I've aso been looking for a {{anthropology-stub}} or {{anthropologist-stub}}. This time in realtion to the article, Gerardo_Reichel-Dolmatoff. I'm sure it must be a well needed stub. --Pappa 8 July 2005 09:17 (UTC)

Country category standardization

It was recently pointed out that the country stub categories use different patterns. I suggest they all be changed to follow the pattern that for country X the stub category would be Category:X-related stub. The same applies to stubs for regions. I can arrange the changes. (SEWilco 20:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Proposed changes (based on Category:Stubs by region):

(SEWilco 07:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

- Above changes are being done. (SEWilco 21:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  - This should have been done through SFD - some of us were waiting until it moved there before voting on the matter! Grutness...wha? 23:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is labeled as being where reorganization and subdivision are discussed. If you were aware of the discussion, you should have discussed it here. There are several procedures for changing Categories, and changes could have been done without SFD being involved. (SEWilco 18:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  - I didn't for two reasons - 1) I was largely away from the stub-sorting project (and Wikipedia in general) from July 21-28, and 2) from what discussion there was about this issue (i.e., none other than tangential to it) there appeared to be little support for the move, if any. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a seperate point but I'm not sure that Category:European Union stubs should really be in Category:Stubs by region as it is really a poligov stub. I suppose alternatively if EU-Stub stays in then all the euro stubs should be Stubs by region too, so Category:Europe geography stubs and Category:Europe buildings and structures stubs (and any others that I may not know about) should be added... any thoughts?-- Lochaber 11:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether EU is included in Category:Stubs by region depends upon the definitions for inclusion in "region". I would suggest Category:Europe-related stubs and move all European stubs to that region. Similarly Category:Utah-related stubs to Category:United States-related stubs. (SEWilco 15:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

What about a {{Primitive-Technology-stub}}, none of the other {{tech-stub}} categories seem to match. --Pappa 09:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What would you use that for? Could you you give us some numbers? Lectonar 10:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say anything from the stone age to the industrail age. Anything beyond the industrial age should be inclueded into modern technology. Not much technilogical progress was made before the industrial age, expecially becuase of a 700 or so years of the dark age. --Admiral Roo 16:54, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so it was 900 some years, not 700. :( Shows how much of history buff I really am. --Admiral Roo 16:59, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

The question is not so much numbers of years, as numbers of articles. How many existing stub articles would this new stub type apply to? That is always an important question when a new stub type is proposed. DES ^(talk) 17:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the dark age article. My definition of the dark age is where the "christian" churches, most spicifically the Roman Catholic church and the Prodistent (sp?) churches came into power and technilogical progress has arubtly stopped because it was "hersay". PPL like Leonardo Da Vinci, Newton, and other scientific minds were often prosicuted by these churches as being in leuge with the devil because their thinking was found to be against the churches beliefs. That is my version of the dark age. I beleave that near the time of the industrial boom that made the industrial age is when the hight of religous christian power started to fall, and education and technilogical progess became the norm. After the industrial age, technology rapidly evovled into what it is now, and even now continues to evolve. --Admiral Roo 17:14, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question posed though, does it. Can you give specific examples of articles that could be classified using this proposed stub type? --TheParanoidOne 19:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples. Stone tools, Alchemy, Panacea, Chambered cairn, Tumulus, Sponge iron, Wootz steel, and Broch. --Admiral Roo 11:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Only one of those articles (Panacea) are what I would describe as a stub, and it has already been stubbed. Alchemy is actually a very substantial article and therefore completely irrelevant to this discussion. Are you aware that this discussion is about stub articles? --TheParanoidOne 20:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully awear. --Admiral Roo 17:25, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Mmmmm. Wouldn't several of those (Chambered cairn, tumulus, broch) be covered by archaeology-stub? Grutness...wha? 13:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they would be; and the dark-age discussion above doesn't take into account that at the same times things happened even outside of Europe Lectonar 05:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some editing on references for Hero Games and its related references, and I'd like to see a separate subcategory within {{game-stub}} for role-playing games. These games are very different from other types, and even have their own community. Stubs from GURPS, D&D, and other games and game systems would go in there as well. BobGreenwade 17:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't name it rpg-stub (too vague). Maybe role-game-stub? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 18:03, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Good suggestion -- probably roleplaying-game-stub. How's that? BobGreenwade 18:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about roleplay-stub? I don't think there are many "roleplaying" categories and many stub names are even more vague than that (rpg-stub would be too ambiguous, tho, being an abbreviation and all that). Ashmodai 21:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My main resistance to roleplay-stub is the potential confusion with sexual roleplaying. (I don't even want to go into the number of people I've seen embarrass themselves over that ambiguation....) BobGreenwade 16:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{roleplaying-game-stub}} would be in line with other current names, although roleplaying0game-stub is a bit long. BTW, note the conversation below at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#FR-stub, which discusses rpgs as a possible stub category. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{roleplaying-game-stub}} sounds best, I suppose. Altho I agree that it's too long. {{rgp-stub}} would be less confusing than the existing {{cvg-stub}}, tho. --Mairi 20:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think the {{rpg-stub}} should be used for computer-roleplaying (or am I wrong here?), so that the {{cvg-stub}} can't be taken in comparison here..Lectonar 06:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that what Mairi means is that rpg, while not a particularly good name, is better than some other stub names we have (I agree, cvg-stub is a pretty horrible name). Grutness...wha? 07:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see it like that; perhaps my inadequate grasp of english.... :). Back to business: I for one don't see a problem with {{rpg-stub}}, but I see an easy way to go on to something like {{fantasy-rpg-stub}} or {{sf-rpg-stub}} later. if the need should arise. Lectonar 07:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was the point I was trying to make :P. I agree with it being easy to split too, should that need come up. As for computer-roleplaying, some are bound to end up in this category, but they probably should [also] go also under {{cvg-stub}} or a subdivision of that, if that gets split by genre. As long as it doesn't get called {{rpg-cvg-stub}}... --Mairi

