Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2007/July

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of discussions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals for the month of July 2007. Please move completed July discussions to this page as they occur, add discussion headers to each proposal showing the result, and leave incomplete discussions on the Proposals page. After July, the remainder of the discussions will be moved to this page, whether stub types have been created or not.

Those who create a stub template/cat should be responsible for moving the discussion here and listing the stub type in the archive summary.

Stub proposers please note: Items tagged as "nocreate" or "no consensus" are welcome for re-proposal if and when circumstances are auspicious.

NRHP stub

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create upmerged state templates as needed, cats when needed.
I'm workign on a project to potentially create a large number of stub articles from the National Park Service's NRHP database and it would probably nice to a stub solely for those articles since there will probably be 100's if not more. There is also a WikiProject specifically to expand on these articles so having a single stub tag would make it easier to track them down. Something like {{nrhp-stub}}. pw 02:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I think the first few states will be FL, IL and OH so I can do that. pw 04:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
OK. In particular, "locations" and "buildings and structures" generally get stub-sorted separately, so can I ask which you plan on creating, for the most part, and in roughly what sorts of numbers? (If it's a bit open-ended, perhaps just templates such as {{Ohio-NRHP-struct-stub}}, "upmerge" to the parent categories for the time being?) Alai 04:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Its a little of both, some locations such as historic areas / districts, some structures. I can get you exact numbers, but currently I do not have them on me (database isn't at home right now). If you look at some of the currently lists like List_of_Registered_Historic_Places_in_Ohio you can see that there are quite a lot of them but many of those may actually exist as other articles, about the persons related to them etc. pw 05:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Exact numbers aren't necessary, just bear in mind that separate categories need 60 articles, but also as I say that it would be neater if these aligned as much as possible with existing stub types. Alai 06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
For that reason, the newly created Ohio category is now at sfd... please note Alai's comment about opmerged templates! Grutness...wha? 02:05, 3 July 2007 (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.

{{Rail:Signaling}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was do not create.
Is this a proposal? If so, of what kind? You seem to be suggestinbg a non-stub template here. Or do you mean some kind of {{Rail-signal-stub}}? Speak to us! Grutness...wha? 00:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Or otherwise signal! Alai 01:36, 3 July 2007 (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.

4 speediable

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was discuss at sfd.

To fit the scoupe of the by then revived R&B and Soul Music WikiProject. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 03:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, to start with, they're not "speediable", and - since they already exist and are listed at WP:WSS/D, they can't really be proposed (since proposal, by definition, is something that happens before a stub type is created). It would rpobably be better to keep discussion to the one location - preferably at WP:WSS/D, sinc that's where it started. Grutness...wha? 05:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
PS - FWIW, "Speediable" stub types are those where a previously proposed upmerged template is on enough use that a separate above-threshold category can be created for it. Grutness...wha? 07:36, 7 July 2007 (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.

2 more speediable categories

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
The following templates have also reached de-upmerger point so I propose categories for

Waacstats 23:04, 4 July 2007 (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.

3 (speediable?) categories

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
the following templates have all passed 60 so I propose de-upmerging them to the relevant category

Also will need to rename the respective catch-all categories. (does that need to be done here or sfd). Waacstats 12:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I support speedying in both respects. (I've tweaked the tls and cls above to correspond to the existing stubs.) Alai 13:24, 4 July 2007 (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.

Marvel Comics subtypes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create by title.
‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Marvel Comics stubs is another that's sneaked over 800 when I wasn't looking. Most of these seem to be characters, so I suggest we split those out -- I think I might have proposed that before. That could be split up into assorted subcats, such as: supporting characters, mutants characters with superhuman strength, superheroes, deities and immortals (all of which there's permcats and the numbers for), but I'm not sure there'd be much point or support. But I'd also like to propose:

which seems more clearly distinct. Alai 05:40, 3 July 2007 (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.

A speediable geo-stub

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
Someone's been busy, increasing the number of {{Tuvalu-geo-stub}}s from 14 to 80 over the last few weeks. A ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Tuvalu geography stubs is now viable. Grutness...wha? 07:31, 7 July 2007 (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.

{{Luxembourg-stub}} subcategories

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
Two new subcategories of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Luxembourg stubs, under the aegis of WikiProject Luxembourg:

Bastin 11:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: Since I made the proposal, I have created 13 new station stubs and 1 new line stub. Hence, there are now 48 rail stubs and 78 building and structure stubs in total. Bastin 12:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Support based on the numbers mentioned above. Od Mishehu 11:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Created: Since there was no opposition in six days, and the numbers to which I was referring vis-à-vis railway station stubs are coming to fruition, I have gone ahead and created both stub types, and am in the process of tagging them. Bastin 18:16, 14 July 2007 (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.

Romanian geography, by counties and regions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
We've already started splitting Romania by "county", so this is probably speediable:

Given the large number of counties, however, it'll probably be necessary after that to upmerge to the development regions of Romania, new-fangled makey-uppy agglomerations of counties for NUTS and subsidy-farming purposes, and also handy for ours. (Parent is oversized, btw.) Alai 03:35, 12 July 2007 (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.

create {{london-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
To cover the many London UK stubs not covered by the very specific stub types already listed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barliner (talk • contribs)

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.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Cambodian people stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
A genuinely speediable one this time, as per comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals#Stub Help. The upmerged {{cambodia-bio-stub}} now has some 75 stubs. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sped. No need to wait 5 days for this one. Valentinian T / C 18:48, 16 July 2007 (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.

HR

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was do not create.
Request for approval...Cookie Monster 09:14, 13 July 2007 (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.

more bird orders

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
Sudden huge increase in several of the organism stub types, including the ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:bird stubs. These additional orders look viable:

These are just based on infoboxing, so very likely to be undercounts. Much as I hate to pile on the "over-speedying", I'm inclined to do these one (and the other taxon-based cases to follow shortly) in a day or so if there are no substantiative objections: we've already started splitting by order, and the names should be straightforward (article and permcats use these in each case). (It looks like there's a db dump fairly imminent, and it'd be handy to take care of some of the more humungous cases before then, and see where that leaves us with the remainder.) Alai 21:59, 14 July 2007 (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.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hasidic Judaism stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
Evidently ad hoc unproposed stub types to do with some aspect or other of Hasidism will continue to spring and attract staunch (or at least, numerous) defenders at SFD, but it still strikes me as a neater solution to have a ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hasidic Judaism stubs type; at the least, it can serve as an umbrella for all those other ones. Alai 03:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Support, as per my comments at WP:SFD. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 3 July 2007 (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.

