Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposals, July 2005[edit]

New album stubs[edit]

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]

Dance album stub not created due to lack of corresponding non-stub parent. RnB album stub not created due to unresolved template name , other 4 stubs created. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{labor-bio-stub}}[edit]

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]

Reproposed as {{worker-activist-stub}} in December. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, September 2005[edit]

More Musicians/Music Subcategory proposals[edit]

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]
Of the four instrument based stubs I suggested, I've just created {{woodwind-musician-stub}} and {{brass-musician-stub}}, while {{keyboard-musician-stub}} is covered by the {{keyboardist-stub}} someone else created, and I decided to create the {{string-musician-stub}} as {{bowed-musician-stub}} so as to exclude the guitarists and such, now I'm off to sort Category:Musician stubs which should take me a while, tho I'll certainly welcome help. Caerwine 23:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to record producers, there are also many conductors among the musician stubs. Also, to go along with bowed-string musicians, there are many plucked-string musicians. -Acjelen 05:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, October 2005[edit]

A whole bunch of road stubs, part 2[edit]

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]
{{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]
  • A little long, US stub is written like this {{US-road-stub}} West Virginia's could be written {{WV-road-stub}}. We are going to work on entries for non-Highway roads. A Road stub would be more adventagous, then one that only covers highways. --71Demon 19:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

19:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

          • What are you talking about? I never said a word about Florida. If I did I would suggest FL-road-stub, but I never mentioned a word about Florida. --71Demon 01:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • The page history says that you deleted the Florida tag above... maybe that was an accident? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 01:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess we could have a West Virginia Highways stub and then a West Virginia County Routes Stub for the WV Secondary Routes. I've been wanting to work on articles for many of the county routes in the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia. ;)
      • Oh, and {{West-Virginia-State-Highway-Stub}} is not going to fly...It's much too long. I prefer {{WV-road-stub}} with 71Demon.--Caponer 19:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah I agree... is {{WV-State-Highway-Stub}} better? For more consistency with all the other ones created... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 19:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • For consistancy I think you should use road and not highway the US stubs are for Roads. We don't need a bunch of different stubs, just a single road stub for each state. That is why I suggested {{WV-road-stub}} it is all encompassing for any road in the state and consistant with {{US-road-stub}} which is currently in use. I don't think you need to add the state, the WV postal abbreviation is understood that WV is a state. Their are also a complete set of International two letter codes for countries so no confusion will occur. Keep it simple, no need to make it complex. --71Demon 20:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • We have {{California State Highway Stub}}, {{Arizona State Route Stub}}, {{Massachusetts-State-Highway-Stub}}, {{Maryland-State-Highway-Stub}}, {{Nevada-State-Highway-Stub}}, {{Washington-State-Highway-Stub}}... I know there's a few more I can't think of right now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 20:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree with 71Demon, all those -State-Highway-Stub templates should be changed to -road-stub templates for consistency with {{US-road-stub}}. Why have stub categories set up to exclude articles about roads that aren't State Highways? GTBacchus 01:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • 8 templates moved to be consistent with 3 templates? Shouldn't it be the other way around? And besides, US-road-stub is for a country whereas the State Highway stubs are for states. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 01:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The point is - if we call them State-Highway-stubs instead of road-stubs, then that's silly because it excludes all roads in the state that aren't state highways. US-road-stub is sensibly named, because it allows for roads of any designation. The states should follow that model, too. GTBacchus 04:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I've put regular roads into the state highway cats before... it's not that much of a problem. Keep in mind though that some of these templates are associated with WikiProjects. However, half of the non-state highway roads are non-notable (at least in the sight of other Wikipedians on AFD) or can be classified as county routes... and thus a separate classification such as {{California County Routes Stub}}. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 04:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have agreed for the WV road stub to be called {{WV-road-stub}}. However, I am against the renaming of all the other state highway templates. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 02:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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]

split of {{Physics-stub}}[edit]

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]

Since Optics, particle physics, and quantum mechanics seemed to be unambiguously acceptible, I've just created {{optics-stub}}, {{particle-stub}}, and {{quantum-stub}}. Caerwine 16:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. I have been wishing for an optics-stub for quite a while. I have been uncomfortable with the use of physics-stub for optics articles, because optics really crosses over between pure physics and technology/engineering, in many cases. For this reason, Category:Optics is a subcategory of both Category:Atomic, molecular, and optical physics and Category:Technology. Is it possible to make Category:Optics stubs a subcategory of Category:Technology stubs as well as Category:Physics stubs?--Srleffler 23:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and changed the wording of the {{quantum-stub}} to include quantum field theory stubs as well. Among articles beginning with A-C, there are 9 stubs on quantum mechanics an 27 on quantum field theory. There are 6 stubs on string theory as well, not sure if they should be included. Conscious 07:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

String theory should not be included in {{quantum-stub}}, since it's an over-arching theory that includes theories about forces and phenomena that are not part of quantum mechanics. --EncycloPetey 08:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-midwest-road-stub}}; {{US-northeast-road-stub}}; {{US-south-road-stub}}; {{US-west-road-stub}}[edit]

{{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}}[edit]

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]
So now you tell me... I dunno, I see the root category is at euro-, are we using that consistently? Alai 05:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Painters[edit]

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]
I'm no expert, however from what I've seen of other hierarchies, it would seem that the natural split is to have artist stubs mirror Category:Artists to some degree. Thus, I would suggest splitting by nationailty, and by "period," which would break down as Medieval, Baroque, Modern, etc. This avoids questions like Picasso's pre-Cubist period, and whether Dali was a painter or a sculptor, and further allows the included articles to be broght to the attention of subject-matter experts by nationality and by period, which seem more likely to exist than, say, experts on impressionism who are not also experts on expressionism. The down side, if it is a down side, would be potentially double-tagging stubs—e.g., Salvador Dali {{Spanish-artist-stub}} {{modern-artist-stub}} (not that his is a stub)—as noted, I think having it in both categories would improve the odds of it being seen by the appropriate editors. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 01:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We already have several splits by medium with architects, comics creators, and photograophers all having stubs and all having categories that are part of Category:Artists by medium. I'm inclined to create {{painter-stub}} and {{sculptor-stub}} and populate them and themn see what else needs to be done. Caerwine 17:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Painter and sculptor stubs added. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{mil-bio-stub}}[edit]

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]

Computer Culture[edit]

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]

splitting {{nonfiction-book-stub}}[edit]

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![edit]

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]
  • do it BL kiss the lizard 22:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all three. Given the UK-geo-splitting scheme and precedents, probably speediable if anyone's gung-ho. Alai 15:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this split too, and agree with Alai that this can be speedied. Mindmatrix 16:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Morwen - Talk 19:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with most stubs, but Aberdeenshire stub may prove confusing, due to the radical boundary changes in recent years.--MacRusgail 22:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Aberdeenshire's not in the initial couple after the final count, even when combined with the city 9which would be a reasonable move), though it would be next in line to split off. As for difficulties with recent boundary changes, that's the case with most Scotland-geo-stubs, which are a shambles. Moany of them have no county marked, or use the pre 1995 regions orr the traditional counties. Grutness...wha? 23:33, 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[edit]

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]

Proposals, November 2005[edit]

Splits of Euro-myth-stub[edit]

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]
      • does germanic include norse/viking? BL kiss the lizard 06:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to the Germanic tribes article it does. Germanics roughly lived in northern Western Europe and in southern Scandinavia, with an extension southwards (for instance the Longobards in modern-day Italy are generally seen as a Germanic tribe). Aecis 10:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've now created {{Ancient-Rome-myth-stub}}. Aecis praatpaal 23:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will create {{celt-myth-stub}} later today, and if there are no objections, I will create {{norse-myth-stub}} asap. Aecis [[User_talk:Aecis|<sup>praatpaal</sup>]] 21:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On a side-note: according to google, there are about 70 to 80 stubs relating to Aztec mythology in {{myth-stub}} and {{Americas-myth-stub}}. Aecis [[User_talk:Aecis|<sup>praatpaal</sup>]] 22:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{geneticist-stub}}[edit]

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]

  • I think we need a genetics-stub as well. We apparently don't have a stub for genes, genomes, and the field of genetics, including developmental, engineering, etc. --lux 03:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese people[edit]

I just finished culling the voice actors, writers, and politicians from Category:Japanese people stubs. Based on the remaining 750 that I didn't sort, I think that musicians, artists, and historical figures (grouping present-day military with prior periods) would each merit a subcat. A weak case could be made for film producers, but it would become a strong case if they could be lumped in with video game developers. (That is a tenuous connection; but together, it should make it through the 60 person threshold). An even weaker case can be made for yakuza and other crime figures. There are several sports figures, scientists, and businessmen; but none of those struck me as being particularly overpopulated. All of this is just my gut feeling, based on the number of times it seemed like I saw a particular type of article.

