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

Proposals, December 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.

upmerged Norway-speed-skating-bio-stub has over 60 articles, any objections to speeding category. Waacstats (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

split of
We have well over 100 articles that could take UK-icehockey-bio-stub -. any objections. Waacstats (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

split of
We have well over 60 articles that could take germany-XC-skiing-bio-stub - unless someone knows why the main template is Crosscountry-skiing-bio-stub while the nations split out already use the above format? Waacstats (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like the XC split, I think they should be redirected to a new title reflecting the main template, i.e. Germany-XC-skiing-bio-stub to redirect to Germany-crosscountry-skiing-bio-stub. Borgarde (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that. Waacstats (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Split of
Over 700 and getting larger the following would all be viable Waacstats (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * UK-opera-singer-stub -
 * US-opera-singer-stub -
 * Germany-opera-singer-stub -
 * Italy-opera-singer-stub -
 * Support; seems reasonable. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Query: The stubs are all being added, but their categories have not been created, apart from Category:United States opera singer stubs, and do not appear as sub-categories on Category:Opera singer stubs. Note also that all the articles to which these have been added are still listed in the super-category Category:Opera singer stubs. In some cases, extra stub tags have been added. Do articles really need 2 different stub tags, e.g. ? Finally, although I have no objection to the division, wouldn't it have been courteous to inform WikiProject Opera of what you are doing so that we can amend our project page accordingly? Voceditenore (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not informing the Wikiproject earlier. All four categories have now been created, I created the templates first to double check that there were indeed 60 articles for the categories, then created the categories.  Unfortunatly it appears there is a slight lag between changing a template and that change taking affect on the articles that use that template.  As for using two templates, which do you suggest is dropped, the one that opera afficianados would find or the one that Russians would find. I would suggest both templates are useful and in some (admittedly few) cases articles already had 2 templates. Waacstats (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back. I see the categories are all in place now. I'll go ahead and add the new templates to our project page. As for the multiple stub tags, I can see your point. It's just that in some cases they occupy more space on the page than the actual article. ;-) I was wondering if there's a way to add an article to multiple stub categories without actually using multiple tags. Voceditenore (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can think of two possibilities, firstly we create a lot more templates that feed articles into both the Opera singer cat and the nationality singer cat (this would be helpful for any future splits) or the other option which I don't like is to have one template and add the second category as normal. I would personally prefer just doing the first one for some of the other main nations (I think Sweden, Russia and France came up alot and I'm sure there are two or three others that might be worth doing.) Waacstats (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

split of
three upmerged tempaltes have passed the 60 mark propose the following any objections? Waacstats (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * US-business-bio-1840s-stub -
 * US-business-bio-1850s-stub -
 * US-business-bio-1890s-stub -
 * Sounds reasonable...I take it there';s no easy split by type of businessperson (e.g., business academic, industrialist, retailer?) Grutness...wha?  05:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so and we've had the templates for a long time (and seven by decade categories). Waacstats (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-split of
we have already split this by position, unfortunatly this does not seem to be viable, most articles only state the player was an outfielder and not where they played so I suggest that we resplit this by decade of birth as has been done with pitchers and catchers already. Waacstats (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is probably a wise split and would support this.Borgarde (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

split of
We have 100+ articles that could take a CzechRepublic-wintersport-bio-stub and an ice hockey category that would form a subcat. of. Waacstats (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

we have Norway-skijumping-bio-stub and it has over 60 stubs propose the category. Waacstats (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

split of
We have 100+ articles that could take a Poland-wintersport-bio-stub and a figure skating category that would form a subcat. of. Waacstats (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy based on precedent. Borgarde (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Split of
Over 600 and we usually split by position, any arguments? Waacstats (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

split of
Given that this is oversized and the fact that it seems we have 150+ Film producers in here, any one for a US-film-producer-stub -. Waacstats (talk) Support. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: Seems perfectly reasonable. —  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

split of
looks like someone has been busy as this is over 1000 articles, of which 675 are Members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives I propsoe we split these out in some way maybe Pennsylvania-HouseRepresentatives-stub unless anyone else has any ideas. Waacstats (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would Pennsylvania-Representative-stub be too ambiguous? It's a shame there isn't a US equivalent of the handy abbreviation "MP". Grutness...wha?  22:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Erk. I see the problem - that already exists for Pennsylvanian members of the US House. Some serious thought may be needed here... Grutness...wha?  22:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Pennsylvania-PArepresentative-stub or Pennsylvania-PAHouse-politician-stub? Grutness...wha?  23:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that we already have -Representative-stub for members of the US house I like the consistency of PArepresentative (or should it be PARepresntative). Waacstats (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * With the capital R, probably. And also with an e before the n ;) Grutness...wha?  03:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it would be better for this category to include all members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, which is comprised of two chambers: Pennsylvania State Senate and Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Perhaps it could be Pennsylvania-GeneralAssembly-stub, or a similar name that follows stub naming conventions. This is better because 1) the template name is less ambiguous and less likely to be confused with PA Congressmen, 2) Many State Senators are former State Representatives, so this new stub name would reduce the confusion of a State Senator having a State Representative stub.--Blargh29 (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Having sorted this as per the original proposal there are over 670 just from the house of representatives, add an extra 130 from the senate and we are back to an oversize category, I do think that a new proposal for a senate template and category is in order. Waacstats (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So a separate PA Senate stub and a separate PA House stub? That sounds good to me. Is there a bot that can tag PA Senators with the senate stub, while removing the House stub? I'll admit, I am unfamiliar with the stub sorting project.--Blargh29 (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the stubs of Pennsylvania-PARepresentative-stub and Pennsylvania-PASenate-stub are great. Thanks!.--Blargh29 (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Currently we have USSR-actor-stub used on over 60 articles and upmerged. Speedy for new cat? Waacstats (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

is oversized, a good sort would probably get it below but so would this, we could possibly have a sports team cat but seen as we haven't split that cat by country I think we should just go with the wider option. Note it will already have subcats (sports-bio-stub, sports-venue and footyclub-stub) Waacstats (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Seems eminently sensible; I'm surprised it isn't already there when corresponding stub cats. exists for many less populous country categories (both senses intended). —  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs.  14:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Split of
Currently just one subcategory in the 20th century,, with around 500 in the main one (US-novelist-stub) (was over 600 yesterday- I'm tagging by decade rapidly). I've been going through tagging by decade template (US-novelist-1900s-stub, US-novelist-1910s-stub, etc.). ,, and are eligible for speedy creation. I'm going through all of the stubs with US-novelist-stub, and classifying by decade of birth if it's in the article. I think that will be eligible by the time I'm through with the rest of my tagging, right now it has 53. Happy Holidays, Gosox5555 (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Eligible for speedy creation by S1 and creating for the eligible cats. Gosox5555 (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

wrestling-stub
Missing template, seeing as we already have a wrestling-bio-stub/, could be used to sort some of the articles in. Borgarde (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support trmpalte, category if it gets near 50 given subcat. Waacstats (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Support.. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

waterpolo-stub
Missing template, seeing as we already have a waterpolo-bio-stub/, could be used to sort some of the articles in. Borgarde (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support tempalte, category if it gets close to 50 articels. Waacstats (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

