Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mairi (talk | contribs) at 04:00, 1 August 2005 (→Splitting Mythology Stubs: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
WikiProject Stub sorting
Information
Project page talk
- Stub types (sections) talk
- Stub types (full list) talk
- To do talk
- Naming conventions talk
- Redirects category talk
Wikipedia:Stub talk
Discussion
Proposals (A) talk
- Current month
Discussion talk
Criteria (A) (discontinued) talk
Deletion (Log) (discontinued) talk
Category

On this WP:WSS subpage, you can propose new stub types (please read #Proposing new stubs - procedure beforehand!), as well as the reorganization and subdivision of existing stub types. You can also propose anything else related to stubs in #Other stub-related discussions.

Proposing new stubs - procedure

Proposing new stubs
If you wish to propose a new stub category and template, please follow the following procedure:
  1. List it at the bottom of the current month's section, under a header, like the ones shown (if any). Sign it with a datestamp (~~~~).
  2. Find a good number of stub articles, as many as you can, that will fit that tag. Each of these articles can be:
    • currently be marked with stub;
    • currently marked with another type of stub tag (in which case you should justify why your tag is better for the article than the current one);
    • a stub whose categorisation is highly ambiguous or questionable;
    • not marked as a stub.
  3. Others will do the same, if they feel like it.
  4. One week after listing it here, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new category and template. List the new stub type on the stub types list in an appropriate section.

Proposals, April-May 2005

Subdivions of {{broadcasting-stub}}

For the beginning of this discussion, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria/Archive16.

A suggestion to focus on "radio and tv"

One part of the suggestions made by User:Lifeisunfair is to change "Broadcasting" to "Radio and TV" thereby making it clear what technologies are being addressed. I don't think that I want to go through another round of changing the template title, but we could change the text to reflect a more focused scope. The current text reads 

This broadcasting-related article is a stub.

My suggestion for changing would be to 

This radio or television broadcasting-related article is a stub.

I think this is a reasonable sharpening of focus as it really is just reflecting what the topic really is.

Would this be OK with the folks here? Courtland July 2, 2005 01:33 (UTC)

It would be good, in that it cuts out possible definitions including printed media and films - both of which are covered elsewhere. Where would podcasting be covered? Website-stub? Are you going ahead with Canada-station(or bcast)-stub, BTW? It's been a while since you suggested it... Grutness...wha? 2 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)

Proposals, June 2005

Subdivision of {{food-stub}}

See the beginning of this discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria/Archive16.

Proposal

Okay - this one has sat fallow for long enough, so, to see whether this can spark some yays or nays, here's a proposal:

I'd see all but the last three of these as worth doing now - the last three might be worth doing later if the numbers look viable. Any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)

A number of them are already done, though. Of the ones that aren't I think I'll just go for confectionary-stub for the moment, based on a quick browse through food-stub. --TheParanoidOne 7 July 2005 05:35 (UTC)
I'd agree that that's probably the most useful one - I think getting all the drinks separate would also be handy. Some of the ones done have been done for a long while (only vegetable-stub is new) - I was just trying to put them into a logical framework. Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 06:08 (UTC)
I had a quick look though the {{food-stubs}}, and I don't see the need for a {{dairyfood-stub}}, but would propose a instead {{cheese-stub}}, and perhaps something in the line of {{sweet unnecessary calorie intake stub}}, sorry a broader-minded {{sweet-stub}} including confectionary, desserts and cakes Lectonar 7 July 2005 06:30 (UTC)
Update: I've just made {{drink-stub}} - now it needs populating. I've gone through all the "A"s in the parent category, and that alone yielded 21 stubs. As to the others... cheese-stub sounds reasonable, and I'd like a few more views on the dessert/confectionary/sweet business. One stub or two? Grutness...wha? 10:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on my own on categorizing "food and drink stubs" articles for the past several days without realizing that others were also trying to sort out this massive category at the same time. Personally, I would've preferred to see a liquor-stub category just to get all the stuff about cocktails and booze brands in one place. If one is going to go through the articles systematically, it is best to have a more specific category breakdown in place first, instead of having to touch them all again later. Dr.frog 15:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Over the past few months I've found it's actually far easier to work the other way round. Okay, things sometimes need to be stubbed twice, but you get a far better idea of what smaller categories need splitting once you've done the major split. Alcoholic drinks may be a good subcategory of drinks, but many of the cocktail articles should simply be transwikied to WikiCookbook or whatever it's called - they're not really articles as such, just recipes. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the point is that I've already just made a pass through the entire {{food-stub}} category, so I do have a pretty good idea of what additional subcategories I'd like to see there. In any case, I'm done with this for now and am moving on to some cleaning up in the main food category hierarchy, so you guys do whatever you want with the stub hierarchy. Dr.frog 13:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A few other thoughts based on what I've seen so far: {{cheese-stub}} would be a good idea. I'd also like to see {{restaurant-stub}}. What do other people think about categories like {{chinese-food-stub}}, {{japanese-food-stub}}, or {{indian-food-stub}}? Dr.frog 15:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{restaurant-stub}}.... while there are a lot of restaurants in food-stub, they don't really belong there. I've been moving any I find into retail-stub. Perhaps food-retail-stub would be a better name, with both categories as parents, since not all food outlets are restaurants. There are also quite a few corp-stubs in the food and drink category. As for the separate cuisines, perhaps a more general asia-food-stub would be better, since it would cover a lot of other countries - aprticularly those in Southeast Asia, none of which would be big enough for their own separate categories. And let's face it, we'e talking about a parent with (currently) only about 1300 stubs - we don't need to fracture it too much. Once the drink stubs come out it should be down below the 1000 mark. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since we discussed it before, I created cooking-tool/food-utensil/cook-tool -stub. I went with "cooking tool" as the primary version (the one where the other two redirect) because that phrase is the most popular on google, and because our food utensil article doesn't exist, and utensil points to eating utensils. Some of those things could be cleared up as well. --Joy [shallot] 11:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disambiguated utensil now. There's also the phrases 'kitchen utensil' and 'kitchenware' in this topic. --Joy [shallot]
Or we could simply and generically go with 'food-prep(aration)-stub'? --Joy [shallot]
Preparation and serving. Damn. :) --Joy [shallot] 11:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, July 2005

{{hre-stub}} or {{germany-hist-stub}}

Been doing a lot of articles on the states in the Holy Roman Empire (800 - 1806AD), which was centred in Germany, but also contained parts of many other European countries. Concerns though were raised about the volume of stubs I've created related to this era of history, as the only relevant stub existing is the hist-stub. --Nomadic1