So, my proposals are for

  • {{Japan-musician-stub}} (bands, enka, computer video game songs, the whole gamut) -- some could be double-stubbed, especially cvg
  • {{Japan-artist-stub}} (manga, traditional art) -- a few more double-stubs
  • {{Japan-history-bio-stub}} (or some other name)
  • If someone wants to recommend a name for a game developer/film producer stub, I would go along with that, but I can't come up with anything...

Any comments? Neier 15:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • As for {{Japan-history-bio-stub}}, that idea has been vetoed in the past, and gven that Category:Japanese people stubs is now no longer overlarge, it hardly seems the place for that innovation. 4 pages is not overlarge. The musician and artist categories are in the midst of discussions of how to split them, and those should get resolved first. The cats large, but not so large as to break new ground with, in my opinion. Caerwine 20:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also reject all nation-history-bio-stubs because the only possible definition of such a stub would be that the subject of the stub is either dead or lived before a certain time, which is a senseless way to split stub IMO. The only exception to this should be time eras of specific nations, which are easily definable and have a large number of stubs which definately relate to anouther but hard to categorize otherwise. Nazi Germany is the best example I can think of right now. I think a {{Nazi-Germany-bio-stub}} might actually make sense because there are numerous stubs about concentration camp guards and such, which can't really be categorized as {{mil-bio-stub}} or as {{crime-bio-stub}} (as crime fighters (many of these people were formally policemen) or as criminals). For SS-people a double-stubbing as {{Germany-mil-bio-stub}} and {{Nazi-Germany-bio-stub}} could make sense. If someone thinks this cat makes sense I would welcome such a proposal but don't feel strongly enough about it to propose it myself.--Carabinieri 20:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree about not having the word history in there (it would be hist anyway, if used, but it's needlessly confusing). Note that - as far as Carabinieri's points are concerned - we have a Nazi-stub for Nazi germany (it is specified in the template that it's not for neo-nazi groups), so nazi-bio-stub would probably re a reasonable enough name, as long as the same specification is made there. As far as the history stub for japan is concerned, almost all of those would be easily covered by Japan-writer-stub, Japan-artist-stub, Japan-royal-stub and Japan-mil-bio-stub, some of which already exist or are proposed, and others of which may be viable. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for {{Japan-musician-stub}}, that's an issue of splitting Category:Musician stub by type of musician, rather than by country. Sadly, most musician stubs are going to stay double-stubbed with their national-bio stub because of this. Musicians employing different instruments are seen as having different occupations in this scheme, so possibly one day there will be {{Japan-singer-stub}}, {{Japan-keyboardist-stub}} and so on (and possibly not). Conscious 10:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{dads-army-stub}}[edit]

I have worked very hard in starting to create pages for Dads Army Episodes and believe there should be a subcategorie of BBC stubs for Dads Army. These are that fit the tag:

  1. Dad's Army
  2. The Man and the Hour
  3. Museum Piece
  4. Command Decision
  5. The Enemy Within the Gates
  6. The Showing Up of Corporal Jones
  7. Shooting Pains
  8. Operation Kilt
  9. The Battle of Godfrey's Cottage
  10. The Loneliness of the Long Distance Walker
  11. Sgt. Wilson's Little Secret
  12. A Stripe for Frazer
  13. Under Fire

Many other pages will be added to the list as I create them. All these pages will benfit and it will encourage people to expand the pages. --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • We usually like to see quite a few more stubs before creating a stub type. We do make an exception for WikiProjects but you'll need to set up a WikiProject related to the Dad's Army series first, which probably would be a good idea if you're interested in getting assistance with the task, regardless of whether or not the stub type is created. I'll leave it to people who actually saw the series to decide whether it's encyclopedic or not. If the stub is worth creating, {{DadsArmy-stub}} and Category:Dad's Army stubs would fit our usual naming conventions. Caerwine 20:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is encyclopaedic - one of the best British comedy series ever (not just my comment - it's officially so). I don't see it as having enough stubs for its own category, though. However, (Don't panic! Don't panic!) the TV stubs need a serious workout and reorganisation, and I can see use for a separate UK-tv-comedy-stub and US-tv-comedy-stub. If those went ahead, the Dad's Army ones could easily be marked with the first of those two. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see the need for a separate stub for a single TV show, especially with only slightly over 10 articles for the stub category. I do enjoy British TV comedy, and think that shows like 'Allo 'Allo!, Black Adder, On the Buses, The Fast Show, Smack the Pony, etc., are rather brilliant, but the only British TV comedy show I think is famous enough to have its own sub template is Monty Python. — JIP | Talk 10:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{soundtrack-stub}}[edit]

I think this could lighten up the burdens of the current album-stub a bit. It could be something like "This soundtrack- or musical score -related article is a stub." Sylph 09:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the non-stub category is Category:Soundtracks, created as {{soundtrack-stub}} with a redirect from {{soundtrack-album-stub}}. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islam[edit]

Im surprised that this stubs arent already here. I feel that manny should see that there is a obvious need for them. I yes, please do tell so i wont need to go through all articles and past them here.

  1. {{Shia-stub}} - Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild
  2. {{Sunni-stub}} - Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Sunni Guild
  3. {{Islam-book-stub}} - Islam book stub, books related to Islam
  1. The Khalifas who took the right way (book) - Sunni book

--Striver 00:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a proposal earlier on the page for an {{Islam-bio-stub}}, {{Islam-theologian-stub}} and {{Islam-clergy-stub}} (they'll be created shortly) which would remove the need for one for scholars, I'd think. If a stub for books is necessary (we ought to at least have a {{reli-book-stub}}), it ought to be called {{Islam-book-stub}}. --Mairi 03:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Striver 05:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, it's not at all obvious to me that any of of those three are are needed, when considered in isolation. Assuming that the ratio of Shia and Sunni stubs to the Islam stubs will be roughly equivalent to the ratio between those in the Shia Islam and Sunni Islam categories to those in the Islam category then neither category will come close to the 60 stub recommended minimum at this time. About the only good reason I can see for establishing the Shia and Sunni stubs is the associated WikiProjects, but they are sub projects with 1 and 2 fully active participants respectively. In short, I'm neutral on those two stubs at the moment. I can see the need for a {{reli-book-stub}} and that should give us a basis for judging the need for an {{Islam-book-stub}} (or any other sub type) in the future. Caerwine 05:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can i take that as a "no objection" for the {{Islam-book-stub}}?--Striver 08:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where are all these articles? Perhaps I'm missing something, but Category:Islamic studies books and Category:Islamic texts contain very few articles. Unless there's alot somewhere else, I'd suggest holding off on {{Islam-book-stub}}. Maybe once we have {{Islam-bio-stub}} (and others) split out of {{Islam-stub}} it'll be more clear what there's a need for. --Mairi 03:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to the concept, but I'd like to see a general reli-book-stub first so that it is easier to judge whether there are enough stub articles about Islamic books that they need a stub category of their very own, either that or a list of the 60+ articles that is the normally suggested minimum for a new stub type. Caerwine 20:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Separate anime and manga stubs[edit]

