Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposals, January 2006

[edit]

{{canada-journalist-stub}}

[edit]

A stub of Canadian journalists. It would be a child of {{journalist-stub}} and {{canada-bio-stub}}. --YUL89YYZ 21:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Certainly a certain logic to that, parent cat is over-sized. (OTOH, properly sorting out the US-journos, and creating a stub-type for the UKs might be more urgent tasks...) Any idea of likely population? Alai 00:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am actually trying to get the Canada-bio-stub smaller. Here's the stats:
    • Category:Canadian journalists has 179 articles
      • Category:Canadian columnists has 74 articles
      • Category:Canadian film critics has 6 articles
      • Category:Canadian newspaper editors has 4 articles
      • Category:Canadian television journalists has 76 articles
    • Total is 339. Assuming 30% are stubs = 101.7 stubs --YUL89YYZ 01:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, a very good point, and an even more urgent and laudable goal. I'm wary of the 30% as any sort of rule of thumb, but looking in those I see numerous articles of borderline length not marked as stubs, plus there will be any number with no perm-cat, and google seems to indicate there's more likely somewhat approximating to 400 (though that's likely very false-pos rich). Good enough for me to support, certainly. Don't forget there's doubtless many lurking around with {{canada-writer-stub}}. Alai 02:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{topology-stub}}

[edit]

There is no stub category for articles on topology. The closest is {{geometry-stub}}, which doesn't really fit. I'm not sure if it should be a subtype of Category:Geometry stubs, or just of Category:Mathematics stubs (I'd lean towards the second). --Trovatore 16:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is probably going to confuse the vote, but I was about to add that there is no {{topography-stub}} either - which would be useful and reduce the weight on {{geo-term-stub}}. Trouble is, would these two stub types be too similarly named? Would there be confusion? Grutness...wha? 22:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why that should cause confusion, any more than having topology and topography articles causes confusion. --Trovatore 22:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Both stubs look useful, and anyone who knows the meaning of the words would be unlikely to confuse them. Oh, and topology should not be a subtype of geometry. They should be separate (though it could be argued that geometry is a subtype of topology, I suppose). --EncycloPetey 03:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone have a notion as to likely population? Parent could indeed do with being split, but what're the threshold-crossing potential subcategories?
I don't know, exactly, but I think it should be substantial (for topology; I have no clue about topography). But even if it were relatively small, the problem is that there's currently no good choice for these stubs — geometry-stub isn't right at all, and {{math-stub}} is huge. It's not an easy question to answer because Category:Topology has 17 subcats, and many of them have further subcats upon their backs to bite 'em. --Trovatore 03:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, can you give me some idea what substantial vs. relatively small is here? If it's significantly less than sixty articles, it's not worthwhile, regardless of the well-definedness of the category, and a better approach would be to reduce the clutter in math-stub by factoring out sub-topics that would be viable. Alai 04:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That strikes me as an overly rigid approach. In my view the stub category ought to be there for future articles, even if there aren't sixty currently, simply because topology is a discipline with a large footprint and no obvious supercat to put stuff in instead. (There well could be sixty; I'd have to go through Category:Geometry stubs and figure out which ones are topology, then descend through the tree from Category:Topology and figure out which ones are stubs; not a task I'm excited about.) --Trovatore 05:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it's "underly rigid"; the vagueness of our own guidelines means that about every third proposal here seems to demand special pleading of this or some other sort. Future use is a bad criterion, as it's completely hypothetical, and could easily lead to very small categories existing as such for a long time, and being in a "backwater category" may very well make them less likely to be expanded in future, by removing them from the "mainstream" of a more-frequently-visited category. Doubtless the task in question is actually worse than that, as I assume the topology stubs aren't currently consistently all sorted under geometry; I'd think several will be lurking under "maths". However, if you have no idea how many there are, pity us non-experts -- I've looked at a handful of "looks somewhat like a topological topic from the title" articles, and in most cases found myself fighting the urge to slap a {{context}} tag on them, as they don't really make their notional sub-field at all clear. If there's not a reasonable number, and they're predominantly currently sorted under geometry, then I'd favour rescoping that category to "Geometry and topology". (Though admittedly it's not itself tiny.) Alai 05:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think probably most of them are not listed as {{geometry-stub}}, because it's not a very natural thing to think of when you're adding a stub notice. On the other hand the tree descending from Category:Topology is huge, though I'll grant that there doesn't seem to be a very high proportion of stubs in them from what I've seen. But I don't agree with the objection in any case; it's obvious from the large number of articles that there are editors working on topology articles, so the stub category would hardly be likely to be a backwater. I just don't see the harm in adding the stub cat, and think the "sixty" rule doesn't make that much sense. --Trovatore 05:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless topologists are truly exceptional in their reluctance to create stubs, and/or their zeal in expanding them, there isn't likely to be a huge disjunct between the activity in the area as a whole, and the numbers of stubs. And if there's very few stubs, then almost necessarily they'll be a little-visited category as that's the most usual mechanism for people finding them, unless there's a wikiproject or other separately-maintained list. Last thing we need IMO is another "well-defined and harmless" type like {{cattheory-stub}}. Many of the stubs probably don't have permanent categories at all, so navigating from there may not be the most efficient way of finding them; certainly the ones that had me scratching my head didn't (just might have been a sufficient clue had they had such). Alai 06:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So how did you find them, then? --Trovatore 06:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, by poking around in the maths and geometry stub categories, and clicking on a few "looks somewhat like a topological topic from the title" cases. By this extremely crude measure there would appear to be on the order of 95 articles in the maths-stub cat with some connection to (or at least, mention of) topology, which is pretty promising. This could be an underestimate due to google-lag, an overestimate due to false hits, or almost certainly, a combination of the two, but it's a start. Alai 06:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a good idea. Here's my take on the first ten:
That makes four pretty definites, plus an expectation of 1.5 more on the borderlines; comes to about 50 extrapolated. But there's the Google lag, and there are articles that aren't marked stubs but should be, so I think 60 seems pretty reasonable. Can we go ahead, then? --Trovatore 00:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, do wait until (in and around...) the seventh as per the (not quite...) "mandatory waiting period". (Images of crime passionelle stub-on-stub violence there.) Just in case anyone else has huge objections/some naming convention issue I haven't thought of/a yet more cunning counter-proposal/other. But I'm happy enough, now including on the size issue. Alai 01:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template and category duly created. Assistance solicited in classification of existing articles. --Trovatore 20:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum -- Evolutionary graph theory is a topological article. The issue is to generate a minimum-sum length spanning bifurcating tree to match a specified taxicab distance multidimensional space... Try saying that with a mouthful of peeps! --EncycloPetey 08:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{RC-stub}} split

[edit]

More suggestions for splitting up {{RC-stub}}:

It would be a sub category of Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs and Category:Roman Catholic orders and societies.
It would be a sub category of Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs and Category:Roman Catholicism in the world and Category:Church stubs.
It would be a sub category of Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs and Category:Roman Catholic Church organisation.

JASpencer 18:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any notion of potential populations of each? The residual parent is not huge, <600 stubs now. I'd have guessed the biggest slice of the remainder might have been of (physical) churches. Not that RC-church-stub wouldn't be inviting terminological confusion. Not thrilled that those seem to arrive "pre-created", btw. Alai 19:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The physical churches seem to be in clusters, particularly around C (Catholic church of...; Church of ...; Cathedral of ..;) so they look far larger on the first page than they are on the second two pages. We'd be looking at 100-150 in the category, before it gets seperated further.
If you can suggest a better title please do. I did think of RC-build-stub, but thought that was a bit obscure.
Rough estimates on the other stubs - orders probably 30-50, society 70-100, dioceses 40-60.
Sorry about the pre-creation, they were meant to keep empty. I thought I was helping. 12:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem, sorry to be grumpy; just had some trouble with "facts on the ground"-inspired editors taking off with such things. I'd be entirely in favour of RC-church-stub (see comments on the name in earlier section; I wouldn't suggest re-splitting, no) and of RC-society. As that'd reduce the parent to very manageable proportions, on balance I'd be somewhat against the smaller ones, until such time as they're rather larger. Alai 07:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are 61 stubs that are RC dioceses, about a sixth of the size of the overall category - and it will get larger. JASpencer 23:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me too, then. But maybe at {{RC-diocese-stub}}, with a redirect from the shorter name. Alai 18:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{drink-corp-stub}}

[edit]

I've brought this up on January 7th, in a discussion about restructuring Category:Food and drink stubs, but I would like to bring it up again. As far as I know, there are enough articles about drink-related corporations for a separate stub category. The stub would ease the load on {{food-stub}}, {{drink-stub}} and {{corp-stub}}, and could act as a parent for Category:Beer and brewery stubs. I'll create a new subpage of my user page for the tally asap. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{food-product-stub}}

[edit]

Category:Food and drink stubs is overpopulated with 6 pages of content. Category:Brand name products stubs also contains many articles, with 3 pages of content. To help alleviate this I'm proposing a stub for brand name food products, such as 100% Bran made by Post Cereals, and Filet-O-Fish made by McDonald's. This new stub would be a child of both Category:Food and drink stubs and Category:Brand name products stubs. A list of articles where this stub would be appropriate is below:

  1. 100% Bran
  2. All-Bran
  3. Alpha-Bits
  4. Becel
  5. Big Mama Sausage
  6. Boca Burger
  7. Branston Pickle
  8. Brown Cow (yogurt)
  9. Cherry Coke
  10. Cherry Ripe
  11. Cinnamon Crunch Crispix
  12. Cocoa Pebbles
  13. Cocoa Puffs
  14. Cook's Ham
  15. Cornetto (ice-cream)
  16. Cracklin' Oat Bran
  17. Crispy Pancakes (brand)
  18. Don Tacos
  19. Drumstick (ice cream)
  20. Eggo
  21. Fish McDippers
  22. Frosted Cheerios
  23. Frosted Flakes
  24. Fruit 'n Fibre
  25. Go-Gurt
  26. Golden Crisp
  27. Golden Grahams
  28. Golden Nuggets
  29. Goldfish (snack)
  30. Hit (soft drink)
  31. Honey Bunches of Oats
  32. Honeycomb (cereal)
  33. Hot Pockets
  34. Jif (peanut butter)
  35. K-Bar
  36. Kaboom! (breakfast cereal)
  37. Kraft Cheese Nips
  38. Lay's Stax
  39. Lay's WOW chips
  40. Marshmallow Alpha-Bits
  41. McChicken
  42. McFeast
  43. Mini Cheddars
  44. Monster Munch
  45. Peter Pan (peanut butter)
  46. Peters Ice Cream
  47. Prego
  48. Pretz
  49. Red River cereal
  50. Rocky Road Cereal
  51. Seabrook Potato Crisps
  52. Sierra Mist
  53. Subway's B.M.T.
  54. Sun Chips
  55. Sun-Pat
  56. Teddy Grahams
  57. Tendercrisp Bacon Cheddar Ranch
  58. Weet-Bix
  59. Weetabix Minis
  60. Weetos
  61. Weirds
  62. Wheat Thins
  63. XS Energy Drink
  64. YoGo
  65. Yocrunch
  66. Yummy Mummy
  67. Zelal Cola