I'd actually considered germany-hist-stub - it would make a lot of sense and would be well populated. Hre-stub (or better HRE-stub) would probably be a bit too cryptic for most people. Grutness...wha? 3 July 2005 06:21 (UTC)
I would agree in principle with {{germany-hist-stub}}, but there isn't really a consensus concerning the use of germany in historic terms (see Talk:Germany) Lectonar 4 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)
Perhaps not Germany, but since there were Kings of the Germans back in the Middle Ages, one could simply title the stub – {{german-hist-stub}} and be done with it. --Joy [shallot] 8 July 2005 09:22 (UTC)
Perhaps, but these stubs need a sub-category. Germany as a region has existed since 843AD. There is really only complication in where places such as Austria and Silesia fit, and these would be more logical to place in the general History stub. The alternative of course is a general "European History" stub, see below for that. : Nomadic1 6 July 2005 08:45 (UTC)
I'm absolutely on your side here, but I fear that we're gonna run into trouble especially if we start to stub sort events or persons which other users feel to be, e.g., polish et al.; there are people around who would allow the term Germany to be used only after 1945, or, in extreme cases, after 1989 Lectonar 6 July 2005 09:30 (UTC)
It's only going to get worse - soon. I've already got plans to heavily populate Salm (probably about 20 - 30 stubs here), Isenburg (another 10 or so), Baden (10), Württemberg (10), and am about to begin a co-ordination on Furstenberg (which will almost definately contain considerably more). I don't think the hist-stub or even a euro-hist-stub would do well with all of these emerging in the near-future. Of course, the concerns you have also apply with most European countries: they'd be objection to a French history stub because the Bretons, Basques, and Catalonians wouldn't like it. You couldn't do an Italy history stub due to the Ladin and Germanic regions of Trentino-Alto Adige, and it emerged in 1860 or thereabouts. A line needs to be drawn somewhere. - Nomadic1 7 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)
To that I can only add: Germany as it was in 1071: Naples must stay german! :) Lectonar 7 July 2005 10:02 (UTC)
The obvious, but almost certainly unacceptable answer, is to use modern boundaries (we don't give people born in Normandy in the 1100s the same stub we give English people), but - as I said - that would almost certainly be unacceptable. There mst be some way round it, but what? Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 11:44 (UTC)
I don't think this is much more of a problem than it is already a problem with categorization. Perhaps an example can illustrate - for quite some time the page Dinaric Alps had one country geo-stub and one general geo-stub for all the other countries the mountains were in. Later, all of those countries got their own geo-stubs and all of them (half a dozen :) were added to the article. This was somewhat ugly, but worked. (And then later the article was expanded and is not a stub any more. Yay :) --Joy [shallot]
One solution to this could be to use either time-periods (e.g. {{Medieval-hist-stub}}), which could also help solve the problems with the nobility-stub [here:{{Ancient-hist-stub}}, in which cases one should define the appropriate time-periods, or something to the effect of regions (e.g. {{CentralEurope-hist-stub}} Lectonar 7 July 2005 13:01 (UTC)
Time periods could work, but then they couldn't for anything which lasted from the Mediæval era until the Napoleonic Era. The use of Geographical regions is also difficult by the same token as above, since, for example, Central Europe includes Austria, Hungary, Germany, etc. but also includes Transylvania (which Romanians wouldn't like), Friuli and Trieste in Italy, and so forth. A HRE-stub becomes the best possibility then (as it ignores modern borders and nationalism), although the idea of the Holy Roman Empire is quite convoluted and complex, and most people would not understand it. But it is still the best. - Nomadic1 7 July 2005 22:26 (UTC)

{{anthropology-stub}}

as a child of the Science-stub, with which I just tagged Neo-locality (not my article, BTW). Update: someone just changed the template to {{socio-stub}}, I'm not sure whether that's correct. Any anthropologists/sociologists care to comment on this? --IByte 4 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

  • As someone with some education in anthropology, I can say, though there has been some overlap in recent years, the two are definitely not the same.--Pharos 4 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)
I've aso been looking for a {{anthropology-stub}} or {{anthropologist-stub}}. This time in realtion to the article, Gerardo_Reichel-Dolmatoff. I'm sure it must be a well needed stub. --Pappa 8 July 2005 09:17 (UTC)

{{mining-stub}}

We may need this new stub class, re digging holes, not re laying landmines. Anthony Appleyard 06:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mocved to the right place on the page. Do we really have 60 stubs on mining? Can this not be covered by industry-stub for now? Grutness...wha? 07:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{fictional-character-stub}}

I just finished weeding the {{book-stub}} category, bringing it down to around 3 1/2 pages(650), and I see the dire need for the abovementioned stub-cat, thereby relieving the fantasy, sf- and lit categories; it sounds a bit heavy and unwieldy, though. Some ideas? Lectonar 11:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This one was mooted before a couple of months back, and wasn't done then because of cross-category problems. You'd have to decide whether you also wanted characters from movies, video games, anime, etc listed in there too. Perhaps {{fictional-bio-stub}} would be a better name, or maybe {{book-character-stub}} if you were trying to limit the scope of the category. Grutness...wha? 12:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing some work on some RPG listings (notably Hero Games and those connected) and I'd like to see a stub area for fictional characters as well. I think {{fictional-character-stub}} would be serviceable, at least until it became obscenely overcrowded. And then again, many characters appear in multiple media.

{{bio-book-stub}} (Created)

In doing some subsorting within Category:Book stubs I have found a number of biographies and autobiographies. Currently the best tag for these is {{nonfiction-book-stub}} but that is already a large category on its own. We already have Category:Autobiographies and Category:Biographies so a parallel stub type seems reasonable. People sometimes incorrectly use {{bio-stub}} which is of course for articels that are biographies, not for articles about biographies. Whether a separate {{autobio-book-stub}} should be created specifically for autobiographies, I'm not sure. Brief searching through Category:Biographies and a google search on biography + Book + stub and one on autobiography + Book + stub and one on autobiographical + stub produced the following list of articles that could wll be taged with this new stub tag. More could easily be found.

Dreams Die Hard Sex and the Single Girl Nervous Conditions Bring On the Girls (when written) Emile Save Me the Waltz The Life of Flavius Josephus The English Teacher Papillon (book) Autobiography of a Yogi Iacocca: An Autobiography Everybody's Autobiography My Autobiography (Mussolini) An Autobiography (Nehru) The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin The Autobiography of Charles Darwin The Autobiography of Malcolm X The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas Mary, Queen of Scots (1969 book) Louis Riel: A Comic-Strip Biography Eminent Victorians Life of Johnson The Agony and the Ecstasy Brief Lives Cheaper by the Dozen Disco Bloodbath Hello, I Must Be Going! (biography) Marquis Who's Who Prithvirajaraso The Real Lincoln The Secret Life Of A Satanist Who's Who (UK) Wild Swans On Famous Women

the above by DESiegel Lectonar

  • As I mentioned above, I've been doing the whole book-stub list, but refrained to sort them into the nonfiction category, so I would go along with with you here; I don't think there is a need for an {{auto-bio-stub}}, though. This said, I've haven't the faintest idea how to name it Lectonar 06:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason I sugested a separate stub type for autobiographies was that I seemed to encounter about as many autobiography stubs as stubs about regular biographies, and we have separate categories for the non-stub articles, as i mentioned above. We could certianly start with {{bio-book-stub}} and split if we feel a need later. DES 17:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever is decided, note needs to be taken of {{book-char-stub}} oir whatever it's to be called, immediately above here. We don't want to get the two mixed up! Grutness...wha? 01:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Along with this, should there be a stub type for historical novels? I have noticed a fair number of them in book-stub, although i haven't done a count yet. I note that Category:Historical novels does exist. DES 19:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created the above stub type since there seems no objectiosn, and went through the above list of articles. More will no doubt be added to this type shortly. Now what do people think about {{hist-book-stub}}?

The above by DES Lectonar 12:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]

I'm not entirely convinced about having historical fiction and history texts in the same category... is there any way of avoiding that? Grutness...wha? 00:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{units-stub}}

How about a stub which will deal contain various units articles, like batman (mass measure), Picolitre, Oka (measure), which are now number stubs? This category would then be a subcategory of Category:Number stubs.

My motivation would be that units are not exactly numbers. Opinions? Oleg Alexandrov 22:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This already exists as {{standard-stub}} - not the best name, but it covers things like units of measurement, ISO codes, and test specifications. Grutness...wha? 02:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would not apply to old units of weight and such. I think a units-stub would be more appropriate. Oleg Alexandrov 06:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does apply - just because they're not current standards doesn't mean they weren't once - if you have a look in the category you'll find lots of units in there (Acre foot, Butt (unit), Carat (mass), Carat (purity), Cumec, Cusec, Dol... and about a dozen or so others). I';m not sure there's enough for a separate category, although Category:Standards stubs could do with re-naming (to Category:Measurement stubs, perhaps?) Grutness...wha? 06:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've sent Standard-stub and its category across to sfd for possible renaming to measurement-stub, which should more unambiguously cover units. Grutness...wha? 08:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{google-stub}}

moved to the correct place - this was up at the top of the July section Grutness...wha?

There are so many google articles, most stubs. They need a Category special for themselves --Nathan8225 01:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are? What is a google stub - a stub relating to Google? Can there possibly be more than a handful of these? I don't think I've ever seen any... Grutness...wha? 05:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further split of UK-geo-stub

I've moved the following from further up the page, where i seemed to be the only person talking about it... Grutness...wha?

