Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive5

Proposals, July 2005

{{hre-stub}} or {{germany-hist-stub}}

Been doing a lot of articles on the states in the Holy Roman Empire (800 - 1806AD), which was centred in Germany, but also contained parts of many other European countries. Concerns though were raised about the volume of stubs I've created related to this era of history, as the only relevant stub existing is the hist-stub. --Nomadic1

I'd actually considered germany-hist-stub - it would make a lot of sense and would be well populated. Hre-stub (or better HRE-stub) would probably be a bit too cryptic for most people. Grutness...wha? 3 July 2005 06:21 (UTC)

I would agree in principle with {{germany-hist-stub}}, but there isn't really a consensus concerning the use of germany in historic terms (see Talk:Germany) Lectonar 4 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)

Perhaps not Germany, but since there were Kings of the Germans back in the Middle Ages, one could simply title the stub – {{german-hist-stub}} and be done with it. --Joy [shallot] 8 July 2005 09:22 (UTC)

Perhaps, but these stubs need a sub-category. Germany as a region has existed since 843AD. There is really only complication in where places such as Austria and Silesia fit, and these would be more logical to place in the general History stub. The alternative of course is a general "European History" stub, see below for that. : Nomadic1 6 July 2005 08:45 (UTC)

I'm absolutely on your side here, but I fear that we're gonna run into trouble especially if we start to stub sort events or persons which other users feel to be, e.g., polish et al.; there are people around who would allow the term Germany to be used only after 1945, or, in extreme cases, after 1989 Lectonar 6 July 2005 09:30 (UTC)

It's only going to get worse - soon. I've already got plans to heavily populate Salm (probably about 20 - 30 stubs here), Isenburg (another 10 or so), Baden (10), Württemberg (10), and am about to begin a co-ordination on Furstenberg (which will almost definately contain considerably more). I don't think the hist-stub or even a euro-hist-stub would do well with all of these emerging in the near-future. Of course, the concerns you have also apply with most European countries: they'd be objection to a French history stub because the Bretons, Basques, and Catalonians wouldn't like it. You couldn't do an Italy history stub due to the Ladin and Germanic regions of Trentino-Alto Adige, and it emerged in 1860 or thereabouts. A line needs to be drawn somewhere. - Nomadic1 7 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)

To that I can only add: Germany as it was in 1071: Naples must stay german! :) Lectonar 7 July 2005 10:02 (UTC)

The obvious, but almost certainly unacceptable answer, is to use modern boundaries (we don't give people born in Normandy in the 1100s the same stub we give English people), but - as I said - that would almost certainly be unacceptable. There mst be some way round it, but what? Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 11:44 (UTC)

I don't think this is much more of a problem than it is already a problem with categorization. Perhaps an example can illustrate - for quite some time the page Dinaric Alps had one country geo-stub and one general geo-stub for all the other countries the mountains were in. Later, all of those countries got their own geo-stubs and all of them (half a dozen :) were added to the article. This was somewhat ugly, but worked. (And then later the article was expanded and is not a stub any more. Yay :) --Joy [shallot]

One solution to this could be to use either time-periods (e.g. {{Medieval-hist-stub}}), which could also help solve the problems with the nobility-stub [here:{{Ancient-hist-stub}}, in which cases one should define the appropriate time-periods, or something to the effect of regions (e.g. {{CentralEurope-hist-stub}} Lectonar 7 July 2005 13:01 (UTC)

Time periods could work, but then they couldn't for anything which lasted from the Mediæval era until the Napoleonic Era. The use of Geographical regions is also difficult by the same token as above, since, for example, Central Europe includes Austria, Hungary, Germany, etc. but also includes Transylvania (which Romanians wouldn't like), Friuli and Trieste in Italy, and so forth. A HRE-stub becomes the best possibility then (as it ignores modern borders and nationalism), although the idea of the Holy Roman Empire is quite convoluted and complex, and most people would not understand it. But it is still the best. - Nomadic1 7 July 2005 22:26 (UTC)

