Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
BL Lacertae (talk | contribs)
6,342 edits
Line 1,519: Line 1,519:


==Proposals, November 2005==
==Proposals, November 2005==
===India History Stubs==
Hi, we really need a listing of history stubs related to [[India]]. I do not know what tpo do about it, but please can we have such a category? There are a whole lot of articles that would fall into such a category.



===Splits of Euro-myth-stub===
===Splits of Euro-myth-stub===

Revision as of 01:46, 7 November 2005

Shortcut
WikiProject Stub sorting
Information
Project page talk
- Stub types (sections) talk
- Stub types (full list) talk
- To do talk
- Naming conventions talk
- Redirects category talk
Wikipedia:Stub talk
Discussion
Proposals (A) talk
- Current month
Discussion talk
Criteria (A) (discontinued) talk
Deletion (Log) (discontinued) talk
Category

On this WP:WSS subpage, you can propose new stub types (please read #Proposing new stubs - procedure beforehand!), as well as the reorganization and subdivision of existing stub types. You can also propose anything else related to stubs in #Other stub-related discussions.

Proposing new stubs - procedure

Proposing new stubs
If you wish to propose a new stub category and template, please follow the following procedure:
  1. List it at the bottom of the current month's section, under a header, like the ones shown (if any). Sign it with a datestamp (~~~~).
    • Please mind that a stub-category isn't about importance or noticeabiliy of the topic
  2. Find a good number[1] of stub articles, as many as you can, that will fit that tag. Each of these articles can be:
    • currently be marked with stub;
    • currently marked with another type of stub tag (in which case you should justify why your tag is better for the article than the current one);
    • a stub whose categorisation is highly ambiguous or questionable;
    • not marked as a stub.
  3. Others will do the same, if they feel like it.
  4. One week after listing it here, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new category and template following the format on Wikipedia:Stub. List the new stub type on the stub types list in an appropriate section.

^ . Good number means about 60 articles or more, or 30 or more if associated with a WikiProject, though this figure may vary from case to case.

Proposals, July-August 2005

New album stubs

I've moved this from the WP:WSS/ST talk page. --TheParanoidOne 10:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC) - Sorry keep getting confused. - (Erebus555 17:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

{{album-stub}} is getting very large now and I believe it should be split into more sub categories such as rock-album-stub or rap-album-stub. For the time being it should be split into very general groups so that we don't have a stub which will only get one page such as thrash-metal-stub. I believe the main categories should be:

  • Country-album-stub
  • Rock-album-stub
  • Rap-album-stub
  • RnB-album-stub
  • Dance-album-stub
  • Classical-album-stub

There might be more that could be added which I have not thought up yet but what do you tihnk? -(Erebus555 09:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

First it might be useful to determine what will get an album off the stub list. Most of the album articles I've seen say "X is an album by Y" and give a tracklist. In a majority of cases I don't see much chance they'll ever develop beyond that. Who's going to page through all the country-album-stubs, say, and expand those articles? There isn't much to say about most albums. What say we restrict the stub tag to those which just have the first sentence but no track list? There's a Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums with their own cleanup template, {{album}}.—Wahoofive (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{labor-bio-stub}}

I just started at this stub-sorting project and the first person I pick, Albert Shanker, is a labor organizer. Shouldn't there be a bio stub for labor leaders? –Shoaler (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm. If there were, then something like Unionist-bio-stub would be a better name, since labout is a word that varies spelling between North American English and Rest-of-the-world English (Australia, being weird, uses both spellings for two different things). Also several countries have political parties called Labour, so you might end up getting MPs in there too. Not sure how many articles there'd be, but there may well be enough for a separate stub. Grutness...wha? 06:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unionist would not be a good name for it because Unionist also has many different meanings, including the name of some Northern Ireland political parties and I agree that Labor/Labour should be avoided for the same reason. How many articles are there which would be stubbed with this, out of interest? -- Joolz 18:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten about the Ulster Unionists... If it goes ahead, would {{Union-bio-stub}} get around the name problem? Or would that be too ambiguous? Grutness...wha? 13:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Union-bio would get round it yeah :) -- Joolz 17:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be tempted to think that the {{Union-bio-stub}} was about people on the Union side in War of Northern Agression. :) Caerwine 19:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps something like {{laborunion-bio-stub}}? It's longer, but it's probably less ambiguous. --Mairi 19:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And we're not only back at the labour/labor, but manage yet another US-centric proposed name even aside from that, since the UK term (at least) is Trade Union. - SoM 15:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about having these go into the {{activist-stub}} proposal way down below with an option to split off if there are enough as {{worker-activist-stub}}? I'll grant that it's a bit wordy and nonintuitive, but it does avoid the problems with both "labo[u]r" and "Union". Caerwine 00:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda like this... cuts down on the hyphenation creep. nae'blis (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like it too, and it avoids all the issues of the other proposed names. --Mairi 06:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good - go for it! Grutness...wha? 04:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

splitting {{UK-struct-stub}}

This has about 1000 articles. Suggest splitting off some bits of it, but not clear which. Morwen - Talk 12:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

London and Scotland would remove two large sections, I think. Grutness...wha? 06:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking geographically but more sort of church-stub etc but London and Scotland would be good idea, yes! Morwen - Talk 09:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a London WikiProject, so that one's definitely worth considering. Separating out buildings by use is viable, though - although that would need to tie in with all the struct-stub categories, so might need more thought. I could see a series of UK-church-stub, US-church-stub etc, and also UK-stadium-stub, Euro-stadium-stub, etc. The church one might be difficult, though, since it would be best if it covered all places of worship, not just Christian ones, so the naming of it might be a problem. I'd definitely go with London-struct-stub though - buildings by type could easily be split off that one later as well if necessary. Grutness...wha? 09:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a few days sorting {{rail-stub}} articles into, among others, {{UK-depot-stub}} which is already a subcategory of both {{UK-struct-stub}} and {{rail-stub}}. Many of the station articles had both rail-stub and UK-struct-stub, so sorting one also sorted the other; on articles that had both, I removed both and used the more specific stub category. I wouldn't necessarily object to sorting by location, but sorting by structure type seems more appropriate to me. slambo 19:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Mmmm, maybe. I still think that having a WikiProject able to find buildings on the city it's working on might make a London-struct-stub useful. But there'd be nothing wrong with having a UK-church-stub with London-church-stub as a subcat of it, so perhaps that would be the way to go. Wish there was some better term than church, though, to cover all places of worship, not just Christian ones. Grutness...wha? 14:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, September 2005

More Musicians/Music Subcategory proposals

To further reduce the overpopulation in the Musicians and Music stub categories, I'd like to propose a few more subdivisions:

The already proposed Hip-Hop stub will go a long way in the Musicians category as well. Thanks for any feedback. J. Van Meter 12:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do think this will help the music category. Go for it. -Haon 13:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although it might seem a little contrived, it'd be useful of all the genre stubs had the same number of hyphenations, so I'd suggest countrymusic-stub, gospelmusic-stub amd folkmusic-stub. Also, given the recent jazz-stub - which seems to include a lot of jazz musicians, perhaps {{jazz-musician-stub}} would also probably be useful. The one problem I see with both that and classical-musician-stub, though, is that splitting of musicians so far has been by instrument rather than genre. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- i'll do whatever you want with the hyphens. i didn't think there was quite the need to split the jazz musicians from the other jazz related stubs, although maybe, to be a purist, i should have. the problem i'm seeing w/ the musician-stubs split by instrument (as they are) is that people are getting lost within those categories. going on the assumption that the stub categories should be grouped to attrack the interest of potential contributors and editors, it seems to make the most sense to pull some of these folks into genre categories. someone willing to write about Bill Frisell for example, would be more apt to also write about Richie Powell or the Brecon Jazz Festival, than say, about Jesse Pintado. i've been trying to chisel away at the musician stub category for several days already and it's just killing me that people like András Schiff, Marcel LaFosse, Papa Charlie McCoy and Ruth Laredo are jammed into a huge category with the likes of MC Chickaboo, Flesh-n-Bone, J-Kwon, Fan 3, and MC HotDog.  :-J. Van Meter 01:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I'm not a fan of the "musician by instrument" categories myself - I feel that it would make more sense, say, to have Andre Segovia with Yehudi Menuhin than with Jeff Beck. It may be that some more thought is needed over the way musicians are being split - especially since you can get multi-instrumentalists. Mnd you, you also get people who perform in several styles, so I suppose it's not clear-cut either way. Grutness...wha? 05:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-I certainly don't think it's necessary to peel everyone out of the musicians category and put them all into a million ultra-specific sub-stub categories. As you mention, there is a lot of cross-over and gray area. I just think pulling some of the glaringly obvious ones out would be a fine improvement. Right now there is an opera-stub, an opera-singer-stub and a classical-composition-stub. So how 'bout for starters I do a {{classical-music-stub}}. This will handle the musicians, as well as any composers, conductors and misc. historic figures. I think that will make for a decent sized category without the need for getting any more specific. (Opera singer stubs, for example aren't divided up for contraltos and tenors.) How does that sound? (No pun intended.)
J. Van Meter 14:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Genre is useful, but so is instrument. Personally I think {{woodwind-musician-stub}}, {{brass-musician-stub}}, {{keyboard-musician-stub}}, and {{string-musician-stub}} would all be useful. Those who are multi-instrumentalists in one genre would get just the one genre stub, those who are multi-genre artists on one instument (family) would get just the one instrument stub and those who play but a single genre on a single instrument would get both. After all, Wikipedia is not a tree.
- at this point, after browsing through the current music and musician stubs for a while now, i just don't believe there are that many classical artist stubs there to warrant so many and such specific categories. J. Van Meter 14:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another different but related idea: Both the music and musician stub categories are jammed up with record producers. So, how about {{record-producer-stub}}? J. Van Meter 02:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have also noticed many various non-musician but music-related people stubs. Something should be created for them. I'd suggest {{music-bio-stub}}, in the same vein as film-bio-stub and poli-bio-stub, but it still sounds awful. --Joy [shallot] 18:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splits of ({{Academic-bio-stub}} and ({{Reli-bio-stub}}

Looking for outsize profession-stub categories, I've found these two, both now north of 800 stubs. If we split on country lines, it's likely to help with US-bio-stub; OTOH, splitting respectively by discipline (possibly) and religion (almost certainly) may actually be more attractive options. Canvassing opinions either way. Alai 01:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been randomly surfing through {{reli-bio-stub}}, aselectly clicking on links, and I've come across many stubs about bishops. So I would like to bring up the possibility of {{bishop-stub}}. Aecis 15:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +bishop +"This biography of a religious figure is a stub" " resulted in 92 hits. Googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +archbishop +"This biography of a religious figure is a stub" " gave me 83 hits. Googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +bishop +archbishop +"This biography of a religious figure is a stub" "(to check for doubles with the two earlier queries) brought about 32 hits. This group of religious biographies has enough stub articles for a stub template and stub category, so I would like to officially propose {{bishop-stub}} and Category:Bishop stubs. Aecis 20:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, names like Christian-bio-stub and Moslem-bio-stub would be best, but that doesn't specify that the bios are of people specifically connected to the church, so they're terms probably better avoided. 32 is a little thin - how about widening the bishop category a little and making it Clergy-stub, for all Christian clergy - bishops, priests, archbishops, etc? Also, would an Imam-stub for the Moslem equivalent be useful? Grutness...wha? 00:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are 32 doubles in the queries. This means that there are 60 unique bishop hits and 51 unique archbishop hits. This means that the bishop stub category will contain at least 111 articles. Aecis 08:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps name them Christian-relibio-stub and Muslim-relibio-stub, to make it more clear that they're still religious biographies? Clergy-stub also sounds like a good idea. --Mairi 18:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed a {{Germany-academic-bio-stub}} down below to assist with sorting out {{Germany-bio-stub}}. Caerwine 02:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Communication stub

Proposal by Rauh 03:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I propose a stub for topics on communication field of research and science. Many stubs that would fall in this category are assigned to psychology, political, linguistics etc. when the main research effort is done by communication scholars and publshed on communication journals. This spread of topics on other discipline stubs makes it hard for people who know the communication research domain to fill out these articles.

Some examples:

Rauh 03:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that this would be very well-defined. In particular, none of the above articles have a common permanent category, or category parent in common; surely proposing that would be a logical first step? Alai 03:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is well defined since all of the above appear in any introduction to communication course or book, plus a lot of other related material. I was also following the logic of having psychology stubs, sociology stubs, etc. However, I can see your point on getting them under a category first. Still, I think that some would go under the existing comm theory category, others under communication category. I was thinking that the stub would provide a central place for all of those. What do you suggest that I do? Rauh 13:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I haven't seen in this discussion, is a proposed template and matching category. So here is my proposal (or rather, my processing of the discussion above): {{com-sci-stub}} / Category:Communication science stubs. What I also haven't heard is an indication of how many articles would fit into this category. I don't think it will be hard to make this reach the threshold, but it's best to be on the safe side. Aecis 15:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the proposed template and category is interesting but it might need to be more general than that since a lot of communication research or studies are not scientific but humanistic (e.g. symbolic interactionism) and such, although it becomes somewhat blurred with Linguistics. Communication science might be a better defined domain.
Is there any guideline to creating a count of articles that would fit in that category? There is a Communication basic topics page that cover many of the articles that would fit in there. The Communication studies article might also be informative. Can you please inform me a little more on how to compile this list/count? Rauh 22:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comm-sci-stub would be better that com-sci-stub, otherwise there'll be confusion with computer science. Actually, communication-sci-stub would be better yet, though probably not really necessary. ISTR there is already a com-stub, though (linking to Category:Telecommunications stubs). It sounds also like some of the stubs you're thinking of are alreadly listed as socio-stubs (Category:Sociology stubs) and ling-stubs (Category:Linguistics stubs). The best way to compile a count would be to go through the relevant stub categories that might have some of these articles and see what you can find. If there were 50 or more, then a separate stub type would definitely be viable. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comm-stubs or comm-sci-stubs, of course. One of the reasons that I suggested the comm-stubs was exactly because many of the articles that would fall under this category are scattered around in Category:Telecommunications stubs, Category:Sociology stubs, Category:Linguistics stubs, Category:Psychology stubs and Category:Political stubs. But because these are communication topics they are less likely to be filled out by people checking those stub lists. I will go through them and compile a list of candidates to the new stub. Rauh 01:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After going through all the above stub categories here is a list of articles appropriate for a comm-stub or a comm-sci-stub:

  1. Access to knowledge
  2. Agenda setting
  3. Communication skill
  4. Communication skills
  5. Communication studies
  6. Construct validity
  7. Consumer science
  8. Conversation analysis
  9. Corporate media
  10. Credibility
  11. Cultivation theory
  12. Cultivation theory
  13. Discourse analysis
  14. Dyadic communication
  15. Emotional expression
  16. Emotional intimacy
  17. Emotional labor
  18. Expressive aphasia
  19. Global aphasia
  20. Gricean maxims
  21. Homophily
  22. Hypodermic needle model
  23. Informational society
  24. Interactionism
  25. Internet romance
  26. Interpersonal relationship
  27. Interpersonal skills
  28. Kinesics
  29. Knowledge gap hypothesis
  30. Long term relationship
  31. Long-distance relationship
  32. Manual communication
  33. Mass society
  34. Maxwell McCombs
  35. Media audience studies
  36. Media ecosystem
  37. Media ethics
  38. Media responsibility
  39. Metanalysis
  40. Nonverbal communication
  41. Operant behavior
  42. Persuasion
  43. Public speaker
  44. Revolutionary propaganda
  45. Selective distortion
  46. Spiral of silence
  47. Symbolic communication
  48. Teleimmersion
  49. Two-step flow of communication
  50. Two-way communication
  51. Uses and gratifications

Rauh 02:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To return to my "well-definedness" point; the thing is, none of the [originally] cited articles are in any pre-existing permanent communications category, and several of them are in distinct permanent categories. What I didn't realize at the time, however, was that there already in fact is a Category:Communication (which would be one obvious place to start looking for perm-catted stubs). If what's being proposed is the stub counterpart of that, then fair enough (subject to a "viability count"), but I'm personally still not at all clear what the precise scope actually is, and I'm dubious about how consistently applied and "stable" the permanent category actually is. That is, are the majority of the articles with the intended scope already in that category, and if not, would catting them that way be clearly defined, generally agreed, and uncontroverial? If the overlap with media studies, linguistics, sociology, etc, is too high, or too debatable, then this may be more trouble than it's worth. Alai 17:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Made the above comment last night, didn't notice the resultant edit conflict. Some additional thoughts:) Thanks for doing the detailed count-down, Rauh. However, I still have concerns: Looking at a number of that list, it seems that this is more of a "cross-stubbing" than a stub-sorting proposal; the majority already have entirely reasonable-looking stub tags (and some already have two such); many already have permanent categories not included in the communications category hierarchy. Thus I think in a lot of these cases, adding "comm-stub" would be proposing significant additional category overlap, and restubbing them as such, category "drift". Mind you, I've never been a fan of the only one (or only two) stub tags notion, so that's not necessarily a bad thing as such, at least if the additional tagging is really likely to get those articles significant extra attention from "communications" people, rather than "linguistics" people, etc. Alai 17:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Alai, I can certainly understand your point and I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised that such a controversy runs inside communication research as well. Since communication is a "universalist" topic present in a lot of disciplines it becames difficult to categorize topics as "just" communication. Even definitions of such that most researchers agree are hard to come by. However, you must agree that there is certainly such a concept as "communication" and that there is a related field of study of "communication" and a more specific subdomain of "communication science" that takes as its subject matter the concept we are debating here. Social psychology and sociology suffer of the same problem on many domains. The fact that some pages are currently categorized under certain categories does not make that categorization right. I believe that the above pages would most correctly be categorized under communication studies (or science for most). With possible a second categorization with the topic of communication in consideration (e.g. Politics for Agenda Setting, possibly).
Having said that, my point in suggesting the creation of a communications stub is that I firmly believe that editors who search a psychology (or politics, sociology, etc.) stub list will be less likely to fill out the above topics compared to editors who search a communications stub. The topics listed above are central to communication research but periferical to these other domains. I think that the goal here is to have these stubs filled out and getting them on a comm stub list might help in that process.
One final argument that I have is that as I have been roaming through communication cateogory and communication research topics I have noticed that it is not well covered. There are inumerous topics that could be added. Most of the pages are of very bad quality and obviously edited by, alas, people with psychology and sociology background. My project is also to edit this content area somewhat and the stub, I hope, will help me get some more people involved in the process. Maybe I should start this the other way around and starting working on the topics and come back later for the stub, but since there are plenty of pages for this list I'd rather advance the process. Rauh 02:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to support this, on the basis of the central/peripheral "acid test" you suggest. I'm not sure stub categories are much of a way in and of themselves of attracting editors out of a blue sky -- maybe you should look at a WikiProject:Communications? (Or Comm. Sci.) Certainly they're a facility for editors that are already so inclined. Good luck with your doubtless upcoming clashes with psychologists and sociologists -- alas. :) Alai 04:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Internet-bio-stub}}

I think we need a category for the many creators of notable websites, blogs, internet software, etc.--Carabinieri 15:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, falls in line with radio-bio-stub which got a pass below. nae'blis (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Headgear stub

I think there is a need to create this stub. There are a large number of hat and headgear articles which could use expansion. The list of hats and headgear page is getting messy. Snafflekid 19:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm - more to the point, Category:Fashion stubs is slowly getting towards the point of needing a split, and headwear (more precisely, headwear and hair styles) and footwear might be the two most obvious splits. Anyone keeping track of what the numbers are like in that category? Grutness...wha? 03:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Headwear seems better than Headgear. there is a redirect from headwear to headgear now but I think the page should be renamed to headgear. Probably do it after hearing comments on the stub. Snafflekid 04:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

either {{gang-stub}} or {{street-gang-stub}}

I've been finding a bunch of gang-cruft. The {{crime-stub}} seems to be the most appropriate stub to add, but there is almost certainly enough articles for a gang-stub. See gang, List of street gangs, List of Los Angeles street gangs, List of historical gang members of New York City, Category:Modern street gangs, Category:Historical gangs of New York City, and the woefully inadequate List of motorcycle gangs. There are also dozens of other gang articles that are not yet in those lists or categories (see Maravilla and Black Angels), plus related articles such as Gang Signals. Kasper Gutman 18:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More splits in mil-stub hierarchy

  • {{US-navy-stub}}. There's at least 200 US Navy ship stubs in {{mil-ship-stub}}, alone. (An immediate sub-cat of which would be another possibility; {{US-mil-ship-stub}}?)
  • {{US-mil-bio-stub}}. In one case I found myself triple-stubbing something as {{US-bio-stub}}, {{US-mil-stub}}, and {{mil-bio-stub}}, which is getting into set theory gone mad territory. And mil-bio-stub has about 920 stubs, so itself is in need of a split.
  • {{UK-mil-stub}}. Haven't done a count, but looks certain to be viable.
  • {{Germany-mil-stub}}. Lots of historical stuff (or should these be going into WW2 categories and such like?).

There are probably other feasible sub-cats that could be split out, these seem by eyeball to be the most pressing for starters. Alai 19:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a bit wary of the triple-hyphened ones, though I can see them coming in time (and we've got US-midwest-geo-stub and the like, so there is a precedent). US-mil-ship-stub could be quite useful, though.
The UK and Germany categories are definitely good ideas, although also note that there is Nazi-stub. I can't remember the exact parameters for it, but it could well include all WWII Germany articles. And, as you said, there is a WWII-stub.
As for US-mil-bio-stub, US-bio-stub and mil-bio-stub is probably enough for now - and no bio articles should get US-mil-stub (which isn't for people - people shouldn't be in any categories other than bio or occupation!) Grutness...wha? 03:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, thanks. The triple-hyphens are pretty ugly-looking, yeah, if anyone has any better names, fire away. Even without the triple-stubbing, though, the "US-mil-bio-stub" (in some form) one looks almost an inevitability, given the numbers. Alai 05:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{UK-mil-stub}} created, and (partially) populated. Now has "adopted" {{RAF-stub}} as a sub-cat. Alai 02:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{US-bcast-stub}}

Now about 1000 stubs. Split out the radio stations and the TV stations? Alai 09:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of {{UK-tv-channel-stub}}

I'd like to create this template to aid in the improvement of articles about British television channels as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject British TV channels. Currently most articles are tagged as {{UK-bcast-stub}} or {{TV-stub}}. This template would move them into a single category, which would then categorise as a subcategory of the categories linked to by both of these.

Suggested text:

This article on a British television channel is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 12:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not convinced you're going to get 50 or more stubs in that category. At the moment, British broadcasting stations are covered by UK-bcast-stub, which has under 350 stubs, most of which are radio stations. I doubt if there are more that 20 UK TV station stubs in there, so a separate category seems unnecessary. The again, if some of them are incorrectly marked with TV-stub, and there is a wikiproject, and there's talk above of splittng up US-bcast-stub... hmm. Anyone? (Nice icon, BTW) Grutness...wha? 13:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a good chance it could get to 50, (I haven't actually counted) as if you look in Category:British television channels there is a fair few articles there, and many, if not more than half are stubs all tagged differently, some untagged. Plus many more will be added (look at all the red links on List of British television channels). Cheers about the icon ;) MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 16:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Activism Stubs

--naught101 01:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC) there are plenty of pages on vaious types of activism, I would suggest that these go under politics. I'm not sure if activists should also go under activism, or have its own stub type. I will come back and add the numbers that I can find for each type, and there are probably more type that these. I would suggest among others:[reply]

(I slightly reorganised the above, since they're easier to debate in one load) I strongly doubt you're going to find more that 60 stubs for each of these - and several of these are already well covered by other stub types ({{LGBT-stub}} and {{fem-stub}}, for instance). Tentatively I'd support one overall {{activism-stub}} and a separate {{activist-stub}}, although in each case you may be very much in danger of the same sort of POV issues with those templates as with the recently declined terrorist-stub. Grutness...wha? 09:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would definately find an {{activist-stub}} for political activists as a daughter category of {{poli-bio-stub}} useful. There are already several activists in that category.--Carabinieri 20:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Starting off with just {{activism-stub}} and {{activist-stub}} sounds like a good idea. Atleast the POV issues would be less than terrorist-stub, I'd hope. Also, "queer" is offensive to some, so that name would be less than desirable. --Mairi 00:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More Math stubs

I've had another look at the Mathematics stubs, after using the new categories (see above), to reduce the number to around 800. There are some more stub categories that might be useful to reduce that a bit further. I've done a count of the first page, and the most common ones are Number theory (12 articles), Applied mathematics (17 articles) and Category theory (10 articles). If that is typical for all 4 pages that would give 48 articles, 68, and 40 respectively. That might not be representative, as I removed about 30 articles from the first page in the middle of sorting, and the first page is what is left after that. Given that, we can predict a similar removal for the other pages removes about 100 articles, giving about 700, or 3.5 pages. This predicts 42, 60 and 35 articles. I've made a subpage with a list of the entries I've categorised: User:Silverfish/Math Categories. The Other category is for entries I've not given a category. Some might fit into existing or proposed category. There are almost 100 articles in that category, so categorising those might up the number a bit.

