Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2009/April

Proposals, April 2009
Please check how many articles qualify for a stub type before proposing it.

If (after approval) you create a stub type, please be sure to add it to the list of stub types. This page will be archived in its entirety once all discussions have been closed; there is no need to move them to another page.

Russia-wintersport-bio-stub - would have over 60 articles and cut down a 500+ category. Waacstats (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is winter sport one word or two? The article is at Winter sport. Grutness...wha?  23:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course that should be . Waacstats (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes Dr. Blofeld       White cat 15:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Split of Brazilian footballers
We have already split by position, and 3 of these categories (defender, midfielder, striker) are around 600 each. I propose we split by decade of birth as we have already done with the English. (Someone did say it was abit quite didn't they).Waacstats (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Split of football bios part 2
Both and  are closing in on 600, propose we split by position as we have with England, Scotland, France, Brazil etc. keeping current terminology (US=soccer Denmark=football) Waacstats (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Australia-wintersport-bio-stub - would have over 60 articles and cut down a 500+ category. Waacstats (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As above - "winter sport" is two words, not one. Grutness...wha?  23:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course that should be . Waacstats (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Sweden-Winter-Olympic-medalist-stub has over 60 articles, deupmerge? Waacstats (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

US-boxing-Olympic-medalist-stub
Should reach 60 making viable as well.(one parent is over 600, the other over 500). Waacstats (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

and
is in need of sorting these should bring it down a bit. Waacstats (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Propose upmerged by country templates for Europe and Asia as we already have cats. Waacstats (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

split of
Both Germany and Romania should pass 60, propose template and category iff templates reach 60. Waacstats (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

split of
Both Russia and South Korea should pass 60, propose template and category iff templates reach 60. Waacstats (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Shanghai-Metro-stub
Someone's been creating articles for all of the stations on the Shanghai Metro; however, he hasn't been stubbing them. A cursory glance at Category:Shanghai Metro reveals that almost everything in there can probably be stubbed, which I've started doing. I think it's a viable stub template. Along those lines, since we now have stub templates for Beijing, Hong Kong, and Singapore's rapid transit systems, what about a parent category, Category:Asian rapid transit stubs, with template Asia-metro-stub? I suspect it would see use. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 19:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. Waacstats (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Per Waacs Dr. Blofeld       White cat 15:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Split of
Over 5000 stubs. Split by family or genus? Dr. Blofeld       White cat 14:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL am I the only one here these days? Dr. Blofeld       White cat 07:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a bit quiet... how would the numbers be splitting by the larger unit (family)? Grutness...wha?  07:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * see here. (I'm busy shoveling out oversized categories.) Pegship (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Still here, looks like a difficult one to count as there is a big imbalance as one of the families would already be oversize. Waacstats (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you all!! Dr. Blofeld       White cat 15:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Belarus-struct-stub and
I was doing some stubbing earlier and surprised to see this missing. I had to quickly blue link it to avoid people rmeoving the red link. I'll scout around and apply it, perhaps it may be viable for a category later?

Should now be about 60 to create anybody? Dr. Blofeld      White cat 18:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * easily over 60 when you take into account the fact that Belarus-sports-venue-stub would go there as well. Waacstats (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just counted 81 for what it is worth.--TM 14:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Speedy
Now viable. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 15:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * over 100 articles linked to template so blatent support. Waacstats (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ... and effusive support from me, too. :) Grutness...wha?  00:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Restoration Movement
I move for the creation of a Restoration-Movement-stub. Category:Restoration Movement contains 40+ names, including three U.S. presidents. The Restoration Movement, as you can read in the article of that name, was the result of efforts in Britain and America popularly associated with Barton Warren Stone, Thomas Campbell, and Alexander Campbell and today encompassing three major religious groups: Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, Churches of Christ, and Disciples of Christ. Further historical relationships involve the Christadelphians, and there are more tenuous connections, by way of Abner Jones to the United Church of Christ. Colleges and universities associated with the Restoration Movement include Texas Christian University, Pepperdine University, Milligan College, and more than 50 others; and the list goes on. Related categories (such as Disciples of Christ, American members of the Churches of Christ, British members of the Churches of Christ, etc.) connect to hundreds, maybe thousands, of articles. The Restoration Movement stub would become a type within the religion set of stubs. Rammer (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see several possible issues with this, though a couple of them are simple ones. Firstly, the name would better be RestorationMovement-stub, since it's not a subtype of any nonexistent Movement-stub. Secondly, you seem to be mixing two distinct groups of stubs which would normally be handled separately: a general stub and a bio-stub. As such, you'd be better with both a RestorationMovement-stub and a RestorationMovement-bio-stub.