--Kurieeto 15:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name should probably be {{food-product-stub}}. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've renamed the proposed stub. Kurieeto 00:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing no objections after a week, I'm going to create the stub. Kurieeto 14:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{WoD-stub}} and {{GURPS-stub}}

[edit]

Category:RPG stubs is over 200 articles long. 20+ of those are World of Darkness-specific and 21 are GURPS-specific. Both those categories have someone on WP:RPG who's likely to make more stubs. Percy Snoodle 11:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Both WoD and GURPS will likely recieve more stubs with the newly started WikiProject for role-playing games, as Percy says. It would also be good for people intersted in those two game systems to have their stubs collected separately. Jonas Karlsson 14:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Jup, it definitely would help. And I'm eager to make more stubs ;-) -- Genesis 17:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm firmly against this, on size grounds. See definition of a "good number" of stubs for a new category, at top-of-page. Be happy to support after these pass threshold, or if wider scope is chosen (if White Wolf stubs or SJG stubs would be significantly larger, say). 200+ stubs is nothing like a "necessary to split somehow" size for the parent. Alai 17:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "good number" for stubs with a wikiproject is listed as 30, "though this figure may vary from case to case", so we're not very far off (and the number of WoD-stubs is already increasing). I'd argue against White Wolf or SJG stubs, at least as part of this proposal, since that would'nt help out rpg-stubs. Percy Snoodle 13:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are wikiprojects here? I can't one for either of these above. I do hope you're not about to deploy the "WPJ RPG can be foster-parent to as many under-sized stub types as it likes" argument; by that argument, everything has a wikiproject. Some of us objected to the weakness of the "though this figure" wording specifically on the "but everyone'll say that" grounds. Alai 14:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also not keen from the point of view of the numbers (20/21 is far too few). And I'm not that happy with the names, either. (WoD-stub? Wod's that?) Grutness...wha? 07:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC) (whose favourite movie is Wings of Desire).[reply]
It has been suggested that {{WoD-stub}} should be a redirect to {{World of Darkness-stub}} and, similarly, that {{D&D-stub}} should become a redirect to {{Dungeons and Dragons-stub}}, which is something I'd support. If Wings of Desire stubs are ever needed we can disambiguate. Percy Snoodle 13:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With what, a stub-disambiguation template? Anyhoo, what name it shouldn't be created at is a secondary point. Alai 14:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is not that there would ever be a wings of desire stub (highly unlikely), just that - to most people, WoD is a meaningless term. If there is to be such a stub (highly debatable), then WorldofDarkness-stub would be a far better name for it, and WoD-stub should not be used. But, as I said, that's a highly debatable if. Grutness...wha? 22:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.. 3 to 2 - I guess I'll take that as "not right now, but not never". At the rate WoD-stubs are growing, it may not be long before they're proposed again. Percy Snoodle 18:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively, what about a genre-based split? Horror-rpg-stub, sf-rpg-stub, etc. Those are likely to be more viable, sooner. Alai 18:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{RC-churches-stub}}

[edit]

A second suggestion for splitting up {{RC-stub}} is by splitting out the churches.

It would be a sub category of Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs, Category:Roman Catholic churches and Category:Church stubs.

JASpencer 20:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, great minds thing alike, I missed this one initially. I'd guess there are at least 60 of these, can you confirm? But please, this is the "proposals" page, not the "I have already created page". Naming conventions would seem to indicidate this should not be pluralised, i.e. should be at "RC-church-stub". Alai 19:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cameroon-geo-stub

[edit]

Cameroon has just passed the 50 stub mark, so I think it's time for {{Cameroon-geo-stub}}. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 12:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weve been using 65 stubs for geo-stub splits. there are a dozen countries past the 50 stub mark that havent been split yet. have a look at grutness's stub splitting page. central african republic would be next in line with 63. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self: read the page better next time. I believed that the bold ones had already been created. Anyway, there are way more than 15 Cameroon-geo-stubs waiting to be created (no Division seems to have an article yet), so that should keep me busy for now. I'll start writing them asap. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 11:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just make it already, I needed a {{Cameroon-geo-stub}} tag the other day. Kappa 02:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • so why didnt you use AfricaW-geo-stub? this ones actually probably close enough, tho we might not have grutness's lists to go on when its split. lates news from his is that hes had a majopr hard disc crash and might have lost all his data - geo-stub lists, finances, website updates, diary, music, art, the lot :( BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • yeah, I suppose it's probably close enough. If we did lower the threshold to 50 we'd have a whole bundle more countries we could split off (which would please those who think that every country should have its own stub). We could also finish the last two Canadian provinces/territories. Oh, and yes, sadly BL is right - chances are I may have lost some 36 gig of records and files - including the geo-stub tallying lists :(. The techs are working on it, and I'm on a loaned machine. Grutness...wha? 07:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why didn't I used AfricaW-geo-stub? Well I did, but it took half-a-dozen page loads to find out that was the right stub type. Kappa 02:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure why it should - it's listed at the top of Category:Geography stubs, which hardly takes half a dozen page loads. In any case, that's not really the point. The main thing is that a perfectly usable category exists for Cameroon geography stubs at the moment, so there's no real hurry in making a separate category for them. It probably will be split fairly soon, since Cameroon is getting close to the threshold for a split, but it's hardly as urgent as it sounded from your original comment. Grutness...wha? 06:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{IndigenousAustralia-stub}}

[edit]

Proposing this as a substub to {{Australia-stub}}, intended to identify Indigenous Australian-related articles on peoples, individuals, places, organisations, concepts, events, etc. A quick browse through the AU stub category identifies easily 30-40 candidates, and there are plenty more as yet unidentified within the AU-bio and other stubs. Also, as per List of Indigenous Australian group names, there are 100's of articles on individual peoples awaiting to be started. Any objections?--cjllw | TALK 08:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that would be australia-ethno-stub wouldnt it? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the intention of my proposal is to specifically highlight stubs related to AU indigenous peoples and issues for further expansion and improvement; an 'australia-ethno-stub' while no doubt valid in its own right ought most probably include other, non-indigenous ethnicities as well. So I'm still inclined towards the originally-proposed template name.--cjllw | TALK 05:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • {{Australia-ethno-stub}} would fit better with the naming system we have in place - it would be a child template to ethno-stub, which is also why things like Canada-ethno-stub have been proposed. It would be more all-encompassing, that is true, but it's likely that almost all articles would still be on indigenous culture in Australia. So there may be one or two articles on Croatian festivals in Melbourne, but the vast majority would be on the dreamtime, corroborees, and bunyips. Grutness...wha? 07:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ok, I appreciate the value of consistency. However, even though it's quite likely that the majority of ethno-stubs in this context would indeed relate to Indigenous Australians, I'm not sure that this would completely address the proposal. Apart from articles on indigenous peoples themselves which naturally-enough would fall under an ethno-stub classification, could the ethno-stub be used as well for stubs on indigenous organisations, communities, belief systems, historical events, notable individuals, legislation & land rights, etc etc? Within {{Australia-stub}} there are examples from each of these, which could be drawn together for attention under {{IndigenousAustralia-stub}} more readily than {tl|Australia-ethno-stub}} - or are ethno-stubs typically assigned much more broadly in such a way that these other areas (whose connection consists in their relevance to or involvement of indigenous australia) can be accommodated as well?--cjllw | TALK 22:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes they would. Consider the examples I gave before. Cultural events like corroborees would qualify. Myths such as bunyips would qualify. Similarly, historical events, aboriginal rights activists, legislation etc would all qualify. Several of those would be double-stubbed with, say Australia-bio-stub, Australia-law-stub, etc, but there's nothing to stop any of them being tagged with Australia-ethno-stub. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the period has now elapsed without further objections, {{IndigenousAustralia-stub}} ---> Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia stubs is now created, and in use.--cjllw | TALK 21:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{polisci-stub}}

[edit]

My suggestion is to split this category from {{politics-stub}} and even {{politician-stub}}. Today, bios and other articles relating specifically to political science are generally placed in these more generic categories. I would also suggest {{polisci-bio-stub}} as a subcategory of both {{academic-bio-stub}} and the new {{polisci-stub}}. I have created a suggested format for this stub, just to see if I could do it. If it's not good enough, please remove.

--Thorsen 11:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{RC-bio-stub}}

[edit]

My suggestion is to split up {{RC-stub}} firstly by taking out the most numerous area - people.

It would be a sub category of Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs, Category:Roman Catholics and Category:Christian biography stubs.