{{Internet-bcast-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Internet broadcasting stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
I find over 75 articles that would fall in here, looking at ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Internet radio, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Internet television, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Internet stubs, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Podcasting and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Internet publication stubs. There is currently a {{Internet-tv-stub}} over at Discoveries, and I propose we eliminate that and use this proposed stub/cat for any radio, tv or other audio/visual media produced for the Internet. Her Pegship (tis herself) 06:10, 7 July 2007 (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.

Create {{compu-sp-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was no consensus.
This existing stub is the closest I can find: {{compu-bio-stub}}

Which returns: This biographical article relating to a computer specialist is a stub.

However what is needed hear is stub status reading: This article is a computer specialist related stub.

I can see a number of articles that need to move to this status. This thought came to me when I saw that Systems analyst had no proper stub to go into. But there are many computer related articles that should also go into this stub instead of the more general overal computer stub. This is not hardware, not software, networking but encompasses all as would computer related but at a more complex level. --akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 12:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the -sp- is for specialist. This stub would not only concern itself with people who have jobs, but rather anything that is computer specialist in nature or expert. That does not fall under software, hardware or networking seperately. --akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 01:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I realize you're proposing that -sp- stand for "specialist"; I'm telling you that a) it's not the appropriate term here, as it invites scope confusion, and b) that it's an inappropriately cryptic abbreviation thereof. I reiterate my -job- suggestion, which is clearer on both counts, and serves the role you propose. Alai 03:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
How about {{Compu-term-stub}}, similar to the existing Geo-term-stub and Poli-term-stub, to cover computer terminology? That might sweep up a lot of the things which relate to computing but which don't fall under the soft/hard/network/bio categories. Would that solve the problem? Grutness...wha? 01:33, 14 July 2007 (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.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Muroid rodent stubs/{{muroid-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create as revised.
Category:Rodent stubs is out of controll (over 1000 articles). Going through the list, a lot of the animals in the category are "rats" or "mice", which is most of Muroid rodents are. Od Mishehu 11:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Holy Crap -- over 1600, now. I wonder if a yet-finer split is in fact indicated, given the sheer volume, (It would also be useful if these bot-created articles were being given appropriate taxonomical categories.) Alai 03:25, 12 July 2007 (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.

Logic

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was see discussion at sfd.
Request for a speedy approval. I have populated the category. There is a substantial work on a proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic, and Portal:Logic. There are pov issues arising which have lead to an increased need for the general category:logic rather than math-logic.

The category is consistent with WikiProject Philosophy stub categories.

Please understand the meaning of the word "proposal" -you cannot propose something that has already been done. This stub type is already listed at WP:SFD, and discussion on it should take place there - not be split between two different pages. This stub type is inconsistent with the other logic stub type which already exists, hence its location there - one or the other of the two stub types needs drastic altering as a result. And speedying of stub types is usually only for categories where proposed and approved upmerged stub types already exist, or for stubtypes where there is broad consensus in WP:WSS of a split into specific subtypes of an overused stub template. Neither of these reasons applies in this case. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 13 July 2007 (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.

Systems Engineering

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was do not create.
Request for a speedy approval of the stub - there is a significant body of knowledge around systems engineering that relates to ERP Systems and Production and Manufacturing and Information Technology in general.

Broadly speaking Systems Engineering is the discipline focused on the design and implementation of the business processes and information technology (software) tools used in contemporary businesses.

The category is consistent with WikiProject Category:Engineering stubs

  • I think we obviously need to add "grounds for speedying" to a guideline or FAQ somewhere: it seems to be flavour of the month to use it as a generic intensifier. At any rate, this isn't such a case, so strongly oppose speedy creation. I have my doubts about this one, as "interdisciplinary" often in practice means "horrendously fuzzy and overlapping scope". But I'm open to being persuaded if there's evidence of 60 or more stubs that are more appropriately tagged with this than anything else. Alai 18:07, 12 July 2007 (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.

Fungus stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was no consensus.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardo Carneiro Pires (talk • contribs)

  • I must admit to being tempted by this (with somewhat guidelineified names), as it would hammer down on the size of a very oversized category, and reduce double-stubbing. But wouldn't it be better to keep them tagged by phylum as at present, and re-sort the plant-disease-stubs by type of plant they infect? ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:cereal disease stubs, etc. Unfortunately, categorisation on that axis wasn't great when I last looked... Alai 03:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
In any case, the template and category names need tweaking. Valentinian T / C 11:12, 12 July 2007 (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 template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Martial arts stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
This category is almost at 700 stubs and we seem to have no consitent way of splitting these yet (we have -bio, -film and mixedmartialart- ). 2 Possible splits would be

with 70-90 stubs each. We could go for either or both but i don't know how much if any overlap exists. Which ever way we go

would seem useful either to stop judo stubs being swamped with over 400 biographies or just as a split of the 600+ strong ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Martial arts biography stubs Waacstats 15:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

According to a count using AWB, there would be 127 Judo stubs and 120 Martial arts terminology stubs, and 381 Judo biography stubs. Per those numbers, I support. Od Mishehu 04:49, 11 July 2007 (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 template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Belgian people stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
Just about oversize I propose the following

figures per catscan, Sport-bio-stub would also have cycling-bio and footy-bio as subcats. Waacstats 18:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry scrap the writers, just seems to be a large amount of under sorting to an existing category.Waacstats 18:38, 20 July 2007 (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.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Indian television stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
Currently {{India-tv-stub}} categorizes articles under Category:Asian television stubs. Over 76 articles are using the Indian stub template. I feel these articles should be categorized under Category:Indian television stubs. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy create. Precedent exists, see e.g. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Japanese television stubs Valentinian T / C 10:44, 18 July 2007 (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.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode stubs, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Star Trek: Voyager episode stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
De-upmerge:

Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. Alai 22:42, 30 July 2007 (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 from ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Television episode stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create as Science fiction television episode stubs.
I would like to propose a new stub type, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Science fiction episode stubs, as a subtype of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Television episode stubs, two examples of articles in this category would be The Girl Who Was Plugged In (Welcome To Paradox) or The Human Factor (2002 The Outer Limits). Carpetsmoker 21:14, 30 July 2007 (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.