I think the case for Applied mathematics is pretty compelling, but I'm not sure about the other two.

There also the issue of the Geometry stubs category, which has grown to about 360 articles. I've been including the more Geometrical seeming bits of Topology in there, but has been big for quite a while. I don't have any suggestions for how to sort it. Any ideas would be appreciated. Silverfish 11:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see some concrete examples of new math stub types. By the way, we should give Silverfish a big thanks, for he was constantly on my watchlist lately classifying the math stubs. Oleg Alexandrov 01:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'jm proposing Applied Mathematics ({{Appliedmath-stub}} or {{Mathapplied-stub}}), and tentatively proposing Category theory ({{Cattheory-stub}}), and Number theory ({{Numtheory-stub}}). Number theory might be a bit tricky with the overall with the Number stubs, but the ones I've counted are aren't about specific numbers or types of number. I haven't proposed anything for Geometry, as that's more of an aside. Silverfish 09:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. If a category of stubs is too big, the best thing to do is to split it into smaller more specific stub categories. Oleg Alexandrov 22:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at Geometry stubs, and just from the names, a lot seem to be polyhedra, in the 3 dimensional sense. I'll propose {{Polyhedron-stub}}, which should remove a lot from the Geometry stubs category. This would cover articles about particular polyhedra. Silverfish 23:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{gmc-lang-stub}}, {{rom-lang-stub}}, {{ii-lang-stub}}

I'd also like to reduce the load of {{ie-lang-stub}} by creating stub categories for the Germanic languages, the Romance languages, and the Indo-Iranian languages. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical about the need for these, and whether there are enough for all 3, as {{ie-lang-stub}} only has 198 stubs. --Mairi 23:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - I don't see the need to split the Indo European stubs. Only if there were a WikiProject associated with one of the proposed subtypes could I see the desirability at this point. Caerwine 00:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with looking only at {{ie-lang-stub}} is that there are still a whole lot of Indo-European languages in {{lang-stub}}, and most of them are Romance, Germanic, or Indo-Iranian. I am confident that if {{gmc-lang-stub}}, {{rom-lang-stub}}, and {{ii-lang-stub}} get implemented, there will be at least 60 articles listed in each of those as well as in the parent {{ie-lang-stub}}. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just stubsorted B and C of Category:Language stubs, and Category:Indo-European language stubs is already up to 209 from 198. If I go all the way to the end of Category:Language stubs, there will probably be over 250 articles in Category:Indo-European language stubs. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More computer and video game stubs

moved to correct place on page Grutness...wha?

I have just gone through all CVG stub articles from K through Z and applied the appropriate genre or corporation tags. A through C appear to have been done by somebody else, too. This has removed about 500-600 articles from the main category, but when done, will probably not be enough to reduce the total amount to under 800. From my observations during this fun, yet mind-dulling work, I have noticed articles that need different sub categories. Therefore, I propose the following:

  • {{cvg-fict-stub}}, which would deal with ALL fictional elements in computer and video games, including characters, locations, races, groups, everything. There's lots of these articles out there.
  • {{cvg-bio-stub}}, for all articles related to biographies on CVG people (designers and musicians, mostly) A CVG musicians stub already exists, and should become a redirect to here, IMO.
  • {{action-cvg-stub}}, to supplement the previous genre list, basically for all games that don't fall under previous categories. Normally I would find the term too vague, but it seems to be necessary.

Other articles not covered here seem to include gaming websites, magazines, hardware (controllers, systems, etc), software (emulators, map editors, engines, etc), gaming terminology, and...I think that's about it. I'm not sure if any of these are common enough to warrant individual stub categories, but they may be worth keeping in mind for the future. Opinions? --ADeveria 17:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As there appear to be no objections after one week, I shall proceed in creating these stubs. ADeveria 12:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture or Fad stubs

moved to correct place on page Grutness...wha?

You will have to excuse my ignorance; I am a newbie at all of this. I have taken an interest in Pop culture and Fads and categorizing and creating articles for these categories. I think a fad or pop culture stub would be appropriate. Obviously a pop culture stub would cover the fad one too, so probably the better choice. Here are a few that I've picked out, but I've run across many short articles, and plan on at creating more stubs as well. I realize that some of these articles have other categories, but I feel a pop culture stub could create a more appropriate response for many of the articles. For example, you can put pet rock under toys, but people interested in pet rocks would more than likely be so due to its pop culture impact. Yes? no? I don't know how to make a stub either. So if Yea, then maybe one of you oldtimer wizzes can do that for me. If not, I will look it up :D

(Wrinehart 07:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • As an additional note, I only began categorizing fads under pop culture by decade two nights ago. Since then there have been at least two other folks categorizing this way as well. I think the stub could expand the pop culture area of Wikipedia. :) (Wrinehart 01:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • I don't believe this is a necessary stub category. There already is a {{culture-stub}}. And there are plenty of other categories (fashion, games, food, dance, toys, vocabulary, music) that would cover most anything falling into "popular culture". Also, to my mind, several of the articles listed here, while slight, hold their own as articles, not stubs, and are best left in their current categories. J. Van Meter 02:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not believe there would be a significant number of people interested in Pop Culture type articles specifically, and want to expand on these? Culture is a very broad area, whereas a pop culture stub would cover a large variety of topics and is still nowhere near as specific as some of the proposed stubs I've seen. Wrinehart 03:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure there are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are "interested in Pop Culture type articles." But we don't judge or approve stub template proposals by the number of interested users. So far, only 7 articles have been mentioned that could use this stub. I'm not asking you to name every single article that could possibly use this template, but what I haven't heard in this discussion is an indication of how many pop culture or fad stub articles Wikipedia currently has. Will this stub template/category reach the threshold of roughly 50 to 60 articles? Aecis 13:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-navy-stub}} vs. {{US-mil-ship-stub}}; {{RN-ship-stub}}

Already proposed above, and no strident objections, but I haven't gotten around to doing either, or indeed actually deciding which. I'd be inclined to go with the latter, simply because it'll be a pretty large category in and of itself, without throwing in "other" US Naval stubs besides, and to preserve them within the current sub-tree (well, sub-dag, actually, but...) of the hierarchy they're in at present: {{mil-ship-stub}}, which itself is over 700 stubsworth. Similarly, there are more than enough for "Royal Navy ship stubs" -- in fact, there's plenty for two categories, should anyone prefer to have {{HMS-ship-stub}} and {{RFA-ship-stub}}. Alai 20:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going for stubs with abbreviations for specific branches of military, could use {{USN-ship-stub}}. Do any other branches of the US military have ships, besides Navy and Coast Guard? What about for the British military? --Mairi 21:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The US Army has some ships of its own for transporting its stuff from one place to another without having to depend upon the good graces of the navy, and it operated the riverine warcraft for a during the early part of the US Civil War before the Navy took those vessels over. Caerwine 23:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the extra hyphen, I think I'd feel happier with US-mil-ship-stub and UK-mil-ship-stub. It has the advantage that if we needed to split further it could be done by understandable names - I don't want to have to look up the name of the Chinese or Russian navy every time I find an article that needs stubbing, for instance. Grutness...wha? 22:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went with Grutness's names for these. I hestitate to sort the RFAs in with the HMSs, though: they're both rather lengthy to simply lump them back in together. Perhaps {{UK-aux-ship-stub}} as a sub-cat? Alai 03:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Created UK-aux-ship-stub too; part-populated. Alai 03:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ghana-stub}}

I've come across some 70 stubs that would be able to use this stub, scattered over a wide variety of Africa related stub categories. Probably more, especially since compared to some people, I'm conservative when it comes to applying country level stubs. Most of these do not have {Africa-stub}, but rather one of its sub types, so it won't help that much with trimming that cat, but that cat isn't in need of serious surgey at the moment anyway. Caerwine 21:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's also been a lot of growth recently in the Ghana geo-stubs (which went from 30 two weeks ago to 70 now) - it could well be worth proposing a geo-stub for it too, especially given the size of AfricaW-geo-stub. The one problem with Ghana-stub is that there are two distinct and unrelated places: modern Ghana and ancient Ghana (which was approximately modern Mauritania to Chad). Would Ghana-stub deal with both? Grutness...wha? 00:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was counting just the modern Ghana, which means I would have been more selective if you count also includes ancient Ghana. By my count there are only about 45 Ghana geo stubs and I completed that census just a day ago. Were all those stubs in {AfricaW-geo-stub}? Caerwine 03:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Ghana's stub population, as I said, is growing fast! Grutness...wha? 04:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See compromise suggestion under Sudan-stub, below. Grutness...wha? 06:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, October 2005

US-hist-stub

Some sub categories might be a good idea.

  • US-precolonial-hist-stub
  • US-colonial-hist-stub
    • US-UK-colonial-hist-stub for the eastern US
    • US-FR-colonial-hist-stub for the Louisana purchase area
    • US-ES-colonial-hist-stub for the southwest

I have been working on some French and Indian War British Forts in WV. They are relavent to UK and US history. We are not supposed to us two stubs, but to be accurate you need to, a US-UK-colonial-hist-stub would solve that problem, and these suggested stubs will define the era that the historical place or event belongs in. It will give it more context. --71Demon 01:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • My initial thought is no. Double stubbing is not expressly prohibited, and the stub names proposed above are way too confusing to be useful. Can you give us some examples of some articles you've been working on? Here's one I've worked on recently: Fort Loudoun (Tennessee)—it's double-stubbed with US-hist-stub and US-struct-stub. Another is Spanish Florida—double-stubbed with US-hist-stub and Spain-stub (would be Spain-hist-stub if it existed). — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Tanzania-stub}}

A total of 78 stubs found of which 55 are geo stubs. There's enough to support either this or {{Tanzania-geo-stub}} but not both, and since {AfricaE-geo-stub} is not in need of splitting, I'd prefer to go with the general stub instead of the geo-stub. Caerwine 03:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see comment below. Grutness...wha? 04:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Sudan-stub}}

A total of 83 stubs found of which 62 are geo stubs. There's enough to support either this or {{Sudan-geo-stub}} but not both, and since {AfricaN-geo-stub} is not in need of splitting, I'd prefer to go with the general stub instead of the geo-stub. Caerwine 03:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little unsure about all this. Personally, I hate having separate country-stubs without country-geo-stubs, because I seem to spend almost my entire time on wikipedia replacing geo-stub templates from people who think that because there's a Eucovia-stub but no Eucovia-geo-stub they can replace the existing Asia-geo-stub with an existing non-geo template... which means we never get to find out whether a Eucovia-geo-stub template is needed. Take the case for Tanzania, above - there are 78 stubs in total, of which 55 are geo-stubs. 55 isn't enough for a separate geo-stub category, but some well-meaning sorter is bound to remove the AfricaE-geo-stub template from these articles if tanzania-stub is made, so we won't find out when a further 20 or so stubs take tanzania over the threshold for a geo-stub. What's more, since the geo-stub categories and the country-stub categories work in parallel, what you're actually saying is that there are 21 stubs suitable for Sudan-stub if geo-stubs are excluded. for that reason, I oppose the creation of both of these, especially since with 67 geo-stubs, Sudan is a country I've already mentioned as a potential candidate for its own geo-stub. Grutness...wha? 04:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise situation might be to break Africa-stub up in the same way that Africa-geo-stub is broken up - into the five regions. Thatw ould allow all the non-geo-stubs of Tanzania, Kenya, etc, to get a slightly more specific AfricaE-stub, for instance. It would make sense, because the coutlres of several of the countries in each region do overlap to some extent. Grutness...wha? 04:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's really a matter of which is the lesser of two evils. Ideally, if we have an {XYZ-geo-stub} we'd have also have an {XYZ-stub} to be its parent in addition to {XY-geo-stub}. So the question is, is the lack of proper parenting worse than having to double stub with {XYZ-stub} and {XY-geo-stub}? Perhaps we should lower the stub threshold for parent stub types? Caerwine 19:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. That's definitely possible. My main beef is with having XYZ-stub but not XYZ-geo-stub, since XY-geo-stubs tend to get replaced rather than there being double-stubbing. Which makes it difficult to work out when a new geo-stub category is worthwhile. Having said that, there are now significant numbers of geo-stub categories - more countries have them than don't. Also, there is a certain amount of cultural overlap with many of these countries, especially ones like Kenya and Tanzania which have spent considerable parts of their recent history linked into a larger federation. Ideally, I think the ultimate situation would be for all countries to have both XY-stub and XY-geo-stub categories. The only problem are those where there's clearly little call for both. (Yeah, I know - I've simply restated the problem rather than offering any solutions) Grutness...wha? 09:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A whole bunch of road stubs, part 2

Per the discussions above I propose:

I suppose that New York and West Virginia could be abbreviated... {{US-road-stub}} will probably be down to under 200 articles if these stubs go through and when I finish classifying the ones I have approved above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 00:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a reasonable idea, but the names need work. IIRC, {{NewYork-State-Highway-stub}} (or maybe {{NewYork-statehighway-stub}}?) is the usual standard we're trying to keep to. Anyone? Grutness...wha? 01:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template:NewYork-State-Highway-Stub works for me... I'm trying to maintain consistency with the other stub templates. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 01:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All the existing state highway stubs capitalize "stub"... But I think there's something to be said for bringing atleast that bit inline with the rest of the stub templates. --Mairi 03:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I'm leaning towards capitalizing the stub, but... I'd prefer the consistency so that someone who is doing the classification won't type the wrong thing in by mistake. I'd remember the difference I hope but someone else might not. Otherwise it really doesn't matter to me. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 04:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

19:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't use the two-letter postal abbreviations. Please use the full state name, consistent with the split of the U.S. geo stubs. Please use {{WestVirginia-road-stub}}. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Please, for a modicum of consistency with other stub templates, use:

Alai 03:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that all of the other state highway templates are named with the -State-Highway-Stub convention or something similar. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 04:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting until the outcome of the SFD to create the templates listed above. Another note: {{Texas Highway Stub}} has been created (not by me). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{book-stub}} substub proposals

Two ideas:

  • create a {{fiction-stub}} to at least separate out fiction novels that don't fit into existing fiction stubs like {{Hist-book-stub}} or {{sf-book-stub}}. I think a {{lit-book-stub}} for classic literature would also help; even though literature vs fiction is a POV thing, it's only a stub categorization question rather than a matter of article content.
  • break down book stubs by author nationality - at least substubs for US, UK, Russia, France, Italy, Germany, Latin America, Japan, China, and Africa. We could create more nationality substubs as needed. Not only would this clean up the category, but a user with particular interest in, say, German literature could more easily find a whole set of stubs to expand. | Keithlaw 16:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ISTR we've actually gone the other way on the first idea - isn't there a nonfiction-book-stub? If so, then by default all the other should be fiction books. As to author nationality, it's a good idea in theory, but I think it may need a little more work. I suspect it's a little more complicated than simply categorising by author's nationality. The nationality of an author doesn't automatically tell you what nationality the book relates to: Why should Bill Bryson's book on Australia be categorised under US authored books, for instance? Grutness...wha? 00:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't speak for Keithlaw, but I think on the 1st point he's saying that if we could separate new fiction from classics. All that would need to be done is to make a 'classics-book-stub' and leave the fiction-stub as it is. I'm new to editing, but would this be a problem? A classic would be defined as a classic if someone put it there and no one had major objections. Plus it would just be for stubs, not necessarily an authoritative canonical judgment. I know that I would be primarily interested in working in this category since I like what is traditionally considered classics, and will likely ignore newer books and leave them to be categorized by those that are interested. It just seems like there's a rough 50-50 split between these two categories, and this would help. As to the second point, I think I'd need to hear more discussion.--JECompton 04:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • JECompton, you did a pretty good job of speaking for me after all. That was a big part of what I had in mind - further subdividing the fiction that's left in book-stub. Classics jumped out at me for two reasons. One, it's an area of interest to me and it's a big part of what I read (sounds like you're the same way). Two, I would bet that a lot of visitors to Wikipedia are looking for info on classics; for example, students looking for info to help them write book reports or essays. As for Grutness' objection on nationalities, I was only talking about applying those substubs to fiction. Bryson's book on Australia would go into the nonfiction stub. For example, Stendhal's The Charterhouse of Parma is considered French literature, even though most of the novel takes place in Italy. | Keithlaw 14:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm... perhaps agaiin it's a case of working in the other direction - breaking out a classics-book-stub first and seeing what's left. I'm willing to be swayed by others here who have done more work on this category, though, and I'm a little worried that "classics' could be somewhat POV. ISTR User:DESiegel and user:*Kat* were doing most of the work on the book stubs, but I'm not sure whether either is still part of this wikiproject (it may be worth putting a note on their user pages, though, see if they've got any suggestions) Grutness...wha? 13:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Grutness, I agree with you that classics vs non-classics is POV, but if it's just for stub-sorting, it shouldn't be a big deal because in theory that's not permanent. Besides, if better stub-sorting means more stubs get expanded, I'll take that benefit over any detriment from POV in stub identification. | Keithlaw 14:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just did a sort through the book stubs. There were an fair number of undersorted or missorted stubs, correcting those brought the total to just a little over 800 book stubs. If anthologoes of short stories go in the proposed {{story-stub}} then this cat will easily go below 800 stubs. Rather than what's been proposed, I think what's needed is one more genre-based stub. A stub for the spy/techno-thrillers would easily get over the 60-stub limit, the only problem is what to call it? Caerwine 16:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about "suspense-book-stub?" But back to the point, my goal in this proposal wasn't so much getting the category under 800 but making it easier for would-be editors to find stubs they want to expand. Just because the category is down to 750 stubs doesn't mean I'm going to browse it, but a classic-lit-stub category with 100 stubs isn't so intimidating. | Keithlaw 17:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I counted 32 current book-stubs that would qualify for classic-lit-stub using a very conservative selection process. If I was a little less conservative - including more 20th century novels - the total would be about 55. | Keithlaw 04:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the need isn't that dire, and although it's only for stub-sorting, I see minor (or major) discussions coming up as to the question of what is classical and what isn't; but I like the idea of the {{suspense-book-stub}} or something to the effect of a [[tl|darkwave-book-stub}}, maybe also to include the beloved Ctulhu-stuff :) Lectonar 11:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, someone proposed a {{Cthulhu-stub}} a few months back (it'll be in the archive somewhere). I found about 60 stubs it would suit, but the propsal was rejected. perhaps it's time to revisit it? Grutness...wha? 06:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I'm all for a spy-book-stub or something like that. 'Suspense' seems a bit ambiguous to me--it seems to connote light horror or intense action, or perhaps even psychopathic thriller. I'm not even sure all spy novels necessarily rely on suspense. Is spy-book-stub too exclusive against the techno side? Also, I'm glad to hear about the short story stub--I hadn't thought of that, but was annoyed by the many of those that were a pain. As to the classical stub, If it's not too many, I guess no worries. If there does seem to be an overwhelming number of Booker, Nobel, and canonical books, I would be for this separation.--JECompton 04:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two literature stubs

While resorting misplaced stubs that were in {{book-stub}} there were two types of stubs that I sent back to {{lit-stub}} for now that I think are deserving of their own stubs:

Comments? Caerwine 16:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories of Automobile stubs

Also, please see Truck-stub below. Many truck articles are now classified under AUTO-stub.

Just had a look at Category:Automobile stubs, and the list has grown quite long. Propose to split into car manufacturers, so that all cars produced by Ford, would be listed in {{ford-auto-stub}}, all by GM in the {{gm-auto-stub}} and so on. bjelleklang 12:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overpopulated category certainly needs to be sorted. Please use hyphens in names (e.g., {{bmw-auto-stub}}). Would {{auto-part-stub}} (Category:Automobile part stubs) and/or {{auto-term-stub}} (Category:Automobile terminology stubs) be useful, too? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 13:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than by manufacturers, I think a better immediate split would be US-auto-stub, UK-auto-stub and Japan-auto-stub. Along with those that don't qualify in those subcats that would probably cut the category into four fairly even pieces. If any of those need further splitting, then manufacturer would be an obvious next level down. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could probably be a good short-term solution, but sooner or later, these lists would probably also have to be split up again, with quite a lot more articles to sort. I still think that creating subcategories based on manufacturer would be a better solution. bjelleklang 00:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that either proposed split is a good idea. I'm doubtful that a company based split is particularly viable. There are an awful lot of stubs that come from companies that only produced a few models and thus would never leave {{auto-stub}} save by becoming not a stub. Furthermore, editors interested in the models of a single manufacturer could easily enough start with that manufacturer's article and see what models are in need of being de-stubbed. A country based split also has its problems. Is Chrysler US or German? Is Jaguar UK or US, etc? So what do I propose instead?
  • First of all, there clearly are enough stubs for {{auto-corp-stub}} This would have the added benefit of also helping to trim the Corporation stubs down somewhat.
  • Secondly, An era-based split for the car models themselves. The only real problem is defining the eras. I would suggest the following, but I am flexible concerning the names and periods.

That gives us five stub types in all which should be enough to provide a first approximation. Caerwine 05:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds fair, although I suspect that many stub sorters will get the categories confused. BTW, shouldn't the first one be veteran-auto-stub? Or are veteran cars called brass cars in the US? Grutness...wha? 22:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that what in the UK are called veteran cars (before 1905) and Edwardian cars (1905-1918) are lumped together in the US as Brass Era cars. However, while the end of WWI is of fairly universal significance as a historical marking point, the death of Queen Vicky is a pretty much a UK thing. I fudged the categories slightly as well for ease of use, as I figure the end of WWI, the end of WWII, and the end of Disco, three notable disasters in human history, should be easy to remember for the amateur stub sorter. Caerwine 06:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
QV was 1901, but I get your point. As to the death of disco, I thought that was a celebration :). I'll accept the death of John Lennon as the third notable disaster though. Grutness...wha? 07:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say that I'm still not convinced, as there are close to 1400 stubs in the category. If we sort by production era, I don't think that it'll make the problem go away, only help to make some of the subcategories somewhat shorter. I do not agree with your argument that any future author could look at the manufacturer's article, as there are no way of telling if all models are listed there! Although your suggestion was good, it would involve quite a lot of work compared to sorting by manufacturer, as you would have to check every article, so I still think that sorting by manufacturer is a better idea. bjelleklang 07:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Had a look at the automobile article, and suggest that the stubs are sorted in the same manner.
This gives the following:

bjelleklang 22:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Take a good look at the Automobile stubs. There are maybe 150 GM stubs, 100 Ford stubs, and 75 Daimler-Chrysler stubs in the category, and those companies are only able to reach the over 60 level by combining all articles from all brands used or acquired by those companies. I don't think any other manufacturer could reach 60 stubs because an awful lot of those stubs are for models from companies that went defunct after only producing a few models, and the ones that last tend to have most of their articles not be stubs. So after doing a manufacturer-based sort, of the 1538 suto stubs at present, we'd still be left with around 1200 stubs in the main category. However, what do you think about revising my proposed categories to be decade based:

Might be easier to keep track of for some people, tho they are a bit more fudgy with the names than my first idea. Caerwine 22:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have created {{auto-corp-stub}} as it was not at all controvesial or disputed and have begun to populate it. I have run into one complication tho. A number of the early automobile articles are about short-lived companies that produced nly one model and include info about both the comapany and the vehicle that produced it. For now, I'm generally leaving such stubs in {{auto-stub}} unless it's clear that the focus is on the company and not the car. Caerwine 03:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody have any serious objections to my suggestion (se above, total of 6 subcategories), I'll start sorting wednesday or thursday. Bjelleklang - talk 02:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason the categories were created as Category:Foo auto stubs (e.g. Category:Brass auto stubs) and not Category:Foo automobile stubs? --Mairi 19:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Auto organizations and auto components

Will also add {{org-auto-stub}} and {{comp-auto-stub}} to sort auto-related organizations (not manufacturers), and auto-related components, for example engines, valvetypes etc. Have sorted most of the stubs beginning with a and b, and have at least 10 stubs for both of the abovementioned subcats. Bjelleklang - talk 16:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{auto-org-stub}} and {{auto-comp-stub}} would be more in line with our existing naming standards, and are a more natural word order. Auto-comp-stub is abit of an ambiguous abbreviation, as there's quite a few other things it could stand for, including company. --Mairi 20:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about {{auto-part-stub}} instead of {{auto-comp-stub}}? --Alynna 22:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{auto-part-stub}} sounds fine for me, the same goes for {{auto-org-stub}}. I'm not very experienced with these kind of things, so I appreciate your input! Bjelleklang - talk 12:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the automobile company stub is {{auto-corp-stub}} as the corporation stubs actually include all the ways of organizing a company. The abiguity that a {{auto-comp-stub}} might raise is minor, but since I happen to thing {{auto-part-stub}} is the better choice anyway ... Caerwine 06:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody objects to {{auto-part-stub}} and {{auto-org-stub}} by tuesday 8th., I'll go ahead and create them. Bjelleklang - talk 23:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Truck stub

Propose "TRUCK-stub" Currently all truck stubs: like truck manufacturers, trucking companies, terms, etc., are classified as AUTO-stubs. I would like to break-off the truck releated stubs.