It could also take over Category:Roman Catholic clergy stubs

JASpencer 17:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note this is created (rather early) and seems to be somewhat under-sized (though not vexaciously so). But let's not get carried away with over-splitting. Alai 19:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{NY-State-Highway-stub}}

[edit]

There are many New York State Highway articles with Template:US-road-stub, and I think it's time to put them in their own stub category. --Kuroki Mio 2006 04:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if we do it should be at {{NewYork-State-Highway-stub}} for consistancy. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 08:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we do it, it should be at {{NewYork-state-highway-stub}}, for consistency with the majority of the permanents, and compliance with the naming conventions. Alai 07:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok. i have trouble keeping up with all the highway changes in the last few months :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 10:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about no. They are known as "New York State Highways." This is why the stub temp[lates atre located at the capitalized versions. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is your only evidence for the correctness of this usage, I'd be inclined to point out who instigated the majority of these stub types, has successfully campaigned to reaching any consensus to rename them, etc. Alai 04:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only? What have I been saying for months? Talk:List of California State Routes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm painfully aware you've been saying it for months. Same objection on self-referentiality and lack of verifiable evidence stands. Alai 04:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not just me here. Why would capitalized State Highway stubs harm Wikipedia? As long as noone else contests the capitalization of course. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also the permanent category in this instance: Category:New York state highways Alai 09:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which we've tried to fix except for CFD botching things. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If by "botch" you mean, "fail to achieve a consensus of people voting against established naming conventions", then I suppose so. However, the permanent category is where it is, that name does follow the conventions, and this stub type should firstly, follow the conventions too, and secondly, agree with the permanent category, as per (more or less...) consistent practice. Alai 04:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But then why are all the other state highway stubs capitalized (except Washington)? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wonder who proposed and created a large number of them, with that capitalisation? I'm not sure what your point is here: that we be consistent in our inconsistency, or something along those lines? As opposed to, with the things the inconsistent things are supposed to be consistent with in the first place? (Don't ask me to say that three times fast.) The unfortunate thing is, while this continues to only attract sporadic trickles of interest, an actual manifest consensus doesn't seem imminent. Alai 04:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I didn't create all of them. I didn't create AZ, CACR, KY, TX, MO. And none of them were originally at the -State-Highway-stub standard. Remember when they were at State Highway Stub? Now it all conforms to the stub naming conventions. And I didn't do the moving to the current names either. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I merely said a "large number". Yes, I recall that vividly, even getting that much fixed was like drawing teeth (or maybe more like, having teeth drawn). I'm not for a moment suggesting you've done anything amiss process-wise -- as far as I know you've adhered to that impeccably -- I'm just pointing out that the names you chose for these stubs types is not very strong evidence, in and of itself, that these are the correct names for other stub types in the same class. I agree they now conform to the NCs specific to stubs, but stub categories are also supposed to follow the general criteria for categories as a whole, and that they do not. Anyhoo, I shall (endeavour to) shut up here, this is just going to further duplicate and fragment numerous variations on similar themes on other pages. Alai 05:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... I looked back and this stub was already approved. It's at Archive15. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I did wonder about that, at least under some permutation or combination. So hurry up and create it so I can propose it for deletion. :) Ideally we should have a holding area for approved proposals (I must really be slacking, some of mine have 'gone off the screen', too); ostensibly there's a section on WP:WSS/T for this. Alai 17:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Routboxny, which I created as a copy of TxRouteBox because it looked like most of the others, except for Routeboxwa which includes a map; I'm not too happy personally with the prev/next concept as this is non-programmable - OR if it is programmable, how would this be accomplished? Otherwise, next and prev are prone to errors IMHO. What is gained by this instead of users going thru the referenced category page? In general shouldn't we just have a standard RouteBoxState and not a template for each state? Comments? [If there is another forum for this dicussion, please let me know.] --Censorwolf 17:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are parameters to the template, so you have to "fill those in" in each inclusion. Certainly programmable, but certainly not at all automatic. Why not just get rid of those if you don't want them? This doesn't seem to relate to stub-types even tangentially, though: perhaps the talk page of the original template, the US roads wikiproject or similar? Alai 17:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it seemed relevent. As a professional web developer/programmer I understand the parameter concept of these templates, I was wondering if there was something programatical in wiki I didn't know about that could be used. Thanks for the info. --Censorwolf 18:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't (and sorry, still isn't) clear what you mean(t) by "programatical", regarding the use of these. If you mean, a means of automatically calculating what the "previous" and "next" members of an arbitrary category are, then so far as I know, no; and if no means of doing so is explicit in any similar usages of such templates is concerned, then I'd go so far as to assume it's not reasonably feasible. Glad to help (if I've helped). Alai 23:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that "NewYork..." is the stub name instead of "New-York..." for some reason. Oh well, I guess I'll have to change my driverslicense and my homeaddress ;-) Meanwhile New Hampshire is "New-Hampshire..." (ok), but West Virginia is "WestVirgina..." (nicht!). I LOVE the consistency here. (Nevermind NH and WV - I didn't see the redirection on NH) --Censorwolf 19:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{architecture-stub}} needs a name

[edit]

A month ago, I proposed some additional children of {{art-stub}} and {{artist-stub}}. As part of that discussion, Grutness recommended a split of {{architecture-stub}}. The relevent discussion is provided below:

Relocate {{architecture-stub}} under {{art-stub}}. Architects...are considered artists already, so the discipline should be there too.
...architecture stub is more of a problem. Currently it deals with architectural features and types of building, so should perhaps be split into two separate stubs. It...should be under struct-stub, and any split would leave the building types still under struct-stub. Building features could use both struct and art as parents. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But as I understand it {{struct-stub}} is for stubbing specific structures, not general architectural styles and sturctural motifs. One reason I recommend placing it under {{art-stub}} is that the Dewey Decimal system for libraries places architecture as a subcategory of art, so it's a place people would know to look. A cross-reference under {{struct-stub}} makes sense, though. --EncycloPetey 04:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same situation as geo-stub and geo-term stub. Geo-stub is for individual places, geo-term-stub is for things like terminal moraine or till plain. And Category:Geographical term stubs is a subcategory of Category:Geography stubs. In the same way, struct-stub is about individual buildings, architecture-stub contains building types like shed and bandstand, and that's why Category:Architecture stubs is a subcategory of Category:Buildings and structures stubs. If architecture-stub was split in two, putting building types in one category and building features and general arcitectural terms (from alcove to window shutter) in another, then one could go under structs and the other under art quite happily. And since there are nearly 600 architecture-stubs, a split's not that bad an idea... Grutness...wha? 05:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The question remains: What should the new stub be called? and on a related note, which half of the split should remain in {{architecture-stub}}? --EncycloPetey 04:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{reptile-stub}}

[edit]

Over the last three weeks, the number of Category:Reptile and amphibian stubs has doubled, going from under 600 to 6 pages now. I propose the following new stubs:

This still leaves in the current category all general reptile stubs, alligators and crocodilians, turtles, and a variety of extinct things. --EncycloPetey 04:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • These certainly make sense to split, especially amphibians. Something I've considered before, BTW - the "extinct things"... dinosaur-stub tends to get used (wrongly) for things like ichthyosaurs and pterosaurs. is there any way of changing the wording of that to cover extinct reptile orders in general? Grutness...wha? 05:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, no. There are some larger categories than Dinosauria, but nothing that would include only the extinct reptilians. For example, there is a group called Archosauria that would include pterosaurs along with dinosaurs, but it would not include ichthyosaurs or plesiosaurs and would include modern crocodiles and birds (which technically are now reptiles as well). There is no category that would include with the dinosaurs the so-called "mammal-like reptiles", since they are in the synapsid clade along with mammals.
Unless you think that {{bigextinctscalyreptilething-stub}} is a good idea, I don't have a scientific or taxonomic alternative. For what it's worth, I myself have to frequently sift out mis-stubbed articles from {{botany-stub}} -- mostly plant species, but also fungi, algae, bacteria, botanist biographies, and such. --EncycloPetey 06:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the name :) It's a problem - I've moved a couple of pelycosaurs and a pterosaur out of Category:Dinosaur stubs previously... and {{Mesozoicfauna-stub}} is a bit too broad, too... Grutness...wha? 09:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to suggest exactly this split when I noticed that someone had got there first. It definitely needs to be done. Oh, one change I would suggest: lizard stub for just Lacertilia (not the paraphyletic group suggested above), leaving amphisbænians in the basic reptile stubs. There can't be so many amphisbænid stubs, and they don't really belong among the lizards. --Stemonitis 09:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that one lizard fan at WP:WSS would approve (and thanks for passing on messages for me for the last couple of days BL! :) Grutness...wha? 06:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. All three stubs and categories created (following Stemonitis' preference for lizards). One thing remains: Category:Reptile and amphibian stubs needs to have its name changed to Category:Reptile stubs and all links to that category need to be fixed to link to the new name. --EncycloPetey 10:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{sf-author-stub}}

[edit]

I'm not entirely sure of the process for this, but it seems that with several hundred articles under the {{sf-stub}} umbrella, the next natural subdivision would be moving the authors. Possible problems include differentiating them from a future {{fantasy-author-stub}}, but they're already categorized as SF, for the most part. -- nae'blis (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{sf-writer-stub}} would match {{writer-stub}}, and so be preferable. It'd mean splitting writers by genre in addition to nationality; but that doesn't seem much worse having genre stubs. And distiguishing from {{fantasy-writer-stub}} won't be any worse than having both {{fantasy-stub}} and {{sf-stub}} ;) (FWIW, there's already 136 articles in {{sf-stub}} that're tagged with {{writer-stub}} or one of its children). Mairi 06:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the whole Stub sorting/heirarchy thing is a little confusing to me still. Is it better to list sf-writer-stub (if it's created) under both writer-stub and sf-stub, and combine the 136 existing dual-stubs? -- nae'blis (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would get listed under both (in some fashion or another), as it's a "child" of both. If {{sf-writer-stub}} were created, most its articles ought to still be tagged with the applicable country stub (say, {{Canada-writer-stub}}), but nothing tagged with {{sf-writer-stub}} would also be tagged with {{sf-stub}} or {{writer-stub}}. Mairi 01:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spliting {{Florida-geo-stub}}

[edit]

The Florida Geography Stub has well over 200 entries, so I'm proposing a multi-way split of this section.