There are some 4000 geo-stubs marked UK-geo-stub. Scotland, NI, Wales and London have already been split off. Is it worth splitting the rest into the eight regions of England? I note that the Regions of England article seems to talk about various different types of split, and the main one seems to overlap several county boundaries (which would be the other logical split). Suggestions? Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 07:31 (UTC)

There's been some discussion of this over at Category talk:Geography stubs - When I next get time (hah!) I'm going to do a tally of the UK geo-stubs, to see which individual counties could be pared off - I think there are a few. It might be a case of going the same way as with Africa-geo-stub: England as a parent of regions as a parent of counties. Trouble is, of course, there are traditional counties and governmental ones. Why does England have to be so difficult with its geography??? Grutness...wha? 00:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to do a count-up, see which counties can be pared. Seems the Wikipolicy is to use current governmental counties. One editor is busy creating Channel Island stubs at a rate of knots, too, so that may also be splittable (now we need someone to do the same with the Isle of Man...) Grutness...wha? 00:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: What I would like to do, with the permission of WP:WSS, is start splitting caounty-based categories as soon as I know for sure there are over 100 stubs that can fit in there, rather than going through the formal one week debate (hopefully I'm trustworthy enough here for this not to worry too many people). Some editors seem to be getting quite impatient for this category to be split up, so the sooner it's started, the better. After counting 300 of the stubs, it looks likely that Lincolnshire, of all places, will be the first split (so far, nearly 50 stubs). I intend to use the current governmental counties, as per Wiki policy, but to keep some grouped so that we don't suddenly get 50 new categories (obvious ones like the Yorkshire counties, for instance, and Liverpool/Manchester/Lancashire). It would also probably be worthwhile maaking an all-encompassing England category and/or template, but I'll wait on that until a few counties are split off, so that the task is easier. I will report any new templates here as they are created. If anyone has any comments for or against this idea, please say now, before I start doing the split! (I'll wait a week for feedback before starting) Grutness...wha? 05:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Count update: after counting the first 1000 stubs, not county yet has 100 stubs, but five counties (assuming you count Yorkshire as one county) make up almost exactly 1/3 of the stubs between them: Durham, Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Dorset, and Somerset. Grutness...wha? 08:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]
For. I think Grutness is well-qualified to make the split. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:52, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but I see a problem there: if we do it like this, I for one couldn't sort the not so obvious places into the pertaining county and/or region stubs, as I don't keep an atlas near; I had always hoped that stub sorting could be simple :) Lectonar 13:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In which case tag it with "cleanup-context" on the grounds that UK geography articles need to tell you what county they're in. Joe D (t) 11:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't we all (sigh! :). If it reassures you any, then it will be like geo-stub and africa-geo-stub - there's no intention of removing the plain UK-geo-stub, and items can simply be dumped in there for further sorting. Also, most of the stubs (I'd say 90%) either say in the text which county they're about or have a category at the bottom with a county name as part of it. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The count - and how to split it?

Okay - I've completed the count-up of all 3869 unsubcategorised UK-geo-stubs. The problem now is how to split it. The governmental regions of England are remarkably arbitrary, and cut across existing county lines, let alone the traditional ones that many people still use. For that reason also, some of the labelling of places in particular counties is only approximate - I've found confllicting information as to whether Cleveland is still going as Teesside, or whether it has reverted to being part of Durham and Yorkshire, for instance.

Having said that, one thing is clear - several counties have well over 100 geo-stubs, and several other might be groupable for historical/geographic reasons (e.g., Lancashire/Merseyside/Manchester). The following look the best bets for a split:

Eight other counties (Northamptonshire, Somerset, Devon, West Midlands, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, and Shropshire) reach the 90 stub mark. By chance, these could possibly be combined into pairs (Devon/Somerset, Hampshire/Berkshire, Northants/Bucks, West Midlands/Shropshire). For historical reasons, it would probably also be worthwhile having {{Cornwall-geo-stub}} (87 stubs), and maybe also a {{UK-crown-geo-stub}} for the crown dependencies of the Channel Islands and the isle of Man (45 stubs).

User:RHaworth, unaware of this count-up, created a {{England-geo-stub}} and accompanying category, which I temporarily turned into a redirect to {{UK-geo-stub}}, but which can be reverted to make a category to hold all these county stubs.

One good thing to note from all of this is that the redirect {{uk-geo-stub}} is very little used (only about 100 of the 3869 stubs use it), so it may be a potential deletion candidate soon.

I'd welcome advice from this. I'm still very much in "low-Wiki" mode at the moment, and this will be a lot of work. I'm also leaving information about this proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK subdivisions and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. Grutness...wha? 03:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset is about to go over 100 stubs, I've been going importing parish population data. Joe D (t) 11:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset is actually considerably over 100 already. The reason I didn't suggest separate stubs for each of the eight I named above is that I didn't want to suddenly swamp everyone with 14 or 15 new stub categories. The full counts are as follows:
Durham - 456; Yorkshire - 298; Dorset - 244; Lincolnshire - 157; Northamptonshire - 144; Somerset - 136; West Midlands - 133; Buckinghamshire/Milton Keynes - 124; Berkshire - 115; Devon - 104; Hampshire - 104; Shropshire - 92; Cornwall - 87; Gloucestershire - 87; Sussex - 87; Kent - 85; Merseyside - 82; Norfolk - 80; Wiltshire - 78; Cumbria - 74; Manchester - 74; Staffordshire - 70; Essex - 68; Lancashire - 68; Derbyshire - 67; Surrey - 64; Hertfordshire - 60; Leicestershire - 57; Rutland - 55; Cambridgeshire - 49; Suffolk - 46; Warwickshire - 44; Nottinghamshire - 40; Cheshire - 39; Oxfordshire - 32; Channel Is - 26; Tyne and Wear - 26; Worcestershire - 26; Bedfordshire - 25; Bristol - 25; Northumberland - 24; IOW - 21; Herefordshire - 19; IOM - 16; plus 63 from more than one county.
Grutness...wha? 11:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How sure are you of your figures? For instance, the count of 55 for Rutland is suspiciously high, especially as there are only 23 articles in Category:Rutland and all subcategories. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure. I counted all of the stubs by hand, and noted down where each article said it was. Those that didn;’t name a county (depressingly, about 10%), I relied on my trusty RAC road atlas. As to Rutland, it surprised me as well, but... well, here’s the list:
Ashwell, Rutland, Ayston, Barleythorpe, Barrow, Rutland, Barrowden, Bearpark, Belmesthorpe, Belton-in-Rutland, Bisbrooke, Braunston-in-Rutland, Brooke, Rutland, Burley, Rutland, Caldecott, Rutland, Clipsham, Cottesmore, Rutland, Edith Weston, Egleton, Empingham, Essendine, Exton, Rutland, Glaston, Great Casterton, Greetham, Rutland, Gunthorpe, Rutland, Hambleton, Rutland, Ketton, Lyddington, Lyndon, Rutland, Manton, Rutland, Market Overton, Morcott, Normanton, Rutland, North Luffenham, Oakham, Pilton, Rutland, Ridlington, River Eye, England, Seaton, Rutland, South Luffenham, Stoke Dry, Stretton, Rutland, Teigh, Thistleton, Thorpe by Water, Tickencote, Tinwell, Tixover, Tixover, Rutland, Upper Hambleton, Uppingham, Wardley, Whissendine, Whitwell, Rutland, Wing, Rutland!
One or two may have slipped through (the stats program I use accepts the first non-ambiguous term, so If I typed DUR for Durham, it would accept DU as Durham then overwrite it with the R for Rutland), but it's very close to accurate. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your post at the UK geography WikiProject, I'm of the opinion that we should use ceremonial counties because I believe that's what most geographers use, and they're the ones most commonly refered to. -- Joolz 12:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happier doing that, too. Sadly, Wiki policy IIRC is to use the standard administrative divisions whenever possible. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places): "it is acceptable to use ceremonial counties as geographic references, as this is often more in line with common usage" so I think that gives us some leeway, since these are geographic stubs -- Joolz 10:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel the permanents

Just another dig at all this counting business. The intention is that all stub categories should dwindle to empty eventually, so why should a stub category not start out with fifty or even just a dozen entries. There is another, equally important consideration: what will editors actually use? If the stub categories are too complicated, people will say "I can't be bothered to find out if this area has a county or regional stub category - I will dump it in UK-geo-stubs and leave Grutness to re-allocate it".