SouthAfrica-dam-stub and
Over 60 stubs.Starzynka (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Grutness...wha?  22:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy support based on precedant of US. Waacstats (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, natch. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Helsinki-geo-stub and
Over 100 stubs.Starzynka (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, but with possible alternative. Given the way that Finnish geo-stubs are split - by province - it would make more sense for the next level of split to be by region. I'd definitely have no objection to (which would include greater Helsinki), with two templates - Uusimaa-geo-stub and Helsinki-geo-stub both feeding it. Would that be acceptable? Grutness...wha?  22:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support alternative per norm and Grutness. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Now that the Provinces of Finland have been abolished, we should actually get rid of SouthernFinland-geo-stub and other provincial stub types (or replace them with regional geo-stubs). --Silvonen (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point - that's probably more a discussion for WP:SFD than for here, though. Grutness...wha?  00:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I made a proposal. --Silvonen (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

2000s-electronic-single-stub
2000s single stubs are pretty big. I'm pretty sure this can eke out 60. (I used to have a username but now prefer to edit semi-anonymously, so.) 98.26.160.106 (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support template, category if we get to 60 articles (We already have a similar type for albums).Waacstats (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Moldova-struct-stub
Template needed, don't think it is viable as yet for a category...
 * I thought we already had -struct-stub for all European countries so speedy support. Waacstats (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

baseball-org-stub
Upmerged to to help organise the category a bit more. Borgarde (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, If this can be got to about 50 I think a category is in order with as a subcat.Waacstats (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per Waacstats. —  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Split of
Getting large and suggest splitting by decade of birth like. i.e.

...
 * US-baseball-catcher-1900s-stub
 * US-baseball-catcher-1910s-stub
 * US-baseball-catcher-1990s-stub

w/ categories for large templates above 60. Borgarde (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, with categories following the precedant of the pitcherswhen the templates get to 60.Waacstats (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While the category's large, I don't think it's overly large as to need a split. If we're just doing it because it might fit the number then that's not the reason to be doing so. Wiz ard man  17:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support because it's hard to navigate now (I disagree with Wizard). Gosox5555 (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the usual rule used on WP:WSS is that a category with 800 stubs is in need of a split, one with 600+ is worth considering. This one currently seems to have about 450, which isn't too bad, though it is more than the ideal size (around 60-200). Grutness...wha?  00:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It had over 700 when I proposed this, which I consider hard to navigate. Borgarde (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. 700 is definitely in that "brink of splitting" zone. Grutness...wha?  22:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like I had already started to split it by then G. Waacstats (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Split of
sorting from musicians and seems this could eek up towards oversized. would all be viable. Waacstats (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Support, surprised we don't have the American one already! Dr. Blofeld       White cat 14:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * - Canada-guitarist-stub
 * - US-rock-guitarist-stub
 * - US-punk-rock-guitarist-stub
 * - US-metal-guitarist-stub
 * We have US-guitarist-stub just haven't split that yet. Waacstats (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Split of
sorting from musicians and seems this could eek up towards oversized. would be a viable split. Waacstats (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * - US-rock-drummer-stub

/ pinball-stub
Over 160 stubs tagged as such and many more that are not tagged. A severe (in my view) problem is that large numbers of them have been wrongly tagged with arcade-stub, when that is only for arcade video games. This one is a no-brainer. Honestly, cases like this beg for a third speedy creation rationale. I actually have time right now to sort all these stubs, but almost certainly will not in 5 days. I'm going to propose this anyway, but odds are that I will not do the actual stub sorting work after the 5 day mark, and no one else will either any time soon because the associated project has very few active editors and it's a fairly big and tedious job. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 21:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support stub cat and template. I diagree with the third cat of speedy, what one person thinks is a no-brainer is another persons noway (insert current favourite unrecognised country). Also sounds like Arcade-stub may be misnamed. Waacstats (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Side discussion: Just because we can easily imagine a really crappy implementation of a third speedy criterion does not mean that implementing one would necessarily be crappy. As for the arcade stuff, the entire "complex" if you will - main and secondary articles, categories, templates, all of it - is hosed.  The entire thing needs to be forked into mechanical and video arcade games, with normal everyday disambiguation between them, really badly. It's as if we had only one article, category, etc., for motorcars and horse-drawn carriages, simply because the one was an outgrowth of the other.  The confusion runs really deep, too - people from WP:VG actually attempted (at WT:PINBALL) to get WP:PINBALL to become a taskforce of the former.  Like, uh, what?! Just because some forms of both are coin operated machines?  Might as well make cue sports part of WP:VG too, then since some pool tables are coin operated.  But I digress. It's been one of those days. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 03:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Split of
A third country that is on the cusp of being oversized: 798 stubs. Looks like Moldova is divided into 37 regions, though I note that two of them, Gagauuzia and Transnistria, are problematic because of their separatist leanings. Be that as it may, 37 templates is not too much, and some of them may already be at the threshold for separate categories (all of which should follow the naming style of the article links below): I'd also suggest making diacritical-free redirects to any that need them. NOTE: I haven't checked these names to see whether dabbing is needed - there could also be a Leova, Belarus or a Rezina, Slovakia for all I know. There is a Călăraşi in Romania, which already has a stub template. Grutness...wha?  01:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anenii Noi district - AneniiNoi-geo-stub
 * Basarabeasca district - Basarabeasca-geo-stub
 * Briceni district - Briceni-geo-stub
 * Cahul district - Cahul-geo-stub
 * Cantemir district - Cantemir-geo-stub
 * Călăraşi district - CălăraşiMD-geo-stub
 * Căuşeni district - Căuşeni-geo-stub
 * Cimişlia district - Cimişlia-geo-stub
 * Criuleni district - Criuleni-geo-stub
 * Donduşeni district - Donduşeni-geo-stub
 * Drochia district - Drochia-geo-stub
 * Dubăsari district - Dubăsari-geo-stub
 * Edineţ district - Edineţ-geo-stub
 * Făleşti district - Făleşti-geo-stub
 * Floreşti district - Floreşti-geo-stub
 * Glodeni district - Glodeni-geo-stub
 * Hînceşti district - Hînceşti-geo-stub
 * Ialoveni district - Ialoveni-geo-stub
 * Leova district - Leova-geo-stub
 * Nisporeni district - Nisporeni-geo-stub
 * Ocniţa district - Ocniţa-geo-stub
 * Orhei district - Orhei-geo-stub
 * Rezina district - Rezina-geo-stub
 * Rîşcani district - Rîşcani-geo-stub
 * Sîngerei district - Sîngerei-geo-stub
 * Soroca district - Soroca-geo-stub
 * Străşeni district - Străşeni-geo-stub
 * Şoldăneşti district - Şoldăneşti-geo-stub
 * Ştefan Vodă district - ŞtefanVodă-geo-stub
 * Taraclia district - Taraclia-geo-stub
 * Teleneşti district - Teleneşti-geo-stub
 * Ungheni district - Ungheni-geo-stub
 * Chişinău - Chişinău-geo-stub
 * Bălţi - Bălţi-geo-stub
 * Bender, Moldova - BenderMD-geo-stub
 * Gagauzia - Gagauzia-geo-stub
 * Transnistria - Transnistria-geo-stub
 * I haven't checked which need dabbing but would be happy for any of the above to change to include MD. Also support diacritical-free redirects (can never get those pesky extra bits right.} Waacstats (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Support. Are there no wider regions in Moldova? Because I'd categorise them by region if they exist. Similar problem occurred with Slovenia.. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Latvia problem
is getting close to the need for a split, on the high side of 750 stubs. Unfortunately, Latvia changed its administrative regions just six months ago, and there are now 109 of them. Truth to tell, it was worse before July, with 111. In any case, Wikipedia is still struggling to convert all the articles on these divisions, and the idea of over 100 templates for one country is daunting, to say the least. It may be better to split by larger, more general regions, but my knowledge of Latvian geography is slim, to say the least. Any suggestions? I'm also going to add a request for input if I can find a relevant Wikiproject. Grutness...wha?  00:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a request for help at WP Latvia. Grutness...wha?  00:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Latvia is not particularly active, I left the project some time ago, but I'll try to help you out. If no one else shows up and you want more opinions, perhaps it would be possible to get more help from Latvian Wikipedia, they have a project on parishes, which deals in part with consequences of the reform. Actually prior to reform we had 26 regions, so for this it would have been better. We could use Historical regions of Latvia, but these are not well defined, perhaps we could take some division based on these as a basis for their borders. Perhaps electoral districts of parliament election is the best established of these: there are five districts - Rīga, Vidzeme, Kurzeme, Latgale, Zemgale. Rīga includes only capital city, so perhaps it would be better to count it as part of Vidzeme. The rest of division according to law is:
 * Vidzeme — Ādažu, Alojas, Alūksnes, Amatas, Apes, Babītes, Baldones, Beverīnas, Burtnieku, Carnikavas, Cēsu, Cesvaines, Ērgļu, Garkalnes, Gulbenes, Ikšķiles, Inčukalna, Jaunpiebalgas, Krimuldas, Ķeguma, Ķekavas, Lielvārdes, Līgatnes, Limbažu, Lubānas, Madonas, Mālpils, Mārupes, Mazsalacas, Naukšēnu, Ogres, Olaines, Pārgaujas, Priekuļu, Raunas, Ropažu, Rūjienas, Salacgrīvas, Salaspils, Saulkrastu, Sējas, Siguldas, Smiltenes, Stopiņu, Strenču, Valkas, Valmieras, Varakļānu, Vecpiebalgas novads, and cities of Jūrmala and Valmiera