So, about that then. Do we agree on {{german-hist-stub}}? I see no objections. --Joy [shallot] 22:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{rail-accident-stub}} and {{US-railroad-stub}}

I've been going through Category:Rail stubs this week sorting as appropriate into subcategories (mostly into {{UK-depot-stub}}, but some into {{US-depot-stub}} and others into {{loco-stub}}). I've sorted pages up through the end of N as such. Looking through those that are left from A to N, the two categories that stand out most to me are articles about railroad accidents worldwide and articles about specific railroad companies in the US. Normally I would be bold and just create these two stub types, but I didn't want to step on any toes. slambo 11:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

{{US-rail-stub}} would fit the naming conventions (I thought it existed, actually...). Rail accidents would get both that and US-hist-stub. Grutness...wha? 11:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can see the bit on the naming convention for US-rail-stub, but I don't quite get your second comment. There are quite a few articles about railroad accidents outside the US such as Ghotki rail crash (Pakistan) and Al Ayyat train disaster (Egypt), so making rail-accident-stub a subcategory of US-hist-stub doesn't seem logical. slambo 11:37, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

My comment was simply where they should currently go, not a comment on whether a new stub category was necessary. And it was my fault for assuming that because you were talking about US railroads you were also talking about rail accidents in the US - of course if it was a disaster in, say Egypt, you'd currently use Africa-hist-stub. Perhaps a more general transport disaster stub of some kind would be better, though, covering everything from Quintinshill to Lockerbie (actually, that's only two miles, so it would need to cover more than that). Grutness...wha? 10:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just created {{US-rail-stub}} and Category:US rail stubs, now sorting from {{rail-stub}} into it... slambo 14:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

There are now 249 articles tagged with {{US-rail-stub}}. Creating {{UK-rail stub}} would probably cut the remaining 711 {{rail-stub}} articles by about the same amount or more. There are also a large number of articles about Japanese and Indian railroad subjects, but I haven't counted them yet. BTW, Category:Rail stubs has a notice on it about the category's size; what is the threshhold for that message? I think rail stubs is still quite large, but if it's knocked down to 2/3 or 1/2 of its current size, when doe we remove that notice? slambo 18:09, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Elsewhere on this page I've gone on record for splitting off {{UK-rail stub}}; I think that we can go forward in another day or two if there are no further objections or comments. --CComMack 14:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religion stubs

Category:Religion stubs

4 pages, some churches/cathedrals, some denominations.

Category:Catholic-related stubs

3 pages, many of them churches/cathedrals.

Category:Christianity-related stubs

4 pages, some churches, some denominations.

For the moment, a category for protestant churches (the buildings, and the congregations that go with them), and parallel ones for RC parish churches and cathedrals would be helpful.

There are already Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran subcategories, which will bring pressure to add additional such denominational subcats. For the moment, adding Category:Protestant denominations would also be helpful. --FourthAve 19:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that this page is not about general categories, but stubs? If there are sufficient stub articles then it shouldn't be a problem creating something along the lines of {{protestant-stub}} and Category:Protestant stubs. Are there sufficient numbers? --TheParanoidOne 19:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I had in mind. There are a lot of Catholic parish churches here, perhaps as many as 100, probably somewhat fewer, but they certainly do come along. These articles tend to be very short. For the moment, a protestant denomination stub would be useful too (it would not get that big). I'm just trying to be helpful. While nowhere near as bad as the Great Dismal Swamp that is biostub, it's slowly getting there. --FourthAve 20:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Many olf the religions involved dislike the term protestant, but I understand your point. It might be useful, assuming there were enough stubs. Grutness...wha? 08:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Papal stubs basically dupes Category:Popes. I wonder if antipopes should be moved out too. This category contains nothing relating to the popes other than pope bios covered in Popes. Aggh. --FourthAve 21:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I wonder if you are misunderstanding the difference in purpose between stub categories and standard categories. If all the articles in Category:Popes are also in Category:Papal stubs, it simply means that all the articles need expansion. as they are expanded, they will be removed from the stub category but remain in the main category. This allows editors to find articles on popes that need expansion. Grutness...wha? 07:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for the up above: wouldn't churches have to go in one of the available {{struct-stub}}s ?Lectonar 06:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There are a lot of them in the various struct-stub categories. Having separate {{church-stub}}, {{UK-church-stub}}, {{US-church-stub}}, {{Euro-church-stub}}, {{Asia-church-stub}} (or perhaps {{XX-reli-struct-stub}} in each case?) would be very usefu, as it would significantly reduce the equivalent struct-stub categories. Those can feed into reli-stub and struct-stub as parent categories. Since many smaller churches are multidenominational and information on individual churches will be as much (if not more) about the structure as the use of the structure, it makes little sense to link them to individula denominations. Grutness...wha? 07:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, August 2005