 * Having said that, there are some more serious problems. Many of the names in the category wouldn't normally get a stub like this. People usually only get specific reli-stub types if their fame or notoriety is directly the result of their involvement in that faith. Thus, for example, Lyndon B. Johnson - whose article doesn't even mention his involvement in the Restoration Movement - wouldn't get such a stub template (assuming of course that his article was a stub) any more than John F. Kennedy would get a catholic-bio-stub. There is also a second major problem - there may be 40 articles in the category, but that in no way suggests that there are 40 stubs. In fact, a of a random sampling of 20 articles from the category, only three were stubs - which indicates there may be no more than a scant handful of articles which could use such a stub type.


 * A further problem is the actual name of the stub and - though not within the scope of this page - the parent category. The "Restoration Movement" as known in other countries is what is referred to in this category as "Restorationism", and is therefore not the same as what is being referred to by this category and proposed stub type - this is hinted at in the convoluted series of hatnotes in the article Restoration Movement and in the parent category of which it is the key article. The stub type would as a result be ambiguous in its scope if judged purely on its name - something we distinctly try to avoid. We'd therefore have a confusingly named template and stub category with limited use, currently covered, albeit on a coarser scale, by existing stub types. As such, I wouldn't favour the creation of such a stub type at this time, unless it can be shown that there are considerably more stubs that could use it, and some way can be found around the naming issues. Grutness...wha?  00:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Grutness is quite astute and articulate at outpointing the problem. Does anyone have the solution?  Rammer (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - a nice way of saying "verbose" :) Grutness...wha?  00:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the movement in question occurred in the U.S., if this type is necessary, how about US-Restoration-stub, or US-Restorationism-stub? Pegship (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure... isn't "Restoration" the name given to the post Civil War period of US history? Or am I confusing it with another term? Grutness...wha?  00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Euh... that was the recostruction. US-RestorationMovement-stub or similar might work, but the problem of whether it's actually needed remains. Grutness...wha?  00:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually there were earlier roots of the Restoration Movement in Great Britain, particularly Scotland. A separate strand of the RM thus grew up there although, as it developed, its early leaders were aware of the much more prodigious effort which developed in the United States. The Restoration Movement article would benefit from more attention to these early British roots.  Barton Warren Stone had no personal background in the old country, but both Thomas Campbell and Alexander Campbell certainly did.  A. Campbell even ventured back to Scotland to examine the work there and encourage its adherents.  I go into these observations because creation of a US-RestorationMovement-stub may call for, by implication in the overall context, a UK-RestorationMovement-stub.  I'm not sure that that's what we need, but I'm willing to think about it.  Rammer (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Very astute...now to the nuts & bolts. Would you please provide an actual count (not a ballpark estimate) of stub-sized articles which would demand this type? Thanks. Pegship (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Update. CatScan shows only 13 items under 2000 bytes or fewer than 4 links, searching 3 levels down from . I think there's not a snowball's chance this template is necessary, although if Mr. Ramsey wishes he can create a Restoration Movement WikiProject and use a talk page project template to coordinate these. Oppose creation of Restoration Movement stub type at any name. Cheers, Pegship (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