New stubs would be:

  • {{Florida-park-stub}} for State Parks and Forests (~75 entries)
  • {{Florida-town-stub}} for Communities - cities, towns, villages, CDPs, etc... (~58 entries)
  • And if possible, a {{Florida-location-stub}} so that attractions, condominimums(!!), etc. aren't in the "Geography" section (currently ~31 entries, but potentially much more)

(The {{Florida-geo-stub}} would also have its text changed so that it reads "geography" and not "location".)

well, I must say I'm, pretty strongly against this for several of reasons: 1) other sub-subregion splits are done by making the regions smaller, so if Florida-geo-stub was split further it would be into, say SouthFlorida-geo-stub, AtlanticCoastFlorida-geo-stub, etc; 2) if those are the figures for Florida by feature type, I'm very surprised - with geo-stubs in general 75% of things are towns and other urban areas; 3) if we start splitting one region by type of feature, soon a lot of other splits by type of feature will occuyr, and with most places, that will simply make a mess of impossible-to-control categories, especially since not all features will be splittable (whereas it is possible to allocate all of a region's geo-stubs if split into smaller regions); 4) 200+ is a very small category to be considering splitting - unlesss there is very good reason, 600 is far closer to the level a category is normally at before we consider splits of it. Any less than that is still a reasonable number for an editor to look through and have a good chance of finding something they can work on. Grutness...wha? 04:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS - condominiums shouldn't be in there anyway - they should be marked with US-struct-stub! Grutness...wha? 04:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Perhaps just a {{Florida-park-stub}} as a "direct child" of {{Florida-stub}} then?
I believe Florida-park-stub would be in the same ballpark as mountain-stub and river-stub. Would it be an idea to sort by county, or would that be too small? Otherwise, we might need to create e.g. {{panhandle-geo-stub}} or {{everglades-geo-stub}}, if they reach threshold. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
its also worth mentioning that statepark-stub was deleted not that long ago because it wasnt being used and went against the stub heirarchy. Park-stubs by state would probably not be used much either. BL kiss the lizard 05:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per the others that have commented already, I don't think this needs splitting yet. I recently split {{Ontario-geo-stub}}, and two of the newly-created categories are similar in size to {{Florida-geo-stub}}. I also favour keeping features (mountains, rivers, parks, etc) within the geo-stub hierarchy, though they could be double-stubbed if a feature-specific stub exists. Mindmatrix 18:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split of cricketbio-stub

[edit]

There are now 11 pages of Category:Cricket biography stubs, apparently. Unlike many intrnational sports, cricket is largely played in just a handful of countries, so a split should be relatively easy. I'd like to suggest:

Those should all get to 60 stubs without much problem. The remaining test-playing nations (Sri Lanka, Bangaldesh and Zimbabwe) haven't been in the game as long, so might not yet reach threshold, although a {{SL-cricketbio-stub}} or {{SriLanka-cricketbio-stub}} very probably would. The first seven alone substantially reduce the main category though. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: done, using the full names for WI, SA and (oops) SL. I accidentally did the eighth country automatically forgetting that I'd suggested leaving it until later. Grutness...wha? 02:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 'rump' is pretty small now, and the SLers did indeed struggle to make it over the threshold. Ones worth keeping an eye on would be the Zimbabweans and the Bangladeshis; after that it's really down to the "smattering" level. Someone desparate to split further might look at regional splits, specifically Africa and Europe, though that seems of marginal utility to me at present.
  • On the 'bot' question: few of these actually turned out to be double-stubbed, but the vast majority did already have permanent categories. So it'd have been doubly tricky to do by bot, though WP:AWB does help considerably. Alai 18:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThreeFour more geo-stub splits

[edit]

The following three countries/territories have reached the 65 mark and are ready for splitting:

Also:

Several others are getting very near (there are nine more countries with between 55 and 65 stubs at the latest count). Grutness...wha? 11:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu again

[edit]

"The Elder" reminded me of "The Great Old Ones". I know that {{Cthulhu-stub}} has been suggested before (and the discussion is archived somewhere), but it only narrowly failed to pass muster with about 50 stubs several months ago - it might be time to revisit this one. Grutness...wha? 23:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Elder Scrolls stub

[edit]

Hello. I'm sorry, I kinda rushed ahead and created a stub template without checking here first. However, I haven't created a category yet. Here is my argument: The Elder Scrolls is a huge fantasy unvierse (like Warcraft and Final Fantasy) and it already has a lot of articles written about it. Moreover, there are lots of stubs marked with cvg-fict-stub that could instead use the TES-stub template:

I could list more if neccessary, but right now I'm too sleepy, sorry... --Koveras 22:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If enough articles exist then by all means. Similar stubs exist already. However, somebody really ought to go through the stub templates listed in Category:Computer and video game stub templates (I presume that they are all associated with {{cvg-fict-stub}}.) In general, they don't show the category with the relevant stubs but only a list of similar stubs stub templates. I've fixed the {{Warcraft-stub}}, but somebody should go through the rest. It's very difficult to determine how many articles each stub is used on. The Warcraft-stub did feed into its own category, but the category itself was invisible. I haven't checked the others. --Valentinian 22:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven't quite got that... Do you support my initiative? And that part about stub categories... I think it's a good idea, but I wouldn't remove the templates from the Category:Computer and video game stub templates completely. It doesn't hurt to have them belong to two categories IMO. PS: I'll do it. --Koveras 09:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ok, you were not the only tired person yesterday. I've done a count and I've found around 55 candidates for this stub, and as you say, Warcraft already has a stub. My second point was simply that the stub should (also) point to a category so users will be able to easily find the articles about this universe. --Valentinian 12:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the count, too, and found only 52 articles (see my sandbox). And as I said, your second point is a very good idea and I have already corrected all cvg-stub templates in the category according to it. :) --Koveras 13:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it has been over a week since I've posted the request and there has been no objections. As for support, I guess 1 out of 1 is constitutes general support. :) I'll go create stubs ({{TES-stub}}) and category (Category:The Elder Scrolls stubs)... --Koveras 15:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More plant segregates

[edit]

While the segregate stubs I've previously proposed have helped to reduce the size of Category:Plant stubs, there are still a lot of stub articles with the potential for many more besides. Although I would prefer to have stub names based on common names, I've come to fell that family-specific names are more precise. With this in mind, I propose:

Each of these would garner 60+ stubs easily. --EncycloPetey 10:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps a compromise of redirects from brassica-stub, erica-stub, protea-stub and ranunculus-stub might help? Grutness...wha? 23:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err, not really, I think. You see Brassica, Erica, Protea, and Ranunculus are all the names of particular genera, none of which is likely ever to have enough stubs for segregation. As a trained taxonomist, my inclination is to stick to the family level (as much as possible) whever dealing with flowering plant groups. Why? because the families are typically the informal standard for filing and reference among botanists. Including generic-level stub tags, even as redirects, would (I believe) lead to some confusion about what tags should exist. Genera are necessarily subcategories of families, so anyone with a basic knowledge of taxonomic hierarchy might get confused, particularly if the generic stubs exist only for some families and not others. --EncycloPetey 05:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how about {{crucifer-stub}} and {{umbellifer-stub}} or {{umbel-stub}} instead of {{brassicaceae-stub}} and {{apiaceae-stub}}, respectively? (n.b. Brassicaceae = Cruciferae, commonly called crucifers; Apiaceae = Umbelliferae, commonly called umbels) --Stemonitis 14:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, {{crucifer-stub}} might work I suppose, though I think it would be harder for people to remember. I think {{umbel-stub}} is "right out", since an umbel is a floral arrangement that is not limited to that family. I have never heard of anyone using the term "umbellifer", so I'm not keen on that choice either. --EncycloPetey 09:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be any harder than {{legume-stub}} (Leguminosae = Fabaceae = legumes), but if we prefer the -aceae stubs then so be it. --Stemonitis 08:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Science

[edit]

The participants in the History of Science WikiProject have collected 50 history of science stubs so far (see the list on the project page), and there are undoubtedly many more. I propose the creation of the stub category {{hist-sci-stub}}.--ragesoss 03:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be sci-hist-stub? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 10:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. Since there is a Wikiproject for this subject, I support creation of this stub even if it falls under the nominal minimum of 60 articles. --EncycloPetey 10:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold for WikiProjects is approx. 30 stubs, so this one has already made the threshold. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 11:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sci-hist-stub is fine, as well.--ragesoss 12:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support {{sci-hist-stub}} or whatever is chosen. Mushintalk 12:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support. I think sci-hist-stub might be better, but either would work. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I have to agree that I'd prefer {{sci-hist-stub}}. We have other <country>-hist-stubs plus {{Mil-hist-stub}}, and the science bit is the most important identifier. --Valentinian 23:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More splits of {{Politician-stub}}

[edit]

Per request by Aecis, I've grouped all these similar proposals under one umbrella. Note that a similar proposal for Brazil is listed elsewhere on this page (and since no opposition has emerged, it will probably soon be created very soon as one of two splits of Brazil-bio-stub.) That proposal was listed on 8 January. --Valentinian 13:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the two suggested splits of Brazil-bio-stub. --Valentinian 20:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support all of these. Valentinian & Carabinieri seem to be monitoring these in the same way as I have been the geo-splits (with help from Fingers-of-Pyrex, BL Lacertae, and others). Any that are up at the 60-stub mark are definitely splittable. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would very much like to be able to monitor them the same way you do with the geo-stubs, but it is pretty complicated. When I worked on splitting off Carabinieri's first batch of nationalities, I simply jotted down a list of the most frequent nationalities and made counts of them later (only Chile and Egypt have let me down so far, still not sure about Chile.) The problem with monitoring politician stubs is that they've been tagged with a number of different stubs. Most are listed as -bio-stub, but some are only tagged with -politician-stub (or -euro- or -asian-politician-stub). Others are tagged with {{poli-stub}} but very often they have no tag at all. I've even found a few tagged with {{gov-stub}}! In general, I find a lot more politicians than I expect, as you can see by comparing the new sub-categories to the numbers listed by Carabinieri and me, when we suggested them. At first, I just looked at -bio-stub, but when I start hunting for politicians from a given country, I now go through Cat:Foo politicians + its children AND Cat:Foo people stubs. That way I'll find most of them. When all the new stubs have been created and filled, we still have to go through politician-stub, euro-politician-stub, and asia-politician-stub again to find the last ones. I'm afraid there's no easy way to monitor this bunch. It's too messy.--Valentinian 23:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of these proposals have been created and populated. --Valentinian 10:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Hungary-politician-stub}}

[edit]

I propose a stub for Hungarian politicians in line with the similar stubs for other nationalities. I've counted around 50-55 relevant stubs, plus a few articles currently not marked as stubs. --Valentinian 02:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to propose this on the bottom of the page, since most people won't notice the proposal this way. And Support!--Carabinieri 17:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Moved to the bottom of the page. --Valentinian 18:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Israel-politician-stub}}

[edit]