Food-related stub categories

In my efforts to clear out Category:Corporation stubs, I have created Category:Food corporation stubs ({{food-corp-stub}}), as a daughter of {{food-stub}} and {{corp-stub}}. In my first stint of filling the new category (there are now 75 articles in the category), I have come across the problem that the scope of the stub template is too broad. Therefore I would like to propose splitting the {{food-corp-stub}} in two: food, candy, confectionery and/or beverage corporations retain the current tag, but a new tag will be created for restaurants and bars/pubs: {{restaurant-stub}}. This should also put an end to the length problem of the current stub text: "This article about a food, candy, confectionery and/or beverage corporation or company, or about a restaurant or a chain of restaurants, is a stub." Between 40 and 45 articles from the category as it is would be moved to the new Restaurant stub category. This number will probably have risen once I've sifted through the Category:Corporation stubs. Aecis 17:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the restaurant-stub template already exists, but it does not lead to any category and the wording could do with improvement. Because the template already exists, and because my proposal is part of an older "project" of mine, I would like to request permission to circumvent or "ignore" the one week waiting period. Aecis 17:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are also at least 38 articles in the Food and drink stubs category about cheese. Is that enough for a cheese stub category? (The 38 articles would place the new category between Category:Cooking tool stubs (21 articles) and Category:Fruit stubs (62 articles), other daughters of Category:Food and drink stubs.) Aecis 17:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because the restaurant-stub template had already been created, I saw no alternative but to be bold, act immediately, clean up the template and create a new stub category. So there now is a template ({{restaurant-stub}}) with a matching category. Aecis 23:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this is covered in the first section of proposals at the very top of this page. Cheese is a very likely candidate, although 38 is a bit slim. I also wonder, now that drink stubs have been separated out, whether it should be moved to its own category and "Food and drink stubs" be changed to just "Food stubs" - any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 01:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Food stubs" would be a more appropriate category for the {{food-stub}} tag then "Food and drink stubs", which might be kept as a parent category of daughter stub categories. Aecis 11:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth: the number of cheese-related stubs has risen to between 50 and 60, and counting. Aecis 12:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC) (edit: judging from the Category:Cheeses, my estimate is that there are about 80 to 90 cheese-stubs on Wikipedia.)[reply]

I've now managed to finish counting the cheese stubs. In the Category:Food and drink stubs, I have found 40 41 cheese stubs. In the Category:Cheeses and its daughters, I have found 35 cheese stubs. This makes a grand total of 75 76 cheese stubs so far. This is above the threshold (60 stub articles) set for new stub templates/categories, so if there are no objections, I will create the template and fill the matching category. Aecis 00:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The stub never got added to the list, which I just corrected. Caerwine 19:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oz-stubs

I want to make a series of stubs for the new WikiProject related to the Wizard of Oz, for example: oz-stub, oz-book-stub, oz-character-stub, etc. Right now they are scatered around in other categories, and I would like to concentrate them. --[[User:JonMoore|— —Jo nMo ore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 00:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give us some numbers there? How many stubs pertaining to Oz are around at the moment? Lectonar 06:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently about 100 articles in the Oz/Wicked series. I would say approx. 75% are stubs, with plans to create new articles in the future. [[User:JonMoore|— —Jo nMo ore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 23:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to Be bold and created the stub tag and category. It's currently populated by around 80 articles, with room for expansion depending on how prolific the Wikiproject contributors are. GeeJo (talk) 17:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm afraid I haven't added any templates I created recently. I will set this straight within the next few hours. Aecis 20:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire Stub