 * Latgale — Aglonas, Baltinavas, Balvu, Ciblas, Dagdas, Daugavpils, Ilūkstes, Kārsavas, Krāslavas, Līvānu, Ludzas, Preiļu, Rēzeknes, Riebiņu, Rugāju, Vārkavas, Viļakas, Viļānu, Zilupes novads, and cities of Daugavpils and Rēzekne


 * Kurzeme — Aizputes, Alsungas, Brocēnu, Dundagas, Durbes, Grobiņas, Kuldīgas, Nīcas, Pāvilostas, Priekules, Rojas, Rucavas, Saldus, Skrundas, Talsu, Vaiņodes, Ventspils novads, and cities of Liepāja and Ventspils


 * Zemgale — Aizkraukles, Aknīstes, Auces, Bauskas, Dobeles, Engures, Iecavas, Jaunjelgavas, Jaunpils, Jēkabpils, Jelgavas, Kandavas, Kokneses, Krustpils, Neretas, Ozolnieku, Pļaviņu, Rundāles, Salas, Skrīveru, Tērvetes, Tukuma, Vecumnieku, Viesītes novadu, and cities of Jelgava and Jēkabpils


 * I am not sure thought, if it doesn't still leave a large amount of stubs under each category Xil  (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The bulk of the above mentioned Latvian geography stubs were created by yours truly, and I think the following suggestion for a split of the Latvian geography stub category perhaps could solve the problem:

Current administrative division of Latvia Obsolete administrative divisions of Latvia
 * Latvia-municipality-stub - Category:Municipalities of Latvia, broken into subcategories according to Planning regions of Latvia.
 * Latvia-city-stub - Category:Cities in Latvia.
 * Latvia-village-stub - to be broken into subcategories according to Planning regions of Latvia.
 * Riga-geo-stub - Category:Neighbourhoods in Riga.
 * Latvia-parish-stub - Category:Parishes of Latvia, broken into subcategories according to Districts of Latvia
 * Latvia-district-stub - Category:Districts of Latvia.