I suggest that the stub categories should rigorously parallel the 'permanent' categories. Eg. Bunwell has a permanent category of Villages_in_Norfolk, so its stub category should be Norfolk_stubs or Norfolk_geography_stubs (I don't mind which). Note that we will need a lot of new categories but we do not need lots of new templates - try {{England-geo-stub|Fooshire}} which gives:

File:England flag large.png  This article is a stub relating to Fooshire in England. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Do not use this template yet - see this discussion. Please continue to use {{UK-geo-stub}}

Category:Fooshire stubs

--RHaworth 05:18:05, 2005-07-28 (UTC)

A few things.
First, as you can see from the discussion above, the aim is not to have a stub category for each individual county, but simply to reduce the main body of stubs by paring off the few largest categories. Sure, the aim is to have them qall dwindle in size, but it's far more sensible to have editors only need to sort through a few well-populated categories rather than many virtually empty ones. Say, for example that you were interested in towns in England, but in no specific place in England. It would be far easier for you to pick through ten categories each with 200 items than 50 each with 40 items. The aim is not to be comprehensive in splitting everything off, but rather to have things at the optimum size for editors.
Second, please don't use this sort of metatemplate - heavy-use templates are still a massive strain on the servers. There has been no "all clear" given that MW1.5 can handle all the previous problems with heavily populated template-driven categories, so it's safer not to risk using them until they've been okayed.
Third, it's a bit late to do that anyway, since a few of the categories have already been started - with more appropriate icons than a generic George.
Fourth, having said all that, parallelling the "main" categories is a very good idea, one which would be a very good one to follow. There are a few villages that I've noticed that are in more than one county category, but there would be no problem giving them two stub templates.
Grutness...wha? 10:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth does {{England-geo-stub|Dorset}} impose more load on the servers than {{Dorset-geo-stub}}? -- RHaworth 10:53:39, 2005-07-28 (UTC)
The England-geo-stub would be used on some 3600 stubs. We've been told many times that templates should not be on more than a few hundred stubs, as this places a big load on the servers. The same reason is why we stopped using metatemplates in gemeral wherever possible. Having separate templates for each stub type limits the number of articles which use any particular template. The problem is apparently exacerbated when an icon is on the template, too. this gives some of the information about the problem as it was before the upgrade. As I said, this may have been countered somewhat by MW1.5, but no-one's confirmed any improvement, and given that Wikipedia as a whole is growing exponentially, any solution there may or may not have been is likely to only have been temporary. Grutness...wha? 11:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New album stubs

I've moved this from the WP:WSS/ST talk page. --TheParanoidOne 10:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC) - Sorry keep getting confused. - (Erebus555 17:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

{{album-stub}} is getting very large now and I believe it should be split into more sub categories such as rock-album-stub or rap-album-stub. For the time being it should be split into very general groups so that we don't have a stub which will only get one page such as thrash-metal-stub. I believe the main categories should be:

  • Country-album-stub
  • Rock-album-stub
  • Rap-album-stub
  • RnB-album-stub
  • Dance-album-stub
  • Classical-album-stub

There might be more that could be added which I have not thought up yet but what do you tihnk? -(Erebus555 09:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

First it might be useful to determine what will get an album off the stub list. Most of the album articles I've seen say "X is an album by Y" and give a tracklist. In a majority of cases I don't see much chance they'll ever develop beyond that. Who's going to page through all the country-album-stubs, say, and expand those articles? There isn't much to say about most albums. What say we restrict the stub tag to those which just have the first sentence but no track list? There's a Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums with their own cleanup template, {{album}}.—Wahoofive (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{aero-corp-stub}} and {{telecom-corp-stub}}

Category:Corporation stubs is getting very large and could do with cleanup. There are many aeronautical and telecommunications corporations in this category. I propose these new stub categories, of which {{aero-corp-stub}} (created) should then become a daughter of {{aero-stub}} and of {{corp-stub}}. I haven't yet had the time to take stock of all the articles that would be covered by these new categories, but both would be substantial categories. More details and more related proposals coming up soon. Aecis 22:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC) (Proposal slightly edited since posting.)[reply]
Comment: under A alone, there are at least 41 articles about aeronautical corporations, and it doesn't slow down under B. Aecis 23:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the food stubs recently it seemed that there were a lot of food-corp-stubs and restaurant-stubs. There are probably a lot of them in corp-stub too - would they be worth splitting off as well? Grutness...wha? 02:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They could very well be worth splitting off as well. A few other options (I don't know if they'll be big enough to deserve a category of their own, but it's close): {{tech-corp-stub}}, {{entertainment-corp-stub}}, {{oil-corp-stub}} or {{petroleum-corp-stub}}, {{industry-corp-stub}} (a daughter of {{industry-stub}} and {{corp-stub}}), {{media-corp-stub}}, {{energy-corp-stub}}, {{distri-corp-stub}} and {{holding-stub}}. The Category:Corporation stubs is too big to check just how many articles would/could be moved to these categories, but they would all be substantial. Aecis 15:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that holding-stub and distri-corp-stub need better names... I take it the second one is for corporations that only operate in a particular district? other than that, they look fine. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Distri-corp-stub was meant for corporations in the distribution sector (shipping, express, perhaps mail/postal services) :s Do you have a better name in mind for holding-stub? Holding-company-stub? Aecis 08:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Among the stub categories were a few hidden subcategories of Category:Corporation stubs. I've edited their entries, and now they're shown in the Category:Corporation stubs. This could help us out for now. The {{media-stub}} I proposed is largely covered by {{publish-stub}}, and what isn't covered by that tag could be covered by {{entertainment-corp-stub}}. Many {{aero-corp-stub}}bable articles are covered by {{airline-stub}}). Aecis 16:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week now since I first proposed daughters to {{corp-stub}}. After Grutness' very valuable input and after adding several stub categories as daughters of Category:Corporation stubs, my final proposals are these:

  • {{aero-corp-stub}} - For corporations in the aeronautical industry. (created)
  • {{telecom-corp-stub}} - For telecommunications providers. (created)
  • {{leisure-corp-stub}} - For corporations involved in entertainment, leisure and perhaps sports and hotels.
  • {{energy-corp-stub}} - For corporations involved in wind energy, solar energy, nuclear energy, water energy and conventional (non-durable?) forms of energy.
  • {{industry-corp-stub}} - For corporations in the second economic sector: industry.
  • {{oil-corp-stub}} - For corporations involved in extracting, refining, processing, distributing and selling oil and related products.
  • {{food-corp-stub}} - For corporations producing candy, food and drinks, and for restaurants.
  • {{tech-corp-stub}} and/or {{ict-corp-stub}} - As the names say: for technological and ICT-related corporations. There is some overlap between the two categories, so I'm not sure if there need to be one or two stub tags.

Any views on this? Aecis 14:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. This will also help relieve my consternation with {{disney-stub}} (see discussion elsewhere on this page) being a subcategory of {{corp-stub}}: it can go under {{leisure-corp-stub}} after the split. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:03, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
What about arms manufacturers? Could they be moved to {{weapon-stub}} or should they stay in {{corp-stub}}? Aecis 17:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the proper wording for the stub tags. My ideas:
{{aero-corp-stub}} - This article about an aeronautical corporation is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. (created)
{{telecom-corp-stub}} - This article about a telecommunications provider is a stub... (created)
{{leisure-corp-stub}} -
If sport-related companied and hotel chains are included:
"This article about an entertainment-related, leisure-related or sports-related corporation, or about a hotel or a chain of hotels, is a stub..."
If sport-related companied and hotel chains are not included:
"This article about an entertainment or leisure-related corporation is a stub..."
{{energy-corp-stub}} - This article about an energy producing corporation is a stub...
{{industry-corp-stub}} - This article about an industrial corporation is a stub...
{{oil-corp-stub}} or {{petrol-corp-stub}} /{{petroleum-corp-stub}} - This article about a petroleum-related corporation is a stub...
{{food-corp-stub}} - This article about a corporation producing candy, food and/or drinks, or about a restaurant or a chain of restaurants, is a stub...
{{tech-corp-stub}} - This article about a technological corporation is a stub...
{{ict-corp-stub}} - This article about an ICT-related corporation is a stub...

Especially "Leisure-corp-stub" needs attention. Aecis 15:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{accounting-stub}}

I created this before I even knew we were supposed to ask first - sorry. Giving everyone a heads-up about it here so it can be properly discussed. Basically, I wanted to know more about double-entry book-keeping, but a lot of the articles for the specialized terms (like Normal balance and Expense) seemed pretty stubby and opaque. However, there wasn't an accounting-related stub already, so I created one, because it's something pretty much only accountants or accounting scholars would know a lot about. There are at least a few articles that are in the Accounting category but that have an {{econ-stub}} on them. Plenty of people probably don't think of themselves as experts on economics or finance, but know a lot about accounting (which is distinct from both); they should be given a chance to find these accounting-specific articles and improve them. --Skoosh 02:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are some candidates, all drawn from Category:Accounting, and which either I have judged to be stubs or have already been marked as econ-stubs.