{{Truck-stub}} template request I just started the Tank truck article and found no {{Truck-stub}} under "Transportation" so I added the generic {{stub}} template. It was soon found out (good for you guys) and it was replaced with the {{Van-stub}} which doesn't really fit very well. Anyone feeling creative out there, I think we should have a logo-enhanced {{Truck-stub}} template (a tank truck hauling several thousand gallons of gasoline/petrol ain't a van). Thanks, --hydnjo talk 00:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, and that category would be useful - question is, though, do you want it for trucks, or things like the article you mentioned, which is a lorry? And what about artics, which are a little bit bigger than lorries and a whole lot bigger than trucks (they're the same as the whole truck and trailer, in fact)? In other words, the term truck is used differently in differen countries - what I call a truck is what you'd probably call the tractor part of a truck. So we need a term that's a bit more language-neutral. Perhaps Bigrig-stub would be a solution...? Grutness...wha? 01:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Tank truck article will include small (home hydroseeding slurry or lawn fertilizer/pest control, up to 1000 gal.) to medium (local delivery heating oil or home septic removal, 1000-3000 gal.) to large (major delivery gasoline/petrol, over 3000 gal.) sized trucks. I'm not yet sure about the exact breakpoints so the examples may be imprecise. More importantly, the truck-stub template that I'm requesting would apply to most of the vehicles in the List of truck types or any other vehicle that someone thinks is a truck. The Bigrig-stub idea seems a bit narrow as there are small and medium trucks. I'm just hoping for something more descriptive than the {{van-stub}}notice that is now on the article. If it turns out that I'm making an unreasonable or undoable request or if the word "truck" is too ambiguous for a stub then I'll make do with what already exists.
Or, we could have two templates, {{truck-stub}} and {{lorry-stub}} so as to avoid a difficult international catchall. Or, how about a {{truck/lorry-stub}} or if you prefer a {{lorry/truck-stub}} template.
I understand the need to have some kind of triage to deal with stub proliferation but I don't think that "truck" is all that esoteric.

--hydnjo talk 17:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make sense to have some kind of generic {{vehicle-stub}} under Transport, and then {{auto-stub}}, {{van-stub}}, {{bus-stub}}, {{motorcycle-stub}} and any others we need could be subcategories, if there seems to be sufficient demand for them. Odd vehicles that fall through the cracks in the definitions or that might be called a "lorry" somewhere and a "semi-trailer" elsewhere could just go into {{vehicle-stub}} until the semantics get sorted out. GTBacchus 21:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my ignorance here but you think that a {{vehicle-stub}} should supercede "truck"? My kid's bike is a vehicle! Tell you what, when you folks figure it all out, please as a courtesy (you know where I live) , let me know for future reference. Thanks, --hydnjo talk 22:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hydnjo, a vehicle is any "non-living means of transportation." This includes trucks/lorries. So it is obvious that {{vehicle-stub}} is about the only natural supercessor to {{truck-stub}}, just like {{sport-stub}} supercedes {{football-stub}}. Aecis 22:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One possibility would be to have a generic vehicle-stub as a catch-all and to have something for trucks/lorries etc. if there's a general vehicle stub, then double hyphenating becomes an option, and we could make goods-vehicle-stub or haulage-vehicle-stub for anything from panel vans right up to Kenworths. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that I caused so much anguish over a damn {{truck-stub}} request. Prior to the "stub sorting" effort I would have just made the template myself. In deference to your effort I held back and sought your approval. I also feel confident that this neuron flurry could have been put to better use. My apologies for bringing up such a mundane subject and wasting so much of your time. I continue to be supportive of your project and hope that it will serve us well. --hydnjo talk 07:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heh :) Don't worry - this is standard practice here. And for good reason - changing the name of an article takes a couple of clicks - changing the name of a template-category combination takes a hell of a lot of effort, since it requires null-edits on every article that carries the template. So we want to be sure it's done right first time. I'm pretty sure that there will be a usable stub category soon - it's only the minor details that will take a bit of time. Grutness...wha? 07:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
:::::How do we know what is modern? (Erebus555 11:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
TRUCK-STUB

...is the name I want. Most people around the world know what a truck is, and those whose don't can be educated by.....US! Lorry=truck=camión de carga; cargo-carrier would be a second choice. How about: "Cargo-Vehicle-stub"...?? WikiDon 23:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy motor vehicle.........????
  • Although I haven't participated in this debate until now, I'd say that {{truck-stub}} is the best choice. It's simple, short, and almost universal; just about everyone who speaks english knows what it means. If the category gets large enough, subcats similar to the ones found in [[|Category:Automobile_stubs|auto stubs]] could be added. Also, I don't think we need to add to many categories, at the moment I'd say that {{bus-stub}}, {{truck-stub}} and {{motorcycle-stub}} should suit our needs. Bjelleklang - talk 19:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia-stub

I've been having a discussion with someone who is busily sorting out the Catalan articles on Wikipedia, and he's keen for there to be a separate Catalonia-stub, to be used as a secondary stub with Spain-bio-stub and Spain-geo-stub. The Spanish stub categories overall are a little on the thin side, but I think it should be possible to get close to 100 stubs in a Catalonia category quite easily. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

German bio stubs

I was sorting through {{Germany-bio-stub}} to see if there were wnough for a German actor stub and as long a was going through those 700 or so stubs, I also checked to see if there were any other groups wotrh sorting out. Here's what I'd like to propose:

I'm going to go ahead and create {{Germany-actor-stub}} now, but with {{Germany-academic-bio-stub}} and {{Germany-scientist-stub}} both breaking some slightly new ground, I'd really like some feedback before creating those. Caerwine 22:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, I was thinking about a Polish-scientist-stub as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Writer Stubs

earler discussion on this subject is now archived. This has been moved further down the page to prevent accidental archiving

I just sorted through Ireland, and found 69 writer stubs in {{Ireland-bio-stub}}, so I'll create the split in a few days barring any objections. I'll get to Norway, Poland, Russia, and Sweden as time allows. Caerwine 18:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished sorting Norway. I found only 53 writer stubs. Caerwine 01:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished Poland, enough to justify writers and several other stub sub types, see below for details. Caerwine 19:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished a census of Russia bio stubs, I found enough to justify writers and two other sub types, see below. Caerwine 06:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished sorting Sweden and found 73 writer stubs in the Sweden bio's so I'll create it in a week or so barring objections. Caerwine 05:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{footybio-stub}}

(from WP:SFD) This category has been proposed for renaming from Category:Football (soccer) player stubs to Category:Football (soccer) biography stubs. At the same time, a split seems in order, as there are currently over 2200 stubs. I've gone through about 15% of them and sorted them by continent, and counted Europe 214, Africa 54, South America 24, North America 16, Oceania 13, Asia 12. Within Europe the two biggest countries are England (59) and Scotland (21), with no others over 12. I'd suggest the following split:

Europe could possibly be split further in future, if other countries experience a spurt of stub growth. I've also simplified the category names, leaving out the word "soccer" where "football" is unambiguous (see also the subcats of Category:Football (soccer) stubs). sjorford #£@%&$?! 09:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me - (BTW, this is Grutness, currently not logged in). 00:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Two complaints, one major and one minor:
The major is that in order to be consistent with the names we've used for other stubs, three of these should be {{Euro-footybio-stub}}, {{SouthAm-footybio-stub}}, and {{NorthAm-footybio-stub}}.
The minor is that unless your 15% is randomly picked from all over the alphabet, the actual distribution for all of them is likely to be quite different than what you have seen so far. In my past experience, Asian biographies tend to be underrepresented at the start of the alphabet, so unless you picked a different segment, I'm not too worried about that stub, but I do have a slight bit of concern with the Oceania stub. Nothing major since if it doesn't reach 60, it'll be real close, and it probably does reach 60. Caerwine 07:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, making the template names consistent makes sense (I thought that would be the minor complaint!) IIRC, I took the first ten names from each column on each category page, so there will be some clustering but all parts of the alphabet should be represented. I may do a more detailed check shortly to firm up those figures. sjorford #£@%&$?! 08:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing what you can get done on a slow day at work...I've put revised figures above, and full census results here. It looks like Oceania does only just make it after all, but I think the convenience of splitting the stubs along exact confederation lines makes all these categories worthwhile. Some other country splits may be possible too, although after England and Scotland the largest is Brazil with 71, so that's probably not worthwhile yet. sjorford #£@%&$?! 19:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Two more points. One is that there's currently a discussion over whether to have stub categories use adjective or noun forms. I.e., Category:European football biography stubs or Category:Europe footnall biography stubs. The other is that if most of those Oceania stubs are Australia stubs, as I would suspect, it might be just as well to leave them sitting in the main category and sorting out an Australia soccer biography stub when the time is right. Depends on how many stubs would be left in the base category if an Oceania were created. Caerwine 22:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the last point, I know of one kiwi stub-maker who is soccer mad (he's made half a dozen NZ soccer club stubs lately), so don't be surprised if there are quite a few New Zealand players in there as well. Grutness...wha? 09:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At a quick glance, I saw the best part of a dozen NZ soccer players in there (admittedly I had a hand in the creation of a few of them, so they were easier to spot!). That would be 20% of the Oceania footballers. Given how closely associated (no pun intended) the two countries are in terms of soccer (about as close as England and Wales, in terms of leagues and where national players play), I'd stick with oceania-footybio-stub. Grutness...wha? 10:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{footy-stub}} and {{euro-footyclub-stub}}

I have now gone through Category:European football club stubs. I already proposed {{Sweden-footyclub-stub}} (45 stubs) and {{Scotland-footyclub-stub}} (58). To that I would like to add {{NI-footyclub-stub}} (Northern Ireland, currently 35 stubs) and {{Belgium-footyclub-stub}} (41 stubs). A search through the football clubs by nation categories might bring these countries above threshold level. Next in line would be Italy (currently 29 stubs) and Finland (26). I would also like to move all the club articles that haven't been restubbed continentally yet to a new club stub reservoir, {{footyclub-stub}}. Any thoughts on this? Aecis 14:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will indefinitely postpone the splitting of {{euro-footyclub-stub}}, which doesn't imperatively need to be taken care of. However, as I have noted in another proposal, I've now gone through the letters A to G of {{footy-stub}} again, and I've already come across 81 football-related organizations, player unions, associations, federations and confederations. So I would like to propose {{footy-org-stub}}, for football-related organizations. Aecis 22:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished the count, and there are 120 "{{footy-org-stub}}s" in {{footy-stub}}. Methinks this is more than enough for a separate stub category. Aecis 20:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished restubbing the leftover clubs from {{footy-stub}} to {{footyclub-stub}} - there are 100, so I doubt if {{Africa-footyclub-stub}} is going to get big enough (currently 19). I'd support a merge of these back into the parent category. sjorford #£@%&$?! 14:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most clubs in {{footyclub-stub}} are from Asia (42). Canada has 13, Australia 12, Mexico 9 and 30 are from other countries. So under the given circumstances, I think it's best to move the African clubs from {{Africa-footyclub-stub}} to {{footyclub-stub}}. Once {{Africa-footyclub-stub}} has been empty for 24 hours, it can be speedily deleted (right?). Aecis 21:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy stub

moved from immediately under the message saying "don't put proposals here"

read Category talk:Comedy for the message. (unsigned comment from anon)

FWIW, the proposal there simply says "We should make a comedy stub." (In other words, the suggestion that we should look there is longer than simply repeating the proposal would have been!)

{{Comedy-stub}} has been created by an anon user, despite the objection here. --Mairi

Sub-stubs of {{Org-stub}}

I Propose the following subcategories under {{org-stub}} which is pretty over-full right now:

There are probably more, but that would be a start. GTBacchus 04:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, for a start you don't need the second and fourth ones: {{Party-stub}} or {{Honor-stub}} already exist (the latter for honor societies - we can use that spelling because these things don't exist outside the US). Charity-stub would probably be very useful. As for "Labor-union-stub", it suffers from the problem that honor-stub can avoid by being a US-only phenomenon; most of the English-speaking world calls them Labour unions. Union-stub might be a reasonable name, though. Grutness...wha? 07:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just sampling the fraternities and sororities from Category:Organization stubs beginning with Alpha, I don't get the impression that they're mostly honor societies. I wouldn't be inclined to put a social-oriented or even a service-oriented fraternity in a category called "honor societies". {{Union-stub}} sounds perfectly reasonable - I hope it's clear that it refers to labor/labour unions, and not something else. I'm new on the project, so I don't know how it works, but I'd be willing to go through the pages of organization stubs and pull out specific types, I just need the go-ahead to create new templates, I guess. Or does someone with some kind of admin status have to do that? GTBacchus 08:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, anyone can do it (but make sure to follow the guidelines!) - the main thing is to wait for a week or so, though, for any debate, suggestions, etc. Sometimes the discussion lasts a bit longer than a week if some issues are unresolved (which is why some of the things on this page date back as far as August). As to honor-stub, I'm not from the US so I have no idea what the difference between a fraternity or sorority and an honor society is - I'd assumed they were identical. Perhaps the solution would be to change the scope of honor-stub. Hopefully someone who knows more about the subject can make some suggestions? Anyone...? Grutness...wha? 09:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honor societies are special types of fraternities/sororities for those who are high academic acheivers. There are lots of other types of frats for professional groups, cultural groups and mostly just for socializing. It would probably be easier to just change what honor-stub is for since there arent many stubs in it. BL Lacertae 09:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean we would keep the name {{honor-stub}}, but redefine it to be a category for stubs relating to any fraternity or sorority, kind of like the way {{UN-stub}} now applies to any International Organization? I guess if I were to suggest an advantage to the name frat-stub, it would be that it makes such things as {{honor-frat-stub}} and {{service-frat-stub}} feasible; those would be more awkward if the main name were honor-stub. I don't know whether it's worthwhile to plan for so many fraternity and sorority stubs anyway. :-\ GTBacchus 05:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To that I would like to add {{footy-org-stub}}, for football-related organizations, player unions, associations, federations and confederations. I've now gone through the letters A to G of {{footy-stub}}, and I've already come across 81 football-related organizations. Aecis 22:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC) (Update: I've finished the count, and there are 120 footy-org-stubs in footy-stub.)[reply]
  • I've just noticed that {{UK-org-stub}} exists, and is attached to 308 articles, but isn't wasn't listed anywhere on WP:WSS/ST. Also, there aren't nearly as many frat-stubs as I thought there were, it turns out. I'm gradually working through org-stub and trying to identify sub-categories with the most entries in them. GTBacchus 00:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of party-stub

While thinking about party-stub (see above, and also the proposal for the renaming of its category at sfd), I realised that it may well be time to consider splitting this one. Currently page 1 of the category doesn't get to the end of the letter B. While I realise that there are currently two sub-cats (Communist parties and Liberal parties), I can't help but wonder whether a better way of splitting this (at the risk of sounding like a one-trick pony) is by country and/or continent. I wouldn't be at all surprised if people know the political parties of a particular country better than they would know - say - Christian-Democrat parties worldwide. So I'd like to propose a rough tally followed by a division based on continent first, plus any countries that seem to have large numbers of parties. Any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 07:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Continent would be an easy place to start, and it would sort things out quite a lot and most countries wouldn't get near threshold anyway. In fact, after a quick look through I'd like to propose:

  1. {{Africa-party-stub}}
  2. {{Asia-party-stub}}
  3. {{Euro-party-stub}}

All of which should easily reach 100 stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To that I'm adding {{SouthAm-party-stub}}. I'm going through Category:Political party stubs; now I'm at C, and there are already over 50 of them. Conscious 10:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses stub - {{JW-stub}}

There is a growing number of Jehovah's Witnesses-related articles that are being given a {{christianity-stub}} or {{reli-stub}}. It would help those interested in improving these articles to have a stub solely for JWs. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I lite the idea for the stub, but not the name (we avoid abbrevs wherever possible). This might be an exception to that rule though - I can't think of anything other referred to as JW (except for one of my country's top sportsmen). Grutness...wha? 05:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not a fan of abbreviated stubs either; the only reason I suggested it was the Catholic one being {{RC-stub}}. Anyway, how's {{Jehovahs-Witnesses-stub}}? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Armenia-stub}}

Was surprised to find out that there is no stub and no category for Armenia-related stubs. It's especially unusual since there is {{Armenia-geo-stub}} and almost 100 articles are tagged with it! I'm not sure how many Armenia-related stubs are in Wikipedia right now, but it seems to be necessary root stub/category... --Monkbel 21:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is not at all unusual. For sparsely stubbed countries, it is not at all unusual for there to be more than 60 geo stubs and less than 60 known stubs of other varieties. Armenia is not helped by being essentially a borderland. Depending on how one thinks of Armenia, it could logically be considered part of Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, so trying to track down 60 stubs that could use the proposed stub may be a bit of a challenge. There's a fair number of pre-1918 Armenia related history stubs with {{MEast-hist-stub}} which given that the historical Armenia stretched further south and west than today (all the way to the Mediterrainean) it seemed the best category to place those stubs. Caerwine 21:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An extreme example of this is Antarctica. There is only an {{antarctica-geo-stub}}, and it is an exception to our rules in that we've turned a blind eye to the three non-geographic Antarctica stubs that it marks (along side the 450 geographic ones). Grutness...wha? 23:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why I think Armenia-stub should be created ASAP - just to be sure any new stubs about Armenia will get this mark. And, gradually, old articles will be found and marked... --Monkbel 07:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Given the somewhat fluid nature of the region's boundaries over the centuries, and the fact that there aren't other national stubs in the area, would {{caucasus-stub}} be better? It could take stubs from Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and any specifically Caucasus-related items connected with Russia. It's how the geo-stubs started, too, until there became enough to split them out into separate countries. Grutness...wha? 07:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about a {{caucasus-bio-stub}} as well? I can't name any numbers but I ran across quite a few Georgians and Armenians while sorting {{bio-stub}}s.--Carabinieri 08:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splits of {{biologist-stub}}

I propose creating {{zoologist-stub}} and {{botanist-stub}} as splits of {{biologist-stub}}. Most of the biologist stubs are explicitaly named either as either zoologists or botanists or one of their sub-disciplins (Herpetology, Mammalogy, e.g.). I don't have exact numbers but I'm sure there will be well over 100 of each, since there are over 800 biologists and a large number of them belong to one of these categories.--Carabinieri 16:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds like a good idea to me. I've done a lot of sorting on the scientist stubs. And a lot of the biologists might fit into the medical bio stub category, too. --Etacar11 16:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leery of actively moving stubs into {{med-bio-stub}}. That stub type has several distinct types of stubs that while they do all relate to medicine, don't have much else in common. There are medical researchers, medical practioners who treated famous people (successfully or not), founders of hospitals or medical societies, people whose claim to fame is the first known person afflicted with some ailment, and those who volunteered to be in a medical experiment. Perhaps we should separate out the medical researchers from the others as a sub type of {{biologist-stub}} that would also be a sub type of {{med-bio-stub}}. I haven't done a detailed census of the group, just noted the diversity of med-bio stubs as I've done other bio stub censuses. Caerwine 06:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split {{France-geo-stub}}

About 2000 articles use this stub (see Category:France geography stubs). Dividing this by region, as listed in Régions in France may be the most appropriate way to perform the split. Each region stub category would average 80-90 articles, with a few hundred left over for the original catch-all category. Some regions may not have a sufficient number of stubs to warrant their own stub category, though I haven't looked at the numbers yet to draw such a conclusion. Mindmatrix 18:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely doubtful that each region would have a number near the average. We just split Japan by prefecture, and while the average would have been in the 80 stub range, individual prefectures ranged from a low of 35 to a high of almost 300.

I just ran the numbers; they're not exact, but they are good estimates:

Regions to which I've linked probably deserve their own stubs; others may need it in the future, but should use the general one for now. Mindmatrix 20:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The top six look definitely splittable (using a "pass mark" of 75). I must admit some surprise that Brittany/Bretagne/Breizh doesn't come out higher. With Ile-de-France, would a separate Paris-geo-stub be useful, or would that be gilding the fleur-de-lys? Grutness...wha? 01:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that not all articles have the region name listed; I did a search using the département information, but that wasn't always listed either. And in the case you cited, I only looked for Bretagne; I've updated the count to include the results from searching for Brittany. I couldn't find any stubs using Breizh. Note also that I limited my seach to articles currently marked with {{France-geo-stub}}. I've also updated the counts for Nord-Pas-de-Calais after refining the search - 23 articles with both département names, and 35 each using one name = 93 articles.
I don't think we need a separate Paris stub. None of these proposed stub categories will fill two pages, which is not an overwhelming number to search through. For the record, 130 of those stubs are for Paris, which makes it the second-largest département, after Calvados (in Basse-Normandie) with 206. Rhône is third, with 90.Mindmatrix 02:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not 100% sure but Breizh may only refer to the Breton language anyway. Did you add in those marked "Corsica" and "Picardy" to those marked "Corse" and "Picardie"? :) BTW, when it comes to making the templates, I propose that we ignore accents and stick to the common English names where they exist (Brittany/Corsica/Normandy, etc). It makes sense to use accents in articles and category names, but I think we can make do without them for the templates themselves. Grutness...wha? 04:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated counts to include Picardy and Corsica (I already had Corsica, but didn't include it for some reason), and I've added suggested names for the new stubs, taking into account your concerns. Since some region names are long, I've truncated where it seemed appropriate, using names that would be most recognized and least ambiguous. Our current cut-off is Midi-Pyrénées, then? That'll give us 7 new stubs/cats. Mindmatrix 15:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest using {{CentreFrance-geo-stub}} instead of just {{Centre-geo-stub}}, which can mean just anything. Conscious 18:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I also wouldn't see any problem with {{RhoneAlpes-geo-stub}}. As to what to do with Normandy, though... BasseNormandie might be better, but I'd be easily swayed either way. And yes to the top seven. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated it to {{CentreFrance-geo-stub}}, though it probably won't be created anyway, and {{RhoneAlpes-geo-stub}} is short enough - and more descriptive too. There's at least one reason I'd prefer using {{BasseNormandie-geo-stub}} over {{LowerNormandy-geo-stub}}: the term Basse-Normandie appears in most articles that need to be stubbed with this template. Mindmatrix 00:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support the top nine above "on spec", and anything that hits 60 on the basis on an accurate count, as and when. Alai 16:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the first seven stub templates and categories. Let's see how these fill out before creating anything else, to determine how accurate the counts were. Mindmatrix 16:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just split the Rhône-Alpes stubs - there were 372 that I found, including articles that weren't previously stubbed, or had a stub other than {{France-geo-stub}}. Mindmatrix 21:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing the Basse-Normandie split - 468 articles so far, and I just found a whole whack of 'em that have either no stub or no category... Mindmatrix 03:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This split is essentially complete; for some reason, only 45 stubs are in the Champagne-Ardenne geo stubs category. All other stub categories had more articles than expected. Mindmatrix 18:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poland bio stubs split

Came across three new stub types that would each get over 60 stubs from {{Poland-bio-stub}}.