It seems odd to only have one stub for both anime and manga. While I agree that frequently they go together (in which case the more general stub can be used) there are plenty of stubs which are just anime or manga. Currently there are more than five pages of anime-manga stubs, the largest stub category in the literary genre. I suggest that we create {{anime-stub}} and {{manga-stub}}, although that would mean changing all the current anime-manga stubs from {{anime-stub}} to something else (like anime-manga), so we might have to use another name, such as {{anime-show-stub}}, which would be a pity as it would be more confusing. Story Weaver 14:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that I see a anime/manga split as being especially useful as there's just too much overlap that would lead to doubble stubbing. A quick perusal of the category leads me to think that the following two stubs be useful and reduce rather than increase double stubbing:
So what do people think? Caerwine 21:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think your idea is good. Conscious 14:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of {{Business-bio-stub}}[edit]

Discussion at Category talk:Business biography stubs. Courtland 17:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speaking of business-bio-stub: there are now exactly 1,100 articles in that category. Is it about time to create daughters? I was thinking of sorting by nationality, but would it be feasible to sort by industry? Aecis praatpaal 19:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC) (PS. Or perhaps by corporation, like {{microsoft-bio-stub}}? (Provided there are enough articles ofcourse) 21:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Definitely not something that should be split by corporation. For one thing it is doubtful that enough corporations could meet the 60 stub threshold so as to be worth splitting out, secondly, I'd like to make certain that {{Intel-bio-stub}} is reserved as a potential future name for intelligence agents, should we decide to split the spooks from the soldiers in {{mil-bio-stub}}.Caerwine 02:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose splitting it by nationality. Something like {{US-business-bio-stub}}, {{UK-business-bio-stub}} and so on. Conscious 11:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Musical tuning stubs[edit]

I think we need a stub category, called either {{tuning-stub}} or {{scale-stub}}, for musical tunings, temperaments, and scales, to go along with my proposed WikiProject Tunings, Temperaments, and Scales. It would remove a lot of stubs from Category:Music theory stubs (which has over 200) like Arabic scale, Bilawal, and Dheerasankarabharanam. Comments? —Keenan Pepper 05:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've got a wikiproject on this subject, it sounds quite reasonable - the only problem I can really see is the number of stubs. Ideally we use 60 current stubs as an approximate threshold for a new category (although we're more lenient if there's a wikiproject) - could you see there being 60 current stubs on tunings, etc Grutness...wha? 07:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC) (a guitarist who has used over a dozen different tunings and likes DADGAE best)[reply]
200 doesn't seem like too many for music-theory-stubs. If the WikiProject improved the articles so they didn't need stub tags that would be a better solution than tweaking the stub categories. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia and Herzegovina-related stub[edit]

I think there's a need for Bosnia and Herzegovina related stub category. Around 50% of Category:Musicians from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Category:Writers from Bosnia and Herzegovina are or should be stubs, and I'm quite sure the situation is the same in other categories. I think {{Bosnia and Herzegovina-stub}} would prosper and flourish. --Dijxtra 17:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, we don't have that many articles about Bosnia and Herzogovina, let alone stubs. still, I am keeping track of the situation to see when and if countries cross the 60 stub threshold in the existing European stub categories, and not just for Bosnia and Herzogovina. , if there are any B&H stubs that don't already have {{Euro-stub}} or one of its Europe wide sub types (other than geography, for which {{BiH-geo-stub}} exists, please add it, as it will help get the ball rolling. Caerwine 00:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK! I'll go and add stubs to {{Euro-stub}}. --Dijxtra 08:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • we seem to have {{BiH-stub}} already - but at the moment it's a redirect of {{Euro-stub}}. The names probably need un-ambiguating too... Grutness...wha? 00:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, apologies for confusion I might have caused by creating {{Bosnia-stub}} without proposing it here first. I agree with Dijkstra that the stub is needed and there are/will be plenty of articles attached to it. Since now both {{BiH-stub}} and {{Bosnia-stub}} are in effect orphaned, I propose to:
-un-redirect BiH-stub & attach it to appropriate pages
-delete {{Bosnia-stub}} (via Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion).
I'll un-categorize {{Bosnia-stub}} right now to orphanize it fully. Duja 08:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SLOW DOWN. Firstly, Bosnia-stub shouldn't have been created. There was already a proposal in place that was for a different and more acceptable name ("Bosnia" instantly cuts out about 25% of the country, i.e., Herzegovina). As it is, the name that would most reflect other names we've used before is {{BosniaHerzegovina-stub}}, but it's possible that someone will be able to come up with a dbetter name than that. User:Dijxtra has things under control at the moment and has proposed hunting for stubs first, to make sure there are enough for a separate template to be considered. Now that this one has been created, though, it's worth checking to see what is the best thing to do with it - and that means debating it properly, not simply changing things around now and asking whether it was the right thing to do later! leave any actions until we've had a chance to check how many stubs there are and get the naming right - please! Oh, and UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you ever consider removing categories from active stubs! Grutness...wha? 11:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize once more; however, I was uncategorizing the Bosnia-stub primarily because it's not active; i.e. no article links to it. I was merely trying to stop the fire I started from spreading. I had good intentions, but "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" suddenly came true :-D. Duja 11:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't stop someone else from seeing that the template is there and using it. As a matter of fact, there was a stub that had that template when I replaced the category link - Olympic Hall Zetra. Just because a template has been orphaned doesn't mean that it will stay orphaned. (Apology accepted though, and sorry I shouted :) Grutness...wha? 12:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I can't delete {{Bosnia-stub}} even if I created it myself? Do your admin-rights permit it even if it didn't go through VfD (on the basis of "obvious miscreation")? Duja 12:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note to BiH-stub hunters: there are a few of them in European political party stubs, about a dozen, IIRC. (Just in case you didn't know.) As for the template name, {{BosniaHerzegovina-stub}} is somewhat unwieldy. I wonder how citizens of Herzegovina would feel about {{Bosnia-stub}} (remember that Trinidad and Tobago stub category?). Also, if BiH is a common enough abbreviation, {{BiH-stub}} could also be a decent name (we have {{US-stub}}, after all). Conscious 13:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I deliberately checked with [User:Guettarda]] - who is from T&T - before making the Trinidad-geo-stub, because I realised there could be trouble. But Trinidad and Tobago have had a more stable political history than Bosnia-Herzegovina. Note that as soon as a Serbia-stub was made, a Montenegro-stub suddenly appeared. BiH is a bit of a problem as a name (it’s "BandH" in Bosnian, IIRC) - {{BosniaHerzegovina-stub}} woud be better, going by our naming precedents. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"BiH" is very common abbreviation 'round here, and "Bosnia" is also more common thing to tell in vernacular speech than "Bosnia and Herzegovina", even for Herzegovinians. I propose one of those, because spelling "BosniaHerzegovina" would be IMO difficult to guess. We're nit-picking now though so I wouldn't mind either way. We already have {{BiH-geo-stub}} btw. Duja 07:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I myself support either {{BiH-stub}} or {{Bosnia_and_Herzegovina-stub}}. I think {{Bosnia-stub}} is inapropriate as geografically term "Bosnia" exists and it differs from term "Bosnia and Herzegovina", "Bosnia" is not just an abbreviation of "Bosnia and Herzegovina" (although majority of Balcan population uses it that way). I find {{BosniaHerzegovina-stub}} a rather bad compromise between length and clearance, since by adding just 5 chars (_and_) we get a full name of the country... BTW, I just wrote my exam, and now I'm back at hunting BiH stubs ;-) --Dijxtra 11:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note that no stub template names use spaces. Double-barreled country names cause problems. They're normally run into one item - so we have SouthAfrica-geo-stub, for example - but that makes for problems if there's an "and". What we've done in cases like that before is either to have just one part of the name, like with Trinidad-geo-stub (back to Bosnia-stub) or to do what we did with your neighbours - who use SerbiaMontenegro-stub. That's why I suggested BosniaHerzegovina-stub. The country's also frequently referred to as "Bosnia-Herzegovina" by English-speaking media, so it makes some sense. Grutness...wha? 13:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest {{BiH-stub}}, because {{BosniaHerzegovina-stub}} just sounds funny to me. :-) Considering that's no argument, I don't have any good arguments against {{BosniaHerzegovina-stub}} anymore, so if anyone else supports that one, I'll have to agree. :-) But, I'm still against {{Bosnia-stub}}, not because of my own localpatriotism (I have no connections with Herzegovina, been there only once), but because some localpatriots might complain (and BiH's on Balcan, and Balcan is, you know, full of localpatriots)... but then again, I'm open for discussion, as always... BTW, my BiH-stub count is now at 75, and is growing at a steady pace. --Dijxtra 14:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assembled a list of articles that should go to this new stub category and published it here: User:Dijxtra/BiH-stub. This list is in creation and it is far from finished, I've only started. I noticed some other people are searching for Bosnian (yes, I use the "Bosnia" abbreviation, but that's unofficial abbreviation ;-) ) stubs too, so it'd be really great if they appended my list, so we get a full list of stubs so we can prove theres more then 60 of them and so we can use it to populate the category when it's created. You can do that easily by going to your "My contributions" page, copy-pasting all of the articles to some text editor and then use search-replace tools to get rid of unwanted information. --Dijxtra 12:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm tired now :-) Theres more than 120 articles on the list, which should be quite enough for justifying new stub category. Now, lets discuss the name and create this category. --Dijxtra 17:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for {{BiH-stub}} for a) brevity, b) we already have {{BiH-geo-stub}}. Duja 11:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note there are enough stubs for both 'Bosnia and Herzegovina stub' and 'Bosnia and Herzegovina biography stub'. Conscious 15:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final proposal[edit]