It'd be nice if there was a stub template for all 50 states. I've seen a few stubs based on topics here in New Hampshire. Karmafist 01:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"A few" isn't really enough, though. If there's a wikiproject or if we know that there are a lot of stubs (preferably the best part of 100), then yes, it would be worth breaking a separate NewHampshire-stub out. At the moment, though, neither really apply. (BTW, I've moved this to the right place on the page) Grutness...wha? 01:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Create {{G.A.A.-Club-stub}} Stub

There are many G.A.A. Club articles.Enought to warrant their own stub.--Fenian Swine 22:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My initial reaction is, "What is a GAA club?". Without knowing this, the following generic questions still apply: Roughly how many current stub articles could this stub type be applied to? What are these stubs currently marked as? What existing stub category/categories will this help to reduce? --TheParanoidOne 22:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it were needed (which I don't know, since I'm not certain what a G.A.A.Club is), then GAA-stub would be a far better name. My guess is that it's Gaelic sports (based on Gaelic Athletics Association and the proposer's user name). if so, gaelic-sport-stub would be an even better name - and that one might get enough stubs, since it would be more all-inclusive. Not only would it cover the clubs, but also the sports and biographies of people like Michael Hogan (sportsman). Grutness...wha? 00:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going ahead and making this one as {{gaelic-sport-stub}}. I suspect there will be quite a few and sport-stub's at the stage where any split is likely to be a good one. Grutness...wha? 06:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battle stub

At present, stubs concerning battles use {{hist-stub}}, so Category:History stubs contains 150+ obvious "Battle of ..." articles, and quite probably more under different names. I think that creating a {{battle-stub}} is appropriate at this point. -- Kirill Lokshin 21:04, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Phrasing is needed which limits usage to past battles, to prevent spread to many current types of conflicts. (SEWilco 21:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Many battle-related stubs are sorted under {{mil-stub}}. Aecis 23:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, it might also be a plan to have a stub category for miniatures wargames: there's a fair number, admittedly mainly due to Warhammer and Battletech. Alai 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May be worthwhile, but it would need a better name. "Miniatures" can mean many things. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

game-miniatures-stub, or something of that nature? (assuming it's needed) --Mairi 01:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

miniatures-game-stub would be a little better, but is still quite a mouthful. miniatures-wargame-stub somewhat moreso, on both counts. mini-game-stub or minis-game-stub would be far less clear. By and large I'd be inclined to stick with my original suggestion, which would be familiar to those in the gaming hobby, and is not that deeply mysterious otherwise. Alai 04:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

miniatures are also used in some roleplaying games, which is why I didn't want to make it specific to wargames. I agree with mini-game-stub and minis-game stub being less clear. And while miniatures-stub might be clear to those involved in gaming, it wouldn't to other people, which would lead to it being applied to articles it wasn't meant for. miniatures-game-stub would work for me too, assuming there are actually enough stub to warrant creating the category.

I used to do miniatures wargaming myself, but when I see miniatures-stub my first though is miniature bottles of spirits and liqueurs, so I'd still tend towards miniatures-game-stub (assuming there are enough articles). Grutness...wha? 05:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, I'm a Scotch drinker, and not a miniatures wargamer, but that reading never occurred to me. I must not be drinking enough, as Don Henley would say. To argue against myself: it's only going to be an immediately viable stub-cat if we include the numerous Warhammer stubs, which strictly peaking aren't filed under wargames or miniatures games categories -- perhaps because most of the stubs seem to be WF/WH40K 'universe' topics, and thus not wargame-specific as such (there being video games and RPGs in that setting too). Alai 13:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What occured first to me was cameos and similer small art forms. Other possibility, "toy" dog breeeds. The more specific name is clearly needed. DES ^(talk) 06:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For fashion designers and whatever (makeup artists?). Can't figure out where to sort them as it is now. --Joy [shallot] 22:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How broad of category would it be? Would it, say, include fashion photographers? --Mairi 03:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think those would be covered by the next proposal down ↓ Grutness...wha? 03:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so to, but I'm wondering how broadly fashion-bio-stub is going to be worded, such that they'd be excluded (as they would be biographies relating to fashion...), while not just limiting it to fashion designers. --Mairi 02:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For photographers. Also can't figure out where to sort them right now. I sorted some under artist-stub but that's stretching it. --Joy [shallot] 22:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. There's easily enough stubs for it, too. --Mairi 03:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Til now I double-sorted them under {{photo-stub}} and an appropriate country-bio-stub...Lectonar 11:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this will make sorting out {{bio-stub}} a lot easier. Jaxl | talk 15:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radio personalities