A thought.... perhaps if we renamed cvg-stub to compu-game-stub, then any later split would become compu-rpg-stub. Grutness...wha? 06:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. Not sure what other people would think of renaming cvg-stub tho... --Mairi 21:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honduras-geo-stub

Overnight(!), User:SqueakBox has created an astonishing 212 geo-stubs relating to Honduras. Suddenly, the need for a separate Honduras-geo-stub has gone from low to high. Any objections? Grutness...wha? 23:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

create it as quickly as possible to reduce restubbing work for new articles in Honduras. Possibly also think about allowing more country-geo-stubs to avoid future restubbing, e.g. Bolivia-geo-stub. Nearly all Latin American countries are only at the beginning of beeing flooded with geo-stubs. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 09:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It can wait the week - it'll be the same amount of work either way. As for the other countries, they will be proposed iff they reach the criteria. Any flood can be handled when it occurs - as with the current case. Grutness...wha? 03:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This one looks good to me too, but I agree with Grutness, let's wait until the countries have a bunch of articles before giving them stub categories. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:00, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

{{US-edu-stub}} and {{UK-edu-stub}}

Since the University stubs category is growing too large to manage, how about creating stubs for US and UK universities? Other countries with several universities listed, like Korea and China, could also use their own stubs, I think. Also, the School stubs category is already divided into {{US-school-stub}} and {{UK-school-stub}}, so I think it would be a good idea to have corresponding edu-stubs (and stub categories, as well). Kamezuki 06:38, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

This is a great idea - it was discussed fairly recently, but for some reason discussion of it didn't result in new stub types. The suggestion, ISTR (it'll be in the archives somewhere...) was UK-university-stubs, US-university-stubs and the same for one or two other places. (found it - it's here. Grutness...wha? 07:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battlestar Galactica

I propose that a new stub be created for Battlestar Galactica. --Admiral Roo 11:42, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

How many existing stub articles would this apply to? How are those arts now categorized? What existing large stub categories would this reduce the burden on? DES ^(talk) 16:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there are only 21 articles in Category:Battlestar Galactica and its subcategories, I highly doubt there are sufficient number of stubs at this point. --Mairi 19:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand, and in that case, with only 21 articles, I agree that perhaps this stub may not contain sufficient number of articles to create the stub. --Admiral Roo 19:13, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Society