It makes no sense breaking stub categories into subcategories according to Historical regions of Latvia, since many of the historical parishes have either merged or changed name during the last century. Breaking stub categories according to historical regions of Latvia only makes sense for historical parishes and other historical administrative entities. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 14:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it sounds like you haven't even bothered to look what I was talking about - the article, named "historical regions" by yourself, is about cultural regions of Latvia, which have formed in course of the history and are unlikely to change, they even are mentioned in the constitution of Latvia. Their borders are a bit fuzzy thought, so we should use some of the divisions based on them to define the borders. Planning regions are one such division, but I think they may change in the future (as needed for planing) and Riga region includes half of Vidzeme, it would be weird to read article on say Mazsalaca and see stub saying This Riga location article is a stub. I think electoral districts are closer to actual borders of the regions and less likely to change Xil  (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, I was not commenting on your post, hence the missing indent. Secondly, Mazsalaca would be "This article about a Latvian city is a stub" - the Latvia-city-stub template. An article about let us say Mazsalaca municipality would be "This Riga Region location article is a stub" - the RigaRegion-municipality-stub template. Your "unlikely to change" has already happened when it comes to administrative divisions (Planning regions of Latvia), "I think they may change... " is just your personal opinion, and "I think electoral districts are closer to actual borders of the regions" has more to do with elections to the Saeima (references) than administrative divisions. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 21:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that -as I said at WP Latvia - stubs are broken by subnational region, not by type of feature, so the idea of -municipality-, -city-, and -village-stubs is a non-starter. The four regions sounds like the best option - on average they'd have a couple of hundred stubs each, which is a good size for a split. Riga may have enough stubs of its own to split it out into a fifth category. That is, of course, assuming the regions are fairly stable. Even then, the regions don't have to be totally rigid - if there are templates for each of the 109 divisions, then stubs can be shifted from one category to another fairly readily, and any divisions can be given their own stub categories if there are very large numbers of stubs for them. It's just to sort the number in the main category down into easier to handle blocks by some fairly logical pattern. Grutness...wha?  00:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, when you put it that way... count me in. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 11:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (addition) It will not be pretty though since all current and obsolete entities will be mixed in the same categories. I still prefer my above mentioned concept. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 12:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't answering to you either, I mostly consider indentation as a way to separate posts. The cultural regions have existed for centuries and can't be changed by some reform, there are several divisions based on them, none of which are administrative or well known to general public. The planning regions is but one of them. For our purposes we should pick one which is well established, preferably by law, and matches well with the approximate borders of the historical regions, so even if this division is changed we don't have to change anything. "Riga region" is ambiguous term, which can mean several things and therefore should be avoided (of coure there is no problem whithin borders of Riga itself, but when it includes towns almost 200 kilometers away, by Estonian border, it can rise questions) Xil  (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are cultural regions everywhere, which is not the subject here. We are to decide how to categorise stub articles into categories, and other countries have their geographical stub categories split according to current administrative entities. I am sure we could think of hundreds of ways to categorise stubs, but the Wikipedia precedence is already set.
 * Riga Region is just as ambiguous as Riga itself, we have disambiguation pages for that purpose on Wikipedia. The last part of your last sentence sounds a bit absurd to me, since Riga actually is included to Vidzeme - one of the historical regions of Latvia. I think the concept of including something 200 kilometers away from Riga is strange to you only, because you have never really thought about it like that before. I cannot see why a 200 kilometers difference according to cultural regions are any different than 200 kilometers according to current administrative entities like the Riga Region? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 22:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I think it is manageable as it is at present. If at a later date it exceeds 1000 then I think we should readdress it. If we did decide to split I'd say that it would be possible to divide Latvia into geographical regions and maybe upmerge templates. Right now though I don't see a need to split, especially when it is so problematic. I'd support the creation of a Riga template though. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All articles about obsolete Latvian administrative entities (parishes and districts) have to be rewritten anyway to reflect current status, those articles amount to at least half of the articles in question. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 12:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't object to idea of there being stub template for Riga, if it is for stuff within its borders, not half of the country. I suggested treating Riga as part of Vidzeme, because I'm not sure if there are that many articles related to geography of Riga. The former administrative units are a tricky question - do they still fall under geography or rather history ? Creating a separate template for them may be good idea, but it is not vitally important to do so. Perhaps we should look what stub templates obsolete entities in other countries have.
 * P.S. BTW, if those articles still are not rewritten, perhaps it is possible to get some bot to place undefined or similar in them to warn about the issue ? Xil  (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very probably, but you'd need to go to WP:Bot requests for that one - it's outside the scope of this project. Grutness...wha?  21:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, that's why it's just a post script - as it is yes or no question I don't want to start new discussion about it elsewhere and everyone who would care about it probably are reading this. Anyway -as a member of this project you perhaps know what is done to articles on obsolete entities elsewhere, perhaps you have an idea what to do ?   Xil  (talk) 13:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah I see -I misunderstood you, sorry. Former administrative units would be marked as geo-stubs - they may also get a hist-stub template, but that's optional. There certainly wouldn't be a specific stub only for use of former administrative regions, though - they'd simply get the regional geo-stub for whatever current region they are in or (if they are now split amongst several regions) they simply get the nation-geo-stub (e.g., latvia-geo-stub). For instance, Selonia would simply keep its current Latvia-geo-stub and Lithuania-geo-stub, since it is several current districts. Are the pre-July 2009 district boundaries still widely used? if so it might solve the stub-splitting problem, since this suggests there are only 26 of them - which would be a reasonable basis for a split. Grutness...wha?  22:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by widely used ? If it's just at level what people think, I'm not sure, because I have never lived in such a district, but I don't think I ever seen or heard anyone referring to them out official context, if you mean institutionally, even if they are they should fall into disuse soon. I don't see why you don't use the four regions I suggested - everyone knows them and it doesn't matter that much how we define them - people probably will figure out what stub template is best to use on their own anyway. I think Philaweb's idea is also fine (except for the bit where Riga gets all over the place), but if you say that it can't be done that way, what are we arguing about ? Xil  (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes - I'm simply batting a few ideas around. Certainly it's possible to do it with four or five regional categories, and it's probably best to split it that way. But it would have perhaps been easier to use 26 templates rather than 109 to feed them. If the 26 former districts aren't commonly used in colloquial or unofficial contexts, though, it's probably better to either make 109 templates or just four or five (one for each region) and have them feed regional categories. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there could be a problem to populate 109 categories Xil  (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is why no-one's suggesting that. The suggestions are: a) 109 templates feeding 4 or 5 categories; b) 109 templates feeding 26 categories; or c) 26 templates feeding 26 categories. But given that the 26 former districts aren't widely used as terms any more, option 9a) looks best. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  23:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, then let's make Courland-geo-stub, Vidzeme-geo-stub, Zemgale-geo-stub and Latgale-geo-stub, to make Riga-geo-stub or not is up to you. As for images, probably using coats of arms is a good idea: Courland, Vidzeme, Zemgale, Latgale, Riga Xil  (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the Centrālās statistikas pārvaldes datu bāzes (Central Statistical Authority's database), planning regions of Latvia are the subnational regions of Latvia, differentiating between "Pieriga Region" and "Riga Region" — Riga Region statistically being identical to "Riga city under state juristiction". In other words, there are no current statistics according to the historical regions of Latvia, and the smoothest way to categorise is according to matching administrative geographical boundries. Note, that the previous administrative boundries geographically matches the current administrative boundries, since the defunct entities amalgated into the current.

My suggestion is to create six stub categories with corresponding templates:
 * Courland-geo-stub - Category:Courland Region geography stubs
 * Vidzeme-geo-stub - Category:Vidzeme Region geography stubs
 * Zemgale-geo-stub - Category:Zemgale Region geography stubs
 * Latgale-geo-stub - Category:Latgale Region geography stubs
 * RigaRegion-geo-stub - Category:Riga Region geography stubs
 * Riga-geo-stub Category:Riga geography stubs

Each category could have additional templates allowing more specific definitions, like:

Current administrative entities. Defunct administrative entities:
 * XYZ-municipality-stub
 * XYZ-city-stub
 * XYZ-village-stub
 * XYZ-parish-stub
 * XYZ-district-stub