Absent any objections, I'll create them in about a week. Caerwine 20:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support all these. I earlier suggested US-mil-bio-stub, to which there was muted protest. I'd suggest we go ahead with such splits by country, as and when viable. Alai 06:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I suspect that UK-mil-bio-stub, and similar for France and Germany, won't be far behind. Grutness...wha? 08:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Created all three just now and added them to the list. Now all that needs to be done is to populate them. Caerwine 05:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Populating as we speak, but please also consider {{Germany-noble-stub}} requested below.Staffelde 20:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Population from {{Poland-bio-stub}} complete, bringing the cat down from <700 to <400. Caerwine 04:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

european writer stubs

I counted the european writer stubs. Here are all the countries that received over 30 stubs:

Caerwine counted 104 Polish writers by going through the Poland-bios. This means that these numbers might be much lower than the actual number of stub that would fit into a writer stub category for that particular country. Therefore I propose creating {{Ireland-writer-stub}}, {{Russia-writer-stub}}, and {{Poland-writer-stub}} (that has however already been proposed above).--Carabinieri 11:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to Ireland, Poland, and Russia. In fact the first two have been found to have 60 stubs and I just finished Russia, and will be proposing Russia-writer and two others below. I've counted Norway, and there are not enough for that country. I was going to count Sweden next, but I could do Croatia first if people want. Caerwine 06:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Although I think it is unlikely that these would get more than 60 stubs, the Czech Republic had 26 stubs, the Netherlands 24, and Hungary 21.--Carabinieri 16:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I found 73 writer stubs for Sweden, which was surprising as there are only a little over 300 stubs plus two sub types in Sweden. Caerwine 05:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stub icon

This mountain, mountain range, or peak related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

This should be created. It is a valid stub, and could be used in articles. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 20:21, 15 October 2005 (CDT)

  • I gather that the working idea is for any mountain to be classified under Geo-stubs by location; e.g., a stub about a mountain in Indonesia would go under {{Indonesia-geo-stub}}. GTBacchus 01:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to Mountain-stub, for exactly the reason GTBacchus says. We've already deleted hill-stub and river-stub (which were created without being proposed) - these go directly against the stub hierarchy and are explicitly given as examples of bad splits of geo-stub at WP:STUB#New_stub_categories. Grutness...wha? 05:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know about categories, but stubs should be categorized both by location and type. Now, mountain/hill/river stub look to me more like a natural spinoff of structure-stub, actually, so what do you think about categorizing them there? We may also create a more general category like natural-structure-stub. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are not enough of them per country for the most part for individual categories for them (e.g., Germany-mountain-stub) - over 80% of geo-stubs are for villages and towns. As for categorising them as struct-stubs, the parent category Category:Buildings and structures is for human-made edifices, not for natural features like mountains, so that's a pretty bad idea. In any case, the vast majority of geo-=stub categories are small enough that it's easy for editors to pick out any specific features from them. We're now at the stage where very few - if any - geo-stub subcategories have over 1000 stubs, and most have under 200. And since the overwhelming majority of editors are more likely to know about places of all kinds within their own region than, say, lakes all over the world, it makes far more sense to split things by location. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{fort-stub}}; {{mil-rank-stub}}

Feasible country-based splits of {{mil-stub}} are getting a bit thin on the ground, but here's a couple of pretty clearly defined sub-categories. Fortifications and bases are certainly over "viability" level; ranks are there or thereabouts, if we include things that are technically posts and appointments, which I think is the intuitive thing to do anyway. Alai 03:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm. Forts are a little problematical for the same reason as mountains (above) - a lot of them are listed simply as geographic locations. In this one case, though, it might be a reasonable exception to the rule. Ranks though would make perfect sense. Grutness...wha? 05:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike "mountain-" though, I'm not proposing a wholly new stub-cross-categorisation, but a sub-category of {{mil-stub}}, and hence a sort of an existing (and still oversized) stub-cat. (That being where I found 'em; there may of course be more besides.) A lot of them are already double-stubbed as location-geo-stubs too, that much is true. Alai 17:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are a huge number of these in the varius geo-stub categories. There must be more of them double-stubbed than i thought! Grutness...wha? 23:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not consistently double-stubbed, or anything shocking like that... There's about 100 in the mil-stub hierarchy, though. (Not all of them actual pieces of geography.) Alai 01:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Created mil-rank-stub, sorted the mil-stub ones (that I had a note of, at least). Slightly early, tsk-tsk. I'll hold off for a little longer on forts, given Grutness's caveat, but I'll go ahead tomorrow or so if there are no further obs. Alai 18:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Created fort-; currently populating from the mil-stub sub-tree. Someone might want to have a look to see what's double-stubbable from other categories. Alai 20:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

split of {{Physics-stub}}

I propose adding a quantum physics stub. Like relativity, this is a major area of physics that is in need of distinction. If you do a search for quantum physics, you will find that a large percentage of the articles fit this category.the1physicist 04:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that this is both a pressing split, and a viable one: there's over 1200 in the unsplit category. OTOH, is it perhaps too broad? Ideally one would split this category up to about say 6-10 ways, if there's a sensible scheme for doing so. Alai 16:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well gee, if you want another one I would suggest Theoretical Physics. I think between Relativity, Quantum Physics and Theoretical Physics we'll have covered nearly all physics stubs. If I think of more, I'll let you know.the1physicist 03:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds even more broad. My point is, if there are (by some chance) 800 stubs that come in the "quantum-" sub-cat, it's in no way an optimal split. Can you give us at least a rough estimate of the numbers involved? What about, say, particle-physics-? thermodynamics-? mechanics-? I'll drop a note at WP:Physics and see who else wants to chime in. Alai 04:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think theoretical physics would be way too broad: about 80% of the stubs could fit there so that wouldn't solve the problem. I'd recommend at least particle physics and optics. Would be a good idea to get something to cover condensed matter/solid state physics also. With relativity that would split off some relatively clean chunks. — Laura Scudder | Talk 05:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think theoretical physics is a bad idea, just as experimental would be, because all physics topics would fall into one of those two, not leaving room for other types of stubs. It seems to me more rational to make field-oriented stub categories, like the mentioned quantum physics, optics, and perhaps also astrophysics (I see alot of stubs on that, too) and amybe electromagnetism(?). I also think relatvity is not a good choice, because its more of a general topic, and overlaps with lots of things in QM and optics and al other fields, right? Karol 08:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions, both. Any guestimates as to how many stubs each of those suggestions would cover? Alai 23:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I went through 200 physics stubs in the middle and counted how I would classify them (assuming I'd put as many on there as I thought worked) and got these numbers (the projected total follows the actual number)
  • Optics: 16/96
  • Quantum: 41/246
  • Particle: 38/228
  • Sub-atomic: 17/102
  • Condensed matter: 25/150
  • Relativity: 3/18
  • E&M: 22/132
  • Astrophysics: 8/48
  • Theoretical: 75/450
I think my section of the alphabet (F-L) had an abnormally low number of astro stubs (and it only got relativity stubs still in Category:Physics stubs). — Laura Scudder | Talk 00:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just to put in my two cents... Why don't we divide the stubs as much as possible by the categories physicists actually use? So definitely don't use "subatomic." Also, theoretical still seems big. What kind of theoretical physics is it? All kinds, or is it "fundamental" theories, i.e. particle theory + GR? (I guess there aren't many articles on theoretical condensed mater anyway...) If nothing else, we might split up "theoretical" into "theoretical" and "string"...? That's what the seminars at Berkeley do. Good list overall, though. -- SCZenz 16:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a more useful sub-div of the "particle" stubs, all the better. Types of particles? Actual particles, vs. particle theories and other -related stuff? If not, particle-stub or particle-physics-stub is fine, just a tad hefty, based on the above estimate. I think there's pretty broad agreement that "theoretical-" is way too, well, broad. string-theory-stub would be grand (if the numbers pan out), but surely the "other theoretical" could be much better defined, and less confusingly named. Alai 17:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what all Laura was counting as "theory". It's easy to split off condensed matter theory and stuff like that. But if we're just dealing with particle physics stuff, let me try to give some very detailed possible subdivisions into stubs:
  • Articles on particles: particle-stub
  • Experimental particle physics: particle-expt-stub, maybe along with:
    • Equipment, accelerators, etc.: particle-apparatus-stub
  • Particle Theory: particle-theory-stub, with the following alternatives:
    • Current particle physics theory: standard-model-stub
    • String theory: string-theory-stub
Those are the best I can do on the names, at least. To subdivide theory any more would require people with masters degrees in physics to do the stub sorting. -- SCZenz 00:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. I'm not at all keen on a general "resplit" of theory, but I could see that particle-theory-stub in addition to a more general particle-stub might well be feasible. Would that also be viable for quantum-stubs, or would quantum-field- and quantum-mechanics- make more sense? (I note the main "subfields of physics" template hass each of these at the top level.) Alai 00:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quantum-mechanics- and quantum-field- would both make sense, and maybe quantum-field- could take a lot of stuff that would otherwise have gone in particle-theory- (or maybe such articles would just get counted as both). As for splitting theory, it's the big one, so I thought it made sense to give the best idea I could for dividing it. The splits on experiment would be beneficial, at least in terms of thinking how small a list would need to be before I (as an experimentalist) would actually go down the list and try to fill things in. -- SCZenz 01:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I assumed theoretical would be way too big to be useful. I counted everything that would reasonably fit in theoretical physics (there's actually a good number of stubs on named condensed matter theories). All those I counted as theory I also counted in their respective fields of physics. I didn't make experiment/theory splits by subfield (particle theory stuff got lumped with accelerators), and I think that's best for the stubs, too, as it's rather how the field (and Wikipedia's physics categories) work. — Laura Scudder | Talk 04:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
would subatomic-physics-stub be useful, or too vague, or too broad? Grutness...wha? 09:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that essentially the same ground as particle physics? Alai 23:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a narrower category, as not all particles can be found in atoms. I would think particle would be a better choice, but I haven't checked out the distribution of stubs thoroughly yet. — Laura Scudder | Talk 23:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to the list proposed by Laura Scudder. Very nice job.the1physicist 00:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, if all those on my list existed, many stubs would fit in 3 of the categories. I simply wanted info on all those suggested so far. I would personally recommend the very broad ones on the list not be implemented and that we go with either particle- or sub-atomic- but not both. — Laura Scudder | Talk 01:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Noted; personally I don't think triple-stubbing is the heinous crime some would make it out to be, either. Thanks for the counts, that's a huge help. On that basis, I'd certainly support "optics-, "condensed-matter-" (can we just call this one "mechanics-stub"?) and "electromag-". I'd strongly oppose "theoretical". Quantum is obviously viable, but perhaps a tad too big? Is there a natural further split? I'd be pretty easy either way on that. On the particles, perhaps create both "sub-atomic-" and "particle-", making the former a sub-category (so that double-stubbing on these isn't necessary)? Alai 02:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with you except that the terms condensed matter physics and mechanics are not the same in physics usage. Condensed matter describes systems with large numbers of interacting degrees of freedom: a lot of superfluids, crystals, magnetic materials, etc. Most of the stubs I saw here were named theories of materials and a few crystal scattering terms. I'm not sure how useful optics and E&M would be as distinct stub categories. I'll run the whole thing by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics again. — Laura Scudder | Talk 04:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, there I go, mixing up continuum mechanics and condensed matter. D'oh. "condensate-stub"? The numbers would seem to indicate those would be useful categories, if only because if they're useless to everyone else, all the more reason to hive them off separately... But certainly, it'd be good to get as broad a consensus on said utility as possible. Alai 05:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Two other ideas, although I'm not sure how usefull they would be for stubs: biophysics (or "biological physics") and computational physics. Karol 08:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russia bio stubs

I just finished a census of the Russian bio stubs and found three potential sub types:

and possibly

  • {{Russia-mil-bio-stub}} 55 stubs, plus another 35 stubs if the cosmonaut stubs are included here.

I'm not certain if we should include cosmonaut stubs in the mil-bio-stubs, since technically they aren't notable for what they did militarily, and since Russia-bio will be at <400 without splitting out the mil-bio stubs, it's not all that urgent a split for Russia. Caerwine 06:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against including cosmonauts in the mil-stub, they should be included in {{astronaut-stub}}.--Carabinieri 18:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If cosomonauts were included it would be to change the existing double stub of {{Russia-bio-stub}} {{astronaut-stub}} into the double stub of {{Russia-mil-bio-stub}} and {{astronaut-stub}}. I'm definitely not proposing dropping the {{astronaut-stub}} from their bios. As I've said, I'm neutral enough on the idea that I'm not in favor of either doing or not doing that, but it had enough internal logic that I thought it ought to be proposed. Caerwine 01:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Russia-mil-bio-; of the 29 from mil-bio-stub, 13 aren't tagged as Russia-bios, so that'll make 68, not counting the cosmonauts. Alai 05:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{law-bio-stub}} splits

I propose splitting {{law-bio-stub}} into lawyers and judges. I'm not sure what to call the splits; what do you call lawyers in British English? As far as American English is concerned, it could be lawyer (sounds the best in my opinion), attorney, advocate, or council; although the latter 2 are a little unclear as to what they refer to. Aren't judges called justices in British English?

As to the numbers: I looked through the first 58 (I know that's not very random, but OK) and 30 of them were lawyers and 20 were judges. 3 or 4 were mentioned as being both, and I counted them as both.

Further splits for {{law-bio-stub}} could be {{law-academic-bio-stub}}, for law professors and the such, but I think it would be better to get the lawyers and the judges out of the way first.

Further splits of the lawyers and the judges would probably be by nationality but I doubt that more than US and UK will make sense.--Carabinieri 17:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With <400 articles in {{law-bio-stub}}, I don't see the urgency, especially when it is all too likely that we would have a slow but continuous trickle of stubs from {{lawyer-stub}} to {{judge-stub}}. I say just leave this be and allow {tl|US-bio-stub}} and {{UK-law-bio-stub}} if there are 60+ known stubs, but that would be mainly to help split {tl|US-law-bio-stub}} and {tl|UK-bio-stub}} not {tl|law-bio-stub}}. Caerwine 01:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we have a "slow but continuous trickle of stubs"?--Carabinieri 20:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever a lawyer with a stub article becomes a judge. It wouldn't happen often, and we could hope the occassion would inspire someone to make that person's article into a full article, but it will happen. Caerwine 23:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The generic term in BE is just "lawyer", though there is of course the split into solicitors and barristers. Judges are also generally referred to as judges; "justice" occurs as part of the title of some judges (justice of the peace, Lord Justice so-and-so), but not, unlike the US, as a synonym or direct alternative to "judge". Of course, I say "British", but England and Wales have system of law and set of terminology, and Scotland another (sheriff court, procurator fiscal...).

That's all by the by, though. I agree with Caerwine, why not, a) not bother? There are many more pressing splits to hand. Or b), split by nationality, first. It's not even a terribly "clean" split, since many practice both at once, and obviously most judges will previously have been lawyers, so we could end up with a lot of double-stubbing. Alai 05:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Germany-geo-stub}} splits

I'm pretty sure that every land (the German equivelant to the American states) will deserve it's own cat except maybe Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen. Therefore I propose the following:

We can add Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen as necessary once we've gotten these out of the way.--Carabinieri 18:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest getting rid of a few hyphens:
WP:WSS seems to use the hyphens mainly to distinguish the separate parts of stubs, in this case the region (the land), the nature of the stub (geo) and the stub itself. This can be compared to WestVirginia, SouthDakota and SouthAfrica. Aecis 18:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem to be about due. Agree with Aecis on the hyphens, but I'd have to oppose the abbreviations, which strike me as even less standard, familiar, or useful than the US 2-letter postal codes for states, which we keep trying to prevail on people not to use. I'd be less against "Germany-BW-geo-stub", etc, as redirects, if people were to find those useful in doing the split (or otherwise).
However, there's <900 of these stubs, split between 13 proposed sub-stub-types (and 16 lander total). I'll betcha dollars to jelly doughnuts that some of these are doing to be below the 60 stubs "viability" threshold. Anyone fancy doing a count? Undersized ones should be delayed, or grouped if some logical criterion suggests itself (though even one split will reduce g-g-s below 4 pages). Alai 18:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, BW and NRW are known and, especially NRW, used in Germany. The problem with Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania that in German it's called Mecklenburg-Vorpommern making an abbreviation problematic. We could use
Stub icon

This Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania location article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

, but that could also be interpreted as only including Mecklenburg. I think we could start with the "safe laender" Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bavaria, eg; but I could also volunteer to count them.--Carabinieri 19:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't say totally unused and unknown: just moreso (at least in English) than abbreviations we've already rejected using. I'd happily agree with starting with the "safer" ones. (Say, the top four of the following (thanks, MM).) Alai 21:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a quick google search (restricted to en.wikipedia.org), and got the following:
  • Bavaria - 82
  • Baden-Württemberg - 56
  • North Rhine-Westphalia - 50
  • Lower Saxony - 48
  • Berlin - 37
  • Thuringia - 30
  • Saxony-Anhalt - 29
  • Hesse - 28
  • Saxony - 26
  • Rhineland-Palatinate - 22
  • Schleswig-Holstein - 19
  • Brandednburg - 17
  • Hamburg - 14
  • Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania - 7
  • Saarland - 5
  • Bremen - 5
Note, however, that some articles may identify in which district a location is in, but not the state; for example, Apensen. This skews the numbers downward. In order to get a better count, we need to add totals for searches on each district, excluding the state name (all articles which have the state name have already been captured). For example, googling for site:en.wikipedia.org "This German location article is a stub." stade -"lower saxony". This returns 2 results, increasing the count for Lower Saxony to 50. Unfortunately, there are many districts; you could probably search for them in batches (google has a 32-term limit on searches) - I count 13 more articles for Lower Saxony, giving 61 total, when searches for all districts are included. Mindmatrix 20:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have thought Germany was yet at the stage of needing splitting - for the most part I'd be happier splitting out a few of the remaining countries before regions in countries, though some regional splits (where the stub numbers are very high) are a bit more necessary. France, the UK, US, Australia and Japan all needed to be split - all had close to or over 2000 stubs. There aren't yet 1000 German geo-stubs, and if the count above is anything to go by, Bavaria's the only one of the Lander that reaches threshold anyway. If we're not careful, we'll be in serious danger of creating so many regional geo-stubs that we don't know what we've got and what we haven't. If we do go ahead with it, I'd be strongly against redirects from abbreviations, BTW. Nowhere else has then, since they can be ambiguous, so Germany shouldn't either. I'm also beginning to wonder whether the mountain-stubbers have a point. Perhaps we should be thinking primarily of splitting by country (and in some cases by region), and then by type of feature. Not having mountain-stub per se, but having a Switzerland-mountain-stub as a subset of Switzerland-geo-stub, for instance. Charging into smaller and smaller regional splits may be counter-productive, though. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's over 800, so it's definitely at the stage of splitting, by our own guidelines on such. Remember there's only 16 laender, so that means several of them will certainly be "viable", unlike the issues with US states and UK counties. I'd in theory agree with you on type-of-feature, but in practice the vast majority of geo-stubs seem to be settlements, so it wouldn't generally get us very far. OTOH, if someone suddenly created stubs on all 300 Scottish Munros, say, it'd be quite attractive. Alai 01:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the proposed redirects at all. BW is the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2code for Botswana, and RP is a reserved ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code for the Philipines (due to usage in another set of international two-letter codes). However, any that meet the 60 stub threshold, I say go for it! As for names, I suggest aqueesing together spaces but keeping hyphens that are part of the name, ala {{Mecklenburg-WesternPomerania-geo-stub}} and {{NorthRhine-Westphalia-geo-stub}} Caerwine 02:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I counted the first page of stubs (199 stubs) and here are my results:

  • Baden-Württemberg: 27
  • Bavaria: 23
  • North Rhine-Westphalia: 23
  • Thuringia: 22
  • Lower Saxony: 20
  • Schleswig-Holstein: 17
  • Rhineland-Palatinate: 15
  • Hesse: 12
  • Saxony-Anhalt: 10
  • Saxony: 9
  • Berlin: 7
  • Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania: 6
  • Brandenburg: 2
  • Hamburg: 2
  • Saarland: 1
  • Bremen: 1

There are currently a total of almost 860 stubs in this category. Assuming that these numbers are representative of all the stubs in the category (which they should be more or less, since they are all german names for towns, eliminating the possibility of a language bias), the first six or seven laender should get a cat. If someone wants me to count all of the stubs, I'll do that but I don't think it's necessary.