Sub-cat for Category:American football stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was do not create.
Would like to add two one sub-cat for this category. One for National Football League specific stubs and one for College football specific stubs. To clarify, College football stubs exist at Category:College football stubs, I want to move that under the American football stubs cat.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  11:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Not only does the college type already exist, it already is a subcat of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American football stubs. I'm not sure there'd be much point in a separate NFL stub type, simply because the vast majority of American football articles are such, the main exceptions being terminology, and people who're only notable for their college careers. Would this actually get us anywhere, aside from a lot of renaming, and introducing the possibility of inconsistent tagging and double-stubbing? Alai 15:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • My eye must have skipped over that per College. Don't know how I missed that. Well maybe I'm not expressing this clearly...but my understanding of stubs (again - i may be wrong) is to note articles that need to expand. Maybe NFL stub wouldn't be the correct term, but a number of player articles are stubs. There doesn't seem to be any quick way to identify which player articles are stub length of those players who appeared in NFL games. That was what I was looking for. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:06, 30 July 2007 (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.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Fabaceae stubs to be split by subfamilies

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was already approved.

--Ricardo 12:53, 29 July 2007 (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.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Video game musician stubs to be split by nationality

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was do not create.
I propose a nationality split of the category of video game musician stubs. There are many Japanese and American video game musicians described at Wikipedia. The original video game musician stub type template should be used for nationalities other than Japanese and American. The proposals are:

Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 03:26, 28 July 2007 (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 template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:European sports venue stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
Category over 700 and creeping towards oversize, can't quite find any country reaching 60 with catscan but hopefully will pick up a few extra through hand sorting. The following all appear to be over 30 articles and atleast in my view worthwhile having:

All upmerged to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:European sports venue stubs and the relevant building and structure category. Waacstats 22:43, 27 July 2007 (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 template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Figure skater stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
As above, Category over 700 and heading towards 800, catscan does not give country 60 however all the following would have atleast 30 uses:

all upmerged to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Figure skater stubs and the relevent wintersport-bio- / sport-bio- / -bio- stub category. Also possibly a ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:European figure skater stub with a {{Euro-figure-skater-stub}} to mop up. Waacstats 22:43, 27 July 2007 (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.

2 -sport-bio-stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
both ukraine and belarus have enough articles for a sport-bio-stub. In the case of Ukraine it would already have 2 sub cats (athletics and football) and if the above proposal is passed then an upmerged template while belarus already has 1 upmerged template (athletics). I propose the following:

Waacstats 22:43, 27 July 2007 (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.

Millenium Development Goals

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was do not create.
I propose a stub for the UN Project page, --Wfwpeurope 22:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)wfwpeurope

See {{UN-stub}} or, for the project talk page banner, {{WikiProject United Nations}}. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:04, 26 July 2007 (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.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Czech Republic geography stubs sub-types

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create upmerged templates.
I propose split of Czech-geo-stub to 13 stubs, consistent with primary administrative subdivision of the country. Four stubs were already created by Alai year ago. The rest is getting close to 700 articles and a split is needed, plus all municipalities are not yet covered and it is only a matter of time when hundreds of new articles will appear. Therefore I propose:

- Darwinek 19:24, 26 July 2007 (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.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Estonian politician stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
De upmerge {{Estonia-politician-stub}}. Now 60+ articles. If anybody is game for finding a few more articles somewhere; the following countries are getting close: Croatia (58), Zimbabwe (57, not a joke), Nicaragua (56), Honduras (54), Ghana (52), El Salvador (52), Panama (50), Somalia (47), Amazingly, Eritrea has jumped from one article to 44 in around a year. Valentinian T / C 22:25, 24 July 2007 (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.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Laotian people stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
De upmerge {{Laos-bio-stub}}. Now 60+ articles. Valentinian T / C 21:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Btw, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Nepali people stubs is getting very close with 57 articles. If anybody knows some unsorted material here, it would be great. Valentinian T / C 22:06, 24 July 2007 (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.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Kyrgyz people stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
de upmerge {{Kyrgyzstan-bio-stub}} as now over 60 articles. Waacstats 22:34, 23 July 2007 (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.

New videogame subtypes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create as revised.
{{Atari-stub}}, Category:Atari stubs

To include articles related to video game company Atari (in any of it's incarnations)- Stub examples (this list is just from the A and B sections of List of Atari 2600 games) - Air Raid (video game), Alien (Atari 2600), Alpha Beam with Ernie, Artillery Duel, Astrosmash, Atlantis (Atari 2600), BASIC Programming, Bachelor Party (video game), Bank Heist, Barnstorming (video game), Basic Math (video game), Basketball (video game), Beamrider, Beat 'Em & Eat 'Em, Big Bird's Egg Catch, Blackjack (Atari 2600), Bowling (video game), Boxing (video game), Bump 'n' Jump —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyMrNinja (talk • contribs)

{{TakeTwo-stub}}, Category:Take-Two Interactive stubs

Take Two - A giant videogame company, owner of Rockstar (Grand Theft Auto) and Firaxis (Civilization IV). Most of the company profiles are stubs themselves. - Firaxis Games, Sid Meier's Gettysburg!, Sid Meier's Antietam!, Civilization Revolution, Frog City Software, Imperialism II: Age of Exploration, Trade Empires, Tropico 2: Pirate Cove, PopTop Software, Irrational Games, SWAT 4: The Stetchkov Syndicate, TDK Mediactive, Aquaman: Battle for Atlantis, Visual Concepts, All-Pro Football 2K8, NCAA College Football 2K3, Kush Games, Global Star Software, Gathering of Developers, Gotham Games, TalonSoft, Rockstar Japan, Rockstar Leeds, Rockstar Lincoln, Rockstar London, Rockstar San Diego, Rockstar Toronto, Rockstar Vancouver, Rockstar Vienna —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyMrNinja (talk • contribs)