American Academic Bio Sub-Types
Category:American academic biography stubs needs an additional couple of sub-types. I would like to propose US-acad-business-bio-stub for business scholars, US-theologian-stub for theological scholrs, and US-acad-english-stub for English scholars. Alison9 (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer -academic- to -acad- ("US-acad-english-stub}}" could mean an academy) - also English should have a capital E. I'm a little unsure of the scope of "business" in this instance - is that the same as a commerce scholar, or does it also include economists? Other than that, sounds fairly reasonable to me. Grutness...wha?  01:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on US-legal-academic-bio-stub I'd say US-business-academic-bio-stub and US-English-academic-bio-stub. As for the theologian type, I thought that I had not only proposed that but created it aswell, but can not find a nomination so I will definitly support that one as well. Waacstats (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Medical Diagnostic Stub
Category:Medicine stubs has a lot of tests that doctors perform. I would like to propose a med-diagnostic-stub. Alison9 (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ...or maybe med-test-stub. Not a bad idea - this would be a subtype of, I suspect. Grutness...wha?  01:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Split of
the following appear viable main category is pushing 800. Waacstats (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Support Dr. Blofeld       White cat 18:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * US-philanthopy-org-stub /
 * US-edu-org-stub /
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Company Stubs
Category:United States company stubs has 1200+ articles in it. I would like to create US-transport-company-stub and US-software-company-stub. Alison9 (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Support  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 09:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support software type. We do have US-shipping-company-stub, US-rail-company-stub, and US-airline-stub; perhaps that category should be re-sorted before further splitting is pursued. Pegship (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I decided on transport instead of bus company so that it would be more inclusive and not require additional splitting. Alison9 (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point - and the three types mentioned above would be natural child types of it. Grutness...wha?  01:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support software per Peg. I suspect there's a lot of undersorting from this category of things like US-retail, but there do seem to be a lot of software companies in the main listing. I suspect a US-law-company-stub might also be a useful addition to the range. Grutness...wha?  10:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support all three templates mmentioned (Categories if/when 60 articels are found) I can imagine that a number of road haulage companies for example have articles. Waacstats (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Diptera
Category:Diptera stubs currently has over three thousand articles in it, tagged either with diptera-stub or with fly-stub, which redirects to diptera-stub. Surely this needs to be split in some way. However, I know almost nothing about flies — they're annoying, and frogs eat them, but that's rather irrelevant here :-) — so I haven't a clue how properly to split them. Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support Huge category, split by family or genus I'd imagine. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 20:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

According to catscan the following are all viable unfortunatly has no subcats. Waacstats (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Yes. Keep in mind Bugboy will be creating mass stubs on all these (he has done Tachinidae). Dr. Blofeld      White cat 09:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Chironomidae-stub / (187)
 * Syrphidae-stub / (65)
 * Tachinidae-stub / (1000 upto Gonzalezodoria)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Athletes
Cat: sports suggest:
 * asian atheletes
 * europian atheletes
 * american atheletes
 * australian atheletes Fffgg (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We already have these - Asia-athletics-bio-stub, Euro-athletics-bio-stub, US-athletics-bio-stub, Australia-athletics-bio-stub Grutness...wha?  23:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Mountains
Cat: geography suggest:
 * mountains
 * mountain routes Fffgg (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it does become confusing if you start doing not by area. Major problem though I've found is that a lot of editors are actually willing to work on specific areas, we have many editors working in WikiProject Mountains, WIkiProject Lakes WikiProject Rivers, such stub tags may be useful for the project as a tool thats the only positive thing I see. A lot of editors might actually work through such articles according to their own geographical interests. Dr. Blofeld      White cat 20:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Extremely strong oppose. Geography stubs are split by location, not by type of feature, as has been made clear on plenty of occasions in the past. Grutness...wha?  23:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but that's exactly the reason wikiprojects have their own talk page templates - so they can keep track of and rate all articles relating to their projects. Also you get two problems if you divide things up by type of geographic feature: 1) towns dominate everything - over 75% of geo-stubs are towns and settlements; 2) you end up with an "everything else" category, sinced not everything can be comfortably pigeonholed as a specific type of feature (unless you want, say, mudpool-stub or nunatak-stub). The other reason we started using by-location rather than by-feature type is that it's far more common that a casual editor will know more about their local area than about one type of feature worldwide. Grutness...wha?  23:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, its less complicaed like that and the project banner assessmeents provide the work tools anyway. So Oppose Dr. Blofeld       White cat 09:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Holocaust-stub
I was recently surprised we don't have it. CatScan gives close to thirty articles, and I am sure some others would be appropriate as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't have it because it's covered by other stubs for the most part - specifically various jewish-related stub types and WWII-stub. A specific one for the Holocaust might not be a bad idea, however, though I'd say it should be run past the specific WikiProjects concerned, given the thorny and specific nature of the stubs already relating to Jewish subjects. It would be well worth announcing this proposal at both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history. Note too that, given the name of the proposed stub, it wouldn't automatically include biographical articles (you'd need a holocaust-bio-stub for that), so the numbers mayy be a little less than you might suspect. Grutness...wha?  03:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Another upmerged template coaxed over 60. speedy? Waacstats (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy to all Dr. Blofeld       White cat 19:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