There are currently 63 politicians in {{Israel-bio-stub}}. The question is whether to make this a sub-cat of {{Euro-politician-stub}} or {{Asia-politician-stub}}, because Israel is certainly politically more part of Europe, while geographically part of Asia.--Carabinieri 17:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think that Israel has to be assigned to Asia, but why not both categories? Cyprus-stub is assigned to both Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. --Valentinian 18:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Cyprus is pretty consistently in the Europe categories, Egypt in the African categories, and Israel in the Middle East categories (which are part of the Asian categories). The boundary on the mainland is the Bosphorus, the Urals and the Caucasus. The only real bugbears as far as the boundary between Asia and Europe is concerned are the Caucasian republics, Russia, and Turkey. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong, Cyprus-stub feeds into Category:Europe stubs and Category:Asia stubs, it does not use Category:Middle East stubs. Grutness, you have a point. All three stubs relating to Israel feeds into Middle East categories, so it is probably better to be consistent and do the same thing here. Perhaps Cyprus should simply be assigned to Europe as well. Thoughts anyone? --Valentinian 01:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Spain-politician-stub}}

[edit]

There are currently 60 stubs politician (plus or minus 2 or 3) in {{Spain-bio-stub}}, probably more if someone went through all the {{MEP-stub}}s.--Carabinieri 20:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Valentinian 22:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Argentina-politician-stub}}

[edit]

There are currently just under 60 politicians in {{Argentina-bio-stub}}.--Carabinieri 22:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Iran-politician-stub}}

[edit]

There are currently around 60 politicians in {{Iran-bio-stub}}.--Carabinieri 21:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Iraq-politician-stub}}

[edit]

There's around 65 politicians in {{Iraq-bio-stub}}. --Valentinian 23:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Romania-politician-stub}}

[edit]

There's around 60 politicians in {{Romania-bio-stub}}. There is no doubt a few more in {{Politician-stub}} --11:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Valentinian 13:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Mexico-politician-stub}}

[edit]

There's around 65 politicians in {{Mexico-bio-stub}} (and I've only counted A-L)! No doubt about this one. --Valentinian 13:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Portugal-politician-stub}}

[edit]

I've found 54 candidates for this one in {{Portugal-bio-stub}} and Category:Portuguese politicians. There's probably more in {{Politician-stub}}. --Valentinian 20:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Netherlands-politician-stub}}

[edit]

I've found around 80 candidates for this one in {{Netherlands-bio-stub}} and Category:Dutch politicians and its subcategories. --Valentinian 21:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Belgium-politician-stub}}

[edit]

I've found around 65 candidates for this one in Category:Belgian politicians and its subcategories. --Valentinian 21:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Austria-politician-stub}}

[edit]

I've found around 70 candidates for this one in {{Austria-bio-stub}} and Category:Austrian politicians and its subcategories. --Valentinian 00:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resort, Hotel, Casino

[edit]

A tag for all the resort type pages out there. I know there is at least 40 in Las Vegas, Nevada --Texaswebscout 20:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's what you're looking for, but resorts are now tagged with {{hotel-corp-stub}}, for hotels, hotel chains and resorts. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rock albums by decade

[edit]

Of 70 album stubs that I've sorted lately, 31 went to {{rock-album-stub}}. If the percentage of rock albums if as high in other parts of alphabet :), it means the rock-album category is going to end up at ~10 pages. So I propose to split rock albums by decade (just like songs) before it's too late:

Conscious 08:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to protest, as I agree, but some users were apparantly not satisfied by this decade based split, as punk, metal, and electronic song stub categories were added as well. I think that punk is ok, as I felt comfortable finding a line between punk and not punk. I suppose that line is clear for fans of metal, too. So to pre-empt that possibility, let us discuss adding these two as well:
Also note that we could have done 1960s-rock-songs, but it would have been mostly only three or four bands' music (beatles, who, zep). Smmurphy(Talk) 00:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, already exists, I guess. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding a good deal of punk and metal albums as I'm sorting rock albums by decade. I think they have been marked before specific templates were created. I label them as punk and metal instead. Conscious 06:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===Splitting {{India-geo-stub}}=== +

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

For last few days, I have been re-roganizing entries (into sub-stubs) under {{India-geo-stub}}, and find that apart from sub-states for Indian states, there is a requirement of {{India-river-stub}} as most of the stubas pertaining to rivers of India can not be classified under a single state-stub - they pass through more than a state. Moreover, more sub-stubs relating to states are required. Should I proceed to create them? There should certainly be more than 60 such stubs, I am sure of that. I shall wait for the response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhadani (talk • contribs)

I think you should certainly create templates for each state that has 60 stubs. As for rivers, you can just leave them in {{India-geo-stub}}. The may be more objects that don't fit into a single state. Conscious 09:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose a split of river stubs. have a look at the things specifically listed as bad splits at WP:STUB. there arent likely to be many editors who would know things about rivers in a place except those who know about that place over all. anyway if a river flows through two or three states then all of the state templates would be used. not many rivers would flow through more than three. BL kiss the lizard 18:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with BL Lacertae - like all geographic features, rivers are split by location. If a river forms a border or flows into two or three states, use the stubs for all of those states. That's the way it works when rivers form national/subnational boundaries elsewhere in the world. Editors are far more likely to have local knowledge about all kinds of features in a particular area than about one specific type of feature across a far wider area. Grutness...wha? 21:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So now my doubts are clear, I was thinking largely on the same line, but was not sure of myself. As regards, state stubs, should I proceed to create more, as and when required? --Bhadani 08:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Organized Labour

[edit]

Currently there is one stub tag for Organized Labour related stubs. 

{{Union-stub}}

There is now a WikiProject Organized Labour and it would be useful to expand this stub into its geographic sections. There are 300+ articles with the union-stub and the List of trade unions is an incomplete list that contains several hundred red-linked and unlinked union organizations that will be created on an ongoing basis.

The initial expansion would be the same as the first and second most general geo-stub levels, but also reflecting the current bias (which the project hopes to address).

  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Australia and Oceania
  • Europe
  • North and Central America
  • South America

- it would also be nice to have a consensus about expanding any section further if it became useful (i.e. there were 30+ stubs in a stub category relating to a more specific area.)

I would suggest that the syntax be {{Africa-union-stub}}, following the geo-stub format.--Bookandcoffee 02:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good altho we tend to use 60+ rather than 30+ and that includes breaking out continent level ones (tho this would be dropped a bit with a wikiproject) - . itd probably be useful to have seperate US and UK ones as well. BL kiss the lizard 22:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the names are concerned: according to the naming conventions used for stubs, these would be {{Africa-union-stub}}, {{asia-union-stub}}, {{Oceania-union-stub}}, {{euro-union-stub}}, {{NorthAm-union-stub}} and {{SouthAm-union-stub}}. Most are pretty obvious, but it's good to keep in mind that euro is used as an abbreviation for Europe, that Central America is considered to be a subcontinent of North America and therefore uses NorthAm (unless there are enough stubs for a separate Central American stub type, which will then be a daughter of the relevant North American stub type, and that "Am" is used as an abbreviation in the constituent elements of the Americas (North-X, Central-X and South-X). Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{india-food-stub}}

[edit]

This would be a good addition to the list of India related stubs. Thanks, GaneshkT/C\@ 13:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would it be about? Indian cuisine? Indian food corporations? Conscious 13:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More book stubs

[edit]

I think there should be more book stub categories, one of which could be a Young Adult/ Teenage Fiction stub ( {{teenage-book-stub}} ?) since many books under this genre are just regarded as children's when this is clearly not the case. Some books that would fit this stub:

  1. Lirael
  2. Abhorsen
  3. The Vampire's Assistant
  4. Tunnels of Blood
  5. Trials of Death
  6. Lord of the Shadows
  7. Sons of Destiny
  8. Demon Thief
  9. Drowned Wednesday
  10. Sir Thursday
  11. Lady Friday
  12. Shade's Children
  13. Girls In Love
  14. All American Girl (book)
  15. Ready or Not
  16. Teen Idol (book)
  17. Boy meets Girl
  18. Avalon High
  19. Shadowland (book)
  20. Ninth Key (book)
  21. Reunion (book)
  22. Darkest Hour (book)
  23. Haunted (book)
  24. Ella Enchanted (There is no stub marker, but there is not much about the book.)
  25. Flush (novel)
  26. Vampirates
  27. It Happened to Nancy: By an Anonymous Teenager (This in particular is not a "childrens" book.)
  28. The Wind Singer
  29. The Slaves of the Mastery
  30. Firesong


Its a shorter list than I hoped, but the category would be quite useful in lessening the number of books just listed under the general book stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tartan (talk • contribs) 00:11, 11 January 2006 UTC

I believe there must be a better solution to 7-page Category:Book stubs than splitting off a 30-stub subcategory (sadly nothing comes to mind right now). Conscious 17:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about a Splitting by centuries or decades (for 20th)? Circeus 22:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong OpposeYou need at least 50 to 60 to make this a viable category & stub. With a list of 30 its really not worth it. Thor Malmjursson 18:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please can we have a serious and comprehensive review of the xxxx Fiction categories and the xxxx novel categories. There a sizable amount of overlap here and both category sets apear to be doing roughly the same thing and developing a life of their own. see below

[–] Novels by genre [wikipedia] [open]

[+] Alternate history novels [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Comedy novels [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Dystopian novels [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Erotic fiction [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Fantasy novels [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Gothic novels [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Historical novels [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Horror novels [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Mystery novels [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Philosophical novels [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Science fiction novels [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Techno-thriller novels [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Thriller novels [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Utopian novels [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Western novels [wikipedia] [open]

then there is [–] Fiction [wikipedia] [open]

[+] Absurdist fiction [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Christmas fiction [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Collaborative fiction [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Detective fiction [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Dystopian fiction [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Eco-fiction [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Fan fiction [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Fantasy [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Fiction anthologies [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Fiction magazines [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Fiction narrated by a dead person [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Fictional [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Fictional crossovers [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Great Depression fiction [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Halloween fiction [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Horror [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Images from fiction [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Indian fiction [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Law in fiction [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Monomyths [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Narratology [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Novels [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Organized crime fiction [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Period films [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Physics in fiction [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Science fiction [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Short stories [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Sniper fiction [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Speculative fiction [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Spy fiction [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Utopian fiction [wikipedia] [open]
[+] Western [wikipedia] [open]

As I understand it fiction could be used regardless of medium (whether or not a novel i.e. fictional book). However many books are being categorised by fiction where there are no 'novel' categorise that suit. e.g Spy Fiction. Although genree names and definitions are open to debate, most of the main ones used should be set up and made use of by concensus. So, why no 'Crime novels' and why are 'War novels' not under 'Novels by genre'.