{{Ubisoft-stub}}, Category:Ubisoft stubs

Ubisoft - Another giant videogame company see Category:Ubisoft Entertainment games - 187 Ride or Die, Alexander (computer game), America's Army: Rise of a Soldier, America’s Army: True Soldiers, Asphalt Urban GT, Astonishia Story, B.A.T., Babyz, Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker (video game), etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyMrNinja (talk • contribs)

{{SCE-stub}}, {{SOE-stub}}, {{Sony-videogame-stub}}, {{SOE-game-stub}} Category:Sony Computer Entertainment stubs

Sony Computer Entertainment, makers of PlayStation products, and Sony Online Entertainment makers of Everquest and other online games - 007 Racing, 102 Dalmatians: Puppies to the Rescue, 2 On 2 Open Ice Challenge, 2 Xtreme, Central Station (online gaming service), DNAS, Ducks demo, HDD Utility Disc, Official PlayStation Magazine - Ireland, PSGL, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyMrNinja (talk • contribs)
  • I've refactored this proposal a little, since there are four very similar types being proposed here. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Video game stubs is far from being oversized, and the usual split is by genre rather than company, though we do have some company splits. Shouldn't be too bad if the individual games are double-stubbed with genre-specific templates as well, thoughSupport, but only weakly, the first three. In the last case, though, weak support with a different name. SOE = State-owned enterprises and SCE = School certificate examinations - among other things (see SOE and SCE) - so something like {{SonyComputer-stub}}, or better still, {{Sony-videogame-stub}}, would be a far better name. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

For some reason signing didn't occur to me on these pages. I would also like to point out that I do plan on populating these categories if they are created.

What I realized when I was digging through "What links here" for Taito Corporation to populate the {{tl:Taito-videogame-stub}}, is that there are a ton of stubs that have no stub templates. Many are even rated as "Stubs" There are also many games that have no game categories, and no {{cvgproj}} on the discussion page. My thinking is that creating these categories encourages people (like me) to add templates to types of games they're interested in, and to go through and try to improve those articles (I'm partial to Category:Fighting-game-stubs). Looking at the list of top Video game publishers, I have some new proposals. More huge companies, and MS-DOS -

{{Activision-stub}}, {{Infocom-stub}}, Category:Activision stubs

Activision 3rd ranked publisher- Giant game company, going back to the Atari 2600 days, and their property Infocom, which was one of the first big computer game companies.

{{THQ-stub}}, Category:THQ stubs

7th ranked game publisher

{{Disney-videogame-stub}}, Category:Disney video game stubs

Games either made by Buena Vista Games, 18th ranked publisher, or about Disney.

{{SCi-videogame-stub}} {{Eidos-stub}}, Category:SCi video game stubs

SCi and Eidos Interactive (which it recently purchased), 16th ranked publisher.

{{MSDOS-game-stub}} {{Computer-game-stub}}, Category:MS-DOS game stubs Category:Computer game stubs

Games that came out on MS-DOSpersonal computers home computers, there were a lot of them made, and more than a few on here have no template on them. This includes IBM PC compatibles, Apple Macs and IIes, Amigas, etc.
I've been trying to think of a better title, one that would include all old computers like that. It would be a really useful category, if I could think of a title. As it is, I am changing the proposal to personal computers. That should be clearer. ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 07:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I take it you mean "Computer game" rather than "Personal computer" as that's what the proposal has changed to? I'd support "Computer game", but "Personal computer" still suggests PC to me. Miremare 11:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
IBM did take over the meaning of PC to most people. I've changed it to home computer. ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 16:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, which name are you proposing? You just said "Home computer", but it says "Computer game" at the top after the crossed out "MSDOS game stub". Miremare 01:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I just changed the description. I had only used the phrase "personal computer" in the description, so I changed the description to say "home computer". The proposed name for the stub type was the same both times, Computer game stubs, as computer game is common usage for a game on a home or personal computer. ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 01:50, 23 July 2007 (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.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:poetry year stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was no consensus.
Poetry stubs are oversized, and there'd be 183 of these. Alai 00:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Grand idea, coding should follow the pattern of "yyyys-novel-stub" format I imagine. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
One of us misunderstands Alai's suggestion, I think. I'd assumed it was for articles such as 1879 in poetry, rather than a suggestion to split up poetry by decade. Not that that would be a bad idea, but I'm not sure it's needed quite yet. Grutness...wha? 08:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for being cryptic; Grutness is quite correct. Alai 03:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
There is an {{inc-lit}} template; wouldn't that suffice? Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:39, 1 August 2007 (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.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:baseball stubs subtypes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create baseball season stubs.

Yet another oversized type, these look viable and more or less sensible. Alai 23:48, 14 July 2007 (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.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Fabaceae stubs subtypes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.

Yet another one. Plan here would be to split into these three subfamilies, and populate via upmerged per-genus templates. Alai 22:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we have proper listings of genera for all three subfamilies? Otherwise we don,thave any good references to use for sorting. Circeus 17:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
If the genus information in the article is incorrect, then stub sorting is the least of its problems... Alai 04:03, 16 July 2007 (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.

create {{etruscans-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create upmerged template as Etruria-stub.
There seem to be a bunch of stubs related to the Etruscans and no suitable tag. Most of them are tagged as Ancient Rome stubs or something similar, which isn't accurate. Pax:Vobiscum 14:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks like you're some way short of the traditional threshold, though well on the way. Can I suggest an upmerged (to you-know-where...) template for the time being? Alai 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A similar template has existed and been deleted in the past, IIRC... not that that is a total handicap. The big problem is the naming - Etruscan-stub or Etruscans-stub sounds like it about individual people ({{Etruscan-bio-stub}}). And unfortunately there isn't a widely-known name for the country of the ancient Etruscans (I suppose {{Ancient-Etruria-stub}} would work, but it's not exactly intuitive).An upmerged template sounds a reasonable idea, but the naming needs sorting out first. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You're right, found this in the archives. I've added some more articles to the list and now have 65 potential stubs. As far as naming goes I think either etruscans-stub or etruria-stubs would be the best choice. Pax:Vobiscum 08:24, 13 July 2007 (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.