I've come across a few stub-articles on societies (that is, the Society of This, That, or the Other [Hon. Sec. Jane Smith]) of various kinds, for which none of the existing stubs is quite appropriate. Would {{society-stub}} (probably listed under "miscellaneous") be acceptable? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Org-stub covers it quite nicely, but that will probably need splitting soon. (I'm moving this to a better place on the page, BTW). Grutness...wha? 01:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I swear I responded to this yesterday, but my response is not here and no longer in the history. Anyway, what I said amounted to: I usually use {{org-stub}} for things like these. A slightly redundant comment now though. --TheParanoidOne 05:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More country bios

I suggest Swiss and Dutch - in both cases references are often in the original language, so it is easier to find editors who can take care of the article. --Irmgard 17:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More geo-stubs (Pennsylvania, Texas, Michigan, Guatemala, Nigeria)

I'd like to get the {{Pennsylvania-geo-stub}} started, since Grutness's tallies show it's approaching 100. Any objections? --Spangineer (háblame) 18:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

No objections. Don't forget to update Category:US geography stubs, Category:Northeastern US geography stubs, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. While we're on the topic, Michigan currently has 77 and Texas has 79. Can I get a second on splitting these two out as well? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 19:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Heh. I thought you were psychic! Texas probably has more than 79 - I've still to re-tally the US south (later today, with any luck). Pennsylvania was definitely on my list to propose though - I'd say go for it with all three. I'd also like to propose Guatemala-geo-stub and Nigeria-geo-stub. There has been a lot of work on Honduras and Guatemala articles lately, and West Africa is desperately in need of one or more countries being split off. Nigeria is the natural choice there.

Update - Texas 95. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Guatemala-geo-stub and Nigeria-geo-stub. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 04:11, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Implementation of split

I created {{Pennsylvania-geo-stub}} and Category:Pennsylvania geography stubs. Start sortin'. (I'll create the Michigan and Texas ones in the next few days if nobody beats me to it.) — Fingers-of-Pyrex 04:11, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'll put up lists at User:Grutness#Ongoing geo-stub splits. A bit hasty... it should wait the debating period, but still... Grutness...wha? 05:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the hastiness. I read too much into your "go for it" above; plus I wanted to strike while Spangineer's fire to sort was hot. I'm going to create {{Michigan-geo-stub}} and {{Texas-geo-stub}}; but in the future, I'll wait until the debating period is over. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 01:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Two more

Seens that User:SqueakBox has gone on a bit of a spree. Not only 200 new stubs for Honduras and about the same number for Guatemala, but I failed to notice that he's added over 100 each for El Salvador and Nicaragua. So {{Salvador-geo-stub}} (*) and {{Nicaragua-geo-stub}} are also worthwhile (* this is to keep it in line with Salvador-stub. El just means "The", anyway). Grutness...wha? 08:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australian and Canadian School Stubs

I would like to propose the following stubs: {{AUS-school-stub}} and {{CAN-school-stub}}.

I would like to based this on discussions above and here. There is already {{US-school-stub}} and {{UK-school-stub}}. The majority of the stubs in Category:School stubs are Australian and Canadian schools. Recognising that the schools come from these nations will help the people willing to write articles on these schools. -- Ianblair23 23:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not with those names! {{Australia-school-stub}} and {{Canada-school-stub}}, yes, but not AUS and CAN. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Grutness on the naming. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 03:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree with the name change. -- Ianblair23 03:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose the creation of a new {{cricketbio-stub}} category, to be broken out of the existing {{cricket-stub}} category. Five other sports already have an equivalent subcategory - for example {{baseballbio-stub}} and {{footybio-stub}}. Going through the points mentioned in the guidelines for stub creation:

Is there a stub for this topic already? - not really; we only have the base {{cricket-stub}} at the moment.
Will the new category be well-defined enough to help editors identify articles that they have the expertise to expand? - yes; "biographical cricket article" seems pretty well defined to me, and the example of other sports such as baseball shows that this type of stub can be successful.
Does the new category cover ground not covered by other categories, or create a well-defined subcategory that does? - yes: it's a well-defined subcategory, to be made up of those cricket stubs that are biographical.
Will there be a significant number of stubs in this category; are there enough article stubs to warrant this new type? - yes, undoubtedly. There are currently about 540 cricket stubs, of which a considerable majority are biographies, so over 300 stubs already exist that could be marked as {{cricketbio-stub}} as soon as the new stub template was created.
Would your new category overlap with other categories? - no, not as far as I can see, since there's currently only one type of cricket stub; for example, cricket-stubs are not sorted by country in the way geo-stubs are.
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? Yes, by several hundred; see point 4 above.