All in all my suggestion brings six new stub categories and up to 26 stub templates (six basic and five additional to five categories - Riga geography stubs encompases the city of Riga, so no need for the proposed additional templates. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 18:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As has already been explained, these "additional templates" are definitely VERY VERY strongly opposed. Geo-stubs are NEVER EVER split by type of feature - the idea of separate "city-stub" and "village-stub" types and similar is specifically always avoided. As to the initial six suggested, five would be far better, with the riga-geo-stub covering the Riga region. If there need to be additional templates, which seems unlikely at the moment, they should be ones for each of the 109 districts. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  20:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hold your horses... no need to shout using caps. When something is (strongly) opposed, it normally means it is possible to think otherwise, hence my suggestion on additional templates that "could" be used. I was not suggesting a split of stub categories by type of feature, I was suggesting, like you are, additional templates for the categories.
 * Perhaps there is a reason as to why five categories are better than six? I have stated the reason for my suggestion of six categories, and I have observed that other countries geography stub categories follow current administrative boundries, not archaic administrative boundries.
 * By 109 districts I recon you mean municipalities? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 21:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup, I meant the municipalities. Five is probably better than six at the moment at least simply because we don't have a good idea how many of the stubs will relate to Riga and how many to the Riga region, the term "Pieriga" is not used in English (what does it mean?), it seems from above comments that Riga is itself part of Vidzeme, it seems also from above comments that the Riga Region is not a historical region in the same sense (it doesn't even have an article), and its boundaries acccordingly seem a little vague. these are all reasons why it wouldn't normally be split out separately. By the way, better names for the categories are simply and the like - none of the article names have "Region" as part of their names.
 * As to the shouting, considering I'd already explained why splitting the stubs by having separate templates of the type X-city-stub and X-municipality-stub was out of the question, it was either make it more clear a second time by typing it in a stronger way (such as by capitals), or assume you were wilfully ignoring it (in which case the best thing to do was make it more clear by using capitals). Since I assumed you simply hadn't noticed the first time, i decided to use the former method and use capitals. It seems, however, that you were under the misapprehension that splitting the division of stubs by using separate templatesd was not splitting stubs. It is. We never split them by type of feature such as city or village, so this option is strongly opposed. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  23:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Pierīga means Near-Riga. Now here's a thing - I think I am an average Latvian, who went to school in Latvia and had geography lessons about Latvia, and therefore have a good idea what Latvians think their country is like - I have no idea what that region includes and probably nobody uses terms Riga region, Near Riga, Greater Riga or what not outside of respective government branches (be it planing, statistics, social security, wood management or something else), there are four regions everybody know and in addition to that, some people see Sēlija as having different culture, thus being different region and Riga city itself may be seen as separate entity, not part of any region, since it is a big, central city, which makes it kind of melting pot. Stub templates being there to get people to edit, why do we have to confuse everyone with having regions people hardly know anything about ? I know I suggested to use some precise division at first, but after some consideration - I'm not so sure stubs need to be THAT precise, after all there are the usual non-stub categories for putting things into order Xil  (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting criteria, but implementing terms that "people might know" would create some interesting categories when it comes to say American geography. Please remember, this is an English version of Wikipedia, so the target audience is hardly Latvians... Think global, there are more than 500 million English speaking people in the world, and I really do not think they find it "weird" or "confusing" to use the official administrative entities. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 01:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you please show where are those masses of English speaking people eager to expand articles on Latvia ? My old Geography textbook (this one, page 202) also supports my suggestion stating that the idea of four regions is rooted in people's minds and that Riga, historically part of Vidzeme, is now sometimes used as separate region given it's importance Xil  (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest, that would be a pseudo discussion, since the only ones that cares right now are the three of us. Noone has cared prior to this discussion. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 02:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Riga stub category will contain minimum 80 articles, when the Riga's neighbourhoods template is stubbed out. Riga Region stubs are perhaps a fifth of the approximately 700 articles left. There will be more than 100 articles in the Riga Region category.
 * The Latvian term "pieriga" (at Riga) is taken from the website on statistics I linked to above, but I have now changed it to something more appropriate.
 * Yes, Riga is part of an archaic administrative entity called Vidzeme (which is mentioned in the historical regions of Latvia article), a socalled cultural region. It is also the capital of Latvia and a city by it's own means, as it always was, and it is now also part of the Riga Region.
 * The boundries of the planning regions of Latvia matches exactly the previous administrative boundries geographically, and the current administrative boundries were amalgated within the previous boundries. The archaic administrative entity called Vidzeme and the other cultural regions of Latvia does not fit current administrative boundries, but overlapses.
 * The Riga Region article does not exist since I am practically the only active member of WikiProject Latvia on a regular basis. User Xil left the project October 2008 and only pops up on article talk pages once in a while - and, I have not had the time yet to create the page, but I guess those five articles in all on Latvian regions can be added to the geography stub categories as well.
 * You are correct, that "Region" is not part of the article names, but it would be inconsistent to differentiate between Riga and Riga Region and calling the rest of the categories by the same name of the archaic administrative entities, when they are actually called regions. A bit of the same problem is at hand with Swedish counties, where the provinces of Sweden have identical names to some degree. The Swedish counties does have "County" in category names, even though no articles within the category has "County" in their names.
 * As to your last paragraph, I think these are your words: "If there need to be additional templates, which seems unlikely at the moment, they should be ones for each of the 109 districts". Never Say "Never Ever". Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 00:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * User Xil left the project October 2008 and only pops up on article talk pages once in a while - I explained why I answered to this post already. I don't think leaving the project has made me suddenly lose all knowledge about Latvia or how Wikipedia works, so I don't see how this argument is valid. Xil  (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) The argument within it's context is valid. You were in my eyes the only regular contributor that left the project, hence little activity when it comes to creating articles. And you are obviously the only one besides me of current/previous project members that is interested in this talk, hence mentioning you. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 01:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
This is getting very long and messy - and also a little heated. I'll summarise what I think the situation is - if it's wrong, then let me know - if not, hopefully it'll give us something to work from.
 * 1. The Latvia geography stubs category is large - around 800 stubs. This is about the limit WP:WSS likes before some splitting. Splitting of geo-stubs is always done into subnational regions of some form, preferably currently existing administrative regions
 * 2. Latvia has 109 municipalities, but doesn't currently have any larger official subnational regions. There are four historic ones which could be used for the split, along with the capital, and possibly a "greater capital area", but these regions may not be widely known even by Latvians, and the boundaries for the capital are vague.
 * 3a. We could work with the four/five/six templates and categories for the historical regions, though the lack of knowledge of the boundaries could be a problem. We could later make templates for all 109 municipalities if it looked like the number of stubs was growing fast.
 * 3b. We could make all 109 templates now, and create categories for any municipalities which have enough stubs. This might reduce the number of stubs in the main category a little, but very few of the municipalities would have enough stubs for its own category.
 * 3c. We could use some other system to split the country into regions, either with templates for each region or using the 109 templates for the municipalities.