More confusion could be caused by 'Books by genre' being the parent of 'Fictional books' 'Nonfiction books' and 'Novels' and 'Novels' being the parent of 'Novels by genre' what is that all about. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 14:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats all nothing to do with us. this is a page for discussing proposed new stub catagories. the main catagories are dealt with at WP:CFD. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Africa-ethno-group-stub}}

[edit]

This stub would be a child of both {{ethno-stub}} and {{africa-stub}}. A list of 60 articles where this stub notice would be appropriate was created by going through the sub-cats of Category:Ethnic groups in Africa alphabetically and noting appropriate articles. The 60th article was found within Category:Ethnic groups in Kenya, so it is likely to assume that several dozen more suitable articles for this stub exist in the remaining sub-cats of Category:Ethnic groups in Madagascar thru Category:Ethnic groups in Zimbabwe. The list of 60 is below:

  1. Abron
  2. Afutu
  3. Agaw
  4. Aja people
  5. Ajuran
  6. Arrors
  7. Asaworta
  8. Ateker
  9. Babuissi people
  10. Babungo people
  11. Baga people
  12. Baggara
  13. Bakota
  14. Baluba
  15. Bamangwato
  16. Bateke
  17. Baya
  18. Beja people
  19. Bilen
  20. Borana
  21. Boungome
  22. Bubi
  23. Camus people
  24. Chaoui
  25. Chokwe
  26. Dagara people
  27. Daza
  28. Dyula
  29. Ewe people
  30. Fali
  31. Fon people
  32. Gadabuursi
  33. Garre
  34. Gumus
  35. Habaryounis
  36. Hammer (tribe)
  37. Hawiye
  38. Hema people
  39. Hutu
  40. Lendu
  41. Mahi people
  42. Malinké
  43. Masalit
  44. Mossi
  45. Nafana people
  46. Ovimbundu
  47. Rashaida
  48. Rer Bare
  49. Sara people
  50. Senufo
  51. Sidama
  52. Soninke
  53. Sosso
  54. Surma
  55. Tebu people
  56. Tigray people
  57. Toubou
  58. Twa
  59. Yaka

--Kurieeto 18:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess putting the region first is the convention. I'm ammending the proposal to use that new wording. Kurieeto 22:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{ethno-stub}} has been split, with {{ethno-group-stub}} being created on January 10th. Based on that, should this stub be named {{Africa-ethno-group-stub}}, or is that too long? Kurieeto 17:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be the logical name for it. It is a bit long, but should be OK. Grutness...wha? 22:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
K, thanks. I've renamed the proposed stub. Kurieeto 02:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There've been no objections after a week, so I've created the stub and will add it to the stub-type list. Kurieeto 13:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer and video game character stub

[edit]
(moved to right place on page BL kiss the lizard 23:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Most articles that would fit here have been tagged with {{fict-char-stub}} and/or {{cvg-fict-stub}}. I'd like to make one at {{cvg-char-stub}}. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎��� 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah - tho watch out becuase thats being used as a redirect at the moment, so it wuill need clearing out! BL kiss the lizard 23:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I made it in the first place long ago. I've tagged 125 articles, most from the fictional elements category with this stub. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎��� 09:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, with 318 stubs currently in it, is there any reason this shouldn't go on the list at WP:WSS/ST, so stub-sorters will know to use it? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Asia-bio-stub}}, {{Oceania-bio-stub}}

[edit]

This category would be helpful. If you see a stub about, say, Vietnamese person, you're forced to sort it only by occupation. Also, such a category would let us see when we can create bio-stubs for Asian countries which don't have it yet. Conscious 10:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a similar suggestion for {{Oceania-bio-stub}} (after sorting two island rulers into {{royal-stub}} :) Conscious 16:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definately a good idea.--Carabinieri 17:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Valentinian 19:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{art-org-stub}}

[edit]

I think this one falls into the "d'oh! Why didn't we think of this one before?" category of stubs. This would probably pull out at least 200 stubs from {{art-stub}}. The question I still have, though, is do we include "schools" and movements in this? That is would the Flemish School be an organization? Would Les Fauves? Or should we limit this category to groups existing at specific geographic locations and housed in specific buildings? --EncycloPetey 07:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That might be better as a separate art-movement-stub. And would gallery-stub be more useful than art-org-stub? Grutness...wha? 00:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. Take a look at the "organizations" in the first 200 items under Category:Art stubs -- there are mostly organizations that are neither movements nor galleries. --EncycloPetey 10:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template and category created. --EncycloPetey 04:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian biographies

[edit]

I just counted through the Brazilian biographies: {{Brazil-politician-stub}} is split-worthy with 67 stubs. {{Brazil-writer-stub}} would get 54 stubs according to my counting although there might more stubs, which are not currently marked as {{Brazil-bio-stub}}. I would support creating {{Brazil-writer-stub}} anyway.--Carabinieri 05:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Valentinian 19:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball biographies

[edit]

Category:Baseball biography stubs currently contains over 1,400 articles. I propose splitting this category the same way as has happened with the American Football biographies: by position. A google search suggests that there are about 75 articles in both Category:Baseball biography stubs and Category:Major league catchers. A similar search suggests that there are 250 to 300 articles about pitchers. I don't yet know the figures for the other positions. I would like to suggest/propose creating {{catcher-stub}} and {{pitcher-stub}}. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 00:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Israel-mil-stub}}

[edit]

I didn't know about this proposals page and just went ahead and created a new stub category called Israel-mil-stub, which deals with Israel Defense Forces-related stubs. The category is Category:Israel Defense Forces stubs and already contains 13 stubs. It can also ease the load off the general Israel-stub category. As you can see from this page for example, I've also made an image for the stub. Therefore, I'd really hate to see it go, and bringing it up here so that no sysops get angry at me for being bold and not consulting anyone. -- Ynhockey 19:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well. The usual procedure is for new stub types to be proposed here before they are created. They are then discussed for at least 7 days, and then created. The minimum for a stub type to be created is usually 50-60 stubs. Please try to get that many stubs into the category as possible, and we can then see what we'll do with it.--Carabinieri 21:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the many categories and subcategories, and articles in them, on the Israeli military, this one shouldn't be a problem. However, it might be better to rename the category to Category:Israeli military stubs. That way, it would mirror the sister categories in Category:Military stubs and it would broaden the scope of the category beyond the IDF. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I didn't even know of this page when I created the category, but then found out when I was looking for a way to create the category 'correctly'. 50-60 stubs seems like a pretty high number, although I bet IDF stubs will eventually reach that amount since few Wikipedians expand on IDF-related issues but many articles are created. Right now I'm looking for more existing IDF-related stubs but I don't think there are many more than there already are. Maybe I'll create some. The point is, there is potential for hundreds of stubs in this category because most IDF-related topics have not yet been touched upon.
@Aecis: Thanks for supporting the category, and I agree that Israeli military stubs would be an appropriate category. I wrote IDF because it's more specific and I'm not sure you can call other Israeli military stubs Israeli (for exampe, Irgun-related), because there was no State of Israel yet. On the other hand, if you say it will align Israel-mil-stub with other military stub categories, then it would make sense to change the category name. -- Ynhockey 15:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The others are generally "<country> military stubs", yes, and "Israel military stubs" could pretty logically contain pre-foundation units, so long as that's clear in the scope, and would correspond more closely to the template name. Category is a little undersized as things state, so that couldn't hurt (though I dunno if it'll help much, either). OTOH, the current name does parallel the existing permanent category exactly, there being no Category:Israeli military, Category:Military of Israel or similar that I could find (which isn't to say one shouldn't or couldn't be created). Alai 05:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Jhangochi-Culture-stub}}

[edit]

Category:This stub will be associated to people, culture and language of the Jhangochi(dialect) speaking area of Punjab. This is a huge area having three big rivers named Ravi, Chenab and jehlum flowing through it and the people living in whole area have common culture language and communties. There are lot of categories that can become its sub categories like 

   * Geography and Geology of Jhangochi Culture Area
   * History of Jhangochi Culture Area
   * Notable Personalities of Jhangochi Culture Area
   * Poets of Jhangochi Culture Area
   * Legends of Jhangochi Culture Area
   * Cities and Towns of Jhangochi Culture Area
   * Singers of Jhangochi Culture Area
   * Rivers of Jhangochi Culture Area
   * Crops of Jhangochi Culture Area
   * Tribes and Communities of Jhangochi Culture Area

Here are few examples of eisting articles which lie under these categories: 

   * Jhang
   * Faisalabad
   * Toba Tek Singh
   * Gojra
   * Samundri
   * Chadhar
   * Bhatti
   * Kathia
   * Chenab
   * Ravi
   * Jehlum
   * Abdus Salam
   * Dr. Tahirul Qadri
   * Heer Ranjha etc

--Abulfazl 7:45 , 7 January 2006 GMT

I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of this page. It is not for general categories but stub categories. Of the categories you listed, I'm sure they would be fine for general categories but for stub categories they have too narrow a scope.
Of the articles you mention, Jhang, Gojra, Samundri and Heer Ranjha are currently marked as stubs. I would say that only Chenab could also be classified as a stub. All of the others are non-stubs (larger than a stub: Faisalabad, Chadhar, Bhatti; disambiguation pages: Toba Tek Singh, Ravi; non-existent pages: Kathia, Jehlum, Dr. Tahirul Qadri). Therefore only five of the fourteen articles you mention are relevant to this discussion.
If you would like to help with Pakistan, I suggest you look through Category:Pakistan stubs and see how it might be split. Look at any existing discussion on this as well. --TheParanoidOne 12:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we still havent got that SAsia-hist-stub which would take a lot of this area... BL kiss the lizard 23:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to the "todo" list ... --TheParanoidOne 23:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But If we add This as a category to the Pakistan Stub as pakistan stub is devided into two stubs that is bio and geo we can add another child stub in that parent stub OR we may have another child stub named pakistan language and culture stub which may have another child stub jhangochi culture stub. Abulfazl 09:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Another thing I will be updating this stub time to time in different categories like Langugae, culture, traditions, Tribes and castes, Geographical Information, Ornaments,Food and Drinks, Famous incidents,Famous personalities in history and contemporary famous personalties. I think I have a lot of material to expand this stub provided time. Abulfazl 09:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British nobility

[edit]

The British stub page currently has almost 1000 articles. I would like to create these stub categories to better manage it. Here are my two proposals.