--Skoosh 02:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And that looks like just A-C. If the rest of the alphabet have that many, I don't see any problem. Anyone else? Grutness...wha? 09:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This was added to the stub types list today by User:Renata3 but for some strange reason they renamed it to {{acc-stub}}. I have left a note on their taslk page, asking why. --TheParanoidOne 20:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{country-stub|CountryName}}

I created {{country-stub}}. Given a country name as the first parameter, emits stub template for that country. Note that the following are equivalent: {{country-stub|USA}}, {{country-stub|United States}}, {{country-stub|United States of America}}. I'm sure there will be comments. (SEWilco 08:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Nooooooooo!!!!!!!!! This was tried a couple of months back, and didn't work, and some of the damage it caused is still awaiting clearance at sfd! The reason? Not every country has a stub category, nor does it need one. Furthermore the categories are not named in any consistent way (although they should be...). Often countries are bundled together into regions, to make the categories a useful size. Stub categories are not equivalent to ordinary categories (it would probably be useful for them, but are only created to fulfil editorial needs. Stub categories are only created when there are a certain number of stubs - deliberately, so as to stop near-empty (and therefore useless) stub categories. We've still got a couple of near-empty and useless categories hanging around from last time this was tried, - it was seen as a perfect way for anyone who wanted to to suddenly start zapping off a SanMarino-stub or Andorra-stub. It's also a bad use of metatemplates, which we've been trying to reduce the use of for reasons of server problems (not sure whether it's still as big an issue with MW1.5, but no-one's said anything to the contrary). See here for details of the previous attempt. Please please please get rid of it before it does any damage!!! (By the way, any reason why you've listed this here as a found stub rather than a proposal?) Grutness...wha? 10:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Country stub groups? I can make the templates know the proper category for a specific country, so if the proper stub for the Bahamas should be a Caribbean-stub it will display that. This should reduce problems with an unwanted Andorra-stub by predefining the "stub group" for that country.
  • How does one now find the proper stub for a country? One has to browse Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types#Geographical, and note whether a regional Caribbean-stub or specific Cuba-stub is proper?
  • The previous GCS template had a problem with image names which is not present in this template. This was listed in Found because Stub instructions guided me there, but now moved to Proposals. (SEWilco 17:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
I'm still very very strongly against it. A major reason the previous proposal was rejected was that it would have ended up creating far more work for stub sorters. This looks to be very similar in that regard. I repeat: please please please get rid of it! Grutness...wha? 01:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way would preassigning all countries to a certain stub create more work? How likely is creation of Andorra-stub if Andorra is already assigned to a regional stub? For that matter, country-stub could replace existing stubs and thus there would be fewer actual stubs to deal with. (SEWilco 03:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  1. More typing - consider the lengths of {{US-stub}} and {{country-stub|US}}. Trivial, maybe, but over hundreds of stubs it adds up.
  2. Considerably more work when categories are split or otherwise need changing. Currently that only requires either changing the template and doing null edits on articles (category change) or adding a new template (category split).
  3. It's also more work for the servers. There has been no word yet on whether MW1.5 is any better than MW1.4 when it comes to heavy use of templates. That's one of the reasons stub categories are kept small. If, say, you were to use country-geo-stub plus modifier for all geography stubs. You'd be putting one template on about 30,000 articles. Recommended template use for MW1.4 was under 1000 - even if 1.5 is considerably better it would still be a major strain.

You also still haven't addressed the problems with the incosistency of category names. Will it work equally well for Category:Sri Lankan stubs, Category:France-related stubs and Category:Lebanon stubs, and for those where no flag is used so as to avoid political concerns? Grutness...wha? 03:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Shorter name can be provided, particularly if there are many people typing hundreds of stubs.
    2. Only each country's "stub group" would have to be edited to change or split assignments. For example, Iraq-stub did not exist until January 2005. If the stub template had the name of the country in them, all Iraq stubs could have been changed from MEast-stub to Iraq-stub by editing one entry in a template array. The same way that Bahamas information can be changed by editing arrays:
colspan="5" Template:Highlight3 | Name: "Bahamas"
Item Usage Content Edit Description
Flag   Template:Country flag alias Bahamas Edit Image of flag
Article [[Template:Country alias Bahamas]] Template:Country alias Bahamas Edit Article name
Label Template:Country label alias Bahamas Template:Country label alias Bahamas Edit Short label (ie, ISO abbrev.)
Common name [[Template:Country shortname alias Bahamas]] Template:Country shortname alias Bahamas Edit Common short name
Stub usage
Stub region image   Caribbean Edit Image for Bahamas stub articles
Stub region Caribbean Caribbean Edit Stub region for Bahamas


    1. I haven't referred to server load because there is no word. And it only matters when a template is edited. And the behavior is likely to change with changes in template abilities.
    2. It could handle a variety of category names, but it would seem that the categories should be made more consistent. There are several ways to deal with that situation.
    3. Flags are not a problem, because the same mechanism which will assign a country to a stub-group also assigns it an appropriate image. Including no flag if needed. (SEWilco 04:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
The more you talk about it, the more complex it seems to get. Now we've got the option of a multitude of names for the same stub, providing a multitude of images. I've moving slowly from strongly against this to extremely strongly against. If this had been set up at the beginning of stub sorting, it would probably have been a good idea, but this far down the track it's extraordinarily bad. PLEASE do not do this! Grutness...wha? 06:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you find "a multitude of images"? One image would be shown, it would be whatever image is associated with the stub-group for that country. The stub-group would either be for a region or for a specific country, depending upon whether a separate stub is needed for a country. (SEWilco 16:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
I changed the sample table above to refer to Bahamas. Here is the current display from {{country-stub|Bahamas}} (SEWilco 20:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Template:Country-stub

I would like to point, bty, that all stubs at the spanish Wikipedia are actually following this format Circeus 21:47, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

{{Washington State Highway Stub}}

I'm sorry... I sort of jumped the gun and created this already. It is used with Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington State Highways. It is just like {{California State Highway Stub}}, it is just for Washington. I will be adding this stub template to more of the WA state route articles, I just haven't gotten around to it yet. --Rschen7754

Country category standardization

It was recently pointed out that the country stub categories use different patterns. I suggest they all be changed to follow the pattern that for country X the stub category would be Category:X-related stub. The same applies to stubs for regions. I can arrange the changes. (SEWilco 20:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Proposed changes (based on Category:Stubs by region):

(SEWilco 07:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

{{compu-lang-stub}}

I changed the main category of this stub from Category:Computer science to Category:Programming languages. --R.Koot 21:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a reasonable move - although I don't suppose there's any reason why it can't feed into both... Grutness...wha? 01:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which is probably why you have an MSc. in psychology instead of computer science ;) --R.Koot 01:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken :) Grutness...wha? 05:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diving-stub

moved to the correct place on the page

We need a category {{diving-stub}}. Anthony Appleyard 05:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we? Are there at least 60 diving stubs? Grutness...wha? 09:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as the category is concerned. There are only four articles in there now. They all have an existing stub type so the diving-stub double stubs them. There was a fifth entry but I removed the stub from it as it was a disambiguation page. I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that there are sufficient diving related stub articles to warrant this stub type. --TheParanoidOne 11:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-constituency-stub}}

I noticed that Category:British politics stubs is completely overloaded with parliamentary constituency articles (there are 643 constituencies and most of the articles are stubs) - it makes it extremely difficult to browse through that category for those not interested in constituencies, and there are so many they deserve their own stub in my opinion. The related wikiproject for these articles is Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies. -- Joolz 00:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather keen to get started on this, are there any objections to me doing so? -- Joolz 20:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There haven't been any since you rased the idea, so it seems fairly safe to say "go for it!" Grutness...wha?
I'm glad you said that, since I'd already started by the time you said that I think ;) There were 595 (updated, I'd missed some! -- Joolz 20:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)) constituency stubs and there are now 58 articles left over with {{UK-poli-stub}} :) -- Joolz 18:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin stubs