Create {{Kazakhstan-sport-bio-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
A new purposed stub that will be for Kazakhstani sportspeople. I have counted around 65 Kazakhstani sportspeople articles which are stubs without counting the Kazakhstani footballers who are 35 which around 25 of them minimum are stubs. So there are around more than 80 stub articles for Kazakhstani sportspeople.--KRBN 18:22, 8 July 2007 (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.

Lower Saxony geo subcats

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.

Similar deal to the previous, parent somewhat larger-still. Alai 05:14, 3 July 2007 (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.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Rhineland-Palatinate geography stubs subcats

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
Over 1000 articles, so should be oversized by anyone's standard.

Now, it must be said that these Regierungsbezirk have actually be abolished, but I'm of the view that we should use them anyway, as an upmerger target for per-kreis templates. (There's 24 districts, so few of those will be viable in the short run.) Alai 05:08, 3 July 2007 (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.

Amphibians by family

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
Just a tad oversized at 31 listings pages, I suggest strongly recommend splitting ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:amphibian stubs by family, and in at least one case, by genus:

I wouldn't normally propose such large types as several of the above, but this in somewhat exceptional as it's not "natural" growth, and the scope for further increases is in many cases now quite limited. (No more articles left to create!) I'm open to further splitting by genus or subfamily if people would prefer, though. Obviously there's the issue of whether a common name would be preferable in any of the above cases (personally I have little in the way of idea about that). Alai 17:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. Would rather have common name cats redirect to the scientific named cats for consistency of TOL-type scientific classification in stubs/categories.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AshLin (talk • contribs)
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.

Country songs by decade

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
I've un-upmerged two of the oft-deleted country songs by decade types:

as this time, they've actually grown into threshold territory. Total numbers are still modest as regards the need for a split, though I suppose it's always better to be in front than 6000 articles behind (mentioning no Polbot amphibians in particular). Alai 16:50, 31 July 2007 (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.

Yet more bird orders

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
Another Polbot run; more bird orders.

If you think that's a lot, just wait for the amphibians... Alai 06:18, 31 July 2007 (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.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Chaudière-Appalaches geography stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Quebec geography stubs is over 800; this one region would be over threshold. Alai 05:32, 31 July 2007 (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 from Category:Medicine stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create as revised.
I propose creating a new stub type, {{reproduction-stub}}, as a subtype of {{medicine-stub}}, an overpopulated stub category. I found a substantial number of stubs in Category:Medicine stubs and its parent, Category:Health stubs, that would qualify; they are listed here. This stub type would encompass stubs relating to human reproduction, including reproductive health, obstetrics, and perinatology, but not those relating to sociological aspects of human sexuality. --Ginkgo100talk 21:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, it may be better to give it the name Category:Human reproduction stubs rather than just Category:Reproduction stubs, to clarify that the category does not include reproduction of non-human life. --Ginkgo100talk 21:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Support the latter. If you're peeling off some "health" rather than "medicine" stubs, does that mean it'll to be a stubtype of the former, rather than the latter? Alai 00:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, not all the stubs that would fit in the proposed category would fit in "medicine-stubs", so I think making it a subtype of "health-stubs" would be more appropriate. --Ginkgo100talk 02:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I have created the stub category at Category:Human reproduction stubs as a subcat of Category:Health stubs, and the template at {{human-repro-stub}}. Now I will start moving appropriate stubs into the new cat. --Ginkgo100talk 21:54, 8 August 2007 (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.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Fabaceae stubs to be split by subfamilies

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create three additional genus stub types.

--Ricardo 12:53, 29 July 2007 (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.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Passerine stubs subtypes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.

And believe it or not, one of the existing bird stub types is itself considerably oversized: I suggest we re-split at the family level. In three of these cases the naming issue isn't quite so clear-cut, since the article is at one name, and the category at the other. Either's fine with me. Alai 22:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that most of the other "tree of life" cats (um, felidae?) seem to use the Latin, I'd go for the latter names. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It does seem to often be the case that the category uses the name of the taxon, and the article some common name (near-)equivalent. Except when they agree on the former, or on the latter, or just occasionally, do exactly the reverse... Alai 02:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I have kept finches and I wouldn't recognize Fringillidae. Unless the categories are going to include only articles with a purely zoological focus, I vote for common English usage. Other categories may have Latin names, but I don't think that's the best way to go. Unless it is inaccurate (even slightly), articles should always have the most common English usage (but, WP:Othercrapexists). The point of a stub-cat is to bring attention to articles that need help. Choosing a name that is the most easily recognizable (by far), and yet still 100% accurate, is the best way to go. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 23:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Trouble is that "birds with the common name 'finch'" and "Fringillidae" are rather different scopes, and using the former for the latter would probably cause some confusion. We could use {{Fringillidae-stub}} feeding into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:finch stubs, in an attempt to combine precision and familiarity, but I don't know if that would be better, or worse. (Best of both worlds, or worst of both worlds?) Alai 07:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... of all passerines, these are probably the most problematic groups (except maybe estrildids). It would be better to start with someting uncontroversial. Say: ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sturnidae stubs (starlings) ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Turdidae stubs (thrushes) ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Corvidae stubs (corvids) ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Dicruridae stubs (which includes monarch-flycatchers) and especially ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Tyranni stubs (New World suboscines). I HIGHLY recommend starting off with the latter; it'll move out some 300 stubs of Tyrannidae - and that's just one family! :D
Oh, and splitting the OWW at family level sounds good. Dysmorodrepanis 15:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's updated per-family counts, up to the first "natural break" just below the normal threshold: the size of this really boggles the mind. (I've asked the driver of the bot that's creating these to give us a "heads up" of future 'incoming'.)