Plan A - Each stub will be sorted into its gender specific category.

Propsed categories:

Plan B - Each stub will be sorted into its title category. Both genders will be sorted into the same category.

Proposed Categories:

Posted by Yorktown1776 01:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not sure either would work. someone who starts out as a viscount can end up as an earl through inheritance or "promotion". and you can get people with multiple titles like Prince Charles who is Duke of Cornwall. wouldnt it be far better just to split it into UK-royal-stub and UK-noble-stub, like with everywhere else, and see where we go from there? BL kiss the lizard 06:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Posted this first, and then noticed this earlier proposal -- d'oh!:
These are past 1000 now, and not getting smaller anytime soon, as the cat isn't subdivided in any way at all. How do we want to do this: by era, by constituent country and region, or by rank? If the latter, then at a glance I can see that {{UK-baron-stub}} and {{UK-earl-stub}} would both be viable, and would get us down below four pages. We could then worry about the marquesses, viscounts, dukes and sub-kings at a later date. Alai 07:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BL, I'd suggest that highest title "wins", unless the person is listed as being better known under some lesser one. I think the royals are already split out (but not subcatted): these "kings" are of historical subkingdoms and predecessor states. I dislike the gender-based split, and I can't swear the latter five would all be viable, but no harm in starting with just the big two. Alai 08:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Australian languages stub

[edit]

I'd like to propose creating {{ia-lang-stub}} for Indigenous Australian languages-related articles. There are potentially quite a few hundred which could be written on this topic, and I estimate probably 20 or so related stubs already exist with the non-specific {{lang-stub}}. Before creating a whole bunch more it'd be better to have a specific stub for this group. Any objections?--cjllw | TALK 23:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

isnt that what {{au-lang-stub}} is for? BL kiss the lizard 05:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, {{au-lang-stub}} is for languages in the Austronesian languages family, a widespread group in the pacific and SE Asia, but (confusingly perhaps) none actually in Australia itself ("austro" here just means "southern"). The indigenous languages in AU on the other hand consist of a few other families and isolates, and have not been (convincingly) shown to be related to this or any other defined language family. Hope that helps.--cjllw | TALK 05:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok, since 1 week has elapsed and no objections, I've now created this stub.--cjllw | TALK 03:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{japan-tv-stub}}

[edit]

{{Japan-film-stub}} already exists, and now that I am working my way through Category:Kaiju, Category:Tokusatsu and others, I think that this will be useful (see Toei Superheroes for a fairly complete list of tokusatsu shows). Upon examination, there are about 50 or so, and many redlinks in various places. They could potetially use a distinct stub type ({{Tokusatsu-stub}}, {{Kaiju-stub}}, something along those lines), but we can leave that for later. Thoughts?--Sean|Black 23:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{canada-corp-stub}}

[edit]

A stub of Canadian corporations is badly overdue. It would be a child of {{corp-stub}} and {{canada-stub}}. --YUL89YYZ 16:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created, and now known as {{Canada-company-stub}}. --TheParanoidOne 15:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{coffee-stub}}

[edit]

At the Discoveries section of WP:WSS, {{tea-stub}} was found. Aecis had an idea that, a coffee-stub should be created, with both tea-stub and coffee-stub feeding into Category:Tea and coffee stubs. There would be about 60 articles in this category. Thelb4 09:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more geo-stubs - Namibia and Myanmar

[edit]

Both Namibia and Myanmar have reached the threshold for separate geo-stubs, so I propose {{Namibia-geo-stub}} and {{Myanmar-geo-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 05:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting {{India-stub}}

[edit]

I have a suggestion. Currently, all India related stubs are bunched together as {{india-stub}} and category is becoming very large. If these stubs are re-organized as state-wise sub-stubs (like the existing geography ones: {{TamilNadu-geo-stub}} and {{AndhraPradesh-geo-stub}}), the category would become much smaller. I am proposing creating state-wide sub-stubs such as {{TamilNadu-stub}} and {{AndhraPradesh-stub}}, so that the state-related articles can go into that category. {{TamilNadu-geo-stub}} and {{AndhraPradesh-geo-stub}} will be sub-stubs of these new categories that I am proposing. -- Ganeshk 07:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

while it makes sense to split geography items by subregions, it doesn't make as much sense to split non-geographic items in this way, which is why the splits going on for india are on the basis of what they are, not where they are (like India-struct-stub and India-bio-stub with its subcategories like india-politician-stub). An India-specific history stub has also been proposed and is in the process of being debated (see above), and other possibilities of the same form may follow (like India-rail-stub and India-road-stub for example). That would also keep it in line with what has been done with other countries. Grutness...wha? 07:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just as it applies to geographic items, it applies to others too. Examples, {{AndhraPradesh-bio-stub}}, {{AndhraPradesh-struct-stub}} etc. It helps to bring together all Andhra Pradesh related articles so that it can be managed better. {{AndhraPradesh-stub}} will be the top level of all these sub-stubs. This will be similar to {{California-stub}}. Hope that clarifies - Ganeshk 09:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather go with all-India stubs like {{India-poli-stub}} and {{India-hist-stub}}. Conscious 09:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few US state stubs do exist separately with individual wikiprojects (like WikiProject California), but you might also notice that several of the existing US state stubs were not proposed here, and several of them are currently being voted on for deletion at WP:SFD, along with the one existing English county-stub. Grutness...wha? 09:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My view would be basically the same as Grutness'. Keeping the current India focused stubs for all non-geographical pages, and using state stubs for geo/district/city etc. pages. Regards, Kaushik twin 11:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few things other than geography that we've split by subdivisions, such as politicians, roads and structures, but it doesn't look like India's stub categories for those are particularly large. --Mairi 06:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Metal-album-stub}}

[edit]

Category:Album stubs is currently the largest stub category, and while there have been several recent subcategories created (and proposed, see above), there are still some gaps that I saw when sorting through many of the A and B entries. The most obvious one is metal music and its many subgenres. Other possible categories that seem to have a fair bit of representation include:

  • punk rock albums
  • folk music albums

The following are generally less well defined and overlap more compared to the above suggestions, but I'd support creating them if others feel strongly about them:

  • indie albums
  • pop albums (most likely should go into rock instead?)

--Interiot 17:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Folk-album-stub}} and {{punk-album-stub}} created. Conscious 13:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, December 2005

[edit]

{{Ireland-royal-stub}}

[edit]

For the historical and legendary kings of and queens of Ireland that didn't hold the English crown. There are well over 60 of these already double stubbed with {{Ireland-bio-stub}} and {{Euro-royal-stub}}, so the only complaint I can see is the mixing of the historical and legendary ones in one category, but the dividing line between the two is not readily discernible. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you'll get that problem if you go far enough back in any royal line, though I'll admit Ireland's mixes the two spectacularly (I have an Irish history at home that traces my family's ancestry back to Noah! :). See no reason not to give the thumbs up to this proposal though. Grutness...wha? 05:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Progressive-rock-album-stub}}

[edit]

Rock-albums stubs are about to get more crowded as sorting gets done, and there are plenty of prog-rock albums (adding up Pink Floyd and a few others gets to 30). Part of the Albums WikiProject Last Avenue 06:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting {{RC-stub}}

[edit]

There's already 71 articles double stubbed with {{RC-stub}} and {{bishop-stub}}, and 26 with {{RC-stub}} and {{Christian-clergy-stub}}; with {{reli-bio-stub}} only sorted thru F. These would decrease double-stubbing, and help split {{RC-stub}}, which is at 4 pages and growing. --Mairi 20:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US TV station/channel stub

[edit]

Now that there is {{US-radio-station-stub}}, and seeing that there is a {{UK-tv-channel-stub}}, I think we should probably go ahead and split out the US TV stations as well. However, should it be {{US-tv-channel-stub}} or {{US-tv-station-stub}}, or perhaps even both, with "station" referring to local over-the-air broadcast stations (e.g. KTTV) and "channel" referring to national cable/satellite channels (e.g. CNN)? DHowell 20:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cemetery stub

[edit]

{{cemetery-stub}} used to distinguish cemeteries, most now use the {{geo-stub}}. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any estimates of how many stubs could be given this stub type? Some examples would be nice too. --TheParanoidOne 20:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I count around 125 with minimal information and I plan to add 50 more this month. I also proposed a Cemetery wikiproject and if other join more will be added --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a very large number of cemetery stubs in the various geo-stub categories. I've no objection to a separate stub for them, BUT I would definitely use it as part of a double-stubbing with the appropriate geo-stub, since it's very likely that people who know a particular area will know the local cemeteries. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If created, this should also be a chlid of {{death-stub}} which is not all that highly populated at the moment. Also, should the scope of this also include tombs, burial mounds, crematoria, etc.? Caerwine Caerwhine 01:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Art and Artist stubs

[edit]