In line with current stub architecture, I propose creating {{Wisconsin-geo-stub}} as a subcategory of the existing {{Wisconsin-stub}}. This will also act as a subcategory for {{US-midwest-geo-stub}} so that stubs on Wisconsin geographical features will not have to have both tags. The newly-formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Wisconsin will help destubify both of these stubs. I volunteer to mark all necessary articles with this tag. More than 50 articles will initial populate this stub category, with more stubs being formed as a result of the new wikiproject. --BaronLarf 00:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. --TheParanoidOne 05:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - last count showed just 39 Wisconsin-geo-stubs in the US midwest category, but there is a WP. Grutness...wha? 06:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{rail-accident-stub}} and {{US-railroad-stub}}

I've been going through Category:Rail stubs this week sorting as appropriate into subcategories (mostly into {{UK-depot-stub}}, but some into {{US-depot-stub}} and others into {{loco-stub}}). I've sorted pages up through the end of N as such. Looking through those that are left from A to N, the two categories that stand out most to me are articles about railroad accidents worldwide and articles about specific railroad companies in the US. Normally I would be bold and just create these two stub types, but I didn't want to step on any toes. slambo 11:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

{{US-rail-stub}} would fit the naming conventions (I thought it existed, actually...). Rail accidents would get both that and US-hist-stub. Grutness...wha? 11:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can see the bit on the naming convention for US-rail-stub, but I don't quite get your second comment. There are quite a few articles about railroad accidents outside the US such as Ghotki rail crash (Pakistan) and Al Ayyat train disaster (Egypt), so making rail-accident-stub a subcategory of US-hist-stub doesn't seem logical. slambo 11:37, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
My comment was simply where they should currently go, not a comment on whether a new stub category was necessary. And it was my fault for assuming that because you were talking about US railroads you were also talking about rail accidents in the US - of course if it was a disaster in, say Egypt, you'd currently use Africa-hist-stub. Perhaps a more general transport disaster stub of some kind would be better, though, covering everything from Quintinshill to Lockerbie (actually, that's only two miles, so it would need to cover more than that). Grutness...wha? 10:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Horseracing-stub}}

I'd like to recommend the creation of this stub. Responding to Wikipedia:Stub#New_stub_categories:

  1. No current stub exists to cover this topic.
  2. Horse racing would be a well defined stub area; anything horse racing related (such as tracks, horses, trainers, etc) could qualify.
  3. The new category would cover some areas of existing stubs, and create a well-defined stub category area.
  4. I expect the stub category to potentially cover hundreds of stubs over the long term. Near term, I found quite a few candidates from Category:Racehorses alone, such as Aristides (racehorse) and Assault (horse).
  5. The new stub would not overlap with other stubs; no existing stub does anything like a good job of addressing this stub category.
  6. I believe the new stub will significantly reduce {{sports-stub}}, and reduce confusion about stub sorting of a variety of article types including horses, tracks, and people related to horse racing.

I was motivated to recommend this stub when I found Rox dene on Special:Newpages. The article is clearly a stub, but I could find no clear stub category to place it in. Rox Dene is not a racing horse, but I found that if she were, there's no stub to add to the article that is truly appropriate. {{sports-stub}} is simply too generic. {{mammal-stub}} (Assault (horse) and others were placed in this stub-cat), is more related to species definition than anything. Further, looking at Top 100 U.S. thoroughbred champions of the 20th Century, there are 69 horses on that list alone that do not have articles and stand a good chance of being stubs when created. Taking a look at Category:Horse racing tracks in the United States, there are just 13 articles there. There are innummerable tracks in the U.S. alone, much less the world. These may generate 100s of stubs in the future, with little in the way of stub-sorting to help matters. I'm scratching the surface here, as there are quite a number of famed people in this realm as well, including jockeys (ex: Category:American jockeys), trainers (ex: Category:American horse trainers and owners (ex: Bob Baffert) which areas have and will generate many stubs. --Durin 19:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps, but I'm thinking that's still too generic. Equestrian sports covers a very, very large area well in excess of the horse racing sub set. There are thousands of farms dedicated to breeding, raising, and training horses for sporting events that do not involve racing. Similarly, there are many events of this type (think Dressage and Rodeo for examples). Horse racing is a sub set of equestrian sporting events that covers a very large area on its own. I thought of the possibility similar to what you suggest, but felt the stub would become just too expansive, much like the {{sport-stub}} is now. --Durin 13:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We must keep in mind that a stub is an editing aid (Imho), and so is needed only when the amount of stubs pertaining to it reach a certain level (about 60-100), so you can't count the articles that may be created in the future. Btw, the jockeys may go in the {{sportbio-stub}} Lectonar 13:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my response to (4) above, I noted that I found many candidates. I had considered going through all those horses to find stub candidates that would fit the criteria for this stub, and that's just horses. I didn't do that because it was so time consuming an endeavour. Are you suggesting I do that to support creation of this stub template? I can assure you I can find plenty of stubs that would fit within this category. I would hope you're not suggesting I find at least 60 candidates before we can define this stub. --Durin 16:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and compiled a list of existing candidate articles for this stub. You may view the list at User:Durin/Horseracing-stub. In total, I found 140 articles in my review, which was not comprehensive. --Durin 21:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the suggestion of using {{sportbio-stub}} for jockeys: Yes, that's true. I think in the future there will be room for {{jockeybio-stub}}, but there's not enough articles to support that at this time. So, the jockey bios should, at a minimum, go into {{sportbio-stub}} as you suggest. However, they will be hopelessly lost in the quagmire that is that category, which currently has 1800+ articles. Having this proposed stub would help to direct efforts on these articles. --Durin 21:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to point out Wikipedia:Stub#New_stub_categories item #2, where it says "Remember that using stubs categories is a way to facilitate article expansion." Right now, a person with knowledge of horse racing has no ready tool to help them identify articles related to this large international sport. Who would ever look to {{mammal-stub}} to find horse stubs to work on (which itself has 500+ stubs in category)? Some stub sorting could help here, but where do you put horses? Similarly, where do you put racetracks, races, trainers, owners, farms, etc. in any sense that relates to horse racing? It would still be scattershot. By having this stub, we provide a tool whereby someone with knowledge on this sport can find relevant stubs. Without it, there is nothing available that makes sense. In reviewing the status of various articles for the user subpage noted above, I found a stunning (given the fame, money and history of this sport) lack of information, poor organization and number of missing articles. Having this stub would help to cleanup this dirty corner of Wikipedia by directing the efforts of people with knowledge of this sport. --Durin 21:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Newbury Racecourse would qualify for the stub. The {{UK-struct-stub}} has ~765 stubs in it. That's a bit unwieldy. Adding a {{horseracing-stub}} would help gain focus on articles within the UK stub that are horse racing related. I'm concerned about {{equestrian-stub}} being far too expansive to be a reasonable stub category. There are millions upon millions of horses in the world. Only a small percentage of those are involved in racing, yet the racing area is large enough in itself to warrant a stub (as observed by the sub page where I noted 140 articles that would qualify for {{horseracing-stub}}). I fear creating {{equestrian-stub}} without at least creating {{horseracing-stub}} would be like creating a notional {{ballsports-stub}} and insisting all baseball, basketball, American football, football, rugby, tennis and more stubs be included in it. It would be unfocused. --Durin 02:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Something is definitely needed. At the moment, racecourses tend to get geo-stub or struct-stub, and I've even had to resort to giving famous racehorses bio-stub before now. Trouble with the term equestrian is that it brings to mind show-jumping rather than horse racing. For that reason I'd prefer {{horseracing-stub}}, with a possible subsidiary {{horseracingbio-stub}} which - if cleverly worded - could accommodate both the people and the horses involved. Grutness...wha? 02:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with your statements regarding equestrian vs. horseracing. See my notes above also, where I noted Dressage and Rodeo as other events/horses/people within a notional {{equestrian-stub}} template. {{horseracing-bio-stub}} seems a bit long though. Stub policy allows for two stub templates max per stub article. I think having a {{sportsbio-stub}} and {{horseracing-stub}} for jockeys, owners and trainers would cover this base. What do you think? Saying "biography" in relation to a horse seems...strange :) m-w.com counts biography [1] in relation to an animal as acceptable usage though. --Durin 02:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{horseracingbio-stub}}, not {{horseracing-bio-stub}} (my fault). But it should still be something shorter. jockey-stub makes sense, but cuts out trainers etc... how about {{turf-stub}} and {{turfbio-stub}}? Or is that too ambiguous? Grutness...wha? 10:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • {{turf-nnnnnn}} ...'turf' does seem ambiguous. The term 'turf' is used in other sports as well. For example, AstroTurf and Artificial turf. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types#Sports under Sportspeople stubs, your suggestion of {{horseracingbio-stub}} fits the pattern, even if it's a bit long. I can't see that there's a way to shorten it though and still have it make sense. Are we settling then on {{horseracing-stub}} and {{horseracingbio-stub}} both being created? If we create both, do you think we should put horses in the former or the latter? I'm inclined towards the former, and let the bio stub take care of jockeys, trainers, owners and any other human generally associated with the sport. The non-bio stub would then cover horses, tracks, races, farms and anything else not covered by the bio stub. What do you think? --Durin 13:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done considerably more work on User:Durin/Horseracing-stub. That page now lists 225 articles as candidates for this stub. Of note; 96 of those articles are currently listed at the over-burdened {{sport-stub}} category. If the {{horseracing-stub}} were created, it would reduce the load on {{sport-stub}} 8.5% (after the stub sorting was done, which I'm willing to do). To any doubters that the proposed stub is too specific; I think we're clearly well beyond that consideration given the presence of at least 225 articles that would qualify. --Durin 18:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I think we're all convinced :). Grutness...wha? 01:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Primitive-Technology-stub}}