Personally, I favour 3a - the only problem with it is the vagueness of the definition of Riga and the lack of general knowledge of the historical regions - and it sounds as if that last point is questionable (we seem to have one editor saying they're not widely known and another saying they are). Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  01:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To sum up my opinion: I also favour 3a, with there being four regions, 3b will give us insane amount of underpopulated categories, and:


 * The four historical regions should be known by everyone, the only problem is that some places on their borders may fall within two regions (for example, towns on river Daugava, see here: List of cities in Latvia)
 * The Riga city itself is administrative unit on its own and as such has clearly established borders, the "Riga region", which includes more than just the city, is a problem
 * There seem to be several divisions of Latvia used by different branches of government for various purposes, loosely based on historical regions and region close to the capital, but these don't always match to regions known to general public, especially, the "Riga region", the borders of which depend on division used and may include large portions of Latvia that are not even anywhere close to Riga. Xil  (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, time for my opinion summary:
 * Plan A: Xil gets her way by creating all the stub categories, stub templates and sorting and changing all the article stub templates according to no. 3a within 7 days beginning from this very moment.
 * Plan B: I will do the same as plan A according to no. 3c, which means the planning regions of Latvia as subnational regions plus city of Riga as stub categories without any additional split by templates, beginning after exactly 7 days from this very moment.
 * Now, isn't that the offer of the year? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 04:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can I do it now ? I have exams within 7 days Xil  (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Naturally, within 7 days means within a period of 7 days, and from this very moment means beginning immediately. Be my guest. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 15:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Grutness... Your post above examplifies very well the dilemma of this discussion. You have missed the point with #2 on your list. Please, let me rephrase it to shead a light:


 * 2. Latvia has 109 municipalities, and currently have larger official subnational regions called planning regions of Latvia. There are four historic ones which could also be used for the split, along with the capital, and possibly a "greater capital area" (no, does not exist), but the historic regions are best known even by Latvians (even though they fill no administrative function, besides the odd election to the parliament), and the boundaries for the capital, planning regions, and administrative entities (municipalities, cities, villages, districts, parishes) are vague precise. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 02:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For your interest: The Riga Region article is now live. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 19:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha! I had somehow missed the point that the planning regions were administrative divisions. I thought they were simply planning regions (i.e., a split of the country into regions related only to sections of government dealing with future planning, and with no administrative status). If this isa widely-accepted method of dividing the country, it would be perfect for the stub split (as you say, by my point 3c).
 * You have, however, misrepresented what I wrote in point 2 above and directly contradicted yourself in doing so. I never said that the boundaries of the planning regions and municipalities were vague, only that the area which people understand to be thee limits of Riga are. Given that the "greater capital area" does not exist, as you say, how can its have precise boundaries? The concept can only be a vague one. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  23:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, as a Danish proverb goes: "It is sometimes hard to see the forest for all the trees". Yes, sometimes the last piece is missing to create the whole picture. I am glad you now understand my point of the planning regions being official administrative divisions ;o) With regards to "widely-accepted", I would say that it is the official division of Latvia. As you might understand of this discussion, not all Latvians are fully aware of this division, not even my wife, who is also Latvian. This is all very new stuff in connection with Latvia's admission to the European Union 2004, and most probably has not found it's way into the educational literature to the broader public.
 * As to misrepresentation... That was not my intent. I just wanted to add all the entities that goes into the "precise" category together with the capital. The boundries of the capital Riga are precise - as are the others I have added. It is difficult to explain the preciseness of the capital, since the articles on the capital and it's neighborhoods are quite inelaborate, but these images shows the preciseness of the capital Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 07:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, cute... Now - this being this WikiProject's issue, I am not going to start anything before Grutness or other members of the project agree with one of us what should be done, I hope you'll do the same, instead of pushing your idea that these regions are administrative divisions - this claim requires further research. What we're dealing here with seem to be units used at EU level, not within country (i.e. third level NUTS) and I am not so sure they are supposed to be taken as administrative units in case of Latvia - at least they are established by completely different laws, which at a glimpse seem to have no connection - the administrative units are said to be territories governed by respective municipalities, while planning regions have to do with several municipalities, the state and other countries developing infrastructure Xil  (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have posted a longer answer to the talk page of Administrative regions of Latvia on the administration vs. not administration bit - since that is where the discussion belongs, not here. Secondly, I am not pushing my idea, I am verifying it through references.
 * I would like you to stop the parallel discussion you have initiated on the Latvian Wikipedia - here - that focuses on the discussion we are having here . I would prefer if you improve the quality of discussion with facts rather than your personal opinions and perceptions. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 19:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 *  Sorry, I got edit conflict, will read your post later Okay, leaving this to explain my actions, not to make argument I haven't started a parallel discussion I merely invited people to join this discussion and I wasn't campaigning, as you imply - I made a single post in which I tried to sum up what had already been said so people wouldn't have to read all discussion and didn't bring it up again, when no one answered. Note that I said I consider enlisting help from Latvian Wikipedia in my first post before you even had joined discussion. My post yesterday was on these being administrative units issue - should that be the case it should be reflected in content of Latvian Wikipedia, I used more colorful language exactly because I considered that to be separate issue, instead of calling to join in. Later on when people started to comment on stub sorting as well, I was addressing their opinion, which already seemed to be in agreement with mine, that's why I emphasized my opinion (not that you are wrong, but that we first should decide if we use historical regions at all, instead of deciding on what to base them, I'm sure no matter how well meant yet another possible division wouldn't be welcomed here) and I asked them to join this discussion again, because it would be proper to hold discussion on stub sorting in English Wikipedia in English Wikipedia. And, ah yes, I am a bit concerned that you move around articles using your second account to match your views, when there is no consensus that your views are right (especially when I kept myself from moving historical regions to cultural with there having been no discussion on that issue) - sorry, about mentioning that there, it was indeed out of line Xil  (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Kikos found the perfect reference - Law on administrative territories and populated places. This definetely excludes the regions as administrative entities, which means I concur with Xil on a split of stub categories according to the historical regions of Latvia. I am also taking back the above stricken through statement. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 20:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I was referring to when I was talking about Latvian law yesterday - I didn't link it because it is in Latvian and I thought anyone who speaks Latvian could easily find it, but it would be of no use to everyone else. There also are laws on territorial planing, which are a bit inconclusive on what these regions are at all (that's why I said further research was needed and went on to see, if someone on lv.wikipedia already knows something about it) Xil  (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, no hard feelings on my part. Just a little post scriptum - it can be immensely difficult to find a document that specifically does not mention what you are searching for, i.e. "regions". [[Image:Face-wink.svg|25px]]


 * If you had linked to the document right from the beginning, this discussion would have been considerably shorter. [[Image:Face-grin.svg|25px]]


 * On another note, I only use this alternate account from public or shared computers. Lettonica (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize you were thinking these regions are administrative divison untill my post on these laws, in which I tried to sum up English speakers, from which I think you could have gethered what laws those are, if you wanted to, as I said that they establish these entitities. But anyway - problem solved, no hard feeling on any part, let's end this discussion Xil  (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If WSS members are happy with this conclusion, I would gladly help in sorting the stubs in question, before my sanity starts nagging about preparing to exams.