As to the proposal of splitting by feature: the feature, which received the most stubs was (except settlement, of course) river (6 stubs), not nearly enough to justify a cat.--Carabinieri 18:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with Japan stub sorting suggests that names may cluster, though that may be specific to Japan, whose place names in english most often start with the letters H, K, M, N, S, T and Y. I don't think we need to count all the stubs, but I also don't think we need seven new stubs (yet). The top three in each of our lists are the same, so let's start with those, and see what we're left with after the initial split.
I'm also not in favour of the redirects, and I'd like to suggest trimming the stub names down a bit where it makes sense to do so. I think splitting by feature should be done in addition to geographical splitting, and further that this type of split be done at the country level only. Hence, mountains would receive two stubs - one for the region they're in, one for their country's mountain stub. Mindmatrix 16:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm the only one who wants the redirects. If I may, I would suggest, however, that at least Baden-Württemberg be accesible with both {{Baden-Württemberg-geo-stub}} and {{Baden-Wuerrtember-geo-stub}}.--Carabinieri 14:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with {{Baden-Wurttemberg-geo-stub}} (with no umlaut), since that's the most common spelling in English. There isn't a hard and fast rule about it here, but we do avoid accent marks in template names, for ease of typing. Grutness...wha? 14:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-midwest-road-stub}}; {{US-northeast-road-stub}}; {{US-south-road-stub}}; {{US-west-road-stub}}

{{US-road-stub}} is splittable, but equally, many statesworths are well below the normal creation threshold. I suggest we follow the same split as with the {{US-geo-stub}} subtree: four regional sub-categories, to be resplit as viable, using the "-road-stub" terminology for consistency and inclusivity. Alai 02:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd postpone this one until we see what happens with all the highway stubs at SFD. Ideally, I'd knock them together, so that every Foo-state-highway-stub is changed to Foo-road-stub, allowing it to include all roads and streets in the state as well. Grutness...wha? 04:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, it doesn't really depend on that, though, as it'll make very little difference to the numbers in US-road-stub: the splits would be viable, but not necessitated, either way. My deletions would add a couple of dozen back into the general category; my renamings would allow some, probably only a handful, "back in" to state-specific categories that weren't "State Highways" and the like. Alai 18:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but any renamed "State Highway" categories would have to be children of your new categories, no? So they'd be stubbed then restubbed a few days later. Grutness...wha? 22:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Grutness here... it would be too much work to go back and fix things (California has over 100 stub articles alone for example). Let's wait until we see what happens at SFD. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Subcatting them that way would make sense, sure. So I'll agree it's sensible procedurally to wait, certainly; which presumably is what'd happen anyway. (I certainly wasn't about to "speedy" these...) I just don't see it why it would logically effect the outcome, either way. So if you meant postpone creation, certainly, I took you to mean postpone consideration.
Rschen, I'm not proposing anything here that would affect those California stubs at all; certainly not recatting them as US-west-road-stub, which would be pointless, nay, counterproductive. Nor would it affect anything in any other stub category of feasible size -- yours included. The point is to use it for the unsorted articles in US-road-stub, of which you'll recall complaining about the excessive size. (OTOH, fixing 100 stub categorisations is hardly infeasible, where required -- I believe it's somewhat traditional for Grutness to scoff lightly at such propositions at about this point...) Alai 04:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Commonwealth-mil-stub}} or {{Oceania-mil-stub}}; and {{Europe-mil-stub}}

Doesn't look like any further country-specific mil-stub categories are going to come close to 60. The above two would do so as a catch-all (well, catch-some, at least), and would also be useful for a number of "generic British commonwealth military" and "generic European military" stubs, of which there are also a number. Alai 02:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Europe definitely. Willing to be swayed on the Commonwealth one - from the point of view of military relationships it does make a little more sense than regional ones, but it does go against precedent in other stub types. Certainly there is overlap in, say Australia, New Zealand, Canadian, and South African military so it might work. Grutness...wha? 04:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, makes no sense geographically: pesky imperialists. Based on a count-down of mil-stubs, it seems to be the only one likely to fly at all for these (at least until someone comes along and creates a shedful more of 'em). Though adding in counts from mil-ship-stubs might make Oz and/or NZ "viable" (either individually, or as Australasia-/Oceania-mil-stub), if those were then systematically double-stubbed. Alai 16:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oceania would be my preference (and probably that of many NZ editors - the term Australasia's not universally accepted here - in any case we use oceania for most of these things). I'd have suggested ANZAC, but while the term nowadays refers to just about anything that is done jointly by Australia and New Zealand, its army origins would make it ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's indeed a fair few Oz naval stubs, putting that possibility into the 50s, as against a couple of dozen more for the (unsorted) C/w as a whole. I'd prefer the latter as it'd get more things out of mil-stub, but either will do in a pinch, so I'm adding your suggestion as an option to the proposal. Anyone else have a view on this? Alai 03:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Created Europe-mil-; starting to populate. Alai 20:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to do this to you, but shouldn't that be {{Euro-mil-stub}}? Grutness...wha? 12:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Primate-stub}}

We've got about 75 primate stubs that I can count that are tagged as just mammal stubs. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds logical to me: parent is quite largeish, if not quite fissile-unstable yet. Alai 00:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

For around a dozen articles on military unit types, and the 80 or so specific unsorted battalions, regiments, brigades, etc. (More if the US, UK, etc, ones already sorted are double-stubbed.) Alai 03:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add a few from Poland-related stubs. I wonder if this category would be only for for unit types, like Chorągiew, or for entire units like 1st Polish Army? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Both. Chorągiew actually appears in my 'count' of unit types, 1st Polish would be in addition to that for actual units. (I didn't count in any of the existing sub-categories.) I started off counting them separately, but it's clear the first doesn't hit the threshold, and them seem more naturally included here than with "ranks", say. Splitting up the actual-units by size doesn't seem likely to work, either, unless we're very careful about size cutoff, which would then probably not be very clear to other stub-sorters. Alai 15:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I am going over the Poland-stub category, here are some relevant ones you may or not may want to add to your list: Armia Ludowa, Batalion Parasol, Batalion Zośka, Confederatio, Confederation of Dzików, Kopia, Lisowczycy, Leśni, Operational Group, Poczet, Polish 28th Infantry Division, Pospolite ruszenie, Prusy Army, Rokosz, Rota (formation), Tajna Armia Polska, Wołyńska Cavalry Brigade. I hope that when you get your new templates you will go over those articles and update them :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Four of them already on the list, rest noted, thanks. Are there enough Polish military stubs in total for a {{Poland-mil-stub}}? Especially as there's a wikiproject... Alai 03:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of the stubs I am considering, but I haven't done the exact count - perhaps you should ask somebody from the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Polish Army to do a count. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, I've already mooted it there... :) Given the WP, the threshold would be lower: surely there must be at least 30 or so? I found 15 in the mil-stub category, there's probably more in weapon-stub, firearm-stub, WWII-stub, etc, as well as outside the hierarchy (as are the majority of the above). I think it'd be a shoo-in if someone from the WP suggested it (hint, hint!), but I can hardly force them if they don't want it... Alai 03:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure the poland-mil-stub would be feasible, as you point out there are various equipment-related stubs and such (like Ursus wz.29). Btw, found one more unit-stub for you: Zawisza (Szare Szeregi). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Struct-stubs

Currently, struct-stub is a bit of a mess. We've been splitting by location and also by building use. So we've got Germany, UK, US, Canada, India, Masts, Churches, Universities... The whole thing needs a bit of work. Having said that, the following would be useful:

I've been counting the stadiums in {{footy-stub}}, and I've found 102 stadium stubs. So this one should easily make it. Aecis 20:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the number of Coeania struct stubs should get very close to 100 after I've finished re-stubbing the Melbourne categories. Grutness...wha? 05:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Created both, as {{Stadium-stub}} and {{Oceania-struct-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On a sidenote, I think we can benefit from Poland-struct-stub. I have been going through Poland-stubs and Poland-geo-stubs and there would be a few dozen of structures to channel to Poland-struct-stub cat. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you think of natural structures? See my proposal above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They get Poland-geo-stub - and if that category gets too big, they'd be split by region within Poland - same as all other countries. Grutness...wha? 01:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More geo-stubs

I've also completed the latest tally, and the following look to be ripe to split:

Of these, the only real problem one is New Brunswick - it would almost certainly mean getting rid of maritimes-geo-stub and dropping the dozen or so Prince Edward Island stubs back into Canada-geo-stub (which would be considerably smaller by then anyway. NB has over 100 stubs of its own, though. Grutness...wha? 03:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like user:Morwen jumped the gun a bit and has made the two English county ones in the couple of hours since I made the proposal... Grutness...wha? 06:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on all these splits, and also agree on the elimination of {{Maritimes-geo-stub}}; however, I think we should not delete it immediately, since it is probable that other PEI location stubs will appear soon, perhaps warranting its own stub/cat - I'd like to avoid multiple re-stubbing of articles. Also, I was just going to go ahead and make the Canadian templates, given previous precedent (and current criteria) for the provincial stubs. Mindmatrix 19:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I'll load up the stub-splits page. The problem with keeping the maritimes stub for now is that PEI only has 10-15 stubs at the moment, but you're right about re-stubbing twice, so I'll agree to let it stand. Grutness...wha? 22:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually completed the Canadian splits; the Maritimes category is down to 18 articles. I propose that it be deleted, and merged to the Canada geo stubs (as you mentioned) by the end of October, if it hasn't reached a minimum of 40 articles by then (note that I'll be creating some stubs). If it does reach that minimum, I propose we rename it to {{PEI-geo-stub}} or {{PrinceEdwardIsland-geo-stub}}, or raise the issue again in this forum. Feel free to set a different minimum requirement, keeping in mind the date, of course. Mindmatrix 03:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well done - and sorry that i didn't get the lists there in time (I got sidetracked working on the renamed malborne categories). I've added the NJ, iraq and guinea lists. As for PEI, even with a small number it might make sense to finish it off and change it over - and do Yukon and NWT, for that matter, since they're the only three provinces/territories left to do. Grutness...wha? 03:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've just finished splitting the New Jersey stubs - 168 in all. I was going to suggest splitting off New Hampshire and Maine, just to finish off the US northeast, but there are only 98 stubs left in that category though. Mindmatrix 03:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All the splits are complete. The Iraq category has 74, Guinea has 70. Mindmatrix 00:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Painters

Another overpopulated category is Category:Artist stubs. I noticed that there is no daughter category for painters. A first impression is that there are more than enough stubs about painters for a separate stub template and matching category. Googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +"artist stubs" +painter" returned no less than 452 hits, so this one should easily reach the threshold. Aecis 14:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we do this, a {{Sculptor-stub}} would also possibly be useful. The other option, of course, would be by nationality. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like {{painter-stub}} would contain just about any article currently in Category:Artist stubs. So perhaps we should already start thinking about splitting {{painter-stub}}. What would be the wisest split? By nationality (e.g. {{UK-painter-stub}}), by genre (e.g. {{abstract-painter-stub}}), or both (and doublestubbing where necessary)? Aecis 11:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As with musicians, I'd favour nationality over style. While a lot of artists stay in the same style throughout their careers, many of them do not, so genre wouldn't necessarily be useful. Was Picasso always a cubist? Was Pollock always an abstract expressionist? Another option would be era - maybe by century, say {{17C-artist-stub}}, {{20C-artist-stub}}, etc. Grutness...wha? 11:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If we sort by era, I think it would be better to sort by style period (e.g. Renaissance, Baroque) than by century. Aecis 11:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting {{India-geo-stub}}

I have a suggestion. Currently, all India related geo stubs are bunched together and the page is gradually becoming unwieldy and simply a long list of places in alphabetical order. I think if these stubs are re-organized in state-wise sub-stubs (like the existing ones: {{TamilNadu-geo-stub}} and {{Kerala-geo-stub}}), the page will have a lot of value-addition. I may also add that without coming here, I added two more such sub-stubs: {{Jharkhand-geo-stub}} and {{Bihar-geo-stub}}. Mairi pointed out the significance of proposing creation of sub-stubs here for valuable comments and observations of other users. I think that all India related geo-stubs may be split into state-wise stubs for better organization/ indexing of all India related geo-stubs. Thus, there will ultimately be as many India geo sub-stubs as are states in India – for example: {{Gujarat-geo-stub}}, {{UttarPradesh-geo-stub}} and so on. This will make the work of user/s interested in developing geo-stubs of a particular state of India, and I may repeat shall surely be a value addition to India-geo-stubs page. I invite suggestions and further comments. --Bhadani 14:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

as with the recently split Japan-geo-stub, this is probably a good idea. Again, as with Japan, the way to proceed will be to see which Indian states pass the threshold for splitting (I'd suggest about 80 stubs), and split them off first. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That should be ok I think. --Bhadani 13:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-stubs of {{Band-stub}}

Currently this stub (under Music) is 22 pages long – I propose that two sub-stubs be created:

Checking the first three pages of {{Band-stub}} yielded over 200 articles that could go to {{US-band-stub}} and 100 to {{UK-band-stub}} – and there's still 19 more pages to go! Articles not conforming to the new sub-stubs would remain in {{Band-stub}}. Any thoughts? --Bruce1ee 14:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm half-inclined to say "speedy!", but it looks like there are so many of these that yet further splits will be necessary, sooner rather than later. If that pattern holds, there'd be 1500 US bands, which would be waaaaaay in excess of what'd be required for a further split. (By genre, say?) Though I suppose a 'root' category will be necessary anyway; I just wouldn't necessarily bother sorting them immediately, if they'll just have to be re-sorted almost immediately. (Should we have a shortcut at WP:Sisyphus?) The same would be somewhat true of the UK ones. Alai 17:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to sort by genre. The first possible templates that come to mind are {{rock-band-stub}}, {{rnb-band-stub}}, {{hiphop-band-stub}}, {{metal-band-stub}}, {{punk-band-stub}} and perhaps {{jpop-band-stub}}, {{reggae-band-stub}} and {{ska-band-stub}}. Aecis 22:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure genre is so simple when it comes to bands. In my experience, plenty of bands fall outside easy categorisation in one genre. And I think "rock" is vague enough it could be considered to include all the genres you mentioned... Sorting by country doesn't seem so bad. Genre could be useful to some extent, especially within the huge country divisions, though. --Alynna 23:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with A.K on all points. "Rock" would probably have to be refined to some set of sub-species, like indie-, prog-, AOR-, etc, or some such. Per-country is the more clear-cut place to start, even if it almost immediately gets us back to the genre issue for the Big Two. (Hopefully not too many UK-jpop-band-stubs to worry about, though I've been wrong before...) Alai 23:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps by composition, at least as a first stage? Obviously a count would need to be done, but {{orchestra-stub}}, {{big-band-stub}}, {{singinggroup-stub}}, would all be distingishable mainly by the instruments played rather than the style of music. Another possibility might be {{backing-band-stub}} for a band such as the E-Street Band that's notable mainly because they were paired with a notable front man. Caerwine 23:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be far happier with by nationality than by genre, but Caerwine's suggestion has merit (though I'd make it orchestra-stub, jazzband-stub, singinggroup-stub, and backinggroup-stub). Perhaps that first, then by nationality? Genre's pretty amorphous for a lot of bands and you'll end up with arguments about several, I'm sure. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what's the consensus? Splitting by nationality first I think would be easier, and then by genre? How's this for a revised proposal?

If this is acceptable, we just need to settle on the genres. --Bruce1ee 07:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised my proposal again, this time showing the genre-within-nationality and the projected counts (counted the first 3 pages then projected to 22 pages). Those stubs with less than 80 hits I've rejected.

--Bruce1ee 10:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We've been consistent about always keeping nationality at the start, so if this scheme is followed, it should be {{US-hiphop-band-stub}}, etc. and not {{hiphop-US-band-stub}}. Compare with {{US-film-actor-stub}} and the other sub types of {{US-actor-stub}}. Caerwine 03:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that – I should've looked at the naming convention of existing stubs. I'll amend accordingly. --Bruce1ee 05:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-stubs of {{theat-stub}}

I would like to propose a stub for plays {{play-stub}} and one for dramatists and playwrights {{playwright-stub}} that would simply be for playwrights. These stubs could also be categorized under {{lit-stub}} and {{writer-stub}}, respectively. These stubs would help to lessen the number of {{theat-stub}}s. What say you? Ganymead 22:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. --Alynna 23:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I've been going thru {{lit-stub}} some recently, and one for plays would be quite useful. --Mairi 23:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of clarification...the playwright stub is for writers, poets AND playwrights. I'd like to see one that just includes playwrights. Carry on! *Exeunt* Ganymead 01:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with just theat-stub and I use it quite frequently...I'd misspell it if it were theater-stub...I'm too comfortable typing theatre. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 03:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, {{theatre-stub}} and {{theater-stub}} are both redirects. If the non-standard abbreviation is a bother, I suppose we could always go to {{theatrical-stub}}, and be nonstanard because of the use of an adjective instead of a noun. Even if wr don't we might want to change Category:Theatre stubs to Category:Theatrical stubs. Caerwine 03:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop stubs

As I noted above, there are 111 biographies of (arch)bishops in {{reli-bio-stub}}. I don't know how many more there are in e.g. {{christianity-stub}} and {{bio-stub}}. I would like to (again?) propose {{bishop-stub}} and Category:Bishop stubs. Aecis 22:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested above, I'd be more keen simply to split reli-bio-stub by religion rather than actual rank: christian-bio-stub/moslem-bio-stub etc. The problem of course would be people being added to the categories not because they were religious leaders, but simply because they profess a particular religion. So yes, bishop-stub sounds feasible. How about imam-stub? There must be quite a number of them in there, too... Grutness...wha? 00:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are an immense amount of biographies of muslims in {{islam-stub}} and {{reli-bio-stub}}, which both could do with splitting. So Template:Imam-stub could indeed be viable. Aecis 11:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned it last time, but it got no responses, so I'll suggest it again: perhaps something like christian-relibio-stub/muslim-relibio-stub, to indicate that it's just not anyone who professes the religion? Or if not that, perhaps general christian-clergy-stub? --Mairi 18:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I didn't respond to your proposal back then was that I didn't know how I felt about it. I couldn't make up my mind either way, and I still can't. There are pro's and con's to it. Currently, {{reli-bio-stub}} has between 1,100 and 1,200 articles. About 95% of these are about a christian or a muslim. This division would mean that we would replace one large category with two large categories. Another problem is that it could become a catchall for seemingly unrelated people (e.g. 9th century tribal chieftains and 20th century theologians). OTOH, {{muslim-relibio-stub}} or {{islam-relibio-stub}} could be very useful for early muslims who played an important role in the development and spread of islam, but who did not fit within "bureaucratic structures" (like the tribal chieftains). When it comes to christians with stub biographies, many seem to fall within these structures. For them we could use {{christan-clergy-stub}}. Other christians can be double-stubbed {{christianity-stub}} and {{reli-bio-stub}}. Aecis 22:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the following:

{{Christianity-bio-stub}}

{{Catholicism-bio-stub}}
{{papal-stub}}
{{bishop-stub}}
{{Protestantism-bio-stub}} (sounds a little odd)

{{Islam-bio-stub}} (I don't know how that could be split further: I guess Imams would be one definate split)

{{Judaism-bio-stub}}

Further religions: Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, eg, can be split (if necessary) once we've gotten the Big Three out of the way--Carabinieri 02:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In your structure above, {{bishop-stub}} is a subcat of {{Catholicism-bio-stub}} and so excludes Orthodox, and Anglican bishops, as well as other Christian groups that have bishops? I think it should go directly under {{Christianity-bio-stub}}. In fact, once this is created, is {{Catholicism-bio-stub}} really all that useful? DES (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say the same thing. Either split by "flavour" or "rank", not by both. How about:

Grutness...wha? 11:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would the theologian ones needs to be "theologian-bio", or could they just be "theologian"? --Alynna 19:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to professions, we usually don't use "-bio" in the template title, like {{journalist-stub}} and {{economist-stub}}. So I would edit some of Grutness' proposals to {{Clergy-stub}}, {{Bishop-stub}}, {{Pope-stub}}, {{Christian-theologian-stub}} and {{Islamic-theologian-stub}}. Aecis 20:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Grutness on hierarchy, and Alynna and Aecis on the unnecessary "-bio"s. Alai 20:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't {{Imam-stub}} work as well instead of {{Imam-bio-stub}}?--Carabinieri 16:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - my fault. I automatically added "bio" to everything without thinking. I also used the proposed new name of pope-stub (papal-stub is up for renaming at sfd). Grutness...wha? 02:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be {{Christian-clergy-stub}} instead? as clergy isn't necessarily specific to Christianity... Other than that, Grutness's revised proposal sounds good. --Mairi 02:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{theologist-stub}} has been created prematurely. If it's worth keeping, I think it ought to be renamed to theologian-stub. --Mairi 02:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it ought to be kept as a split of {{reli-bio-stub}} and {{academic-bio-stub}}. {{Islamic-theologian-stub}} and {{Christian-theologian-stub}} should be split of {{theologian}} and {{Christianity-bio-stub}} and {{Islam-bio-stub}} respectively.--Carabinieri 14:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created {{bishop-stub}} and Category:Bishop stubs. Aecis praatpaal 00:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wars and Rumors of Wars

I've come across two wars that each have easily over 80 stubs for them already.

I've found 97 stubs so far for a {{NapoleonicWars-stub}}. I asked over on WikiProject Battles and they indicated a preference for such a stub to include both the Napoleonic and French Revolutionary Wars in a single stub, since for those who do split them apart, there's no agreement over where to put the split. This stub would include wars between the European powers from 1792 to 1815.

I've also found 85 stubs so far pertaining to the American Civil War. I'd prefer to name this {{AmericanCivilWar-stub}} rather than {{USCivilWar-stub}} for two reasons. One is that it wouldn't be right to ignore the CS, and the other is that if I can find enough stubs, I intend to propose a {{BritishCivilWar-stub}} to cover the English Civil War and the interrelated conflict in Scotland and Ireland. Finding enough stubs for the BCW and some other wars I hope to find the necessary stubs will require going thru the history and mil-bio stubs looking for war-related stubs which I haven't done yet. Caerwine 00:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea... though I'm a little hesitant on the names. The ECW may have spilled over into ireland and Scotland, but it's universally known as the English Civil War. Perhaps a Cromwellian-stub (England/Ireland) and Jacobite-stub (Scotland) instead, with slightly different boundaries as to what is covered by them, might be a way around this? American Civil War I've no problem with as a name, though (BTW, if you're in contact with WP Battles, you might like to ask them about the battle-stub/war-stub problem listed on WP:WSS/D). Grutness...wha? 00:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite universally... "Wars of the Three Kingdoms", and "British Civil Wars" are more generally-scoped terms. I wouldn't object to EnglishCivilWar-stub being construed "loosely", if there's enough stubs for this to be worthwhile. (There's approximately 0 of these in mil-stub, IIRC.) On war-stub, They're already discussing it "locally" at the WPs, I trust they'll report back in due course. Alai 01:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there will be many stubs for the English Civil Wars, if only because the subject was quite well-represented in the 1911 EB; many of the articles on the subject were imported directly from it. If it were created, the main proviso would be to avoid naming it {{ThreeKingdomsWars-stub}} or the like, for obvious reasons.
As far as {{War-stub}} versus {{Battle-stub}}, the respective projects are in the process of discussing a merger; assuming that occurs successfuly (probably in a few days), we'll be in a position to redirect {{War-stub}} to a place of your choice :-)
On a related note: any possibilities for a {{Sengoku-stub}}? Kirill Lokshin 01:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't seem very related. :) I don't know, how are they sorted at present, and roughly how many are there at present? I did wonder at one point whether {{puzzle-stub}} would be a plan: there were certainly quite a few puzzles in {{game-stub}}. Alai 02:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I get the feeling that you're confusing Sengoku with sudoku ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It must be my sinuses displacing the other contents of my head. :) Part of my question remains material, though: how many, and where are they? I counted 17 Japanese-related articles in mil-stub, only a few of them mediaeval; are there lots lurking in mil-bio, or someplace...? Alai 03:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens in battle-stub; I don't know if further splitting involving that is of interest, however. Kirill Lokshin 03:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Battle-stub is certainly big enough for splitting to be useful, but this sounds more like it'd be an exercise in double-stubbing for these cases, rather of splitting per se. This is more of an exercise in splitting (or starting?) a Japanese-history-related stub category though, really, I think. Alai 03:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I always find it a battle putting the numbers into tyhe right squares... on a more serious note, a Napoleonic-stub (by that or another name) might also be useful. Grutness...wha? 10:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that {{Sengoku-stub}} can wait until we have a {{Japan-hist-stub}} to subdivide. As for Cromwell, I've come across 19 stubs so far for the rucki that the Lord Protector was involved with. As might be expected, the Battle stubs are all historical, so of the cats I've searched so far, they've provided most of the feeder stock. Caerwine 19:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman-stubs

The Ottomans have the misfortune of having had an empire that at its height covered parts of three continents. There are well over 60 Ottoman-related stubs but no stub type for them. Therefore I propose a {{Ottoman-stub}} for them. (I'd also propose a {{Byzantium-stub}} for the same reason but I haven't found 60 Byzantine stubs yet.) Caerwine 00:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropology-stub

We have template:anthropologist-stub, but no template:anthropology-stub. Anthropology is an important science, and many articles that are now tagged template:culture-stub or template:socio-stub would benefit from it. Examples: avunculism, ancestor worship, auxology or cultural artifact. Plus we even have an empty Category:Anthropology stubs, parent to anthropologist-stubs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This would probably well fill a gap - there's quite a bit in culture-stub, archaeology-0stub, and maybe even mammal-stub that could take this. support. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also strongly support Skyodyssey 06:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Update: going in other direction, I think we would also benefit from template:sociologist-stub. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An anthropology stub is, I think, long overdo. I know our hard-working stub-sorters are fond of abbreviated names; perhaps they'd be interested to know that "anthro" is a pretty common one. {{anthro-stub}}, anyone?--Pharos 09:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're actually not that fond of abbreviations here - we try to avoid them wherever possible. Mind you, anthro is pretty unambiguous... Grutness...wha? 09:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cyprus-stub}}

I would like to propose a stub for topics relating to Cyprus. In many cases, I find it wrong to use either {{Greece-stub}} or {{Turkey-stub}}. Cyprus has been an independent country for 45 years. Here is the proposed stub. The code is based on the stubs for {{Greece-stub}} and {{Turkey-stub}}. The flag size (30px) is based on {{Denmark-stub}} and {{Sweden-stub}}.