OK, I think it's time I rewrite this proposal and we finish with it. I propose 2 new stub templates/categories to be created. List of more than 60 articles for those categories can be seen here. Please vote for one of the following:

  • {{BosniaHerzegovina-stub}} and {{BosniaHerzegovina-bio-stub}} - clarity, reflects the English name of the country
    • I support these, with redirects at {{BiH-stub}} and {{BiH-bio-stub}} (although I wouldn't mind the other way round). Conscious 09:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but - as with Conscious - no objection to redirects. I'd prefer it this way round though. Grutness...wha? 09:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. More in line with other stub names while BiH abbreviation is not clear to everyone. It is a bit more difficult to type I will admit --Dado 21:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dijxtra, Duja, what's your opinion about creating {{BosniaHerzegovina-stub}} & {{BosniaHerzegovina-bio-stub}} and redirects {{BiH-stub}} & {{BiH-bio-stub}}? If you don't mind, I think it's time they were created. Conscious 10:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weeeeell... we could do that, it won't kill us... but, as I voted, I think {{BiH-stub}} is a better idea, and we have a draw which stalled now... tell you what. Since you two are involved in the stub project so you are the bosses here, I'll conform and now I'll go and create {{BosniaHerzegovina-stub}} and {{BosniaHerzegovina-bio-stub}}, and then {{BiH-bio-stub}} and redirect BiH-* templates to BosniaHerzegovina-* ones, but I'll state once again that I'm rather dissatisfied with this solution and that I'm conforming just not to be a dick ;-) But if you ask me, we did it the wrong way. There. Sincerely yours, Dijxtra 14:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There. I created those templates and categories. Since now both templates exist, I'll use those I like more. :-) Don't expect me to do all the job at once, I'll mark ~10 articles a day, so I'll probably be finished in 2 weeks time. And, Grutness, it'd be great if you deleted the {{Bosnia-stub}} now. --Dijxtra 15:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's not about being a dick, it's about getting things moving. We seem to have found a solution everyone can be relatively happy with, why not use it? :) Conscious 15:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
technically, I think I need Duja to okay the deletion in order to speedy Bosnia-stub (as creator of it), but I've been bold. If there's any complaints send 'em to me and I'll apologise :) Grutness...wha? 06:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I already did ask you that above :-). (See sub-thread starting with "SLOW DOWN"). Thanks. Duja 09:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A few more country-geo-stubs[edit]

Three more countries have nosed past threshold for their own geo-stubs, all in Africa. One of them, though, might pose some naming problems.

(oh, and before you ask, no - no US states have reached threshold this time, and I've put Scotland on hold for now - it obviously needs more thought). Grutness...wha? 12:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It eould be so much easier if it were still named Zaire. My thought is {{DemocraticRepublicoftheCongo-geo-stub}} & Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo geography stubs with redirects {{DRCongo-geo-stub}} and {{Congo-Kinshasa-geo-stub}}. It's not the Congolese Democratic Republic, so I'm not in favor of {{CongoDR-stub}}. Caerwine 00:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DRCongo sounds good to me. Given the length of the country's name, this could be one case where an abbreviation makes a lot of sense. I'll wait for more input before doing anything about that one though. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear about the pause for deep breath and cogitation over Scotland-geo-stub splits. Morwen and I have been having a discussion at my Talk page, and other places, about the disarray regarding Wikipedia's current presentation of the Subdivisions of Scotland. Things should progress soon. Please note that the counties of Scotland were definitely abolished in 1975 (unlike in England); and that Cfd decided to delete all categorisation of bio articles by defunct units of Scottish local government. The 32 modern council areas are definitely the way to go on this, but I realise that some others may need persuading. Apart from England (often a special case), can you name one other country that is not using its modern local government system as the method of splitting stubs? (By the way, are you sure that map at Category:Scotland geo stubs is correct? I thought we concluded that Skye was not in the Invernessshire lieutenancy area?)--Mais oui! 12:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
euuh. That probably been left there when everything else got postponed. As to the divisions, no, i can't think of any others - but the problem was, knowing whether Scotland should follow the same model as England, and then trying to work out what that model would be. it was confused further by the fact that a lot of the stubs listed places according to their counties, others by their lieutenancy, and yet more by their council area. Yet more - annoyingly - simply said "X is a place in the Highlands of Scotland" (more often than not, it eventually turned out to be somewhere like Perth or Aberdeenshire). Once everything's sorted out with official wiki policy on how to split Scotland, please report back here (or, more to the point, in a new section at the bottom of the proposals!) and we'll finally get to work with counting and splitting! Grutness...wha? 13:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to agree wholeheartedly with this. Splitting England by ceremonial counties is a special case : they can be easily found on modern maps (although not directly), and the other divisions are not very useful. The 1974 counties would have been, for the splitting, a better option - but obviously those are politically unacceptable. Whereas in Scotland, the lieutenancy areas can't be found on maps, and the former regions are too large. Would definitely agree with council areas for Scotland. Wales will also be problematic, though they aren't large enough yet (Northern Ireland is easy - just 6 county cats and a Belfast one). Morwen - Talk 13:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add these three to my stub splitting page. Grutness...wha? 04:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These seem reasonable. Mindmatrix 01:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more - a surprising one[edit]

A personal request, this one. I've been busy "gazeteering" Bermuda, and there are now a little over 50 geo-stubs for there. By the time I've finished in the next few days, there should be just on 60 - a fraction low for a separate stub, but pretty close. Grutness...wha? 04:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no problem with this one. Last time I checked, I found 51 such stubs (your tally page says 53, so I'll defer to that). Go for it. Mindmatrix 20:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Euro-bio-stub}} & Category:European people stubs[edit]

With over 60 biography stubs in Category:Europe stubs plus 25 stub types that would claim this as its parent, I think there are enough to justify adding this. Caerwine 16:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the category already exists, plus that there are several more sub types already there that aren't on the main list. Caerwine 17:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{electronic-musician-stub}} & {{electronic-music-stub}}[edit]

Would be very handy categories for WikiProject Electronic music. Hagbard Celine 19:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{electronic-musician-stub}} was proposed above under Even more musician stubs more than seven days ago, so it's technically creatable now. I've been holding off on closing the various proposals for further splitting the musician stubs until I finished my current sort through, just simply so that I wouldn't be creating them in dribs and drabs. I'll probably be finished with that sorting in a couple of days. I've got only about 3 pages of stubs left in that category to look thru. You might wish to also consider {{electronic-album-stub}} to help with the vastly overpopulated Album stubs category. Caerwine 23:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the {{stub}} template[edit]