As mentioned above, there are already several hundred cricket-related biographical stub articles and so I believe that the creation of this new subcategory would provide a most useful editing aid. Loganberry (Talk) 19:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this is such a useful category that I'm surprised no-one's suggested it before. (Then again, I'm biased. I'm cricket mad enough even to have followed the debacle in Zimbabwe the other night). Grutness...wha? 01:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be {{Cricket-bio-stub}}? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:22, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

You poor person. Ever thought of joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket? [[smoddy]] 10:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. The general form for splitting biography stubs is "occupation-stub". You could make a case for cricketer-stub, but the double hyphen are - in cases like this - reserved for things like nationality (so we could, if necessary, later split out Australia-cricketbio-stub, for instance). Compare baseballbio-stub, footybio-stub and the like. Grutness...wha? 06:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd much prefer not to have cricketer-stub since that would exclude biographies of those who were involved in cricket as something other than a player (eg Kerry Packer) whereas the proposed cricketbio-stub would include them, as well as following the convention established by baseballbio-stub etc. Loganberry (Talk) 12:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. People like Henry Blofeld and Billy Bowden wouldn't count under cricketer-stub. Grutness...wha? 06:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blofeld would, since he played 16 first-class games for Cambridge University (and one for the Free Foresters against Cambridge, plus one game in the Gillette Cup for Norfolk), but that certainly applies to Bowden and the point remains. Loganberry (Talk) 23:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no objection to the creation of this new stub category, so in the absence of any being raised, I'll go ahead and create it later today. Loganberry (Talk) 08:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - looks like no-one's going to object. Remember to add a category and to add both template and category to the stub list. Grutness...wha? 09:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Fiction Book Stub

Although the books stubs is not overpopulated, it is getting close to it, so I propose a Historical Fiction Stub to take off some of the stubs. Magicmonster 22:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

we had a little discussion about this some time ago, under the entry pertaining to {{bio-book-stub}}, presumably to be called {{hist-book-stub}} or something similar Lectonar 06:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem we ran into was trying to differentiate between historical fiction and history texts. If some way can be found around that within standard stub naming, I don't think there'd be any problems with the creation of the stub. Grutness...wha? 07:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've consulted the lists I did sometime ago, weeding through the {{book-stub}}, and am positive that the overwhelming part of the hist-thingies would be fiction stuff; that's why I didn't consider including the real hist-stuff as a problem (for now...) Lectonar 07:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, perhaps my previous comment contains its own answer. If needed, hist-text-stub could possibly be used. Grutness...wha? 09:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So then, is the verdict to create a {{hist-book-stub}} and a {{hist-text-stub}}? Magicmonster 05:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "yes" to hist-book-stub, making it clear on the template and category that it's for fictional books. Leave hist-text-stub for now - there may not be enough articles for it yet. Grutness...wha? 05:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

seconded for {{hist-book-stub}} Lectonar 06:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Make firearms-stub a subcat of weapon-stub

I only recently discovered that the {{firearms-stub}} existed. I think it makes sense to have to make firearms a subcat of {{weapon-stub}}. Megapixie 08:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This seems such a no-brainer that I've done it. Morwen - Talk 09:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes and no. It does make sense, but {{firearms-stub}} and its associated category have been proposed for a name change on our discovery page, so I'd wait until that's sorted out before doing anything precipitous. Grutness...wha? 09:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Morwen- good that its been done. Hardly precipitous. GraemeLeggett 10:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree - I'm just saying to be aware that changes have been suggested for this stub on one of our other pages. Grutness...wha? 10:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that subclassing makes sense. I've commented on the discovery page regarding what to do with it, and my motivation for creating the cat. Avriette 19:47, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Northern Ireland stub

Do we need a Northern Ireland stub {{NI-stub}} separate from {{NI-geo-stub}}? I think so - Gerry Lynch 16:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silence=consent, so I've done it. Gerry Lynch 18:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It would probably have been a borderline area for stubs (no pun intended), which is why no-one had particularly stroing views either way. Usually unless someone complains the silence=consent rule works here. Grutness...wha? 02:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]