split of
the following is easily viable. for all those xxxx in sport articles, following the same ine as. Waacstats (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sport-year-stub /
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

split of
Looks like UK-chess-bio-stub and are viable. Waacstats (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as a hello chicken archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

split of
Most of these should probbly be double stubbed with the sport they portray, but before going through that the following are viable. Waacstats (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Footy-videogame-stub /
 * Baseball-videogame-stub /
 * Amfoot-videogame-stub /
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

split of
under used, could probably be pushed over 800, the following would be viable without taking the relevent sport cat below 60. Waacstats (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * UK-athletics-Olympic-medalist-stub /
 * UK-fieldhockey-Olympic-medalist-stub /
 * UK-swimming-Olympic-medalist-stub /
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

split of
The follwoing should be vaible Waacstats (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * US-horseracing-bio-stub /
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Another tempalte over 60, speedy category? Waacstats (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Support Dr. Blofeld       White cat 15:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

upmerged template coaxed over 60. Speedy? Waacstats (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Support Dr. Blofeld       White cat 15:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Paleo-mollusc, paleo-echinoderm, paleo-botany
I think we need stub types to help break down the 550 or so paleontology stub articles. There are a lot of articles on prehistoric molluscs, echinoderms and plants. Any objections for me creating those stub types? Abyssal (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Support providing you create suitable stub templates to split them and categorise where viable. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 15:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Surfing-bio-stub and
Shoould be enough. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 11:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Definite support for the template, with a speediable cat if and when it gets to 60. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  23:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC) (who coincidentally spent some of Saturday at the beach watching surfing championships)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Already split out 15th, 16th and 17th century births. The 18th century births would take out a nice large chunk of the rest. Waacstats (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Support Dr. Blofeld       White cat 11:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Would normally suggest splitting out the stations but we seem to have already split out one state and one city so propose following that with -possibly either state or city for the last two pairs as I don't think that both are individually viable. Waacstats (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I agree Grutness. Support Dr. Blofeld       White cat 11:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * NewSouthWales-rail-stub /
 * Sydney-rail-stub /
 * Queensland-rail-stub /
 * Brisbane-rail-stub /
 * SouthAustralia-rail-stub /
 * Adelaide-rail-stub /
 * State would probably be better - more all-encompassing. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

suggest fed by foo-poet-stub for each nation. Waacstats (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - definately and create any outstanding templates.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

International-Relation Stub
There are well over 60 stubs that cover relationships between countries.. See Category:Politics Stubs. This would be poli-ir-stub. Alison9 (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the idea of the category is a good idea but the template name is ambiguous, may be InternationalRelation-stub feeding into no need for the - or R.Waacstats (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly not the "poli-ir" typer (politics of Ireland?), but I'm a little unhappy with WS's alternative as well. The singular form of "relations" in this sense is "relations", so it should be Internationalrelations-stub /.


 * I am, however, also a little concerned by the scope - I think a Foreignrelations-stub / might be more useful, since many things covered by international relations are already covered by separate stubs (diplomat-stub, UN-stub, EU-stub, Int-org-stub, International-law-stub, International-dev-stub, International-trade-stub, etc).


 * The other option would be to make it and have the existing types as subtypes of it. (Note too that I'm taking Int-org-stub to SFD for renaming) Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the stubs I'm proposing to place in this category are all about country to country relations, I think Foreignrelations-stub. Okay? Alison9 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  23:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support modified proposal. Waacstats (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.