It might be an idea to place some text along the lines of "This stub type is deprecated, please consider editing to use a more specific stub type from this list." on the end of the {{stub}} template, so that people might do a little sorting when they add a default stub tag. Stifle 00:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

maybe. Similar things have been done in the past, though, and it's seen as being a self-reference to Wikipedia, so it's not univrsally liked and tends to get reverted. In any case, the sort of people who would be willing to take a few seconds more to choose a specific template already know that there are lots of different stub categories. I'm not entirely sure it would have the desired effect. Grutness...wha? 04:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could it somehow be made more obvious how to find the stub categories? I'm a new Wikipedia addict, and it has taken quite some time to figure out where to look for them. I kept looking under templates, found no guidance there, and didn't know where else to try. In the end I just guessed at {{stub}} being a possibly useful syntax, marked something with it (in preview), looked at the "stub" category and finally found my way here. --LesleyW 10:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure how to make it much more obvious - it's linked from Wikipedia:Stub, from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting, and from Category:Stubs. it's even on Wikipedia:How to edit a page in the main Wikipedia instructions under "templates", and the Wikipedia:Manual of style and Help:Template link to WP:STUB, too, as does "stub" in Wikipedia:Glossary. Most of these come complete with links to the main stub type list at WP:WSS/ST. If there are any other places we could add a link to it, though, suggestions are definitely welcome! Grutness...wha? 07:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a link to WP:WSS/ST at the bottom of Wikipedia:Template messages, under "Related pages for specific types of templates". As far as the self-reference issue, stub templates already are a self reference, so I'm not sure how adding another one in the template is any worse. --Mairi 06:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands geo stubs[edit]

At 380 stubs, Category:Netherlands geography stubs isn't in a dire need of being split. However, two provinces have passed the threshold: North Holland (80 stubs) and Gelderland (68). So I would like to propose {{NorthHolland-geo-stub}} and {{Gelderland-geo-stub}}. Aecis praatpaal 01:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair, although - as you say - it probably isn't essential it's split yet. I would have expected Friesland to be the first, given its "difference" from the rest of the country and the likelihood that lots of islands will mean lots of geo-stubs. Grutness...wha? 04:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Friesland is fourth, with 33 articles, and potential for a lot more (Friesland has dozens of lakes, and none of them currently has an article). So that might be the next split. When it comes to islands, Friesland only has four islands (Vlieland, Terschelling, Ameland, Schiermonnikoog) and a few sandbanks. Zeeland has more islands (6 natural ones and an artificial one). North Brabant has potential for more articles as well. It is one of the largest and most populated provinces in the Netherlands, but it has only 16 stubs. If every hill in Limburg would get an article, LimburgNL-geo-stub (to distinguish it from the Belgian province with the same name) would become viable as well. Aecis praatpaal 11:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ISTR the Belgian one's actually Limbourg, but that's still close enough to be a problem (and that may only be the Walloon name anyway). Grutness...wha? 00:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The provinces are Limburg (Netherlands) and Limburg (Belgium). The town after which the provinces were named is called Limbourg, which is in Wallonia. Aecis praatpaal 09:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Food stubs[edit]

A casual glance at these indicates that the following should be reasonably sized stub types that can help thin the very large (8 pages) Category:Food and drink stubs.

I've also shown the proposed category name and parent category. I haven't done a formal census, nor do I intend to anytime soon, but if someone else wishes to, feel free. Caerwine 03:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two points to consider: First, how would we define cuisine for purposes of the stub and category? Second, I think you intended to propose
since a desert with one s doesn't taste nearly as good. -- EncycloPetey 05:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By cuisine, I mean the definition in the Cuisine article: a specific set of cooking traditions and practices.
As for dessert, you're correct, but at least deserts are low in calories Caerwine 08:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created them just now, with one small change. I created the confectionery stub template as {{confection-stub}} since we prefer to use singular forms, not group nouns in the stub templates. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{grass-stub}}[edit]

This stub would greatly relieve the stress on {{plant-stub}}. The category would include grasses and grass-like plants. I'm noticing a lot of these as I mark articles with the new {{tree-stub}}. --EncycloPetey 10:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think a new {{monocot-stub}} for all monocot stubs would be more useful - it would relieve more pressure (also taking bulbflowers, orchids, palms, etc) and would avoid the arguments over what a 'grass-like plant' is and whether they should in effect be tagged as grasses - MPF 21:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd be more inclined to create a stub specific to grasses (and limit it to true grasses), than create the more expansive stub for monocots. There are very few people who specialize in monocots as a whole, but there are plenty of people who specialize in grasses, so grouping the grass stubs together for their ease of finding them seems a more logical approach to me. We already have a separate {{orchid-stub}} and most of the remaining monocot stubs are grasses. There just aren't many non-grass and non-orchid stub articles on monocots. --EncycloPetey 02:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given the objection to including "grass-like" plants in this stub, which is certainly a reazonable objection, I am creating a {{grass-stub}} that includes only true grasses. This still leaves open the option to later create a {{monocot-stub}} for stubs of monocots that aren't orchids or grasses. --EncycloPetey 04:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I've created the template, but I have to keep RE-creating the category, and it never "sticks". The link to the category from the template page stays red and never turns blue, even after I've re-booted. When I follow the link to "create" the page again, all the text I entered is there and I save the page, then it goes away again and I start over. IS this related to the fact that the stub category ends in a double "s"? If so, what can we do about it? -- EncycloPetey 05:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's there. It's a caching problem; either do some minor edit to the template, or clear your browsers cache and the links should reflect it being there. --Mairi 06:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tried that (several times!) and then rebooted and did it again. It works fine now, but this is the longest I've ever seen a page take to appear after it was created -- nearly ten minutes. Perhaps the servers were a little behind at the time. --EncycloPetey 08:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{evolution-stub}}[edit]

This stub would relieve the stress on {{biosci-stub}}. There are easily more than 100 articles on systematics, speciation, and other evolutionary topics in there. --EncycloPetey 08:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then help Wikipedia evolve! Caerwine 16:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With one vote of support and no objections, I'm creating this stub. --EncycloPetey 04:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Olympic-medalist-stub}}[edit]

Despite the admonition in the category blurb text not to add {{Olympic-stub}} to articles of athletes who competed there, it's being done anyway, and its helped to push the article count up to the 5 page level. Now, presumably the admonition is there because for most people, going to the Olympics is not going to be a significant part of their achievements because unless you win there, you're not going to gain notoriety beyond what you've alreadly achieved as a sportsperson by simply going. However, the medalists are a different story altogether. Being an Olympic medalist is about the only way an Olympic athlete will be notable, save for a few exceptions such as Eddie 'the Eagle' Edwards, so this will be a self-focusing stub in a way that an {{Olympic-bio-stub}} would not be. Caerwine 16:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely convinced...wouldn't it be better to simply add their sport-specific bio-stubs (e.g., athleticsbio-stub)? Then again, I'm not violently opposed to it either, just wonder if it's necessary, since it's going to mean double-stubbing in most cases. Grutness...wha? 09:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Olympics already cut across the sports categories. I would think that anyone who approaches things from the viewpoint of improving Olympic Games articles rather than a particular sport might appreciate having stub articles of notable Olympic athletes pointed out to them. Caerwine 05:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It will mean double-stubbing, but I can see your point. Grutness...wha? 06:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Malta-stub}}[edit]

created. Srl 20:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We now have now 69 articles that are Malta-related, and no doubt there are many more. Here they are:

  1. Fabrizio Faniello
  2. Black Monday (Malta)
  3. City Gate (Malta)
  4. Ninu's Cave
  5. Xerri's Grotto
  6. Communications_in_Malta
  7. Giuseppe Calì
  8. Akkademja tal-Malti
  9. Ghana (folk music)
  10. Porte de Bombes
  11. Transport in Malta
  12. Victory Day (Malta)
  13. Spencer Monument
  14. Independence Day (Malta)
  15. Anastasi
  16. Freedom Day (Malta)
  17. Central Bank of Malta
  18. Anna Bonanno
  19. San Anton Palace
  20. St Aloysius' College (Malta)
  21. Santwarju tal-Madonna ta' Pinu
  22. Julie & Ludwig
  23. Kinnie
  24. Anomaly
  25. Giuseppe Said
  26. Sanctuary of Our Lady of Mellieha
  27. Tony Drago
  28. Queen of Malta
  29. David Carabott
  30. Communist Party of Malta
  31. Paul Xuereb
  32. Giovanni Francesco Abela
  33. Public Broadcasting Services
  34. Mabel Strickland
  35. Super One Television
  36. NET Television
  37. Dun Karm Psaila
  38. Michael Frendo
  39. Birkirkara FC
  40. Floriana FC
  41. Valletta FC
  42. Hibernians FC
  43. Sliema Wanderers FC
  44. Football in Malta
  45. Carmel Busuttil
  46. William Mangion
  47. Immanuel Mifsud
  48. Agatha Barbara
  49. Imperium Europa
  50. Norman Lowell
  51. HSBC Bank Malta plc
  52. Lombard Bank
  53. Bank of Valletta
  54. Central Bank of Malta
  55. BritishJET
  56. Medavia
  57. Anton Buttigieg
  58. Censu Tabone
  59. Dom Mintoff
  60. MCAST
  61. Sine Macula Choir
  62. List of hospitals in Malta
  63. Holy League (Mediterranean)
  64. San Andrea School
  65. San Anton School
  66. Luzzu
  67. Malta International Airport
  68. May Butcher
  69. John Attard-Montalto

Moved these to Category talk:Malta stubs Srl 22:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Srl 17:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC) (special thanks to Maltesedog for help on this project..)[reply]

No objection from me, but note that one or two of those should actually already be marked with Malta-geo-stub (such as the two caves, which are now :). Fifty nine's a little light, but - as you say - there are probably many more, and there is at least one natural subcategory (the geo-stub one) so it's probably close enough to be seriously considered. I'm a bit surprised that someone like Mintoff should still only have a stub, too! Grutness...wha? 10:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, isn't that part of the point of stubs, to find articles like mintoff that need work.. Srl 05:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually 65 Maltesedog 18:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How are we to proceed? 10:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I personally feel that as an independent sovereign country, which has been around for a while now, Malta certainly deserves its own stub. — JIP | Talk 11:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should have its own stub template - but only because it has enough stub articles. its sovereignty is irrelevant. Liechtenstein has been a sovereign nation for far longer, but doesn't have early enough stubs to be viable, so I'd have no qualms about opposing the creation of Liechternstein-stub. Malta, though, has 65 stubs or thereabouts, which is why I favour the creation of the category. As to how to proceed, it's quite simple - as it says at the top of the page, if there's no objections in a week, the template and category can be made. So far, it's been four days with no objections - three more to go. Grutness...wha? 11:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-band-stub}}[edit]

This stub is in the Category:United States musical groups, which I'm currently merging with Category:American musical groups. Personally, I'd prefer to keep the first category and delete the second, but the second is way bigger and has a lot of subcategories. Furthermore, in the past Category:U.S. film directors has been moved to Category:American film directors, see also Category:American screenwriters and Category:American writers. I'm thus proposing that {{US-band-stub}} and its child templates be moved to Category:American musical groups, because soon their current category will be empty. Mushroom 16:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's really more an issue for CfD than Stub Sorting. You really ought to take Category:United States musical groups to CfD, which since the name change you propose follows the naming guidelines, shouldn't be a problem. Now whether we should rename Category:United States musical group stubs to Category:American musical group stubs is one that would be appropriate for SfD, but I prefer to wait until the "*-related stubs" categories are dealt with once and for all before attempting a comprehensive effort at standardizing the category names where nation is a factor. Caerwine 19:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the answer. I just wanted to let stub sorters know that this category will soon be deleted, and propose to move those stubs to the other category. Now, this is what I've done: moved every article in the duplicate category to the main one, then moved the stubs too, then put the category (now empty) on CfD here. Regarding the stub renaming, I agree with you: let's rename them later if necessary, this is not an important issue right now. Mushroom 22:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Germany-politician-stub}}[edit]

I counted 34 politicians by looking through the first two pages of 4 pages of the {{Germany-bio-stub}}. There are probably also a lot of German politicians which are only marked as {{politician-stub}}. This stub is definately necessary, as the {{politician-stub}}s really need to be reduced.--Carabinieri 21:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion under "splits of {{politician-stub}}" below.--Carabinieri 14:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, December 2005[edit]

{{Tampere-stub}} and {{Turku-stub}}[edit]

I propose new stub types Tampere-stub and Turku-stub for articles relating to Tampere and Turku, as a subcategory of {{Finland-stub}}. Finland-stub already has over 180 articles, and it already has a subcategpory {{Helsinki-stub}} which I have often used. But Tampere and Turku are also very famous cities in Finland and so may have a lot of articles written about them. — JIP | Talk 10:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like all cities that have their own stubs, Helsinki has its own WikiProject. Are there WikiProjects for Tampere or Turku (or Oulu, for that matter)? Where there are no WikiProjects, we split by region, not individual city, so that the whole country can be divided up. And we only do that when a country gets to a large number of stubs (far more than 180). Consider the number of stubs for some countries which are not yet split like Russia (600), Wales (500), New Zealand (700), South Africa (400 stubs), Antarctica (400 stubs), Italy (700), Norway (600), Switzerland (500), and Brazil (700). Sorry but unless there are separate WikiProjects, 180 is hardly at the splitting stage yet! Grutness...wha? 10:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've had another look... and Helsinki doesn't have a wikiproject, which is odd, because that means there shouldn't be a separate stub for it! Grutness...wha? 12:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Yorkshire-geo-stub}}[edit]

This is now at 670 stubs and is expanding. I'm currently stubbing every parish in England, and there are 1119 of these in Yorkshire. Luckily, there is an obvious four way split of

If this is made I suggest that Yorkshire-geo-stub itself is replaced rather than subdivided, so that the new ones rest directly under {{England-geo-stub}}.

The other two large English geostub cats are County Durham (with ~480), London (with ~550). Neither of these has much room for expansion though - County Durham appears to be largely complete in terms of parishes and villages, and London should have complete coverage as well. Also neither of these split very well.

The other combined counties, East Sussex and West Sussex in {{Sussex-geo-stub}} look unlikely to ever break 400. Morwen - Talk 20:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I think Yorkshire is the only one it's easy to break down apart from Sussex. As long as the split is in the same form as the previous splits (i.e., ceremonial counties), then go for. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, ceremonial as before. If further splittage is needed, Lincolnshire (which has 593 parishes total), can split quite easily into Lindsey, Holland and Kesteven (those boundaries still exist on maps). We'll see how things go. Morwen - Talk 00:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move dem Yorkshire people. — JIP | Talk 10:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By 'eck lad, there's nowt call for that! Grutness...wha? 11:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really fit, as we're moving parts of Yorkshire itself, not its inhabitants, but it works better this way with the Bob Marley song. — JIP | Talk 15:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, made and sorted. What should I do with the redundant {{Yorkshire-geo-stub}} and Category:Yorkshire geography stubs ? Just delete them since its been discussed here? Morwen - Talk 22:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably take them to SFD. The template's a frequently used one - simply deleting it would confuse people. BL kiss the lizard 22:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not used at all anymore! Morwen - Talk 22:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that BL Lacertae's point is that lots of people have used this template over the last few months, so would expect it to still be usable. Having it on SFD will at least give them some warning that it's going. Grutness...wha? 03:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Mississippi-geo-stub}}[edit]

Yup, another US state has reached threshold - and it's one in the still populous South category. There are now 72 Mississippi stubs. Grutness...wha? 08:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We could probably speedy this, no? Mindmatrix 19:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
well, I'll put the stubs up on my stub-list page... if the template and category are somehow created before the week is up I'm sure that everyone will figure it was just an accident ;) Grutness...wha? 22:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 04:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

some struct-stubs[edit]

In the last month, the struct-stub categories have gone mad. The number of stubs in almost all of them has doubled. This means that a few countries now have enough stubs to be considered for separate struct stubs. So, I'd like to propose:

I'd also like to propose a change to Oceania-struct-stub, but that is probably better done through SFD (see you there!). Grutness...wha? 08:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splits of {{US-bio-stub}}[edit]

We need more splits if we're going to get {{US-bio-stub}} down to size. I'm recommending the following:

The first two won't do much to eliminate double stubbing, but that's not the rationale for these. I'm not proposing a {{US-artist-stub}} at this time because what sorts of medium based splits of {{artist-stub}} make sense is still up for discussion, so I'd rather not intrude into that at this time. Caerwine 19:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, weak no, yes, and yes respectively. I'd still far rather sportbio was split primarily by sport, and only by nationality if necessary after that. I don't think we have any other (legit) nationality-sportbio-stub templates. No problem with the other three, though. Grutness...wha? 22:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding to the recommendation a {{US-engineer-stub}}. Caerwine 00:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are most of these sportspeople stubs related to the sports popular in US, such as baseball and basketball? In this case categories like Category:American basketball biography stubs would be helpful instead. BTW, {{Argentina-sport-stub}} is going to survive SFD :(
As for academic, journalist, law, engineer, support. Conscious 20:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of the existing double stubbing by both US-bio-stub and one of the sport bio stubs is occurring with Olympic competitors and medalists. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added all save the disputed {{US-sportbio-stub}}. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Serbia-bio-stub}}[edit]

Category:Serbia stubs has 183 articles in this moment, and there are enough articles there to create {{Serbia-bio-stub}}. Everybody OK with that? --Dijxtra 12:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After restubbing, its down to 159 articles. Some were geo stubs and some were misstubed articles, including some ethnic Serbs who aren't from Serbia. There were also quite a few substubs that only have enough information for the person to be categorized as an ethnic Serb without being certain of the person's nationality. If we include the ethnic Serbs of unknown nationality there are over 60 bio stubs, enough to warrant creating the bio stub. If we exclude them, there aren't enough to justify creating the category. So it basically boils down to a definition decision: should ethnic Serbs of unknown nationality be assigned to Serbia or Euro when stub sorting? Caerwine 16:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I'm not an expert on stub sorting, but my oppinion (on your last question) is "Serbia". Just for the clarity. Because, Euro stub is a rather difuse category, and a person who wants to expand articles about Serbs just won't go and look to Euro-stubs.
Another thing. I noticed that you restubed to Euro-stubs few of the articles about x-ethnics which were born in y (for instance you removed {{Serbia-stub}} from Slavko Štimac). My oppinion is that won't help and that if you think that the fact a person was x-ethnics in not good enough for x-related stubs, then restub it as y-related stub (if y is place of birth). I think that less-general categories are better than more-general categories... (I'd like to hear your oppinion, of course)
And, say, was there ever an idea for "Western-Balkans", "former-Yugoslavia" or some category like that? Let's put the matter of 60-article aside for a moment (of course stub-category won't be created if the boundry isn't reached), say, do you think a category like that, for articles like Burek, Novi val or Aleksandar Ranković could be created (since it is highly disputable how category would be called)? --Dijxtra 17:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly have no objections to a {{Yugoslavia-stub}} if the requisite 60 stubs can be found, the idea has been considered, but shelved until 60 stubs can be found. In the case of the four articles you mentioned: while Slavko Štimac indicates that he was born in Croatia, it is silent as to whether he still lives there or considers it his home, so while I removed the Serbia-stub, I didn't feel comfortable adding a Croatia-bio-stub. If as a result of the breakup of Yugoslavia, he or anyone else relocated to Serbia, they should qualify for a Serbia specific stub. Borek Burek would require too many individual country stubs to make using those instead of Euro-stub desirable. That article probably also needs to be merged with Byrek and Börek and any other variants, but that's a separate issue. Novi val would definitely benefit from a Yugoslavia stub, but until then it covers too many countries to make anything other than Euro-stub attractive. If some more info was available about Aleksandar Ranković it would likely be possible to assign him to one of the successor states, but as a Yugoslav government official, if a Yugoslavia-stub existed, he should get that one as well. He got restubbed before I realized how many Serbs of uncertain nationality were in the category. Until we can reach some consensus on where to place such individuals I won't be doing that in the future, execpt in cases like Slavko, where the article is clear that he wasn't born in Serbia, but unclear as to where he now lives. Caerwine 20:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, would {{Yugoslavia-stub}} be a place to put articles which are relevant to modern BiH, Croatia and Serbia, but not to SFRJ (like Burek (BTW, it's not Borek but Burek))? And, what's current WikiProject Stub sorting guideline, do ethnics of x go to the x-related stub category? --Dijxtra 21:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know, but since the dish also covers too many other countries besides the former Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, it wouldn't belong there in my opinion. Caerwine 23:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

F1!. I created {{Serbia-bio-stub}} and Category:Serbian people stubs, and attached Serbia-bio-stub to all necessary articles, but I'm having problems with categorization. Category:Serbian people stubs simply does not contain the list of articles with the template. I admit I'm not well versed with the technicalities of the procedure -- I just copied {{Croatia-bio-stub}} and changed it. Yet, the results are not the same :-(. Duja 10:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. I messed up the order required at Wikipedia:Stub#Creating_the_stub_category (not that I found before I started the work). Why is such meta-information so difficult to find at Wikipedia (sigh). Duja 10:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you have fixed the template, you should do the null edits on all these articles now. Conscious 20:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll save him the effort and do the null edits by bot. --Mairi 20:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
THANKS! Duja 09:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Nigeria-bio-stub}}[edit]

There are curently at least 62 bio-stub in the {{Nigeria-stub}} category. There might be more in the {{Africa-bio-stub}} category, which are not marked as {{Nigeria-stub}}s.--Carabinieri 21:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a very useful one, since Africa-bio's likely to get pretty crowded. Grutness...wha? 02:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New sub-categories beneath {{Bacteria-stub}}[edit]

I propose that the following sub-categories be created beneath {{Bacteria-stub}}:

After a browse of Category:Bacteria stubs I managed to find 48 articles that definitely fit under {{Grampos-stub}} and 116 that fit under {{Gramneg-stub}}. The remaining articles either do not fit into these categories, or require more information for sorting. Please bear in mind I did not check anywhere other than the articles tagged with {{Bacteria-stub}}, therefore there is a high possibility that many more articles will in fact fit into these two proposed categories. Mushintalk 02:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With only 216 stubs, you're proposing a split that would give us two stub types ({{grampos-stub}} and {{bacteria-stub}}) with less than the recommended 60 stub minimum. Worse, they don't go along with the existing sub categories of Category:Bacteria which are mainly by Phylum. As such I must say I oppose this proposed split. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - since there really aren't enough bacterial stub articles to be worth a split, and the result would be to create three stubs with boundaries non-experts would have a hard time distinguishing. It would require too much work to maintain a consistent categorization for such a small set of stubs. --EncycloPetey 14:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing it was a bad idea proposing this idea. Although, I personally didn't think it would be hard to maintain, as the majority of bacteria articles already describe whether the organism is Gram-negative or postive. As for the sizing of the categories, why have the lower limit of 60 if this is not actually a good enough reason alone to create a new category? I think there should be clearer guidelines written up, as it appears there are more 'unwritten rules' that I have yet to learn in the world of WP:SS? (That's not meant to sound sarcastic btw, I just assumed it would be easier to just pick it up and get on with it, if you get what I mean!) Mushintalk 20:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In my case, my reason for opposing the split is primarily the lack of suitable non-stub parents. Category:Gram positive bacteria and Category:Gram negative bacateria don't exist and would cut across the existing subcategories of Category:Bacteria which are by phylum. If Category:Bacteria were split by Gram staining, it would be an excellent split, but its isn't, so splitting the Category:Bacteria stubs by Gram staining isn't all that good. On the other hand, judgng by the number of articles in the main categories, {{proteobacteria-stub}} → Category:Proteobacteria stubs → Category:Proteobacteria might be viable as it seems to be the phylum with the largest number of articles. If you're willing to resurvey, this time based on the phylum of the bacterium instead of their Gram status, you might well find one or two new stubs that would be suitable. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, and good suggestion. I will get on it when I have chance. Mushintalk 23:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move {{Enzyme-stub}} to beneath {{biochem-stub}}[edit]