We don't seem to have a specific category for "radio personalities". I stumbled into a fair few of those while trawling People stubs. --Joy [shallot] 22:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorting them into radio-stub now, and leaving bio-stub in if applicable. Google search for 'site:en.wikipedia.org "This biographical article is a stub." radio' returns less than two hundred hits so I'm not so worried. --Joy [shallot] 18:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them can have bio-stub replaced by journalist-stub, but many can't. --Joy [shallot]

Don't worry, radio fans seem to be just as obsessive as rail fans, metro fans, road geeks, etc. As soon as they finish writing stubs for every single radio station around the world they will start writing articles on every radio DJ in the world. When I've found any in the LA area, I've tried to merge them into the articles about their radio stations. There are only a few LA DJs, such as Jim Ladd, who deserve their own articles. BlankVerse ∅ 19:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has anything been decided on this proposal? If not, I'd like to suggest "broadcaster-stub" instead. There are a lot of radio personality stubs but there are also a lot of tv personalities (who are not journalists or actors). BrainyBroad 00:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But the difference is that the TV people have tv-bio-stub, radio people don't have such a category. --Joy [shallot] 23:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Radio-bio-stub}} has been created, actually. Should be further down on this page. Jaxl | talk 23:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Earth scientist stubs

I've been doing a lot of sorting of the scientist stubs and I think there definitely needs to be a {{geologist-stub}} and maybe another one for climatologists and meteorologists (it could be a combo one, like the existing one for climatology and meteorology). I've never proposed for one of these, forgive me if I'm going about this wrong. :) --Etacar11 17:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly how many stub articles would fit in each of those? If there isn't enough for splitting them, perhaps a combined geosci-bio-stub or earthsci-bio-stub (or other varient) would work. --Mairi 05:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the numbers when I get the chance. And thanks for moving this, I missed a heading there. :) --Etacar11 05:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rough numbers: I counted about 125 potential geologist stubs (including mineralogists and petrologists). And that's not even including the paleontologists, who probably should have both geologist and biologist stub listing. For climatologists/meteorologists I count about 60. Enough for two separate stubs, do you think? --Etacar11 15:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that's enough for 2 seperate stubs, altho 60 is borderline. Perhaps call the one for climatologists/meteorologists {{climate-bio-stub}} (to match the existing {{climate-stub}}), altho I'm not sure I like that name much. --Mairi 21:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what about something like {{geoscience-bio-stub}}, which could then include more than just geologists (geographers e.g.)? and the other one perhaps {{weather-bio-stub}} (that sounds weird...) Lectonar 08:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, I made the geologist stub last night! :) Of course, a geoscience one would do for geographers, geodesy people, etc. Personally, for the climatologists and meteorologists, I think climate-bio-stub sounds better. --Etacar11 14:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

tststs (using a chiding tone)...you could have waited the appropriate time (see procedure) ;) Lectonar 11:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oooops, missed the last line in the procedure. Sorry, again! My bad. --Etacar11 14:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General Relativity stub