What about a {{Primitive-Technology-stub}}, none of the other {{tech-stub}} categories seem to match. --Pappa 09:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{chemist-stub}}

Scientist stubs is 6 pages. I'd guess there's atleast 100 suitable stubs, between that category, and unsorted ones in People stubs. --Mairi 01:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have this, and the one below. Paul J 11:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{physicist-stub}}

Similar reasoning as for {{chemist stub}}; I'd guess there's atleast 100 stubs that'd go in here. --Mairi 01:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ireland-bio-stub}}

I would like to propose a biography stub, specifically for the people of Ireland. I've come across a few articles deserving of such a stub, such as John T. Browne and Seán Haughey. Both of them were politicians, so I used that stub instead. Other countries have their own biography stubs. It's only right that the Irish have theirs as well. Thank you for taking the time to read my proposal. If anyone notices other stub articles about residents of Ireland, please add them to this list. --Ryan 01:50, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly reasonable, as long as it can be well populated (which I should think qould be no trouble). Surprised it hasn't already been made, in fact. Grutness...wha? 02:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! I found two more candidates: Patrick Lindsay and Seán Moylon. Again, both are politicians, but from Ireland nonetheless. At this rate, perhaps we should add an Irish politician stub. --Ryan 05:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I would say: green lights; btw, Seán Haughey is only a stub? Isn't there a new book about him out? Lectonar 06:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Ryan 08:28, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Southern and Northern California geo-stubs

Currently Category:California geography stubs has 400+ articles, and roughly 2/3rds of the 60 Category:California-related stubs are also geo-stubs and should be re-stubbed. My guess is that there may also be at least 50 more short Calif. geography articles that don't have stub tags or are inappropriately tagged. Then there are a huge number of community articles that have not been created yet (see the red-links at San Diego, California#Neighborhoods and San Diego County, California#Cities and towns in San Diego County for just the San Diego County examples). Since there is now a Southern California WikiProject (as well as a new California WikiProject), I'd like to divide the Calif. geo-stubs into Northern and Southern Calif. geo-stubs. If approved, I'll let you guys suggest the most appropriate template and category names. BlankVerse ∅ 08:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split sounds good to me. Make sure the boundary between the regions is well defined with words and picture(s) so stub sorters know where to put articles. If we follow the US-geo-stub split model, the names would be California-north-geo-stub and California-south-geo-stub. Could the larger cities be broken out instead? LosAngeles-geo-stub, SanDiego-geo-stub, SanFrancisco-geo-stub? Would that make California-geo-stub more manageable? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 18:00, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
A split is reasonable, but - as with Fingers-of-Pyrex - I wonder whether this is the best way - wouldn't having a separate LosAngeles-geo-stub by itself reduce the category considerably? Other than that, what F-o-P says sounds right on the money. Grutness...wha? 02:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the two regions, there is a nice map of Southern California at the Southern California WikiProject, plus a listing of the counties involved under the "Scope" section. Northern California would be everything else.
I had also thought about breaking the Calif-geo-stubs into smaller regions. If things went that way, I would suggest probably by county for Southern Calif., and by region for Northern Calif. (which has a bunch of small counties). The main reasons that I didn't suggest going that route right away are 1) There are only the two WikiProjects 2) I'm not sure, except for a few of the very large counties like LA County and San Diego County, if there are enough stubs. Even Orange County, because it has a moderate number of medium-sized cities without many separate communities worthy of an encyclopedia entry, probably doesn't have enough stubs to have its own stub category.
However, I have a BIG problem with just a "generic" LosAngeles-geo-stub. Los Angeles is a city, a county, a region, a flood plain, etc. (which is one of the reasons the Los Angeles article is such a mess because it conflates all of those entities). That's another reason that I prefer the all-encompassing SoCal-geo-stub. BlankVerse ∅ 08:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest that the obvious thing to do might be just to have a Category:Southern California geography stubs (with {{California-south-geo-stub}}) as a subcategory of Category:California geography stubs. Don't bother with a Northern California one for now. It will probably take the category from 500 stubs to 250 plus a subcategory. Why double your work moving the remaining stubs from a well-defined category to a less-well defined one? Grutness...wha? 09:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{rpg-stub}}

I've been doing some editing on references for Hero Games and its related references, and I'd like to see a separate subcategory within {{game-stub}} for role-playing games. These games are very different from other types, and even have their own community. Stubs from GURPS, D&D, and other games and game systems would go in there as well. BobGreenwade 17:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't name it rpg-stub (too vague). Maybe role-game-stub? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 18:03, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Good suggestion -- probably roleplaying-game-stub. How's that? BobGreenwade 18:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What about roleplay-stub? I don't think there are many "roleplaying" categories and many stub names are even more vague than that (rpg-stub would be too ambiguous, tho, being an abbreviation and all that). Ashmodai 21:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My main resistance to roleplay-stub is the potential confusion with sexual roleplaying. (I don't even want to go into the number of people I've seen embarrass themselves over that ambiguation....) BobGreenwade 16:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{roleplaying-game-stub}} would be in line with other current names, although roleplaying0game-stub is a bit long. BTW, note the conversation below at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#FR-stub, which discusses rpgs as a possible stub category. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religion stubs

Category:Religion stubs

4 pages, some churches/cathedrals, some denominations.
  • Category:Catholic-related stubs
3 pages, many of them churches/cathedrals.
  • Category:Christianity-related stubs
4 pages, some churches, some denominations.

For the moment, a category for protestant churches (the buildings, and the congregations that go with them), and parallel ones for RC parish churches and cathedrals would be helpful.

There are already Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran subcategories, which will bring pressure to add additional such denominational subcats. For the moment, adding Category:Protestant denominations would also be helpful. --FourthAve 19:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that this page is not about general categories, but stubs? If there are sufficient stub articles then it shouldn't be a problem creating something along the lines of {{protestant-stub}} and Category:Protestant stubs. Are there sufficient numbers? --TheParanoidOne 19:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I had in mind. There are a lot of Catholic parish churches here, perhaps as many as 100, probably somewhat fewer, but they certainly do come along. These articles tend to be very short. For the moment, a protestant denomination stub would be useful too (it would not get that big). I'm just trying to be helpful. While nowhere near as bad as the Great Dismal Swamp that is biostub, it's slowly getting there. --FourthAve 20:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. Many olf the religions involved dislike the term protestant, but I understand your point. It might be useful, assuming there were enough stubs. Grutness...wha? 08:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Papal stubs basically dupes Category:Popes. I wonder if antipopes should be moved out too. This category contains nothing relating to the popes other than pope bios covered in Popes. Aggh. --FourthAve 21:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I wonder if you are misunderstanding the difference in purpose between stub categories and standard categories. If all the articles in Category:Popes are also in Category:Papal stubs, it simply means that all the articles need expansion. as they are expanded, they will be removed from the stub category but remain in the main category. This allows editors to find articles on popes that need expansion. Grutness...wha? 07:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There are a lot of them in the various struct-stub categories. Having separate {{church-stub}}, {{UK-church-stub}}, {{US-church-stub}}, {{Euro-church-stub}}, {{Asia-church-stub}} (or perhaps {{XX-reli-struct-stub}} in each case?) would be very usefu, as it would significantly reduce the equivalent struct-stub categories. Those can feed into reli-stub and struct-stub as parent categories. Since many smaller churches are multidenominational and information on individual churches will be as much (if not more) about the structure as the use of the structure, it makes little sense to link them to individula denominations. Grutness...wha? 07:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{labor-bio-stub}}