Category:Enzymes is beneath Category:Biochemistry. It is logical that {{Enzyme-stub}} (already existing) should therefore be a sub-category of {{biochem-stub}}. There are currently 120 articles with {{Enzyme-stub}}, and while browsing through articles with {{biochem-stub}} I found another 49 that describe enzymes, and should therefore be moved to this category (I will do this when I get chance). Mushintalk 03:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Stub types list auto-updating, or is that done manually? {{Enzyme-stub}} is not mentioned there, and it is not proposed in any of the archives. However, Template:Enzyme-stub is present in Category:Biochemistry stubs and Category:Science stubs. Can someone please clarify this situation for me? Mushintalk 03:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The list has to be manually updated. The stub wasn't offically proposed which is why it isn't on the list. Looks well populated so it'll probably pass muster. I've cleaned up both the template and the category which both had problems. Unless someone has some substantive reason not to I support keeping this stub and additing it to the stub list once the usual one week period has passed. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
support keeping this stub, since the {{biochem-stub}} listing is getting large and needs some quality subcategories. An {{enzyme-stub}} would be useful (although it might grow very large itself!) --EncycloPetey 14:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-mil-bio-stub}}[edit]

Fits in with current scheme for others eg {{US-mil-bio-stub}}. There seem to be a good number already in {{mil-bio-stub}} and another 4 in {{UK-mil-stub}} ready to move. GraemeLeggett 16:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how many are in {{mil-bio-stub}}? Mushintalk 17:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10 in A-B, 15 in C-D, I'll stop there GraemeLeggett 16:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then I support the proposal for {{UK-mil-bio-stub}}. Mushintalk 11:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other stub-related discussions[edit]

Include-only for stub categories on stub templates[edit]

There are a few editors who keep changing categories on stub templates to include-only, sometimes with an explanatory note. I'd prefer to not use include-only, as it makes it more clear what category the template uses, and that a category does in fact have a template associated with it at present. If include-only is going to be used, I think there needs to be an explanatory note, so it's clear that there is a category and so it's possible to navigate between the template and the category. But something like consistency would be desirable either way. --Mairi 23:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm strongly against using include only, for exactly the reasons you say. It's very important for editors to know what category a stub template links to, and it's vital for us knowing when a stub type has been correctly created by having an associated category. Whenever I find a stub template that uses includeonly I convert it to the "normal" type. Luckily I've only ever spoted two or three of them - is it becoming more common? And should we have some note on the "how to" page (WP:STUB, IIRC) about it? Grutness...wha? 00:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What perhaps we could do is to use noinclude to get them to appear at the start of the list. I think that's the main thing people are reacting against - the ugliness of having the template appear in the middle of the 'T' section. I've tried this on Template:Rutland-geo-stub - and it works - the template appears at the start, but articles that use the template don't include the "|*" bit and so therefore stay ordered as before. Morwen - Talk 20:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • sounds fair - they do clutter up the lists in categories. It's just the disappearance of the category from the bottom of some "noinclude" templates that I don't like. As long as you can tell by looking at the template that it is in a category, I'm easy about it. Grutness...wha? 01:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that the category page should probably also link to the template page. [[Sam Korn]] 16:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It happens to a couple stubs every few days. I think Morwen's solution is the most elegant, and it'd be worth noting that on WP:STUB and changing {{Metastub}} and {{Metapicstub}} to use it. -Mairi 02:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the pointer Mairi. I agree that using <noinclude>|*</noinclude> in the stub categories to seperate them is a nice idea. ∴ here…♠ 06:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've noticed people replacing the * with a space, noting that the * is superfluous (see, e.g., this diff). I thought about experimenting to see if it was true, and then thought that would probably be disruptive, so instead I come to ask the experts: does it need to be <noinclude>|*</noinclude> exactly, or will any character suffice after the bar? --KGF0 ( T | C ) 18:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either character will suffice (I don't see how a * is any more superfluous than a space - they're both one character and sort before A). As far as I know, there isn't any real standard for whether to use a space or * to put something at the beginning. --Mairi 03:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The main difference is that a space doesn't create a superfluous header on the Category page (i.e., it stacks headerlessly before all the A/B/C/etc headers where the * creates its own header before them. Compare and contrast for yerself). - SoM 22:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the <noinclude>|*</noinclude> to {{Metastub}} and {{MetaPicstub}}. Also, I unprotected {{MetaPicstub}}, as the reasons for protection appear to have related to when it was used without subst. --Mairi 21:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...which actually accomplishes nothing, as subst doesn't include noinclude sections, and i can't figure out how to fool it into doing so. --Mairi 06:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A comment re: using asterisk or space in the piping - some of us use both, to keep two sets of subcategories sparate - an example would be in Category:United States geography stubs, where the regions are listed with "| " and other things like roads and buildings are listed with "|*" Grutness...wha? 23:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Custom_stub[edit]

I have created this template though I am some what unclear if it should not have gone through a proposal here first as it is not a category. Basically the template mirrors {{stub}} but allows the article author to specify an argument about what the nature of the stub is. This is of use in numerous cases.

  1. Where an article overlaps multiple stub categories.
  2. Where the article author wants to provide additional information for a stub and existing templates are not approrpriate.
  3. Where the article author wants to provide additional information about a stub and creation of a category would be innapropriate.

— Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 17:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It also causes extreme problems as far as stub sorting is concerned. Firstly, the only category put onto your template was Category:Stubs. Which means that, whatever you put on the template, it would be sorted into a category where anyone could easily find it. The whole point of separate stub templates is that each one leads to a separate dedicated stub category. Secondly, since we want to make stub categories as useful as possible for editors - and therefore be of reasonable sizes and conform to a set hierarchy - it is important that we keep track of all the existing templates and categories. Say you had paired this template with a category, so that whatever was typed into the template as a description would also become a category name. Anyone using the template who failed to spell a word correctly, or used a variant on the word, or used a synonym for it, or used a regional spelling, or used a slightly different phraseology, woruld crate a different category. You might end up with US stubs, United States stubs, American stubs, United states stubs, USA stubs, America stubs, Amercia stubs, united states stubs, Usa stubs, Us stubs, United States of America stubs, US of A stubs, U.S. stubs... all being duplicates of the same thing. What's more, anyoine could - without a second thought - create totally useless stub types simply by typing something descriptive but far too specific or vague. Finally, the template is a metatemplate, which we are repeatedly told to use as little as possible, as they put added strain on the servers. All in all, this template - though it was surely created with the best of intentions - is an extremely bad idea, which is why its deletion is being voted on at SFD. Grutness...wha? 13:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Very well disregard my comment below the replies I have gotten from both Grutness and BL have very well explained what the issues involved actually are and I acknowledge that. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 13:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well apparently this idea is unpopular as the template has been deleted and no comment has actually appeared. However I do not understand the mindset and would love to have some idea why. Some of my further arguments in favor of the idea are discussed On BL's talk page. As it is I am nearing the opinion that the whole stub creation process is grossly out of step with {{WP:NOT}} and {{WP:BOLD}} — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 13:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how it contravenes WP:NOT - WP is an encyclopedia, and as such it needs to have its articles expanded. By sorting stub articles in such a way that editors can get at them, we're helping that cause. As to WP:BOLD, it doesn't deal with that either. WP:BOLD is an exhortation to be bold in updating articles - NOT to be bold in creating new tools which work against those already in place. The only place on the WP:BOLD page that templates are mentioned at all is immediately after the comment: "Some caution is also advised if your changes affect many other pages...". By the way, the template has not yet been deleted. You simply linked it incorrectly in the title of this section. It's {{Custom Stub}}, not {{Custom stub}}. Neither of which is a standard stub template name anyway. Grutness...wha? 13:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of {{WP:NOT}} I was refering specifically to the bit about it being a democracy but I retract that too. As to the error mea culpa, the article that it was used for also had the template removed so I tried to follow it from here and since I misentered it of course I could not find it. Again I retract my statements here, I was misinformed and stand corrected. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 13:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
:) s'alright. If there's one thing this page is never short of it's arguments! Thanks for the retraction, though it wasn't really necessary - it's understandable to get annoyed when someone complains about what you see as a good idea. Grutness...wha? 14:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive15&oldid=1136426072"