P.S. By the way - I made a map which shows electoral districts I mentioned in my original proposal (mostly out of boredom and love for image making, don't take it as anything - I just figured you might want to see what we were talking about)  Xil  (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, since no one is showing any signs of life and we seem to have consensus, I am going to do it, here's hoping I'll won't mess it up Xil  (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Split of
Closing in on 900 articles. Suggest upmerged templates by region (of which there are 26, listed at Regions of Tanzania). Any which reach threshold could get their own categories, in the form (many of the names are also used for cities or districts within the regions):
 * Arusha - Arusha-geo-stub
 * Dar es Salaam - DaresSalaam-geo-stub
 * Dodoma - Dodoma-geo-stub
 * Iringa - Iringa-geo-stub
 * Kagera - Kagera-geo-stub
 * Kigoma - Kigoma-geo-stub
 * Kilimanjaro - Kilimanjaro-geo-stub
 * Lindi - Lindi-geo-stub
 * Manyara - Manyara-geo-stub
 * Mara - MaraTZ-geo-stub
 * Mbeya - Mbeya-geo-stub
 * Morogoro - Morogoro-geo-stub
 * Mtwara - Mtwara-geo-stub
 * Mwanza - MwanzaTZ-geo-stub
 * Pemba North - PembaNorth-geo-stub
 * Pemba South - PembaSouth-geo-stub
 * Pwani - PwaniTZ-geo-stub
 * Rukwa - Rukwa-geo-stub
 * Ruvuma - Ruvuma-geo-stub
 * Shinyanga - Shinyanga-geo-stub
 * Singida - Singida-geo-stub
 * Tabora - Tabora-geo-stub
 * Tanga - TangaTZ-geo-stub
 * Zanzibar Central/South - ZanzibarCentralSouth-geo-stub
 * Zanzibar North - ZanzibarNorth-geo-stub
 * Zanzibar Urban/West - ZanzibarUrbanWest-geo-stub

I think I've caught all the ambiguous ones. Note that the five Zanzibar and Pemba ones are already housed together in a subcategory,. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, looks like you caught all of them. Waacstats (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Support. Good catch. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Iran geography stub subcats
The following province-level templates are now used on over 60 stubs, and the parent is approaching the 1000 stub mark. Speedy? Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WestAzarbaijan-geo-stub &rarr;
 * Khuzestan-geo-stub &rarr;
 * Isfahan-geo-stub &rarr;
 * Gilan-geo-stub &rarr;
 * Speedy indeed. Waacstats (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

split of
Up over 750 (before clearing up) and it appears the following are viable any comments. Waacstats (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Support. I'd also support the creation of new templates by all of the major countries. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Iran-med-bio-stub -
 * Italy-med-bio-stub -

split of subcats
The midfielder category is getting large and the defenders is not too far off. propose we split defenders, midfielders and strikers by decade of birth following the pattern of Brazil and England. Waacstats (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Badminton-stub is not used on 60 articles but the template Badminton-bio-stub and already exist. I propose this category for a natural category structure. Borgarde (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think 2 articles is a bit small even given the potential subcat. Waacstats (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - I usually use a rule of thumb of one subcat=10 to 15 articles. That would mean 45+ would be fine - 2 is a little thin, to say the least. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  23:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This now has over 60 articles so by the standards stated above a parent cat is now viable. Borgarde (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Squash-stub is not used on 60 articles but the template Squash-bio-stub and already exist. I propose this category for a natural category structure. Borgarde (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think 7 articles is a bit small even given the potential subcat. Waacstats (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Volleyball-stub/
already exists and this should naturally be a parent template to that. Borgarde (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support template, category if we get around 50 articles (given that we have a bio-stub cat) Waacstats (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have created the template above upmerged to Category:Ball game stubs and I propose the following category structure:


 * Category:Sports stubs by sport
 * Category:Volleyball stubs
 * Category:Volleyball biography stubs
 * Category:Volleyball team stubs

As you can see right now we cannot group this bio and team stubs categories together, I did not even know the team cat existed. This is where parent cats come in handy, even with hardly any stubs in them. Think of it logically, if the biography and the teams cat did not exist yet, the parent cat (volleyball stubs) possibly would, then once they biography and team stubs get split off we don't simply delete the parent cat do we? So I really do not see what the problem is here size wise. Borgarde (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we have enough given two categories and the fact that there are a few more articles in the . Waacstats (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy politician splits
both of the following are viable form the currently upmerged templates Waacstats (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Speedy of courset... Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * from Moldova-politician-stub
 * from Albania-politician-stub

Speedy split from English football subcats
bothe the following are viable from the currnetly upmerged templates This will require the currnet parent for each template to be renamed, are people happy for this to be done here/speedy SFD or shall i post on SFD once this is done with here. Waacstats (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * - England-footy-defender-1880s-stub
 * - England-footy-midfielder-1920s-stub.

fed by template MLB-season-stub. Proposed for use on articles such as 1911 Major League Baseball season rather than a specific team. Waacstats (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

split of subcats
The midfielder category is getting large and the defenders is not too far off. propose we split defenders, midfielders and strikers by decade of birth following the pattern of Brazil and England. Waacstats (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be sensible provided it is split consistently. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 14:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Split of
currently contains 742 articles, and it's going to be growing - John Tasker Howard and I have developed a nice working relationship, and his book's chock-full of stuff about rather obscure people. Might I suggest the following split?
 * US-composer-1700s-stub
 * US-composer-1800s-stub
 * US-composer-1900s-stub

The former would probably be an upmerge, while the other two would be viable for categories of their own. It's worked for athletes - I don't see why it couldn't work for composers. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Support per Waacs.  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I take it we're talking about by date of birth? Seems reasonable - the other option might be by genre of music, but that could get messy. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  23:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support idea but the only place I know we hace used by century templates if the italian painters where we have used Italy-painter-18thC-stub to avoid confusing -1900s- as being for those born between 1900 and 1909 as apposed to those born between 1900 and 1999. Waacstats (talk)
 * Yeah, DOB's better (should have clarified, sorry.) Genre would get really confusing, really fast.  And I'm fine with "18thC" as opposed to "1700s" - whichever's proper.  Just going on what I think I've seen in the past (but then, I tend to be rather woolly-brained...) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be speediable, but I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes looking over the list. Someone's been busy over the past couple of days, and it looks like Estonia-architect-stub is now past 60 articles. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly seems to be over 60 therefore support. Waacstats (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, looks fine to me. Gosox5555 (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy. Good work from the "someone". Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