I just started at this stub-sorting project and the first person I pick, Albert Shanker, is a labor organizer. Shouldn't there be a bio stub for labor leaders? –Shoaler (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm. If there were, then something like Unionist-bio-stub would be a better name, since labout is a word that varies spelling between North American English and Rest-of-the-world English (Australia, being weird, uses both spellings for two different things). Also several countries have political parties called Labour, so you might end up getting MPs in there too. Not sure how many articles there'd be, but there may well be enough for a separate stub. Grutness...wha? 06:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unionist would not be a good name for it because Unionist also has many different meanings, including the name of some Northern Ireland political parties and I agree that Labor/Labour should be avoided for the same reason. How many articles are there which would be stubbed with this, out of interest? -- Joolz 18:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Mythology Stubs

{{Myth-stub}} category is getting very, very full. Perhaps split by continent, eg: {{Euro-myth-stub}}, {{Africa-myth-stub}}, etc, or even by country/region: {{Greek-myth-stub}} would probably be handy GeeJo 00:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By continent first would probably be the best way, since several countries share similar mythologies but few are common to more than one continent. I'd suggest Euro, Asia, Africa, Americas and Oceania as being the obvious five. Might be worth going through a sample of the myth-stub category (say the first page) to see what sort of count is likely for each category. Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Norse may be worth separate categories too, but I'd stick with the continents as a start. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Breakdown of the first 200 stubs in the category goes like this:
  • Africa (Not counting Egypt): 8
  • America: 22
  • Asia: 24
  • Europe (Not counting Norse, Roman, or Greek):39
  • Oceania: 12
  • Greek: 68 (!)
  • Norse: 7
  • Egyptian: 4
  • General: 7 (Ranging from Abrahamic Mythology to a Demonology article)
  • Roman (Not counting Etruscan): 11

From this I'd say Greek definitely deserves its own among the europeans. The others could probably go into their respective continents. GeeJo 05:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're right. In that case:
...seems reasonable to me. The others could remain in the general category for now, although the demonology one probably needs a different stub to myth (occult-stub, maybe?). Note three other things: 1)many myths may be in individual country-stub categories. 2) A lot of Roman mythology stubs may be stubbed with Roman-stub. 3) There is already at least one subcat of Americas-myth-stub - Inca-myth-stub. Does this seem reasonable to everyone else? Grutness...wha? 06:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Greek and European would appear to reduce the category by half, so I'd definitely go for them. As to the others, the logical breakdown makes sense but I have no strong opinion about them one way or another. --TheParanoidOne 09:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Might be as well to create them first then... go through the category, re-stub the Greek and European ones, and see what others are there as we go. Grutness...wha? 11:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just added {{myth-stub}} to 70-some articles on Polynesian mythology, so {{Oceania-myth-stub}} would definitely be useful. --Mairi 03:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honduras-geo-stub

Overnight(!), User:SqueakBox has created an astonishing 212 geo-stubs relating to Honduras. Suddenly, the need for a separate Honduras-geo-stub has gone from low to high. Any objections? Grutness...wha? 23:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

create it as quickly as possible to reduce restubbing work for new articles in Honduras. Possibly also think about allowing more country-geo-stubs to avoid future restubbing, e.g. Bolivia-geo-stub. Nearly all Latin American countries are only at the beginning of beeing flooded with geo-stubs. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 09:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It can wait the week - it'll be the same amount of work either way. As for the other countries, they will be proposed iff they reach the criteria. Any flood can be handled when it occurs - as with the current case. Grutness...wha? 03:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Animation-stub and Disney-stub

Today I replaced {{cartoon-stub}} with {{animation-stub}} on WP:WSS/ST. Under it, I added {{Hanna-Barbera-stub}} and {{Looney-tunes-stub}}. This is in the supercategory of Language and literature. I assume that it was located there because cartoon-stub was thought to cover comics as well? Anyway, I just noticed {{animation-stub}} listed under Theatre and film, which makes more sense to me. (I'll remove animation stub from the former if no one objects.)

But this brings up a second point: should {{Disney-stub}} be a subcategory of {{animation-stub}} considering it contains articles such as Compass Rose Corporation and Pleasure Island? Perhaps it should move to a subcategory of {{Corp-stub}}? I haven't done a count, but perhaps {{Disney-stub}} should be split into two: Disney-animation-stub and Disney-corp-stub? Thoughts? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 01:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mmm. good point. I don't know if we need to split it, but perhaps putting one of the italicised "See under" lines {{Disney-stub}}, see under Corp-stub below, or whatever, where it is on the animation list would make more sense. It would also make it more clear that it covered aspects of Disney other than just the cartoons. Grutness...wha? 04:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. But I'm not 100% happy with Category:Disney stubs being a subcategory of Category:Corporation stubs—it looks out of place to me among the other generic subcategories. I guess I'd like it better if Disney was a subcategory of US-corp-stub, but that doesn't exist. If anyone has any better ideas, get to it. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 18:30, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

River-stub

I could have sworn that I'd seen this; has it been deleted? It would be very useful, as many rivers pass through different countries, necessitating either an invidious choice between country stubs or multiple stubs.

Deleted long ago. Not that many rivers go through more than three countries, and those that do can just be given the continent or region's geo-stub (Asia, Europe, Africa, and South America all have continent-geo-stub templates - Africa also has regional ones). And double-stubbing when a river goes through two countries isn't so bad. As for three countries... either is possible; technically three stubs is frowned on, but some of us turn a blind eye to a third template. So, for example:
Grutness...wha? 04:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought that there were rather a lot of rivers that flowed through more than one country (especially in Europe and Africa), but OK. There's at least one instruction somwhere that tells editors not to use more than one stub per article; does that need to be changed? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did say "Not that many rivers go through more than three countries". And the rule used is "two different stub templates may be used, but using more than two is strongly discouraged" (third paragraph of WP:STUB#Categorizing_stubs). More than one stub is necessary a lot of the time. Grutness...wha? 11:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Computer and video game stubs

There's a cvg-stub currently used by over 2000 articles (way over the recommended 800 limit), which needs to be split up some. Here's a few suggestions of mine:

  • Stub category for game-only/game series pages. This would differentiate them from the game character/developer/other related CVG pages.
  • Perhaps these should then be split up too, I'm thinking per decade, 80's games, 90's games, 00's games
  • Stub category for game-related articles only. This would include characters, mods, game developers, publishers, etc.

I've noticed a "Nintendo" stub too, which may work as an alternative, but I'm not sure if that's the best way to go about it...the reason I'm thinking a decade split would be best is because it's the least overlapping system (compared to say, by console). --ADeveria 13:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with the "by system" method is that a lot of games would end up having a bunch of stub tags (say PS2, Xbox, PC) which would seem to me rather cluttered (can you imagine the Lemmings article, if it were a stub?). Admittedly, it would be more helpful for those seeking only to work on articles for these systems. I'm not sure which of these two factors is more important. Series works fine, but does not significantly reduce total amount of CVG stubs. --ADeveria 13:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that's another alternative I forgot to mention...there might still be a few games that fall into more than one genre, but generally that system should work... In defense the decades, I would say that for at least 99% of all games you can find the year released online, Nintendo has lists on its site for all its games for all its systems on its site, with release dates...and I don't believe people are likely to look for games by the stub categories as much as they would the regular categories. --ADeveria 14:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I am applying stub templates to articles, I want the contents of the article to tell me what type to use. I don't want to have to go off and research it. --TheParanoidOne 19:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I guess Lectonar's suggestion is probably the best then, although unfortunately some CVG stubs may also require research on what genre to pick for it. --ADeveria 20:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals&oldid=20025726"