I want to create a {{general relativity-stub}}. It would be nice to have a little picture in there somewhere for easy identification, maybe something like [Image:Wavy.gif] ---Mpatel (talk) 09:57, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I have my doubts about whether or not there is a need for this. How many existing stub articles do you forsee being labelled with this proposed stub type? --TheParanoidOne 10:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, quite a lot. Just take a glance at the general relativity pages (e.g. Kerr metric, fluid solution, Kerr-Newman metric, electrovacuum solution, Bonnor beam, lambdavacuum solution, Anti de Sitter space, to name a handful) and you will see a plethora of red links to GR related stuff. In recent months, there has been a surge of activity in the GR pages, but this has just started. There are many GR articles that will be of stub-status soon. Also, we have at least one expert on the subject helping to clean up the GR pages and many red links seem to be forthcoming. ---Mpatel (talk) 10:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me - physics is not my field - but would there be any confusion in just calling it {{relativity-stub}}? Grutness...wha? 11:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a possibility, but GR is the more comprehensive theory. Special relativity (SR) is a related theory, but 'simpler'. However, it may be better just to call it {{relativity-stub}}, as there will certainly be more stubs that way. Once I get more GR people involved in this issue, we should reach a decision on the name. ---Mpatel (talk) 11:55, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

The advantages I see with a {{relativity-stub}} are that the name is simpler and the subject is more all-encompassing. Whereas it might be a struggle to get 100 stubs related to general relativity, 100 related to both general and special relativity would be more likely. It is also likely to be the same group of editors who would work on both topics, I would think. The general idea with stubs is that you want to specialise a topic enough for it to be useful, but not so much that the category formed is too narrow. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, as one of the general relativity editors I strongly support the creation of either a {{relativity-stub}} or {{general relativity-stub}}. It would be very helpful to have a place to go to find the relativity subjects that need work. This stub, if it automatically places articles into an related category, will be very helpful in that regard.

That said, my support is more for the relativity stub. My primary reason for this is the large overlap between the special and general theories, such that it would be better to pull the relativity-related stubs aside as whole and worry later about how to subset it if that is ever necessary. (It is not a given that stubbing needs will divide themselves out a neatly as the categorization needs do.) On the other hand, I will note that Grutness is mistaken about the SR and GR editors being the same group. GR is a much broader and arcane field of study than SR is. Those of us who have chosen to focus on it have a depth of knowledge and experience such that working on SR almost seems like a waste of our time. (That is not to say that we do not work on SR pages at times, but usually we are content to let others do that work.) Even so, a unified relativity page will give both groups a chance to make appropriate contributions in the area as a whole, and I think that is an advantage. --EMS | Talk 04:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the {{relativity-stub}} seems more appropriate and popular. I say we go for the {{relativity-stub}}. ---Mpatel (talk) 13:40, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hi all, I, Mpatel, and EMS are working on drafting a manifesto founding a new project, WikiProject GTR. We all have at least some technical expertise in this area at the graduate or Ph.D. level. A still incomplete draft of our "manifesto" for this project can be found at User:Hillman/Wikiproject GTR draft, which may give some impression of the amount of thought we are putting into this. (At the moment, this is an informal project; we expect to pursue creating a formal project once the manifesto has been completed.) The basic goal of the project will be to greatly expand and improve the pages dealing with general relativity, one of the most successful and beautiful scientific theories of all time, and also one of the most misunderstood, because of the many conceptual challenges it presents. Our intent is by improving organization and content of existing articles and by adding many new articles (and merging in cases of multiple articles on the same topic) to help the general public and students at all levels find reliable and current information at a technical level they can handle.

The proposed {{relativity-stub}} will assist us in doing this work. As for the name, our focus is on general relativity, but we are working on honor of the World Year of Physics, which honors all of Einstein's achievements, so the broader {{relativity-stub}} is not inappropriate. On the other hand, I would also be happy with the name {{gtr-stub}} which would be consonant with the name of the project. Note that "gtr" is a very commonly employed acronym likely to be understood by most people seriously interested in black holes and so forth, regardless of their level of technical expertise. Also, Grutness, on the order of a hundred GTR stubs is not by no means out of the question! But again, I would be quite happy with either name.