softball-stub
Missing template, upmerge to, if it reaches above 60 to split into. Borgarde (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support also may be worth having a Softball-bio-stub while we are at it, according to catscan there are 118 softball players with stub articles. Waacstats (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet Further Split of
I propose that the Physics Stubs Category be split even further into a Sub-Category for Physics Theories. I noticed that among stubs in this category, there are quite a few theories in just the first 10 or so lines of the page. This would help decrease the backlog in the category. The template would be physics-theory-stub. Creating this would help separate the physics articles so people can find things they want to work on easier, helping Wikipedia as a whole. Hamtechperson  Repeater   02:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I definitely think the physics stub section as a whole needs expanding. You should first create the "Physics Theories" stub for laws that haven't been proven yet like string theory, as well as a "Physics Laws" stub for ones that have like relativity, then move the child categories of "Physics" into their respective parents. (i.e. "Relativity Stubs" goes under Laws, "String Theory Stubs" goes under Theories, etc.). --98.114.243.75 (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Pedagogue stub
I just discovered this stub. In Wikipedia, the articles in this category are classified under educationist. There is no reason to classify the stubs differently. Besides, according to Webster's, pedagogue is someone who educates: these are classified in Wikipedia as educators. Educationists are, also according to Webster's the persons who specialize in the theory of education. The discussion page of the stub indicates that pedagogue stub is wrong. It is therefore suggested that the category be changed to educationist stub.Afil (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This page is primarily for new stub types - renames are handled at WP:SFD. I've listed this category and template for discussion there. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  23:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Soup-stub and
Template and cat were created, over 60 stubs have been identified and tagged. --<span style="font-family:lucida sans, sans-serif;">Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a whole class of food that does not have its own stub set. Right now we only use food-stub. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This was proposed ages ago but never sorted. Support. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So it would be OK if I went and did this? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You've got the OK from me.... I'd imagine the others don't have a problem with it... Dr. Blofeld       White cat 22:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

template India-footy-bio-stub is used on more than 60 articles, any objections to speedying category. Waacstats (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Paleo-primate-stub
There are currently over 40 stubs which are about prehistoric primates. I recommend a double-upmerged stub template (into and ) for now - and very likely this will eventually have enough stubs using it to make it a new category. The current situation is that pages which belong to this stub cat intersection may be categorized only in one (such as Australopithecus bahrelghazali is only in, and Batodonoides vanhouteni is only in ); this template will make it easier to keep track of the size of the potential category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support template, and if this passes 60 then support category as well. Waacstats (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

/ pool-bio-stub
Parent category is oversized (Cat scan), and far more than 60 who are not sorted already into something more specific (Category:Snooker biography stubs and subcats thereof) are pool players in particular and exclusively (i.e. not snooker, carom or English billiards players). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 09:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support another good split, though if 114 is oversized then we have some really serious problems. Waacstats (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification: It's oversized for a topic area with only two continually active editors (me and Fuhghettaboutit). :-)  There are a few regular snooker editors, too, but they basically never touch the rest of the cue sports stuff.   A couple of them probably are interested in non-snooker, non-pool cue sports like English billiards so this might help rein in some of their attention. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 21:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - but with name clarification. When I saw this name I wondered what need there was for a pool-bio-stub when we had one for swimmers. Pool doesn't help matters., to match Pool (cue sports), would solve the category problem, but I'm not sure what we'd call the template... Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Maybe pool-cs-bio-stub or some variation thereof? -- Hamtechperson  Repeater   01:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hamtechperson, if "cs" means anything to anyone, it will probably be "computer science". —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 19:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Grutness, one (your :-) anecdotal case of momentary confusion with swimmers (Really? It sounds like you're joking!) doesn't really make for a strong argument of ambiguity. I occasionally mistake a category for something other than it was intended for, but rarely come to the conclusion that the category should be renamed after I figure it out (cf. PEBKAC). Further, I cannot imagine that swimming pool installation and cleaning is ever going to be a notable enough occupation to have a category here, nor is any way to categorize people by their relationship to naturally occurring pools of water, nor by pool betting, so "pool" really is not ambiguous in this context (otherwise Category:Pool and its subcats would've been CfR'd a long time ago.  Also, the article name at Pool (cue sports) has been subject to very recent dispute, and is only disambiguated because non-biographical meanings of "pool" do (arguably) need disambiguation in articlespace. If you really, really want to have a preemptively disamgibuatory category name for this, then I think the matter should actually be taken up at CfR, since Category:Pool (cue sports) biography stubs is going to logically necessitate the conforming rename of the parent category to Category:Pool (cue sports) players and concomitant renames of its subcats, its parent cat and its other subcats, all of which falls clearly outside the scope of the stubsorting project. Even if that is pursued, there isn't really any reason to have the template be anything other than pool-bio-stub.  All that said, I'd still oppose the long version of the cat name, since the proposed stub cat won't be a subcat of anything but Category:Pool players and Category:Cue sports biography stubs, preventing any possible confusion with swimmers or jacuzzi repairmen or wallowers in puddles or betting-pool fans or whatever. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 19:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not joking at all - my first thought when I saw was Duncan Laing (though that's perhaps because pool as a sport is less popular here than in some countries). The point remains, though, that if the article is at Pool (cue sports), then the categories - both permcat and stubcat - should match it if there is any possible confusion. There is no possible confusion with  - you don't play a swimming pool - so there's no problem with it and its subcategories remaining as they are. There is, though, with, since you can have a biography relating to any form of pool. I'm pretty sure we've had similar problems in the past relating to just this sort of case, and relating to the more inclusive naming of stub categories to include coaches, managers, and the like. I don't see any reason why this one should be different. As to the template, I don't think -cs- will do anything other than  add more confusion. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  23:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no one's proposed a solution that works for both cat. and tag, and this wasn't posted as an objection, only a qualified support (and after the 5 day mark), so I've created them as-proposed. The sky won't fall, and they can always be renamed later if ambiguity actually turns out to be a real problem with them (as noted, I would imagine this would affect the entire series of categories, from Category:Pool on down). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 14:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, just looking at this page, when i saw the heading I thought "'pool' is an odd way to describe swimmers,. maybe because it's shorter?" 129.42.208.186 (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

/diprotodont-stub
Parent category is oversized, scan shows 141 stubs for this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support seems to be a viable split, though I would hardly call under 400 oversized. Waacstats (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

split
This stub category has gone beyond 400 pages. I propose splitting off the shrews in the following way:
 * /soricomorpha-stub - current
 * /shrew-stub - scan shows 346 pages for this cat and its proposed subcats
 * /whitetoothed-shrew-stub - scan shows 196 pages for this cat
 * /redtoothed-shrew-stub - scan shows 128 pages for this cat

I think this split should be done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support seems to be a viable split. Waacstats (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

split of
Over 600 articles propose Netherlands-wintersport-bio-stub and to allow a bit more breathing space. Waacstats (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

speedy? given that Laos-politician-stub is passed the 60 mark?Waacstats (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ofcourse. Proposing them here is a formality.--TM 22:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Support and all those below. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 18:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

speedy? given that Norway-politician-1970s-stub is passed the 60 mark?Waacstats (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

speedy? given that Norway-politician-1790s-stub is passed the 60 mark?Waacstats (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

speedy? given that Poland-chess-bio-stub is passed the 60 mark?Waacstats (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)