File:Cyprus flag large.png  This Cyprus-related article is a stub.You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Category:Cyprus stubs

I had not seen the page on this procedure so I'd already created it (my error, sorry!) I have so far used it on just a few articles, but I hope to write more articles on Cyprus-related topics. --Valentinian 00:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it's made... it will probably be useful though. Note though that any geography items relating to Cyprus should be double-stubbed with both this and euro-geo-stub (until such time as there are enough for a separate cyprus-geo-stub, which there aren't yet). Grutness...wha? 06:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I can easily double-stub them. I can see that another user has already created (and renamed) the corresponding category: "Cyprus stubs instead of "Cyprus-related stubs". Should the category be re-named to be consistent with other national categories "Greece-related stubs", "France-related stubs" etc.)? --Valentinian 09:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, quite the opposite - we're slowly trying to change over all the categories that have "related" as part of their name, since it's not needed. Category:Cyprus stubs is fine. Grutness...wha? 10:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the flag will have to go from the stub, as it is a potential source of controversy given the divided nature of the island. An outline of Cyprus, without the other flag elements should prove to be acceptibly neutral, but as the flag is firmly identified with one of the two sides, it's not sufficiently neutral. This is comparable to the avoidance of the use of the PRC flag in the generic Chinese stubs. Caerwine 20:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're probably right! Makes me glad to live in peaceful Scandinavia. I guess that two flags is not an option either. Well, I've changed the image to the NASA map of Cyprus (I'd rather have had a white background, but I think it'll do for now. So the new layout is:
File:Modis cyprus lrg.jpg  This Cyprus-related article is a stub.You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Category:Cyprus stubs
I really like that image, and I think it shows the island in the most beautiful month of the year. BTW, regarding the China-stub, the image of the Chinese Dragon has been listed for deletion. --Valentinian 22:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, of all the drawings I've added to Wikipedia, the one I'm happiest with is the (IMHO) neat political solution I added to Korea-geo-stub. As for the China-stub image, I've changed it to one that should do at least temporarily (and maybe longer if no-one can come up with anything better). Grutness...wha? 03:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. The Korean image is a very nice image, but I'm not sure what would fit the bill in the case of Cyprus. An image of the Kyrenia ship perhaps? Problem is, it's not that well known outside of Cyprus - and I don't have a free image! For the moment, I think I'll stick to the map. --Valentinian 07:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Japan-hist-stub}}

As per the comments above from Caerwine and myself, regarding Sod^H^Hengoku related stubs. Alai 02:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Academic-bio-stub subcategories

There are just under 1200 {{academic-bio-stub}} articles. It needs to be subdivided. Here are my proposed subcategories.

  • acad-agri-bio-stub (Agriculture)
  • acad-acct-bio-stub (Accounting)
  • acad-econ-bio-stub (Economics)
  • acad-edu-bio-stub (Education)
  • acad-engin-bio-stub (Interdisciplinary)
  • acad-lang-bio-stub (Foreign Langue/Linguist)
  • acad-reli-bio-stub (Religion)
  • acad-manage-bio-stub (Management)
  • acad-mkt-bio-stub (Marketing)
  • acad-interdisc-bio-stub (Interdisiplinary Studies)
  • acad-women-bio-stub (Women's Studies)
  • acad-polisci-bio-stub (Political Science)
  • acad-psych-bio-stub (Psychology)
  • acad-soc-bio-stub (Sociology)

I like the idea, but not the names! Why not {{agri-academicbio-stub}} +c? Grutness...wha? 06:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't like the name, but some of these duplicate existing categories

That seems like a decent set of names and mostly avoids bunches of icky hyphens. Of course I'd still like to see 60 stubs found before creating new cats. Caerwine 07:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer something like {{educationalist-stub}} to {{pedologist}} (which sounds to me like something to do with feet! That's the problem with dropping that all-important first A in paed-). We also have {{psych-bio-stub}} for psychologists and psychiatrists already - I argued against splitting it earlier since - certainly for the early days of the discipline - the two fields overlap considerably, but perhaps now would be a reasonable time to reassess that. Grutness...wha? 11:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
doesnt look like weve got it ;)! BL kiss the lizard 18:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, for something like A._V._Williams_Jackson I should ignore the academic part of it and just label it as {{linguist-stub}}? Alison9 04:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by ignore the academic part; liguistics is an academic discipline, and the permanent "linguists" category is a sub-cat of "academics". Presumably linguist-stub should likewise be a sub-cat of academic-stub (though it isn't at present, admittedly). Also agree with Caerwine, at least approximate numbers would be nice. Alai 04:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So is this the right page to get approval for making linguist and the other existing cats a sub-cat of academics? Alison9 04:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's what being bold is for ;) but yes, making them sub cats of academic-bio-stub would be a good idea. --Mairi 04:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We will definately need theologist-stub. The focus seems to be on Islam at the moment. Alison9 04:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See also the prposed split of reli-bio-stub elsewhere on this page. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done for linguist-stub; in some other cases it may be less clear-cut whether all (or nearly all, or all notable) people in a given category are academics, so I'll be no more bold for now (but don't let me stop anyone else). Though where the permanent category already does it, it should be safe -- unless there's an on-going edit-war over that, or something. Alai 05:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, especially the sociologist-stub and historian-stub. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{theologist-stub}} has been created (prematurely no less), even tho all but one mention called it theologian-stub. --Mairi 02:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Macao-stub}}

There are at least 39 articles, including location articles, suitable to be tagged as Macao-stub. Most of these articles are already tagged with other stub types, such as {{asia-struct-stub}}, {{food-stub}} and {{tourism-stub}}. Placing them under a category will help editors interested in Macao to expand them. Since both spellings (i.e. Macau and Macao) are used in English, it would be best for either one to be redirected to the other. — Instantnood 19:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 39 is rather slim, especially if it's to cover both -geo- and general stubs. I think I'm probably going to regret saying this, but ordinarily these would simply be categorised under {{china-stub}} and {{china-geo-stub}}, both of which are largeish, but sub-critical. Alai 19:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say lumping these entries into China-stub would be far from desirable, and wouldn't be helpful for editors. There are slimmer stub types, e.g. category:Gibraltar-related stubs. — Instantnood 20:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, they're not usually listed with china-stub, so that's not a concern - the geo-stubs are in Asia-geo-stub, to start with. 39 is pretty slim, given that you're trawling several categories that are hardly overburdened. As for Gibraltar-stub, it was created without being proposed here and is one of several currently on a list for potential pruning via SFD. My advice (don't tell anyone I said this...) is to create a few more Macanese stubs. If the number suddenly shot up, then there'd be more chance of a separate stub being viable. Grutness...wha? 22:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{China-geo-stub}} explicitly excludes Hong Kong, Macau, amd Taiwan from its area of coverage. {{China-stub}} is less exclusive, but it has sub types for Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Tibet nonetheless. I agree that 40 stubs is rather slim (Macau Grand Prix is a stub probably not tagged by ntnood}, but if there is someone who is planning to actively work on Macau-related topics, I wouldn't object to a {{Macau-stub}} with a 'u' and not an 'o'. Caerwine 22:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I noticed the "Mainland China" stub category, which I think is itself in variance to "normally": our geographic splits are by present-day countries, and it's pretty clear that Hong Kong and Macau locations would ordinarily be in, or be sub-cats of, china-geo-stub. Taiwan I ain't saying nuthin' 'bout... Alai 01:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, with all due respect, you were at least partly responsible for that (if you recall our discussions at the beginning of the year). Theoretically the HK & Macau ones should be in there, but there aren't enough Macao ones for a separate category (10 at last count), and they'd get drowned out in the mass of Mainland stubs. Grutness...wha? 03:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, I don't think the sudden appearance of 39 redlinks to the proposed template are exactly helpful to this deliberation process. Rather jumping the gun, aren't we? Alai 16:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies for tagging the articles before the proposal is approved here. I believe the number is pretty close to 50 or 60, and therefore I was using the special:whatlinkshere tool to do the count. There are definitely more than 39 existing Macao-related stubs. When the mainland China-Taiwan split was done earlier this year, there was no Macao-related geography stub, so the problem was not surfaced. I guess these Macao-related geography stubs can be tagged with {{Macao-stub}} and {{Asia-geo-stub}}, like Gibraltar do with {{Gib-stub}} and {{Euro-geo-stub}} (and not {{BritOT-geo-stub}}).

    As for the spelling, both spellings would do, but since both are commonly used in English (in fact -o is preferred by its government), it would be best one is a redirect to another. — Instantnood 16:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      • As is explained on WP:SFD, BritOT-geo-stub is a bit of a kludge. Once everything else was out of geo-stub and into its separate categories, all that was left were things like British Indian Ocean Territories, Tristan da Cunha and the Falklands. In fact, with one exception (which I expanded beyond stub level), everything there was a British colony. If there was a better place for them, it would be great, but for now at least BritOT is the best make-weight. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there's at least 60 (and a count would be nice, rather than 39 sometimes-marginal candidates, and the assertion there's more), then create it as {{Macau-stub}}, with Macao as a redirect, not v.v. [Macau]] is the spelling in the article, the category, and pretty generally in WP. And wins 3:1 in googlefight. Alai 17:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The googlefight may not accurately reflect the truth: Macau is the only spelling in Portuguese (after a spelling reform) and some other languages, while in many others like English both are used. Portuguese is one of the two official languages of Macao. While using Macau in Portuguese, the Macanese government prefers using Macao in English. — Instantnood 20:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Searching for both terms in English pages only, makes the ratio more than 4:1 (in the same direction). The Macanese government's preference isn't reflected elsewhere in Wikipedia, doing so here would be highly anomalous. Alai 00:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to point out that Instantnood, despite opposition here, has decided to create {{Macao-stub}}, {{Macau-stub}}, and Category:Macao stubs moments ago. I too oppose the creation of this entire family of stubs over disagreements of the appriopriate naming for Macau. Is instantnood using these stubs to promote terms he prefers?--Huaiwei 09:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category renaming: American foo stubs to either US foo stubs

We have a number of mismatched category names where stubs such as {{US-politician-stub}} have a category named like Category:American politician stubs. I counted seven categories that are like that. [There are also two American football stub categories that can probably keep their current names—Category:American football stubs ({{Amfootball-stub}}) and Category:American football biography stubs ({{Amfootbio-stub}})].The "American" in the category names should be changed to either "US" or "United States". BlankVerse ∅ 02:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a big enough topic to go at the foot of the page.. I'd prefer changing all of these and the ones starting "US" to ones starting "United States" . I'd also like to replace all the categories which start "UK" with ones starting "United Kingdom". Grutness...wha? 03:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European royalty stubs

There is already a {{Euro-royal-stub}}, but it currently redirects to {{Euro-noble-stub}}. It has over 75 articles using it nonetheless, and there are a fair number of articles that have been double stubbed with {{Euro-noble-stub}} and {{royal-stub}}. I think it's time to give {{Euro-royal-stub}} a category of its own. Caerwine 22:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. We could also clean up the existing {{Portugal-royal-stub}} / Category:Portuguese nobility stubs so it has a clear scope... --Mairi 04:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but if you are looking at these, I would like to suggest going straight to {{Germany-royal-stub}}, {{France-royal-stub}} and - as Piotr is bound to suggest it anyway :) - {{Poland-royal-stub}}. The count for Germany is 134 - I'll do the others presently. We could also do with a specific stub for rulers of the kingdoms in the UK before it was a single country. These are presently scattered through royal, UK-royal and UK-noble (which is where they seem to be menat to go, rather awkwardly): I've found so far 91. (Would it be asking for trouble to suggest that the ancient Irish rulers could go in there as well? in which case another 20 or so). Not sure though what it could best be called - {{UK-PCroyal-stub}}? (= pre-conquest?)Staffelde 11:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think we may be having a problem of definition here. If we count petty kings as royals rather than as just nobles it's going to raise the count of royals considerably. In the case of Germany for example, I would not count the Kings of Bavaria as royalty, because Bavaria was never a sovereign national realm, so I would place any stubs articles about the King and Queens of Bavaria and their children under {{Euro-noble-stub}} (or {{Germany-noble-stub}} once that is created). By using the same standard, almost all of the Irish kings are actually nobles and not royals. Caerwine 23:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good god.Is that nonsensical redirection still there? There was agreement to remove that months ago but Gruntness fought a lone battle to stop that. But Caerwine is simply wrong in definitions. If it the subject is a monarch, then they should get a royal stub. Saying that Bavarian royals weren't royals, or that Irish kings weren't royals, is POV and not on. If they were called a king, then we have to treat them as a king and not say 'well we disagree' so we are going to call them something else. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

FWIW, I thought it had been deleted ages ago, too. (it's not "gruntness" either, BTW :) Grutness...wha? 02:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely: the objection is not based in fact. Bavaria, e.g., WAS a sovereign nation for centuries, as were all the other territories that were eventually lumped together as "Germany" - and the same for most of the rest of the world. It is not for us to say now that only certain monarchies were "real" monarchies. Nor do I understand the concern about "raising the count of royals", as if there were some intrinsic merit in avoiding it. {{Euro-noble-stub}} doesn't work well at the moment precisely because it is stuffed with articles on people who were royals and shdn't be there.
Clearly there is some difference in kind between, again e.g., the monarchies of the UK, Prussia etc in their developed forms, and the kings of the Hwicce and so on, and this is surely one of the reasons why it is worth having separate stub categories for them.Staffelde 01:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fairly sensible. (Though it was better as a redirect, than as a pointer to a redlink category, as at present... Not that'll affect the categorisation immediately, anyway.) OTOH, given the size of Euro-noble-, it'll be necessary to split that by country (or some other geographical subdivision, at any rate), and I'd be keener to do that first. And presumably lots of countries will have a 'viable' number of nobles+royals, but not royals by themselves, so I don't think we'll see the end of double-stubbing anytime soon... Alai 03:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this should be based on royal-stub, but we need a clear defintion of what can go there. Recently when I was sorting Euro-noble-stubs into Poland-noble-stubs I had to remove a lot of Euro-royal-stubs, and wondered who and why added those into the relevant articles. What about princes and dukes, like Grand Duke of Lithuania or Polish dukes during the time of division/fragmentation when Poland had no king (~14th century)? What about family of the king, especially in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were some were elected from families that have never before been kings (like Michał Wiśniowiecki, King of Poland - were his parents or children royality?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bavaria's problem wasn't so much it's lack of independence, as the Holy Roman Empire imposed but a light yoke on its constituent states, but it's lack of nationhood. However, Bavaria is definitely an edge case, and besides, a more serious problem is how closely do you have to be to a reigning monarch in order to be counted as royal? Obviously children should be counted as well as grandchildren that are in the line of succession, but once you get past that we're going to run into disputes. I'm not so much concerned with where the line is drawn, as that it be drawn so that there is a clear boundary between royal and non-royal. BTW, I was bold and since someone else had changed the stub from a redirect into an independednt stub that pointed to a redlink category, I went ahead and created the category, tho I haven't listed it as yet. Caerwine 00:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, should we decide to keep this, we won't need any null-edits, tho we definitely need to decide on a scope for a what counts as royal, and what is close enough to be in a royal family. If we define this too broadly, there won't be any difference bwtween being royal and being noble, given how inbred the European nobility is. Caerwine 02:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But the Kings of Bavaria, aside from a very brief overlap, weren't HRE subjects at all; rather they were Kurfuersten, and as such required not to call themselves kings -- and when some of them did, it was the beginning of a very rapid end to the (non-)Empire. (Just to confuse matters, the rulers of Bavaria did use the title "king" during and as part of the Kaiserreich.) Now, whether a Prince-Elector is "royal" is somewhat inobvious, and somewhat depends on one's definition. The "from sceptre to shovel" question is pretty fuzzy too, that's an entirely valid point. Naturally each present day or historical country has an internal system that is (or isn't) marvelously consistent and clear about the different ranks and layers of nobility (and royalty), but that doesn't mean a single universal definition can readily be extracted. Even particular titles can be confusing: consider "Serene Highness", for exampleAlai 02:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting to a useful point made by Alai, for most countries / geo'l regions, the category "royal + noble = viable" is a very effective solution, provided it is possible to find a term that means both royal AND noble, as otherwise, regardless of the intent, there will be constant arguments about it. Is {{Foo-royal&noble-stub}} technically possible?
On the subject of what constitutes "royal", it would be very misleading to limit this category to ruling houses that happened to call themselves "kings": if - for the sake of argument only - there were such a category as {{Germany-royal-stub}}, anybody browsing it would surely expect it to contain all the German ruling houses, whether they were Kings, Princes, Dukes or anything else. Obviously, though, what applies in Germany need not apply elsewhere Staffelde 10:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar enough with German terminology to say what the most logical "split" in that case would be. But for the "unsplit" categories, I think X-noble-stub is perfectly adequate (esp. if one is going to double-stub the royals with some geographically broader royal category, too). Indeed, it strikes me as logical to make the assorted "royal" categories sub-cats of the corresponding "noble" ones. Alai 00:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps implementing this proposal would open a Pandora's box of controversial and POV stubbings, but here it goes: How about having two templates, Foo-royal-stub and Foo-noble-stub, feeding into one category, Foo royalty and nobility stubs? That way you got two intuitive templates feeding into one viable category. It would also end the issue of who belongs in which category, because all would go into the same bowl. Aecis 11:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe its because as a firm small-r republican, I've never bothered to notice but aren't all royals also nobles or is there even such a thing as a non-noble royal? I just do not see why having royal stubs being subtypes of noble stubs won't work. Caerwine 03:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are two different things, and have (or historically, had) different functions. A possible comparison is in the RC church: all Popes are also priests, but they are sufficiently important, and different in function, to require separation. It would be inefficient for potential editors, and also totally inaccurate, to bury the Popes in a swamp of low to middle grade priests and bishops, or even Cardinals. Similarly, if you bury the royals in a swamp of low to middle grade "nobles", or even non-royal dukes, it is less efficient, and additionally gives the impression that Wikiedia generally isn't very well-informed - which is not a good thing for a would-be authoritative encyclopaedic source.
But if there is a good reason for doing that, as with the smaller countries where there are too few of either to justify a complete split, then the category title needs to make it completely clear that the category contains BOTH nobles AND royals (ie, that at least Wikipedia knows that there is a difference): if it doesn't, this argument is bound to recur at regular intervals until the question is sorted properly. We may as well do it now.(Staffelde, 31 Oct, 18.12 my time, from a machine on which I can't log in)
To answer your actual question, yes it is possble to have a non-noble monarch - you only need to look at the Roman emperors, who latterly were successful generals. Later monarchies were in practice virtually limited to the nobility for other reasons - heredity or a restricted circle of choice, mostly - but the two are not the same. (Staffelde again)
It's certainly the case that royalty don't always come from among the nobility, but it's less clear that this doesn't in effect co-opt them to it. Often with the assumption of noble-style names, titles, etc. The logic of this can be discussed on a country-by-country basis, though. (In this case, patrician- and imperial- would be more descriptive.) As to the "swamping" point: clearly that's the case; (part of) the whole point of stub-sorting is to avoid over-large and under-specific stub-cats. But equally, we don't want under-sized ones. Suppose, hypothetically, that we have the proverbial Small European Country for which there are 46 noble (qua noble) stubs, and 19 royals. I think it'd be preferable to sort them into single SmallEuroCountry-noble-stub category (double-stubbing the latter as euro-royal-, too), than dividing them into two undersized ones, or to leaving them unsorted. Alai 22:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you say, except for the matter of the category name. If you call such a category SmallEuroCountry-noble-stub and then include in it people who are unarguably royal, then regardless of the logic behind it there will continue to be disagreements about it, simply because the term 'noble' neither means nor includes the term 'royal', and every time another user notices that, they will point it out all over again. If you have a category called Trains and then put ships in it, you can expect constant arguments to the effect that a ship is not a train. If for good reasons, such as lack of quantity, you need to group ships and trains together, the category has to be called something else - eg, "vehicle" or "ships and trains" - that includes BOTH ships AND trains. May I refer back to the comparison with popes and cardinals, or bishops? If anyone suggested grouping popes with bishops for no other reason than that the Pope is bishop of Rome, and that they were a small-p protestant, so hadn't bothered to notice what the difference was, the argument would be over very quickly, and not in their favour - and the question here is rather similar.
The difficulty can be bypassed by the use of a satisfactory term that really covers both noble and royal (it seems to me a clear indication that there is a real distinction between them, that in fact it is not very easy to think of one, but perhaps this is my non-republican - with a small n - background showing up). "Imperial" only applies to empires; "patrician" is simply too imprecise. Would titled would do? Both royalty and nobility have titles of a particular sort, ie, titles of rank, which distinguish them from the rest of the population in their respective countries. So would {{SmallEuroCountry-titled-stub}} be acceptable? Or if not, can we look again at my earlier suggestion of {{SmallEuroCountry-royal&noble-stub}}?Staffelde 02:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{mil-bio-stub}}

I've done a preliminary count of the first 200 of these, will work through more later. I've created {{US-mil-bio-stub}}, as per earlier proposal: unsurprisingly, there's a metric shedload of them (over 80 already). {{UK-mil-bio-stub}} looks sensible and viable too, but nothing else seems obviously so. Perhaps {{France-mil-bio-stub}}, if there's significant numbers in other categories. Only a handful of Russians and Poles, but seemingly they're viable on the basis of their country-bio-stubs, so I'll lob such as I find in once those are created, as I assume they will be anyway. (This makes me wonder how many other countries have a lurking iceberg of mil-bio-stubs without the tag.) Alai 00:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll also moot {{Germany-mil-bio-stub}} as a possibility; might be ~75 of them in mil-stub. Alai 06:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still counting: UK is at least 72, I'd guess something like 120 in total. Germany looks on track, France doesn't. US will probably be 400-500, so well on the way to being re-split itself. I'm going to further suggest {{Europe-mil-bio-stub}} as a catch-all and super-cat (for UK and Germany, and the elsewhere-proposed Poland), with similar logic to the already-proposed {{Europe-mil-stub}}. Alai 22:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea. We already have {{Poland-mil-bio-stub}}. I am sure most countries deserve their own as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. Exactly 400 US ones. (Pant, pant.) This could probably be re-split into present-day branches (US Army, USN, USAF); and the Civil War (maybe two separate categories). 121 UK and 78 German stubs. Also above threshold, and hereby proposed: {{Asia-mil-bio-stub}}; {{Americas-mil-bio-stub}}. The following made it into double digits, but nowhere near the threshold. However, it might be worth checking the corresponding country-bio-stub categories for more militarists, in some cases, especially given the examples of Poland and Russia:
    • France, 32
    • Russia, 29
    • Canada, 26
    • Yugoslavia (as was, and FYRs), 22
    • Poland, 20
    • China, 19
    • Ancient Rome, 19
    • Greece, 15
    • Ireland, 14
    • Italy, 14
    • Japan, 13
    • Norway, 12
    • Sweden, 12
    • Pakistan, 11
    • Israel, 10

Alai 03:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the list of Polish ones? I could move the to Polish-mil-stub. Another question: does the {{soldier-stub}} redirects here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do, but I've already sorted them! About half of what's currently in {{poland-mil-bio-stub}} is sorted from mil-bio-... I assume the category is looking a little "light" because the 90-odd reported found in {{Poland-bio-stub}} haven't been completely sorted yet. And yes, soldier-stub redirects to mil-bio... Alai 03:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Poland-hist-stub}}

There are quite a few articles that currently have both the template:Poland-stub and template:history-stub (or related) and could be replaced with this more specialized template. Few examples: Drzymała's van, Free City of Kraków, Golden Liberty, Mickiewicz's Legion, Positivism in Poland, Polnische Wehrmacht, Polish United Workers' Party, Provisional Polish Revolutionary Committee, Regency Council and many others. It may be also wise to do this for many other countries: {{Germany-hist-stub}}, {{France-hist-stub}}, {{Russia-hist-stub}}, {{Spain-hist-stub}}, {{Italy-hist-stub}} and others woudl surely yeld many hits. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polish history stub seems like a good idea, it would give more clear version of the article. Connecting events with history of other nations shouldn't be a problem. --Molobo 17:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With the problem of defining Germany pre-1806 and with the Nazi Germany articles already split off into a separate stub type, {{Germany-hist-stub}}'s a bit more problematic, but probably viable. Caerwine 02:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel-stub