OK, so Category:Art stubs is up to 5 pages and Category:Artist stubs is up to 7 pages. I also see a number of oddly-placed children, so here's the idea broken into four points. I suggest commenting on each one individually if you like, or putting general comments immediately before item 1. --EncycloPetey 16:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1 - Relocate {{architecture-stub}} and {{photo-stub}} as children of {{art-stub}}. Architects and Photographers are considered artists already, so the disciplines should be there too. We can leave cross-references under Geography and Technology (respectively). In any case, architechture shouldn't be under geography, since it isn't.
  • 4 - Split {{painter-stub}} geographically; the category in running to 4 pages already.
There's several different things here, so I'll tackle them separately:
  • 1) photo-stub, fine, but architecture stub is more of a problem. Currently it deals with architectural features and types of building, so should perhaps be split into two separate stubs. It shouldn't be currently under geo-stub - it should be under struct-stub, and any split would leave the building types still under struct-stub. Building features could use both struct and art as parents.
  • 2) Sounds fine to me.
  • 3) I'm still firmly of the belief that the primary split should have been by nationality rather than by medium, since very few artists work in only one medium (I'm a professional painter and illustrator, for instance, and my partner is a painter, installation maker and graphic designer). Since it has been, though, an illustrator-stub would make sense.
  • 4) definitely - see my comments about 3. I could see {{France-painter-stub}}, {{US-painter-stub}}, {{Netherlands-painter-stub}}, {{Italy-painter-stub}} and {{UK-painter-stub}} being likely candidates, to start with.
Grutness...wha? 23:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1)But as I understand it {{struct-stub}} is for stubbing specific structures, not general architectural styles and sturctural motifs. One reason I recommend placing it under {{art-stub}} is that the Dewey Decimal system for libraries places architecture as a subcategory of art, so it's a place people would know to look. A cross-reference under {{struct-stub}} makes sense, though. --EncycloPetey 04:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same situation as geo-stub and geo-term stub. Geo-stub is for individual places, geo-term-stub is for things like terminal moraine or till plain. And Category:Geographical term stubs is a subcategory of Category:Geography stubs. In the same way, struct-stub is about individual buildings, architecture-stub contains building types like shed and bandstand, and that's why Category:Architecture stubs is a subcategory of Category:Buildings and structures stubs. If architecture-stub was split in two, putting building types in one category and building features and general arcitectural terms (from alcove to window shutter) in another, then one could go under structs and the other under art quite happily. And since there are nearly 600 architecture-stubs, a split's not that bad an idea... Grutness...wha? 05:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status on (1) and (2) -- I am in the process of creatung {{painting-stub}} and {{sculpture-stub}}. I have moved {{photo-stub}} under {{art-stub}}. Since the proposed split of {{architecture-stub}} has not yet been given a name, I have not created that new stub. I am uncertain which of the proposed subdivisions should keep the current stub name, so I don't know what to propose for the new stub.
Also, I have gathered all the art-related professions together (except for comics-creator, which is still under Lit.) and have listed them explicitly as children of {{artist-stub}}. I have put the whole group into People by Occupation, though the group could be moved under Art since it was not part of the discussion. My decision to put them under People follows our general pattern, a choice made easier by virtue of having now a *B link to each of the professions next to its associated media stub listing in art. To my mind, moving the artists back to art would make those links redundant there. --EncycloPetey 06:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is ready to archive.

Split of {{Poland-geo-stub}}

[edit]

The geographic stub category for Poland is up to 5 pages. The logical way to split this is to subdivide by regions. Poland has 14 voivodeships, which is too many ways to split only 5 pages, so I recommend only creating subcategories for the 4 most populous regions:

The only really annoying bit is that the first one includes a Polish crossed-L in its name, but there isn't a standard English translation for either the first or last one on the list. I've seen Małopolska translated at least three different ways in standard texts and histories (e.g. "little Poland", "lesser Poland", "smaller Poland"), so I think we'd have to go with the Polish name to avoid confusion. Thankfully, the second and third have the same name in English --EncycloPetey 12:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be {{Malopolska-geo-stub}} with a redirect at {{Małopolska-geo-stub}}? Conscious 12:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd considered that, but it would mean creating and using a new spelling that's neither Polish nor English. Polish crossed-L is pronounced like English W, whereas L is L. We'd be creating a new spelling with an incorrect pronunciation, much like trying to write English words in Japanese. I really don't like that option, and anyway most people expanding stubs about Polish geography ought to be familiar with the Polish alphabet. --EncycloPetey 13:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
yeah but not all stub sorters are and not all browsers use them easily. thats the reason for redirects like aland-stub and bahai-stub. a redirect from malopolska-geo-stub would be good. BL kiss the lizard 22:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like the idea about splitting up a large stub, but I'd prefer {{GreaterPoland-geo-stub}} and {{LesserPoland-geo-stub}} instead of {{Wielkopolska-geo-stub}} and {{Małopolska-geo-stub}}¨. Silesia and Masovia aren't Polish names either. BTW, why is there any reason why {{Masuria-geo-stub}} and {{Pommerania-geo-stub}} isn't on the list? Poland is usually divided into six regions. --Valentinian 23:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Several comments:

  • First off, there are 16 not 14 voivodships. You may be referring to an old map as Poland hasn't had 14 voivodships since 1950. It's had the current configuration of 16 since 1999.
Oops, you're right. I had just checked on the Poland voivodships article, too. --EncycloPetey 04:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondly, what exactly are these four regions supposed to cover? They have the same name as four of the current voivodships, and the only reference to areas larger than the voivodships for which boundaries are well defined I've found are for six regions labeled I to VI of two or three voivodships each used for statistical purposes, and those don't appear to correspond to anything even remotely historical that would have a name that would not be confused with voivodship name, and {{PolandI-geo-stub}} to {{PolandVI-geo-stub}} does not appeal to me.
They're intended to cover geography of places in the current voivodships of the same name. As I understand it, we prefer to split geography by current boundaries. The proposed stubs will not cover the whole of Poland, merely reduce the content of the general {{Poland-geo-stub}}. --EncycloPetey 04:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thirdly, while an average voivodship would have only 55 stubs, experience with other countries strongly suggests taht the stubs will not be equally distributed. There are probably 6 to 10 voivodship stubs that meet the recommended 60 stub limit.

In short, I do not see where trying to avoid using the voivodships is a good idea. If there were 49 voivodships as there were from 1975 to 1998, I could see going for groups of voivodships, but not with the current 16. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting we avoid the voivodships; I am suggesting we begin by using only some of them, and possibly add others later if such seems warranted. The four I chose are the most populated, and their names were taken from the article on Polish voivodships on WP in order to make sorting sensible. It sounds to me as if we're thinking alike on this, even if we're talking past each other. --EncycloPetey 04:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it's just that you managed to confuse me by calling them regions instead of voivodships. Granted, I have to check each time I type "voivodship" to make certain I've typed it right, so I understand why you did so, but it confused me, especially when you didn't explain your reasoning. To avoid further confusion, when you mention population are you refering to stub population or people population? Based on what has happened with other countries, the highly populated places have a tendency to have fewer stubs than the middly populated places because their articles are more likely to have developed past the stub stage. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EncycloPetey's suggestion would mirror what we did with England, and what we've been trying to do with France and the US - unsuccessfully, since someone seems to come along and make the rest :/ - that is, break out the largest ons and see what is left. In the case of England, we eventually had all but a handful of counties and they were very close to splittable numbers of stubs, so we bent the guidelines a little and in at least two cases more stubs were made to make categories more splittable. Doing the same here would be a reasonable idea. Grutness...wha? 06:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princely India Stub

[edit]

Proposed stub: {{princely-India}}

There are MANY articles out there that pertain to Indian Princely states which need to be expanded in an orderly fashion. Subjects encompassed include: resumes of the states themselves (like Kingdom of Mysore); cities that were seats of princely states (like Bundi); biographical pages (vast numbers); important monuments (Chittorgarh/Padmanabhapuram Palace) and other things like succession systems, titles, etc. Kindly opine. Regards, ImpuMozhi 09:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • this one sadly would be a major problem. Geography stubs are always split by the current geopolitical entity, so any stubs relating to cities in the various princely states should be stubbed by the modern Indian state. Bundi, for instanc, would get Rajasthan-geo-stub once that is made (probably very soon). Monuments and buildings are already well covered by {{India-struct-stub}}, which is hardly overpopulated. And a lot of things should be well-covered by a {{India-hist-stub}}, which was proposed not that long ago. We don't split biographies by time period, either, rather we split them by nationality and then occupation. One thing that might help, you, though, and is definitely worth considering, is an {{India-royal-stub}}, for articles relating directly to the Princes, Maharajahs, Nawabs et al themselves. Grutness...wha? 11:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well Caerwine this is w.r.t Maratha stub. Princely states are specifically those states which were under the suzerainity (sic?) of British monarch during British India. Hence Mughal Empire and Maratha Empire wont fall under these categories. अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 19:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Objection to stub content (Occult Stub)

[edit]

I object to the use of an inverted pentagram in the occult-stub template on the grounds that it is commonly related with satanism which thanks to the media is associated (although some would argue wrongly) with violence and such. In addition I just do not feel it is a fitting symbol for the whole of occultism. If a pentagram is to be used a non-inverted one (e.g. this ) would be prefrable because of its wider usage, but a more fitting symbol might be found. --Phoenix9 23:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. This shouldn't be the inverted pentagram. The one suggested is far better, so I'll change it. Blessed be, Grutness...wha? 00:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --Valentinian 10:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and now grutness's computer has crashed. did someone hex it :)? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming geo-stub poser to ponder...

[edit]

There's no hurry for this, and I'm not proposing a split yet, but I would like some feedback on this query. Antarctica-geo-stub is approaching 600 stubs. I'd like to avoid splitting it by landform type, since we've gone out of our way to avoid that with other parts of the world. Ideally, in this situation, we would break it by region,as with other places... but the only defined borders in Antarctica are those relating to unofficial territories held in abeyance by the Antarctic treaty, and some of those overlap considerably.. Luckily, some of the more populous segments of the Big Ice (styub-wise) don't have that problem - in fact the first big split would probably be for Ross Dependency. But is this the best way to go with it? If so, then RossDependency-geo-stub, AAT-geo-stub and perhaps AntarcticPeninsula-geo-stub would be splittable without much fuss, but after that it becomes a bit of a mess... anyway, as I said, it's not urgent, but any thoughts would be welcome. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatting this page

[edit]

I've started a discussion on the talk page about reformatting this page from the current chronological order to a reverse chronological order (recent proposals on top, older proposals on the bottom). I would like to ask any and all who read this to share their thoughts on this on the talk page. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 17:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Stub Correction Please

[edit]

Could I suggest that someone sorts out this stub box so that instead of going via a Wikipedia:Wikipedia redirect it goes straight to the Wikipedia:About page? There are quite a few of these and I am sure the unnecessary re-directs don't help with the server load. Thanks

 This Wikipedia-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Done. --Valentinian 00:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive20&oldid=1110361234"