If any of these look dodgy (taxonimically, or in need of a different name), please let me know, otherwise I'll just start at the top of the list, and work my way on down... Alai 07:08, 28 July 2007 (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 ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Luxembourg geography stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create as revised.
Excluding districts (which mean nothing to anyone), cantons are the top administrative level, so ought to have geography stubs if possible. Create as stub category under ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Luxembourg geography stubs (all numbers from CatScan for use of {{Luxembourg-geo-stub}} and verified manually):

Create as upmerged templates (under ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Luxembourg geography stubs):

For the record, three cantons - Echternach (26 stubs (25 + 1)), Remich (27 stubs (26 + 1)), and Vianden (10 stubs (10 + 0)) - failed to have enough even for upmerged templates. I would expect the Esch-sur-Alzette canton to hit 60 in the next couple of months, as I will probably start on creating articles for the quarters of the city of Esch-sur-Alzette (there are 17, but only 1 exists so far). Bastin 19:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Just browsing the categories for geography stubs, I found that roads and buildings and structures also count as geographic stubs, and would hence be categorised as geo-stubs for the cantons. I have now augmented the totals above. In that case, I would suggest that the following gets its own category, too:
If that's just an error by other categories, it's all moot, and only Luxembourg canton is large enough to warrant a category of its own. Otherwise, both Luxembourg and Esch-sur-Alzette certainly break the 60 barrier. Bastin 23:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not so sure the -canton- element is really required; it's not in practice ambiguous in practice, even if there's a lower-level division of the same name. The fourth one would conventionally be {{EschsurAlzette-geo-stub}} (or perhaps just {{Esch-geo-stub}}?). I'd strongly recommend creation of the Echternach, Remich, and Vianden templates: there is no minimum of articles required for a stub template, and even supposing there were, symmetry (which is the whole point of creating any of them) would argue for ignoring it. And is there nothing to be said for upmerging the remainder of the cantonly templates to districtish categories? Apart from that barrage of nit-picking, support. Alai 23:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The reason I suggest that 'canton' be included is two-fold. First, Luxembourg canton shares the name with a lower division and two higher divisions (the district and the country), whilst all of them share with at least one lower. Not only is straight 'Luxembourg-geo-stub' an impossibility for the cantonal stub type, but a separate stub type for Luxembourg City is probably not far away (it almost qualifies now: 30 Luxembourg-geo-stubs and 23 Luxembourg-struct-stubs). Symmetry would just demand that the formula that is used for Luxembourg City be used for the others. Thus, clarifying and dabbing may well be a problem right now. Second, I just see symmetry (what's with that word?) in using the same name for the stubcat as for the permcat, i.e. 'Foo canton'.
Agree with first name tweak for Esch-sur-Alzette. However, changing to 'Esch-geo-stub' is a bit of a leap; in conjunction with removing 'canton', it makes it quite vague. At least there's no other 'Esch canton' in the world.
Agree with creating (and upmerging) the other ones if that's de rigeur, but disagree with upmerging them to district level. The problem with upmerging the cantonal templates to district level cats is that districts don't mean anything (not since the government abandoned attempts to replace the French-style cantons with German-style districts in the mid-19th century), so I'm quite against it. History aside, nothing else is categorised by district, so I fear it would be a dead end in that sense, too. There would be only 10 upmerged cantonal templates, split 3 ways, so it doesn't do that much good, either. Bastin 00:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I somewhat take your point about the 'extra ambiguity' of the names, but I'm still not sure it'd ever be a problem in practice. The subsidiary divisions aren't going to need separate templates for some considerable period of time (if ever), so someone using such a template thinking it means the latter isn't going to go wrong. You're somewhat arguing it both ways on the districts, though: that on the one hand, no one pays them any mind, but on the other, cantonal templates 'clashing' with those would cause significant confusion. It can hardly be both. I'd have thought we were in little danger of ever needing a -geo-stub for any of the other Eschs, but the middle name would be OK if you think it really needs the "Alzette" qualifier (rather than the canton one).
The full set of templates aren't quite de rigeur, but it makes conceptual sense. If we're hoping that stub-sorters will use the cantonal templates, it'd be an extra cognitive burden to expect them to remember that nine exist, and three don't -- and of course, which is which. Given that there's < 500 stubs in the parent I suppose there's no real 'pressure of numbers' to create ditrict categories (and give the smallish number of cantons, I suppose more will be splittable before that becomes otherwise). Alai 15:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support the split, but not those names! The normal style would be just X-geo-stub. In those cases where there would be confusion, LuxembourgCanton-geo-stub for that one, since it is likely to cause problems later, but just Esch-geo-stub, Capellen-geo-sub, etc for the others, since they are unlikely to be confusing. You say Esch-geo-stub would be vague, but I don't see what else it would likely be confused with. If it is used for places within the town/city of Escvh as well, then there's no problem, since that is presumably within esch canton. Luxembourg requires the disambiguation though, both for the larger entity and the possibility of a city split. With regards to upmerging, standard practice would be to create all the templates but leave most pointing to the main Luxembourg geography stubs category. One major, major point, though: Just browsing the categories for geography stubs, I found that roads and buildings and structures also count as geographic stubs No they don't. Buildings and structures should never be given geo-stub templates - they should have either Luxembourg-struct-stub or - if that doesn't exist - a combination of Luxembourg-stub and Euro-struct-stub. Any which have a Luxembourg-geo-stub should have that stub template removed. Similarly, although there seems to be some debate about road-stub, in practice this is rarely if ever regarded as a geo-stub, except occasionally at city level. Grutness...wha? 06:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I was just checking which was the correct, so thanks for clarifying. It doesn't really matter, since I nominated it not thinking that to be the case. In the event, it just means that Esch-sur-Alzette should have an upmerged template. Bastin 00:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the debate hinges on a couple of points in commonality, I'll put my response down here, rather than address Alai and Grutness in turn.
  1. The point that matters most is whether uniformity of titling is required. That is, should all the stubs include 'canton' just because Luxembourg canton must be styled thusly? Since the answer is an emphatic 'No, that doesn't need to be the case', I'll defer and give my support to the proposal outlined by Grutness. CamelCase if that's the convention; 'canton' should be lower-case, but Luxembourgcanton-geo-stub seems a bit strange to me. Not sure how that would be played by the book.
  2. The Esch thing doesn't really matter at all. I've looked at the other 'Esch's, and they're rather pathetic (mighty Esch-sur-Sûre excepted!). We're never going to get another 'Esch' with a stub type, so 'sur-Alzette' really can be dropped.
  3. If the other cantons should have templates for the sake of completeness, that's fine, too. Echternach and Remich are on the cusp of upmerged templates anyway, which would leave only Vianden. And, for the sake of completeness, there really shouldn't be just one left stub-less.
All this would leave Luxembourg canton as {{LuxembourgCanton-geo-stub}} and with a category, but the others upmerged and in the form {{Capellen-geo-stub}} and {{Esch-geo-stub}}, right? Bastin 00:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds pretty much right, though probably the former would be at {{Luxembourgcanton-geo-stub}}, as per Alai's point about the capitalisation of cantons. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. If no more kinks emerge by then, I'll create them tomorrow. Bastin 13:57, 3 August 2007 (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.


‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Widereceiver stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
Category over 700 propose split as usual by decade of birth with {{Widereceiver-xxxx-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Widereceiver, xxxxs birth stubs and a catch all category.Waacstats 22:45, 23 July 2007 (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.

Merge of stub types entering ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hunter region geography stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create upmerged templates.
At present we have {{LakeMacquarie-geo-stub}}, {{NewcastleNSW-geo-stub}} and {{PortStephens-geo-stub}} directing into this category - I propose we have one template. This would allow us to incorporate other sections of the Hunter region (Cessnock, Maitland, Dungog, Gloucester etc) which are currently in the generic ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New South Wales geography stubs into this category. Orderinchaos 08:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Sensible suggestion. Thewinchester (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Whachamean, "merge"? They're already upmerged; are you suggesting deletion of those templates (which, strongly oppose), or creating an additional template? If the latter, I'd prefer to see additional per council area templaes for each of those instead. (Are those all within the "official" definition of the region, however?) Alai 03:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I was under the impression that a minimum of 60 is needed to keep each active. There's no way you'd get more than 10 from any of the other councils (some would be pushing 4 or 5). Orderinchaos 19:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not suggesting separate categories, which as you say, would be much too small; I'm suggesting additional upmerged templates, parallel to the three existing ones. Alai 03:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support With the periodic zeal shown by governments for local government area reform, and the common association with the Hunter region and Hunter River and the recognition of this as an area with defined borders by both the Australian Bureau of Statistics and numerous government agencies, a regional one would seem to make a lot of sense, especially given stubs are used mainly to find articles in a given area in need of improvement, and *nothing* really distinguishes Newcastle's southern suburbs from its western other than who they pay rates to. There may be an argument for keeping the separate Port Stephens one, however, as it is on the Pacific coastline. Zivko85 18:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm reverting the closure of this as "merge", as not-well-defined. These templates already are upmerged. What action is envisaged with the existing templates? Is there intended to a change of scope from Hunter region? Alai 02:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The proposal is apparently the creation of {{HunterNSW-geo-stub}} (to match {{CentralCoastNSW-geo-stub}} and the deletion of the other stub templates. Please be aware that Wikipedia:Stub#Creating_stub_types clearly states that stub types require at least 60 stubs each, and that a "stub type consists of a stub template and a dedicated stub category". Upmerged templates are not bound by that rule. Upmerged templates need only fit a reasonable purpose within a specific stub type. If these upmerged templates do not serve a useful purpose, by all means delete, but it seems they do. Better to Keep upmerged templates, and Create {{HunterNSW-geo-stub}}, as well as {{IllawarraNSW-geo-stub}} for Category:Illawarra region geography stubs. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Question - as I cannot claim to be New South Welsh, I am curious if there is a difference between Hunter region and Hunter Valley (see List_of_regions_in_Australia#New_South_Wales)? If not, I then propose to Rename Category:Hunter region geography stubs to Category:Hunter Valley geography stubs and to Create {{HunterValley-geo-stub}} (or perhaps {{HunterValleyNSW-geo-stub}} if someone so prefers). ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't claim to be knowledgeable about NSW either, but I wrote Hunter region because Hunter Valley seemed to be talking about some rather more ill-defined region, and is unsourced to boot. The sources I tracked down for the former refer to it as "Hunter region" (or "Hunter Region"). If the two are essentially the same, merging the two articles wouldn't be a bad first step, though it would still seem sensible to use the more officially-defined term in the category name, for the sake of definitional clarity. The 'regional' template (by any name) seems essentially (if not especially urgently) counterproductive to me; just means more work for someone if this ends up being re-split into its component entities down the line. Alai 07:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hunter Valley is a wine region and has little to do with geography, that's the main difference. :P The other Hunter region is defined by the ABS and by numerous NSW government entities. And on reflection, man, the Hunter Valley article seriously needs some attention, I might look into it when I've finished current projects. Orderinchaos 08:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense, so keeping them separate is probably better, though they ought to cross-reference, among various other things. And presumably the various local government that link to "region: Hunter Valley" should really link to (a better version of) "Hunter region". Alai 16:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
As can be clearly seen on my userpage, I know nothing about New South Wales, but it think I began a fix by renaming Hunter Valley to Hunter Region (as well as copied text from a government definition). Someone knowledgeable can improve from there. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

How does that sound? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think creating stubs that will contain 4 or 5 articles each is a bad idea. How about create a general stub type for the others, and leave the three upmerged ones that are there for now? (There isn't really a region/valley confusion, it is definitely region) Orderinchaos 00:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
These would be upmerged, so there's no real problems with that - it's not like they'll have their own categories until such time as they have grown to 60+ stubs. Creating upmerged templates as Johnny has suggested is fairly normal practice in cases like this. If the regions suggested by JohnnyMrNinja are the officially used subregions of the Hunter Region, it seems a sensible thing to do - though I would suggest, to remove any confusion with the English county, making one of them {{GloucesterShireNSW-geo-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 12:08, 14 August 2007 (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.

Merge of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Gosford suburb geography stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Wyong Shire geography stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was merge to CentralCoastNSW-geo-stub.