If you look at Category:General relativity you will see some new subcategories which we need to populate; some lists I am keeping, contributors to general relativity and lists of links (mostly to articles yet to be written) at the end of articles listed at the end of exact solutions in general relativity should give some idea of the kind of articles which might initally be {{gtr-stub}}s. As we proceed with the work, I expect that we will identify more areas which need work, and here too the new stub should be helpful. If you look at my contributions, you should see that I have already created many of the articles listed in these categories during the past few months. Grutness, I can assure you that on the order of a hundred GTR stubs is not by no means out of the question!

A question: it might be helpful to us if we could tag biographical stubs for Category:contributors to general relativity with both {{gtr-stub}} and {{physicist-stub}}. As far as I know, this would be fine, but please speak up if you know otherwise.---CH (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{gtr-stub}}? Only if they're guitarists! We avoid abbreviations where possible here because they could lead to ambiguity. I think {{relativity-stub}} is the better name by far - it would also be easier to split later into general-relativity-stub and special-relativity-stub, if needed. As to double-stubbing, that's a standard practice here, although if there were going to be enough biographical stubs it might even be worth splitting off a relativity-physicist-stub. Grutness...wha? 03:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so how exactly does one go about actually creating a stub ? ---Mpatel (talk) 11:22, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the proposal steps at the top of the page. --TheParanoidOne 12:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia or Central Asia related stub

There is a Mongolia related geo-stub (Central Asia geography stubs ({{CAsia-geo-stub}})), but nothing for any other Mongolia related topics. Some (OK one) new stubs that I have encountered are Khan related (Category:Mongol_Khans) like Tughlugh_Timur. Something like Mongolia-related stubs {{Mongolia-stub}} or {{CAsia-stub}} (See also talk at MediaWiki_talk:Central_Asia) should do the job. {{CAsia-stub}} would naturally include more stubs, hard to say how many though. Google search "site:en.wikipedia.org Mongolia stub" yields 338 pages, [1], adding -"location article" to remove those geo articles gives 285 hits [2]. It seems that currently those articles get a bio- or hist-stub mostly. One example of an unavailability for a stub tag is here Treaty_between_Tibet_and_Mongolia_(1913) (although probably not a stub anymore) - having a tibet-, but not a mongolia-stub (CAsia-stub). Future additions are probable so whynot create one. I would go for the {{Mongolia-stub}} since it seems more accurate and less troublesome (geopolitical correctness), than a {{CAsia-stub}}. Comments? Suggestions... feydey 11:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps start with {{CAsia-stub}} and see how full it gets - it can always be pared off into separate countries later. That would parallel what's happened ith the geography stubs. I suspect some items - especially historical ones - will overlap national boundaries anyway. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orchid Genera and Species

As a new editor in the Wikipedia I've been noticing that my area of interest, Orchids, has a nice long list of many of the Orchid genera but there are many of these genera that are red links. Furthermore when I go into the actual blue-link genera many of the entries simply have the species listed as text in the article. Example: Dracula (orchid) genera. I started looking into the stubs to see how I might bring attention to this gap in information and only found the {{Plant-stub}}. I've already added a couple entries of this stub to the genera pages, but before I go running off with this approach on the 800+ genera and the species I'd like to call attention to, I figured it made more sense to propose more specific stubs. My proposal is to add the following two stubs as sub-categories of the plant stub: {{Orchid-genera-stub}} and {{Orchid-species-stub}} (Brett Francis 03:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Again, two separate templates is probably overkill. The same editors would be working on the two types of articles - so why increase their work by having them look in two separate categories - surely a single {{orchid-stub}} is enough? Grutness...wha? 07:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plant stubs is at 8 pages right now, so I guess it's in need of a split. I don't enough about plants to know how to split it, but orchid-stub seems reasonable. --TheParanoidOne 10:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only thought about two stubs; one for genera and one for the plants themselves... is that it is my understanding there are people that are experts within one genera (i.e. {{Orchid-species-stub}}) and then people that are experts across genera (i.e. {{Orchid-genera-stub}}). But for the sake of starting with less-is-more, I'll shrink my proposal to {{orchid-stub}} as suggested which can always be grown later. (Brett Francis 01:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

OK it has been a week, I'm adding {{orchid-stub}} as there have been no other objections. {Brett Francis 04:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]