The wording of {{leisure-corp-stub}} is imo a bit clumsy: "This article about an entertainment-related, leisure-related, sports-related or tourism-related corporation, or about a hotel or a chain of hotels, is a stub. ..." I would like to take hotels, hotel chains and resorts out of the equation and give them their own stub template: {{hotel-stub}}. There are currently 62 stubs about hotels in Category:Leisure corporation stubs. Aecis 23:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Make that Hotel-corp-stub and you've got a deal. To me, hotel-stub would mean the building, like church-stub and stadium-stub. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But what I just thought about: hotel-stub could also refer to the hotelling business as a whole. That might trim down econ-stub and business-stub as well, and expand the "Hotel [corporation] stubs" category. The problem is that I don't know if there are any such stubs. So I think I'll stick with hotel-corp-stub. Aecis 10:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. Still don't like the hotel-stub name, though, but with the expanded category it probably needs a slightly different name to the -corp-stub standard. Any ideas? Grutness...wha? 12:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since that segment gets called the lodging industry (at least here in the States it does) how about a {{lodging-corp-stub}}? Caerwine 04:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that's a US only term - here if you said "lodging industry" I'd think you were talking about real estate. Hotels and the like are the "hospitality industry" here. Hotel-corp-stub still sounds a reasonable choice to me. Grutness...wha? 09:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Germany noble stub

This would be very handy for the 96 relevant stubs in {{Germany-bio-stub}} and the 200+ waiting to be reassigned in {{Noble-stub}} and subdivisions, on the same basis as the equivalents for UK, France and Poland.Staffelde 20:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I just finished moving Polish nobles from Euro-noble-stub to Poland-noble-stub :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Okay - who pushed that lump of plutonium into the noble-stub category? Looks like it's gone critical in the last couple of days! Grutness...wha? 12:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Computer and video game stubs

I'd like to propose {{anime-cvg-stub}} as a blanket stub for anime games. There are many stubbed games articles relating to either the genres mentioned in the anime game article or those based on an anime/manga property. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back again. I'd like to make a {{cvg-culture-stub}}, it could cover gaming terms, magazines and events. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The category has now 576 articles. Would it be best to move some of these articles that are related to history to a new {{China-hist-stub}}? — Instantnood 15:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Between {{Asia-hist-stub}}, {{battle-stub}}, and {{China-stub}}, it shouldn't be a problem to find more than 60 stubs for a {{China-hist-stub}}. I did manage to trim {{China-stub}} just now by sending about 20 stubs to {{China-bio-stub}} where they belonged instead, and there should be others that can similarly profit form such a restubbing.
And perhaps some to {{Asia-myth-stub}} too. — Instantnood 20:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well those stubs should be double stubbed as {{China-stub}} and {{Asia-myth-stub}} until such time as we have enough to justify a {{China-myth-stub}}. Caerwine 04:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Culture

I'm working on some articles dealing with so-called demogroups and a lot of the articles about these groups are currently very sparse. Unfortunately, there's not a suitable stub-category for these groups and people doing stub sorting keep putting them in all kinds of different categories, such as org-stub and bio-compu-stub. Is it a good idea to create something like a computer culture category for stubs? Let's say compu-cult-stub for instance? This could also house all kinds of other hacker/computing culture stuff. Nmrd 13:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copied the above from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types --Alynna 15:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poland geo-stub split

{{Poland-geo-stub}} has over 800 entries. I think we need to create {{Poland-struct-stub}} and some administrative divisions (by Polish voivodships, perhaps?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voivodships stub seems a good proposal, although a smaller stub with regions of Poland could be named in cases of natural landmarks or such perhaps ? --Molobo 17:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See also the discussion about splitting India-geo-stub, and earlier discussions about France and Germany geo-stub splitting. In essence, split off any voivodships that meet the criteria - typically 80 for each geo-stub, though something borderline would probably be accepted. (Note: some editors set the mark at 75, others at 60.) Mindmatrix 17:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As for Poland-struct-stub, there are under 10 Polish structures listed in Euro-struct-stub, so that one's a non-starter. I'm not sure what Molobo means by "In cases of natural landmarks", but if he's talking about mountain-stubs and lake-stubs, then - as always - that would also be no. Splitting by Voivodship sounds like a good idea (how many are there in Poland?) If so, the usual ideas apply - do a tally up, and the largest would be the most natural to split off (as Mindmatrix says, see the discussions above re:Germany, France, and Japan). Grutness...wha? 23:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Poland-struct-stubs, there may be very few in the Euro-struct-stub, but there are many more spread through other struct-stub, like university-stub or statium-stubs. Also, I estimate they are at least 50 relevant stubs in Poland-geo-stub (which may overlap with existing struct-stubs somewhat due to double stubbing) - in my brief analysis of first stub page (stubs from A to J) I found had 15 struct-stubs. As for voivodship-specific stubs, I don't have time to do a count - perhaps somebody from Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography of Poland will help.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly speaking I don't see a need to further disambiguate stub templates. After all they are but a message that there's work to do. And the hint should be that the work to do is on the article, not on the stub message. After all what we should focus on is to limit the number of stubs, not number of stub messages in certain category. Halibutt 01:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Director stubs

We currently have a fair number of stubs in the {{tv-bio-stub}} and {{theat-stub}} for people who direct acting productions and a poorly named stub, {{film director-stub}}, for those who are notable just for film directing. I'm proposing that we:

  1. Create a new stub, {{director-stub}} for those who are notable for have directed in more than one of film, theatre, or television. I realize that there are other types of of directors than those of thespians, but this should be unambiguous enough, especially in conjunction with its sub types.
  2. Rename {{film director-stub}} as {{film-director-stub}} (This will require an sfd-t, but I'd like to get things squared away as far as how we'll organize the directors before starting that.)
  3. Create a new stub, {{theat-director-stub}} for directors of theatrical plays.
  4. Create a new stub, {{tv-director-stub}} for directors of televison episodes.

I can see not wishing to bother with {{tv-director-stub}} since in the post-1945 era there is considerable overlap with other types of directors, but the other three are nice solid proposals in my opinion. Caerwine 19:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago-geo-stub

The Illinois-geo-stub category has over 100 entries in it now, more than half or which are in Chicago. Would be easier to get Chicago folks to contribute if the stubs were more specific. Tedernst 22:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Over 100? Sir, that's a tiny category! Seriously, we don't usually look to start splitting these things until there are 300 or so stubs. There is a {{Chicago-stub}}, though, so it would make plenty of sense to double-stub those items with both Illinois-geo-stub and Chicago-stub. That way, any Chicago editors who don't want to have to pick and choose among the 40-50 non-Chicago Illinois-geo-stubs can do so. Mind you, Chicago editors are probably more likely to know about places elsewhere in that state than the majority of other Wikipedians... Grutness...wha? 23:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Grutness about double-stubbing with {{Chicago-stub}}. The drawback, of course, is that there's no category that finds articles that are double-stubbed in this way. And to provide some perspective, the province of Ontario has about 1000 stubs right now, and it isn't going to be split anytime soon.I can see why you'd find the split useful, but I don't think it's necessary yet. Mindmatrix 00:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't get what a "big number" was. Sorry about that. I've done what you've suggested and double-stubbed with Chicago stub. Thanks! Tedernst 16:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba-geo-stub

There are currently 353 articles in {{Caribbean-geo-stub}}. A google search suggests that about 60 to 70 of these are for Cuban geography stubs, so I would like to propose {{Cuba-geo-stub}}. Aecis 22:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last week there were 42. Have a look at User:Grutness/Geo-stub tallying. Cuba is nowhere near the top of the list. If any were to be split off, Puerto Rico and Dominican Republic would be before Cuba. In any case, 353 is not as big as some other categories - no need to create this one yet, and I'll be tallying the category up again in a couple of weeks time, so if it has grown since last week, we'll know for certain then. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Grutness on this one. Mindmatrix 00:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only 42? Then I withdraw the proposal immediately. But I'm still baffled. How is it possible that a (from my point of view) large country like Cuba has only 42 geography stubs? That is less than half of the Faroe Islands! Aecis 00:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Size of country and number of stubs don't fully correlate (otherwise we'd be swamped in Russian, Indian, and Mainland China stubs, to start with). In the case of Cuba vs the Faaroes, Scandinavia as a whole always ranks very high in web access, and Cuba much less so. Remember too that Cuba is still politically somewhat isolated, and that might make for smaller numbers of Cuban editors on the English Wikipedia. Then again, perhaps there are lots of Cuban articles which have been expanded beyond stub size. Or lots of Cuba geography stubs not marked as such (there is a Category:Cuba stubs - I'll check that for geo-stubs, but there are only about 40 stubs in total in that, so that probably won't take Cuba up to threshold). Grutness...wha? 01:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(update) There were a hanbdful more in Category:Cuba stubs, but there'd still be only about 50 in all. It is growing, slowly, though, so a Cuba-geo-stub's not impossible in the next few months. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Size of country and number of stubs indeed don't fully correlate, but I would expect there would be so many Cuban geographical features to write about, that even if a large percentage of them wouldn't have an article, there still would be more than enough for a separate stub template/category. Cuba indeed doesn't rank very high in web access, but "mainland Cuba" (the Cuban community in Florida) probably does. But I don't know how they are represented on Wikipedia. Aecis 09:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gum Stub

There should be a stub for gum, I know all the Dentenye's are stubbed and I'm too lazy to find the others (I know I seen them)--FlareNUKE 06:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

over 60 gum stubs? Are you sure? I don't think I've ever seen one! Grutness...wha? 23:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully any existing stubs for gums are in the Category:Food & drink stubs. While I would be skeptical that there are 60 stubs, I wouldn't be surprised to some there. Caerwine 23:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

splitting {{nonfiction-book-stub}}

This currently has 906 members. Looking over its contents, I would suggest {{poli-book-stub}}, {{non-fiction-hist-book-stub}} and {{sci-book-stub}}. {{hist-book-stub}} is currently being used for historical fiction; I'm not sure, though, if that name shouldn't properly go to books about actual history, with the historical fiction at {{fiction-hist-book-stub}}; scratch that, {{hist-fiction-book-stub}}.--Pharos 23:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

might I suggest something I suggested back when hist-book-stub was made - subdividing nonfiction-book-stub using the word text? {{sci-text-stub}}, {{hist-text-stub}}, {{poli-text-stub}}... Grutness...wha? 01:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of Scotland-geo-stub postponed until re-count done!

I was planning to leave this one until the England split was a bit further on, but given that there's a brand new Scottish Wikipedians' notice board and stirrings in the glens over Scotland-stub, now is an opportune moment. Scotland has 32 unitary authorities, though several of them can be considered together in the same way as England's Yorkshire and Sussex geo-stubs (North Lanarkshire/South Lanarkshire, for instance). I've gone through half of the 800 Scotland geo-stubs so far, and the following look like likely splits:

  • {{Glasgow-geo-stub}} so far, a clear 25% of the stubs I've counted have been Glaswegian ones
  • {{Highland-geo-stub}} - nearly 50 already, with about 400 stubs still to count.

It's also possible that Aberdeenshire and Scottish Borders will each have enough stubs for separate categories, but I'll hold off on them for now. Similarly, if the Orkneys and Shetlands were combined into one stub category, they would very likely reach threshold (40 so far, so an estimated 80 overall).

I'd also like to suggest re-wording the recently discovered Hebrides-geo-stub. The Hebrides straddle three different unitary authorities. The Outer Hebrides are a unitary authority on their own (Western Isles); ,the Inner Hebrides are divided between Highland and Argyll & Bute. If it was re-named as {{WesternIsles-geo-stub}} /Category:Western Isles geography stubs it would also make a useful subcategory. Grutness...wha? 10:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC) (one of the Shetland stubs is for Grutness :)[reply]

UPDATE: I've counted 80% of the stubs, and it looks like Glasgow and Highland will be the only two past threshold - but between them they'll take fully 35% of the stubs (probably about 140 each). Renaming Hebrides to Western Isles at the same time would be very useful - and would probably push Argyll & Bute up to threshold, too (it's the next largest and includes some of the Inner Hebrides), so I'll add a proposal for that one too. Aberdeen, Borders, Orkney and Shetland aren't likely to make threshold - yet. Grutness...wha? 12:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The count is finished - and I'll add {{Argyll-geo-stub}} for Argyll and Bute, which also easily passes threshold. The counts are on my geo-stub page if anyone's interested. Those four subcats should reduce the main Scotland category from 800 to 470. Grutness...wha? 08:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked up the "new" Aberdeenshire, and I have to admit I'm more confused than ever. It's a part of the world which I know well, but Banff in Aberdeenshire? Banffshire used to be a county, and to add to the confusion the boundaries of Moray have been changed yet again. It's not a simple matter of Banffshire going into Aberdeenshire, the lines have been redrawn bizarrely; I get the impression that the bureaucrats behind it have spent little time in the area! --MacRusgail 01:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've loaded up the geo lists with what needs to be moved where. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This shouldn't matter a great deal for the three currently on the table (give or take Helensburgh and Lomond, quite contentious around my old neck of the woods...), but I've only just notice that splitting by unitary council is being proposed. Why not by Lieutenancy areas, the direct analogue to the way the English stubs were split? I may have spoken too soon about precedents... Alai 01:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that looks a much better system and should solve problems like Banff, and split Highland up nicely into easier packages. Unfortunately, it will need a recount of just about all of the stubs. Scotland seems to use several different systems for local government, and I didn't even know about this one. The boundaries look very similar to the old traditional counties. OK folks - I'll ask for a brief postponement on this one until I can do the recount... Grutness...wha? 08:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I forgot that Highland isn't a single LA; that's what happens when one doesn't follow one's own links! Shouldn't make much difference to Glasgow, though, at least. Scotland only uses one system for local government as such, but... it's changed significantly three times or so in the last thirty years; there's various holdovers from previous systems (as you say, LAs are a lot like the old counties; likewise, police forces, transit bodies, and such like often keep the same structure they had under regionalisation). If it wasn't for the fact that I was in Ireland, I might not know quite where I lived... Alai 15:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep watching. Quite a few of the boundaries are similar (Fife, Clackmannan, Orkney, Shetland, Angus, etc), so hopefully it won't take long to do the re-count. Grutness...wha? 05:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland split redux

I've still got about 80 to pinpoint, but it looks like four subgroups can still be split off, all of which will have well over 60 stubs:

Grutness...wha? 10:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create any new Scotland stubs along lieutenancy area lines until we have had a debate at Categories for deletion. I will be nominating all the categories under Category:Scottish people by traditional county for deletion. We really cannot go about creating (duplicate!) categories and stubs based on political entities that became defunct over thirty years ago. Lieutenany areas are even worse, being purely ceremonial.--Mais oui! 09:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Erm - telling us that before the split started would have been better. Then again, ceremonial areas are the standard way of splitting these things, surely. Ceremonial counties were used for England, and though Scotland is an entirely separate entity it would make no sense to use a different system of splitting for there. The overwhelming majority of the Scotland geo-stubs refer to lieutenancy area rather than unitary authority, too. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Russian-hist-stub

{{Russian-hist-stub}} should be renamed to {{Russia-hist-stub}}, according to the stub naming conventions, shouldn't it? Note that Russian-hist-stub redirects to {{Russian-history-stub}} - I think they should both be redirected to Russia-hist-stub. At the very least, I think one redirect is in order to make Russia-hist-stub workable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

good idea. Ill make the redirect but go to WP:SFD and follow the instructions at the top of the page becuase the old names arent good ones so could be deleted BL kiss the lizard 23:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radio stubs

The Radio stubs are currently a slight bit of a mess, so I'm proposing a bot of a reorganization. This has some parts that will need to go through SfD, but the form in which the SfD is proposed will depend upon how this proposal is resolved.

We currently have:

I suggest we do the following:

  1. Create a new stub {{radio-show-stub}} & Category:Radio show stubs.
  2. Adopt the {{radio-station-stub}} template and give it a new category Category:Radio station stubs.
  3. Do an SfD on Category:Radio programme stubs and replace it with a Category:Radio stubs as the category that {{radio-stub}} feeds into.
  4. Do an SfD on {{AM-stub}} and {{AM-stub}} to simply delete them.

The reason I have for proceeding as I suggest is two fold.

  1. It avoids the program/programme problem.
  2. it makes it easier for us to be sure we've done all the necessary null edits.

So what do you all think? Caerwine 19:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good idea. I have only one problem, but perhaps it's just me. When I see {{radio-show-stub}}, I immediately think of entertainment broadcastings. According to Princeton University's WordNet 2.1, a show is "a social event involving a public performance or entertainment." For me, this excludes talk shows and radio documentaries. Perhaps a native anglophone could tell me a bit more about this? Aecis 10:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is a talk show not a show? More generally, at least in the States, when in comes to tv and radio, show and program are simply synonyms. From the American Heritage Dictionary:
7.a. A radio or television program.

Program does have the advantage of being less ambiguous when the words tv or radio aren't stuck in front, but that isn't a problem in this case. Caerwine 16:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:EastEnders stubs

I hereby propose Category:EastEnders stubs and Template:EastEndersStub --4836.03 07:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • a bit late since it's already been created, had its category name changed, been discovered by us and added to the discoveries page, been discussed there for several days, had the template's name changed as per our naming guidelines, had all its articles re-stubbed to the new name, and had the old name proposed for deletion. Proposal of new stubs is meant to occur a week before the creation of the stub type. At this stage it's more a case of watching it to see how much it gets used. if it's heavily used, or if there's a dedicated WikiProject, then it's less likely to be proposed for deletion. So... is there a WikiProject, and are there over 60 stubs on EastEnders? Grutness...wha? 07:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More England-geo-stub splittage

Just did a tally, and got 

    25 Isle of Wight
    30 Bristol
    38 Herefordshire
    52 Bedfordshire
    52 Tyne and Wear
    62 Worcestershire
    65 Rutland
    66 Oxfordshire
    73 Warwickshire
    81 Hertfordshire
    89 Cheshire
   105 Suffolk

This makes Template:Cheshire-geo-stub and Template:Suffolk-geo-stub clear candidates. Some of these are unlikely to ever be worth splitting out though - Isle of Wight and Bristol. Rutland looks big here, but that's because it has pretty much 100% coverage now. What do we go once England-geo-stub is just cluttered by a handful of these tiny counties? Morwen - Talk 18:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could have saved you some work here, because I did first thing this morning (given that I'd just finished Scotland, it seemed logical). And the figures I got were slightly different. Also, we've been splitting at 75 for English counties - which, according to my figures puts Suffolk (92), Cheshire (89), Hertfordshire (81) and Warwickshire (75) at or over threshold, so I'd go for those four. As to where do we go, most of the others are filling up rapidly (there were some 102 new stubs created for these counties in the last two weeks). Bristol is likely to be the only problem, and it might well be posible to merge that one into either Gloucestershire or Somerset. the previous count and is now up to 25 - and still has plenty of stubs that can be made. Tyne and wear was like that until recently, and is now well up the list. I'd definitely support {{Suffolk-geo-stub}}, {{Cheshire-geo-stub}}, {{Hertfordshire-geo-stub}} and {{Warwickshire-geo-stub}} for now (especially since one of them is my birth county :) Grutness...wha? 23:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've loaded up the geo lists with what needs to be moved where. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah to hell with it - I relent. If anyone wants to split off some of the others, I'll add details of Oxford, Rutland, and Worcester to the page as well. That will give people something more to do if they feel like it :) All three of them are now over 65 stubs anyway (68, 69, and 67 respectively). Grutness...wha? 06:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rock stub

I don't seem to be able to find any stubs catagorys for rocks-are they just under a more scientific name? If they are, I suggust a stub with a more simple name, such as Template:Rock-Stub--Akako|☎ 13:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the music genre or "large pebbles"? Aecis 20:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since the plural's being used, I suspect Akako is looking for mineral-stub Grutness...wha? 05:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, we do have some articles about "rock formations", great notable boulders. I don't think those deserve a stub, though.--Pharos 21:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those ones would be geo-stubs, anyway. So it's {{geo-stub}} for rock formations, and {{mineral-stub}} for types of rock. Grutness...wha? 04:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that {{geo-stub}} is about geography, while rock formations fall under geology. Aecis 10:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. There is {{geology-stub}}, but any rock formation big enough for a wikipedia article is almost certainly regardable as a geographic feature (e.g., Ayers Rock) Grutness...wha? 00:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

London-struct-stub

Two months ago, Grutness more or less proposed {{London-struct-stub}}. Nothing was done with this however. So I would like to repropose this template. According to a google search, there are about 170 stub articles about buildings and structures in London in {{UK-struct-stub}}. Aecis 20:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well spotted - a Scotland-struct-stub mght also be worthwhile, BTW. Grutness...wha? 23:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And what about NYC-struct-stub (approx. 100 articles)? Aecis 16:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As the original creator of NYC-stub, I could go with that.--Pharos 10:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wales-bio-stub

I would like to propose {{Wales-bio-stub}} and Category:Welsh people stubs). I have done a head count of 60+ articles, which can be found on my talk page: Proposal for Welsh bio stub. There are plenty more at Category:Welsh people by occupation in the individual subcategories. I have tried to find more Welsh people, to move from the much overburdened "British bio stub" section, but in many cases, there simply is not enough information in them/or I have been unable to read the hundreds of individual articles one by one. --MacRusgail 22:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support this. Splitting by occupation (or other cause of notability) is probably ultimately the way to get the parent category down in size, but double-stubbing on both axes is perfectly reasonable, too. BTW, can we review the "no more than two stub-tags" policy? It's becoming both increasingly unworkable, and more honoured-in-the-breach. I seem to recall it was even in the first instance more popular with policy-drafters than actual stub-sorters... Alai 22:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a good point about the two stub policy. What happens if someone is a polymath AND comes from some small country/region such as Wales that is unlikely to have the likes of say, "Welsh-botanist-stub", but which is substantial enough to have bio-stubs (IMHO)? Our hypothetical person could be a botanist, hymn writer (i.e. musician and poet), actor and Welsh to boot. --MacRusgail 16:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japan-seiyu-stub Japan-voice-actor-stub

I started going through {{Japan-bio-stub}} to move some of them into the subcats, and about half-way through the A's, I noticed that of the 15 or so that I had changed, a good 80% were for Seiyu, or voice actors. I'd like to propose {{Japan-seiyu-stub}} under {{Japan-actor-stub}}. There are about 360 articles in Category:Japanese voice actors, and if I had to guess, most of them would still be at stub level. Neier 23:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough... though would Japan-voiceactor-stub be better, given the name of the parent category? Grutness...wha? 23:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Surely must be at Japan-voice-actor-stub, or some variant, given the perm category name, and the name of the "third parent", the stub type, {{voice-actor-stub}}. Common English names, and what not. Alai 00:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I'll go with Japan-voice-actor-stub in accordance with the third parent that Alai pointed out. Neier 03:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comedians by Nationality

I've just made an American comedians stub, I'd like to propose that, and maybe British, Australian, Canadain, Japanese, German, French, etc.--Hailey 22:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Scientific journals