Proposal
Rationale

The separation between Gosford and Wyong is an artificial split of an area with a single common identity, and Wyong by current guidelines is too small to sustain its own category anyway. Even the Australian Bureau of Statistics [2] combines them into one area, and does not recognise them (2001 census) as separate urban areas. Our national broadcaster also treats them the same as do most NSW government agencies. Orderinchaos 08:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't see the advantage of replacing a formally-defined entity with those that are less formally defined, and furthermore undoing sorting effort in the process. And if you're actually suggesting deletion, you're in the wrong place. Alai 03:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not suggesting deletion, I'm suggesting a merge. Central Coast *is* formally defined, as the union of Gosford and Wyong - as indicated in evidence above. The reason for keeping the two separate seems weak, and does not assist in article development. Orderinchaos 19:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • In the context of the immediately-above proposal, where already-merged templates are being proposed for "merger", I'm not at all sure we're working from the same definition of "merge", hence the "if", in an attempted to clarify intent. If upmerging those two templates to a common category is what's intended (as with the status quo on the Hunters), that's probably OK, since it doesn;'t "lose information" in any serious way. OTOH, switching over to a common template would do so. As these are administratively separate areas, I don't see how poing out that there's a definition of the Central Coast argues against my point that the council areas are the more formally well-defined entities. Alai 02:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
        • In writing the above, I managed to miss that the "not suggested for deletion" categories had been already been deleted by the "nominator". Oh well. I suppose we've ended up with a liveable-solution, albeit by not necessarily the most transparent route. Alai 04:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I think this is more a case of "proposer stuffed up" - on advisement I should have nominated the category at SFD, but I only infrequently deal with stub types so was not entirely familiar with the process involved. Orderinchaos 08:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Sensible proposal considering that the stubs being proposed for merge have too small a scope and would be much better consolidated. Thewinchester (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support The old ones made no sense - speaking as someone with relatives in the area, a person from The Entrance would most definitely *not* be from "Wyong", they have more in common with someone from Terrigal. Similarly, although Gosford is a regional centre, it does not really have suburbs, unless you're talking about the 10 or so that immediately neighbour it. However everyone can agree on Central Coast - even the government, as the proposer highlighted. Case of common sense prevailing here. Zivko85 18:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - perfectly reasonable. - 52 Pickup 07:51, 7 August 2007 (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.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:LDS stubs subtype

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create as revised by Grutness.
About half of the approximately 350 articles in this cat are biographical in nature, so it would seem that a new bio sub-category (Category:LDS bio stubs) and it's matching stub template ({{LDS-bio-stub}}) would be useful. The statement explaining the cat could state something like: "This category is for biographical stub articles relating to the Latter Day Saint movement." -- 71.35.46.20 02:15, 17 July 2007 (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.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American jurist stubs subtypes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create US-judge-stub.
You've guessed it, oversized. I suggest:

Or ambiguous adjectives to that effect. Counts are based on permcat membership without overlap into the other; hand-sorting is likely to be able to split up the parent on these lines much sort. Alai 00:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

With rare exceptions, all judges will be jurists. Indeed, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Judges is a subcat of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Jurists. Recommend just ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United States judge stubs for now, without worrying about overlap with other law profession categories. If that would make the U.S. judges too big, split out the Federal judges and any States that have enough State or local judges to be worth at least an upmerged template. If Federal would be too large, we could also split out by type of Federal judge they were (altho I'd hope any article about a U.S. Supreme Court judge would be past stub stage by now). Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow. The logic of the scope of the parent category (both perm and stub) is surely that "jurist=judges and lawyers" (correct me if I'm wrong about this strictly American usage; to be frank it has a whiff to it of being another "automobile" (i.e. neither the most precise nor the most common term)). A good chunk of these are "judges" (not categorised as lawyers); a good chunk of them are "lawyers" (not categorised as judges, etc). That seems a pretty standard splitting rationale to me; what's the problem with the latter, if the former is OK? Alai 03:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Jurist: most precise, yes; most common, no. My disdain for separating out the lawyers as a separate stub type in addition to the judges is for a variety of reasons, the main one being the imprecision with which "lawyer" is used in everyday American speech. Depending on the context, it could be used to mean "jurist", "attorney-in-law" (which seems to be what the permanent category is), or "trial lawyer". Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
My suspicions of the term "jurist" stem in part because I've only ever heard it used of judges (though I admit it's not a term I'm tripping over on an everyday basis). I'd imagine you're right that the scope (or at least, application) of the 'lawyer' permcat is indeed at least roughly 'attorney at law', but altering the name or scope to that would seem to me to be against the interests of common usage, natural 'grouping', and internationally consistent terminology. Anyhoo, those naming/scoping issues I suppose we'd both be better advised to take to CFD. I wouldn't be opposed to holding off on the lawyers for a while, especially if there's some prospect of or intention to adjust the permcats in some manner. Alai 02:35, 25 July 2007 (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.

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:tree stubs subtypes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.

Not quite a taxon-based type or split, but in the same foodgroup, and also suddenly huge. These are perhaps broader than would be ideal, but I don't see much that'd be viable at the order level, which would seem like the next logical step. Doubtless soon enough, though, so upmerged templates are perhaps the way to go. Alai 22:31, 14 July 2007 (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.


‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ammonite stubs/{{ammonite-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
Among the first 20 Paleontology stubs (excluding the AL-#-1 pages), 18 are Ammonites (the other two being a trilobyte and an amphibian). Since ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Paleontology stubs is oversized, this should help reduce it to a smaller size. In addition, this should help reduce the size of Category:Cephalopod stubs, which is also oversized, since Ammonites were cephalopods. Od Mishehu 13:49, 10 July 2007 (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.

Create {{palace-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
Last year (see link below), there was no consensus as only 30-40 stubs were located. Today catscan gives ~130 stubs for Category:Palaces. Btw, is StubSense down?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of the toolserver tools are still having trouble with the enwiki database; maybe that's it. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:45, 7 July 2007 (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.

Recreate {{castle-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. 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.

The result of the debate was create.
This stub was created in July'06 but apparently deleted some time afterwards (I cannot find a link to deletion discussion). CatScan of Category:Castles for <1024 bytes and <4 links yelds ~450 results ([3]), current subcategories for stubs of British castles account only for ~390 stubs (some of which may overlap). While I applaud British Wikipedians for their devotion to stubbing every castle, other nations deserve at least a generic castle-stub.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:34, 7 July 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/2007/July&oldid=1144970518"