Our new stub sorter user: Chemturion has pointed out to me that we don't have any splits of {{mag-stub}}, and that scientific journals could probably do with their own stub. I agree, and will go one further, suggesting that both {{sci-journal-stub}} and {{med-journal-stub}} are probably long overdue. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking we could spilt the magazine into to two main stub catagories, {{journal-stub}} (for industry and professional periodicals) and the current {{mag-stub}} (for consumer magazines) and then catagorize further from there. In the journal stub we would have such things as {{sci-journal-stub}} and {{med-journal-stub}} and in the consumer mag stub we would have such thing as {{culture-mag-stub}} (for things like People and US Weekly) and {{tech-mag-stub}} (for things like PC Magazine, Macword, and PopSi.) Chemturion 06:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{music-mag-stub}} would be good too BL kiss the lizard 07:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above are logical as categories, certainly. "Journal-stub" I'd be especially keen to see for the sake of clarity of description. But do they all hit 'threshold'? Support 'em as and when. Alai 22:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
well, we could start by splitting it into mag and journal, and see how the numbers look from there... Grutness...wha? 00:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried about {{journal-stub}} as being clear enough from the stub name as being different from {{mag-stub}}. To me a journal is a magazine and vice versa. I'll grant that refereed periodicals include "Journal" in their name more often than not, but the distiction is just too ambiguous for me to like basing stub names on it. {{sci-mag-stub}} and {{med-mag-stub}} are just as clear as {{sci-journal-stub}} and {{med-journal-stub}}, so I don't see the need to try to draw a confusing distinction between two synonyms for stub names. Caerwine 05:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose -mag- variant names. "Journal" may sometimes be used as a synonym for "magazine" (though not really in these parts), but "magazine" is not a synonym for "journal". Smooshing together "scientific magazines" (like say, New Scientist) with actual journals would be much more confusing than any possible ambiguity between the two terms, which can in any case be made explicit on the category page. Alai 05:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think that there's a fairly clear distinction between magazines and journals. The only grey areas would be things like popular science magazines (e.g., SciAm, NewSci), and I'd veer towards putting those under sci-journal-stub simply for the sake of keeping science periodicals in one place. Grutness...wha? 08:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that; they're not grey at all. A peer-reviewed journal is a well-defined type of periodical, and the subject that's covered is irrelevant to its definition. Scientific American, at least, is definitely a science magazine, and not a journal. -- SCZenz 08:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And thus we see the nub of the problem. I think we all agree that there is a clear distinction between peer-reviewed periodicals and non-peer-reviewed periodicals, the problem is can we make that distinction unambiguously without resorting to a lengthy stub name such as {{peer-review-periodical-stub}}. I happen to read a "journal" six days a week, but it's the Wall Street Journal. At the very least I'd like to see the proposed stub text and the category name in this case. For example:
{{journal-stub}}
This article about a peer-reviewed journal is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Category:Peer-reviewed journal stubs
This category is for stub articles relating to peer-reviewed journals. You can help Wikipedia by expanding them.
To add an article to this category, use {{journal-stub}} instead of {{stub}}.
This is clearly a case where we need to discuss more than just the name of the stub template before we start creating. Caerwine 16:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, The Wall Street Journal isn't a magazine, either... But I'm happy to stipulate to Caerwine's caveats, or any reasonable variant thereon. (Mea culpa, I tend to be lax about including category names in proposals (and then on occasion, have ended up thinking, "hrm, hang on...", seven days or so later). And this is probably unwise, as it's the categories that are the real pain to change.) Alai 17:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More Europe geo stubs needed

After scanning through the Europe geography stubs category it shows we need more stub templates:

  • Andorra-geo-stub
  • luxembourg-geo-stub
  • latvia-gea-stub
  • macedonia-geo-stub
  • liechtenstein-ge-stub (possibly lich-geo-stub)
  • cyprus-geo-stub (possibly divided into two owned parts)
  • gibraltar-geo-stub
  • monaco-geo-stub
  • moldova-geo-stub

There maybe more but most of the stubs buildings up in the Europe geography category are for these countries. - (Erebus555 11:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

No, it doesn't show that at all. What it shows is that there are still nine countries in Europe which don't have enough stubs for separate categories. The same can be said for three countries in South America, three in Central America, about two dozen in the Caribbean, 30 or so in Africa, about six in Asia (plus more in Southeast Asia and the Middle East) and about 15 in Oceania. At the last tally, two weeks ago, of the ones you mention only Luxembourg had over 30 stubs, and it only had 34. Since a minimum of 60 stubs are needed for a new category, none of these are yet at the point of being made. What's the point of making a Monaco-geo-stub when there are only three stubs and unlikely ever to be more than that? What's more, Cyprus doesn't have two parts (it has three - about 8% of the island is officially still British), and according to our naming guidelines Liechtenstein wouldn't be abbreviated. Grutness...wha? 10:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Followup) Apologies if my previous comment sounded harsh - we do keep track of all countries without stubs, though, and regularly count the stubs about once a fortnight. As a matter of fact, someone has made a lot of Luxembourg stubs in the last two weeks, so that has now been proposed. it's quite likely that Cyprus will reach threshold sometime soon, too. Oh, and the only one you forgot was San Marino, BTW. Grutness...wha? 11:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Austro-Hungary}}

If we have an Ottoman Empire stub, what about the Austro-Hungary stub? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, do we have 60 Austro-Hungary stubs? As a state, Austria-Hungary lasted a fairly short period of time and many of its potential stubs can be assigned either to the proposed (and likely to be soon created) {{Austria-hist-stub}} or a possible but not yet ready for proposing {{Hungary-hist-stub}}. In any case, to cover as wide a period of time as would be feasible, I'd prefer {{Habsburg-stub}} & Category:Habsburg Empire stub so that it could cover events before 1867. Caerwine 07:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, November 2005

=India History Stubs

Hi, we really need a listing of history stubs related to India. I do not know what tpo do about it, but please can we have such a category? There are a whole lot of articles that would fall into such a category.


Splits of Euro-myth-stub

On WP:WSS/T, I saw that {{Euro-myth-stub}} is in need of splitting. The first two splits that come to mind are {{Rome-myth-stub}} or {{Roman-myth-stub}} (approx. 100 to 110 articles) and {{celt-myth-stub}} (approx. 70 to 80 articles). Aecis 10:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds good to me. Obviously this is a case where we don't necessarily want to precisely follow the usual geo-splits, and will have to play it by ear. But these seem pretty clearly defined, give or take the overlap within the "classical" domain. Alai 19:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's best to go by European civilisations. In Asia, the large, splittable civilisations roughly equal the countries (China and Japan). In Europe, I see five large, reasonably well-defined civilisations: the Romans, the Greeks, the Celts, the Germanics and the Slavs. Of these, the first and third seem to have enough articles for a separate stub category. I think it's best to wait and see how many stubs remain of the other mythologies. Note: Category:European mythology distinguishes 21 mythologies in Europe, from Albanian to Welsh. Aecis 20:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{geneticist-stub}}

I propose a stub category for both geneticists and evolutionary biologists. The two should share a cat because many geneticists are also evolutionary biologists and vice versa. I counted them and there were 70 (+- a few) stubs. --Carabinieri 22:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{paleontologist-stub}}; {{ornithologist-stub}}; {{entomologist-stub}}

I counted through the {{zoologist-stub}}s and got the following results:

  • Ornithologists 105 stubs
  • Entomologists 106 stubs
  • Paleontologists 54 stubs

I think the ornithologists and entomologists are pretty obvious splits. I hope you will turn a blind eye to the fact that the paleontologists are just under the 60 stub minimum, because this will get rid of a lot of double stubbing, since they are currently all stubbed as both {{zoologist-stub}} and {{geologist-stub}}. Also, I only counted the ones that were previously marked as {{biologist-stub}}s, which I then re-stubbed them as zoologists; so there could be more paleontologists under {{geologist-stub}}.--Carabinieri 22:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia article the American spelling is paleontology and the British spelling is palaeontology. I support a redirect.--Carabinieri 11:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So are you all okay with creating the cat, even though 60 stub minimum hasn't been reached?--Carabinieri 09:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting scientists by nationality

I would like to propose splitting {{scientist-stub}}s by nationality. This will reduce the size of some nation-stub categories that really need it (US and UK, especially) and reduce some double-stubbing (although not much, since most scientists are marked more specifically, {{biologist-stub}}, eg)). While sorting {{biologist-stub}}s I noticed that the following will definately be viable:

I just wanted to ask your opinion on whether you would support splitting scientists by nationality in principle before counting them. But I think the nations mentioned above will definately have enough stubs.--Carabinieri 12:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have no objections, having previously propsed a {{Germany-scientist-stub}}, which due to other stuff on my plate and the novelty thereof, I haven't fast-tracked. Caerwine 17:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More {{sportbio-stub}} splits

I'm going through gradually restubbing Category:Sportspeople stubs, and it's clear that some more sports can be split off in addition to the dozen or so that have already been created. The most obvious would be {{triathlete-stub}}, which would have over 100 stubs, according to a quick Google. I'll do some more checking before I propose any others. sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Going from the other direction, there certainly enough stubs in {{tennis-stub}} and {{autoracing-stub}} to justify a {{tennisbio-stub}} and a {{autoracingbio-stub}}. Probably also enough for a {{skiingbio-stub}}, but without a {{skiing-stub}} to quick count the double stubs, I can't be sure. Caerwine 17:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Symbol stubs + {{anthem-stub}} & Category:Anthem stubs

{{Anthem-stub}} & Category:Anthem stubs have been on the discovery page since August. A recent push by me has brough the number of stubs there from under 10 to over 40. That's still a little light, but my effort was not comprehensive and Category:Anthem stubs can help trim the overlarge (11 pages at present) Category:Song stubs by functioning as a sub category. Along with Category:Flag stubs and the proposed Category:Heraldry stubs, I'd like to put Category:Anthem stubs in a for now templateless Category:Symbol stubs. I'n not certain if there enough stubs to justify a {{symbol-stub}}, but there's enough of a relationship here to justify having them feed into a common category, and we do have other templateless stub categories, so I'm not breaking new ground here. Caerwine 21:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Austria-hist-stub}} + {{Ireland-hist-stub}}

Neither stub is needed to help split an overlarge category, but they both would get over 60 stubs and help to thin out {{Euro-hist-stub}} so as to make it easier to see if a {{HolyRomanEmpire-stub}} or a {{ByzantineEmpire-stub}} would be viable. Caerwine 22:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Luxembourg-geo-stub}}

Someone's been busy making stub articles on all the municipalities in Luxembourg - which means its gone from 34 stubs two weeks ago to 112 now. This one suddenly looks a lot more viable! Grutness...wha? 11:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mindmatrix 00:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amen to that! In other words... I support. - (Erebus555 16:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

{{canada-abp-stub}}

Aboriginal peoples in Canada are an ethnic group comprised of the First Nations, Métis and Inuit. Currently articles in these subjects meriting a stub notice most often use canada-stub and ethno-stub, and org-stub may apply too. Creating an Aboriginal peoples in Canada-stub notice would encompass all of these subjects, and help to depopulate the very large ethno-stub and canada-stub categories. A list of where this proposed stub would be appropriate is as follows:

  1. Aamjiwnaang First Nation
  2. Aboriginal Multi-Media Society
  3. Aboriginal Peoples Television Network
  4. Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn First Nation
  5. Anishinaabe
  6. Burnt Church First Nation
  7. Carcross/Tagish First Nation
  8. Champagne and Aishihik First Nations
  9. Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation
  10. Council of the Haida Nation
  11. Elsipogtog First Nation
  12. Eskasoni First Nation
  13. First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun
  14. Fort Folly First Nation
  15. Gordon First Nation
  16. Hesquiaht First Nation
  17. Hivernants
  18. Huron-Wendat Nation
  19. Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit
  20. Kainai Nation
  21. Kashechewan First Nation
  22. Kluane First Nation
  23. Kwanlin Dün First Nation
  24. Kwicksutaineuk First Nation
  25. Liard River First Nation
  26. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation
  27. Lubicon Lake Indian Nation
  28. Magnetawan First Nation
  29. Métis Flag
  30. Métis in Alberta
  31. Métis Nation - Saskatchewan
  32. Métis Nation of Alberta
  33. Métis Population Betterment Act
  34. Mushuau Innu First Nation
  35. National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation
  36. Nitassinan
  37. Numbered Treaties
  38. Nuxálk Nation
  39. Ojibways of Pic River
  40. One Arrow First Nation
  41. Opaskwayak Cree Nation
  42. Pehdzeh Ki First Nation
  43. Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation
  44. Ross River Dena Council
  45. Sagkeeng First Nation
  46. SAY (magazine)
  47. Selkirk First Nation
  48. Siksika Nation
  49. Snuneymuxw First Nation
  50. Sunchild First Nation
  51. Ta'an Kwach'an Council
  52. Teslin Tlingit Council
  53. Thunderchild First Nation
  54. Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations
  55. Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in First Nation
  56. T'sou-ke Nation
  57. Tsuu T'ina Nation
  58. Union of Ontario Indians
  59. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation
  60. Waywayseecappo First Nation
  61. White River First Nation
  62. Whitefish Lake First Nation
  63. Yukon Land Claims

--Kurieeto 23:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A {{Canada-ethno-stub}} might well be useful. I would, however, emphatically recommend NOT using the name you suggested, since the term "abo" is extremely insulting in some countries (in Australia, it's on par with terms like "nigger"). Grutness...wha? 00:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for pointing that out Grutness! Because {{canada-ab-stub}} has Alberta connotations and we may need a stub for articles relating to that province one day, I'm changing my proposal to {{canada-abp-stub}} instead of {{canada-abo-stub}}. Kurieeto 00:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I support the creation of the stub, though {{canada-abp-stub}} seems awkward. Is there something better we could use? Mindmatrix 00:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{Canada-aborig-stub}}, mebbe? Would {{Canada-aboriginal-stub}} be too long? The Tom 00:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{Canada-ap-stub}} is an option too. Now that I look at it, we already have {{Quebec-stub}}, so I assume we'll be going straight to {{Alberta-stub}} if it's necessary at some point in the future. That frees up {{Canada-ab-stub}}. Kurieeto 01:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no to {{Canada-ab-stub}} solely on the grounds that it's ambiguous; someone will surely use it for an Alberta-related article. I was going to propose {{Canada-aboriginal-stub}} too, but didn't do so because it could be used for non-biographical articles. In retrospect, this shouldn't matter, since we aren't restricting this to just biographical articles anyway. Right? Also, {{Canada-ap-stub}} isn't bad, but isn't very clear either; my preference right now is {{Canada-aboriginal-stub}}. Mindmatrix 01:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support {{Canada-aboriginal-stub}}, but would propose and prefer {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}} for consistency in capitalization of the term. See also Aboriginal peoples in Canada#Capitalization. Kurieeto 01:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a (slightly more general) {{Canada-ethno-stub}}; this also keeps a consistent naming with it's parent. Also, {{Canada-aboriginal-stub}} might get used on biographical articles about aboriginal peoples, which is a rather different scope then is proposed. None of the abbreviations seem particularly desirable or intuitive to me. --Mairi 01:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree. The reason I suggested -ethno- in the first place is that we have a precedent for it, and - being slightly more general - it will take more stubs. I don't think the First Nation stubs would be drowned out by ones for groups like the Acadiens, which could theoretically also take that stub. Grutness...wha? 02:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have both? There are over 600 First Nations in Canada, and most of them will likely need the proposed {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}} at some point in their existance. This is without considering the possibility for growth in Métis and Inuit stub articles. If we can I'd like to avoid the manual renaming of many {{Canada-ethno-stub}}s to {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}}s that would be likely at some point in the future. Kurieeto 02:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just leave it at the one stub for now (canada-ethno-stub). It can always be split later if that's needed, but there's no evidence yet that it would be. Grutness...wha? 07:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is the proposed stub notice for a {{canada-ethno-stub}}? I see the following options as possible:
The flag of Canada This ethnic groups of Canada-related article is a stub.
The flag of Canada This ethnic groups of Canada-related article is a stub.
The flag of Canada This ethnic groups of Canada-related article is a stub.
I remain in favour of an Aboriginal peoples in Canada stub notice. Great lengths have been gone to on Wikipedia to avoid describing or implying Aboriginal peoples in Canada as belonging to Canada, as advised against by the Government of Canada [2]. Actions on Wikipedia taken in this manner have been the renaming of Category:Canadian First Nations to Category:First Nations and the renaming of Aboriginal peoples of Canada to Aboriginal peoples in Canada. This policy has been extended to all Indigenous/Aboriginal peoples, see the renaming of Indigenous people of Brazil to Indigenous peoples in Brazil. These renamings required a vote, or were otherwise not objected to. I'm very hesitant to describe Aboriginal peoples as an ethnic group being "of Canada", thereby implying belonging, especially when a need has been demonstrated for an option like:
 This Aboriginal peoples in Canada-related article is a stub.
Other possible names for an Aboriginal peoples in Canada stub are: {{Aboriginal-canada-stub}}, {{Aboriginal-can-stub}}, or {{abcan-ethno-stub}}. This would begin a new syntax for Aboriginal/Indigenous peoples stubs that one day may be needed, such as for Category:Indigenous peoples and/or its subcategories. Kurieeto 13:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why not {{Canada-indiginous-stub}}? aboriginal isnt pc everywhere and could cause complaints. And it could say something like

> This article about indiginous peoples in Canada is a stub.

BL kiss the lizard 01:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

{{reli-bio-stub}} splits

This was pretty much agreed to while discussing the {{bishop-stub}} proposal, but I thought I'd re-propose it before creating since these are pretty major changes. I propose splitting {{reli-bio-stub}} as follows:

--Carabinieri 19:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous stub type

I found the template:Strategy-cvg-stub which attempts to add to category:puzzle game stubs. Apparently the termplate has been used but the category doesn't exist. It should be cleaned up though I don't know in which manner. RJFJR 02:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone decided to include puzzle games in that template, and then someone else changed the category and wording to only puzzle stubs. I've changed to back to Category:Strategy game stubs and listed both types in the wording. Now all the articles in Category:Puzzle game stubs just need null edits, so the categories will show them correctly. --Mairi 03:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's going on with this one, but the category looks very strange. It needs a serious fix-up! Grutness...wha? 06:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is complete madness! This template leads into a category called Category:Computer and video game templates! This means that all CVG stubs - along with all full articles which use other CVG templates - will get dumped into this category with the templates. Sheer and utter insanity. What's more, the category has some very interesting and previously unreported stub templates: {{Capcom-stub}}. {{Sega-stub}}. What is going on here? Grutness...wha? 05:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The template was created properly by ADeveria (talk · contribs), as a result of the discussion on computer and video game stubs below. His template fed into Category:Strategy game stubs. CyberSkull (talk · contribs) erroneously edited the category to Category:Computer and video game stubs (presumably as a result of copy-pasting from {{cvg-stub}}), which he immediately fixed. But a month later, Cyberskull made it a puzzle-game only stub, removed every reference to strategy games from the title and replaced Category:Strategy game stubs with Category:Puzzle game stubs and Category:Computer and video game templates. Judging from CyberSkull's contributions, this doesn't seem to have been discussed anywhere. I performed a null edit on Itadaki Street, and it didn't screw up anything in the categorization. Aecis 08:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
0.o I messed one up? Sorry, I was trying to standardize the coding style of the stubs for easier editing. I must have pasted the wrong thing in that stub then… Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{Capcom-stub}} and {{Sega-stub}} (and others) are mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries#Video game company stubs. You'd also commented in the discussion about them there ;) I wouldn't mind seeing some of those deleted... --Mairi 05:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. With so many different stubs being discussed here, is it any wonder I forget a few? <:) Grutness...wha? 05:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
None of the stubs that I created have done any harm. They don't prevent anyone from adding to the genre-specific stubs. And as I've already proved, they can be easily populated. The only problem is that one has to have the time and determination to search high and low for stubby articles without a stubby notice. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australian cities

User:Mairi mentioned problems with Melbourne stub categories at WP:WSS/D, and its something shared by all the Aussie cities. Currently there are a slew of incorrectly named templates and several which could do with combining for the sake of economy. Unfortunately (or fortunately), they also have WikiProjects of their own, so any changes will need to be coordinated with them. Currently, we have the following:

no stubs for Perth or Brisbane

What I would propose - subject to comments from the various WikiProjects - is the following revamp:

  • combining Adelaide�s three stub types into {{Adelaide-stub}} - there is no need for three categoiries this small when a combined stub would contain less than 100 stubs. It would also be far easier for WikiProject members to work on one category than have three separate ones.
  • Keeping {{canberra-stub}}, but renaming {{canberra suburb stub}} as {{Canberra-geo-stub}} and allowing it to cover the entirety of A.C.T. (there are a handful of non-suburb geo-stubs from ACT)
  • Renaming {{Melstub}} and {{Mel-suburb-stub}} as {{Melbourne-stub}} and {{Melbourne-geo-stub}} - also going through Melstub�s category and moving all the suburbs to the other category! There are over 100 of them in there!
  • Renaming {{Sydney suburb stub}} to {{Sydney-geo-stub}}.
  • Hobstub has never been used, and google suggests that there are probably only 20 or 30 stubs relating to Hobart in total. it is currently listed for deletion at WP:SFD. if it looks like it will be useful at some stage it can be recreated then (with a better name) - Perth-stub, Brisbane-stub and a separate Sydney-stub may also be viable at some stage (if requested here).
  • A separate Australia-struct-stub - as proposed further up the page - looks incresingly viable.

Grutness...wha? 01:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch, Grutness - these could certainly do with standardising. I agree on all counts except for deleting the Hobart category, as it's sure to grow, and I don't see the point of leaving it without a stub category. However, renaming it to something more standard would help, too. Ambi 02:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree mostly. I'm fine with retiring {{adelstub}} and {{adelaide transport stub}} into an {{adelaide-stub}}, but I would like {{adelaide suburb stub}} retained, even if it means being renamed {{adelaide-geo-stub}}. It is only underpopulated because there hasn't yet been a concerted effort at creating suburb stubs, as with the other cities, but this is bound to happen at one point or another.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from a Canberra perspective I agree and think standardising these stub types accross Australia would be useful. I also don't think we should be removing the Hobart stub just because it isn't in use yet. Martyman 03:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with the Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra changes. Keeping some form of Hobart stub seems good so as to have a sensible naming scheme already in place. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 04:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to go through all the Hobart stubs and tag them with whichever stub name is officially decided - {{Hobart-stub}}, by the looks of things? -- Chuq 04:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Grutness throughout. Since it looks like there'll be a lack of consensus to delete the allegedly highly useful hobstub, can I suggest that failing this it be urgently: renamed; given a well-formed category; and actually populated with something like a number of stubs rising to a "viable even given the existence of a WikiProject" level? Having such categories around just in case they'll be useful one day pretty much runs a coach and four through the whole point of keeping stub categories reasonably organised, and more to the point, useful for attracting a critical mass of collectively interested editors. (Oops, forgot to "save" this after leaving browser window open -- thanks Chuq, I think that'd be a plan alright.) Alai 11:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would Hobart be better served by a {{Tasmania-stub}} category, and would any of the other cities be served by state-based categories? Susvolans ? 12:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, although the wikiproject is specifically for Hobart. Note too that a Tasmania-geo-stub is quite likely to be created sometime soon - there are over 120 Tasmania-geo-stubs, but the Australia-geo-stub category is currently only at around 300 stubs after the recent removal of those for the four largest states (in terms of stub numbers). Grutness...wha? 12:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... this has been quiet for a few days, so I'll start moving them one or two at a time to SFD for official renaming. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with Canberra stub changes--User:AYArktos | Talk 09:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add support or otherwise at WP:SFD. Hopefully after all the discussion here there shouldn't be any major opposition to the changes. Grutness...wha? 09:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - the Hobart, Canberra and Adelaide changes have gone ahead. I'll take the others to SFD now. Grutness...wha? 07:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*B and *G codes

I'd like to propose adding *B and *G codes to the list to indicate that there ate biography and geography stubs associated with a particular stub type. This would cut down on the number of additional lines needed to indicate child stub types, especially the *B code which would be useful for things besides regions: For example:

Current

Proposed

So what do you think? Caerwine 03:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stub format

Right now we have a number of stub templates that atart off with <div class="boilerplate metadata" id="stub">. There's one small problem with that: now that we have endorsed the usage of more than one stub in an article, this contributes to a small potential problem in that there aren't supposed to be in HTML, SGML, XML, or practiaclly any other ML you care to name, more than one element with the same "id" attribute. While most browsers don't bother to enforce that rule, or do so in ways that wouldn't affect how the id is being used, there are a few other minor issues that theoretically could arise but are unlikely to due to the nature of stub articles. Still, there is a simple fix that could be applied, and it would have the added minor benefit of cutting the article size by 5 chars per stub in the article. That would be to shift to <div class="boilerplate metadata stub"> and make stub a class instead of an identifier. This would require making the appropriate changes to the main CSS files, so it may not be trivial to do depending on how the existing CSS is set up. Caerwine 01:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for general discussion or proposals relating to stub types and stub sorting. Proposals for specific stub types should go in the current month's section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals&oldid=27579108"