Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria

This page is for discussion and vote of the final hierarchy. Discussions on new or deleted stubs should also be posted here. All suggested stubs that would then implemented have been deleted from the list.

Current proposed hierarchy

This is the current proposed hierarchy. The following criterias are observed:

place stub enter the bulls-eye area categories, from continent/region to country, to subdivision, to cities.
1. Stubs limited to a country are included into the area-tree
No more than 3 level separes the front from the category, except in specific subcategories (webcomics, under comics) and the area-tree

Area-stubs (Other than geo stubs)
- Country-related-stubs
  - Politics of Hong Kong stubs
  - Peerage stubs (under UK stubs)
  - Region-related-stubs
    - City-related stubs
      - London tube stubs
      - New York City Subway stubs

Arts and literature stubs
- Artists stubs
- Music stubs
  - Composers stubs
  - Musician Stubs
  - Album Stubs
- Literature stubs
  - Book stubs (*)
    - Harry Potter stubs (?)
    - Tolkien stubs
    - Honorverse stubs
  - Science fiction stubs
  - Comics stubs
    - Web comics stubs(?)
    - Anime and Manga stubs
- Movie stubs(?)
  - Robotech stubs
  - Filming stubs(?)
  - Star War stubs(?)
- Theatre stubs
  - Play stubs(*)

Building and Structure stubs
- Museum stubs

Business & Economics-stubs (*)
- Corporation stubs
  - Airlines stubs
  - Disney stubs
- Economics stubs

Education stubs (*)
- Museum stubs
- School stubs (*)
- University stubs

Geo stubs
- Geographical terms stubs
- Geo stubs by area
  - Counry-geo-stubs
- Oceanography stubs
- Road stubs

Historical stubs
- Jewish history-related stubs
- Ancient Egypt stubs

Humanities stubs (*)
- Ethnicity stubs
  - Indian people stubs
  - Area-people stubs (*)
- Law stubs
- Linguistics stubs
- Language stubs
- Mythology stubs
- Parapsychology stubs
- Philosophy stubs

Media-related stubs(*)
- Filming stubs(?)
- Magazines stubs
- Newspaper stubs
- PBS stubs
- Station stubs
- Television stubs
  - Television biographical stubs
  - Animation stubs
    - Anime and Manga stubs
- Internet stubs(*)
  - Internet domains
  - Web comics stubs

Organization stubs
- Corporation stubs
  - Airlines stubs
  - Disney stubs
- Museum stubs
- School stubs
- Theatre stubs
- University stubs
- United Nations stubs
- Government stubs

People stubs
- Actor stubs
- Artists stubs
- Astronomers stubs
- Mathematician stubs
- Peerage stubs
- Politician stubs
- Sportspeople stubs
- Television biographical stubs

Politics stubs
- Liberal related stubs
- Female stubs
- Election stubs
- Politics of Hong Kong stubs
- Peerage stubs

Religion stubs
- Buddhism stubs
- Christianity stubs
- Judaism stubs
  - Hebrew Bible/Tanakh-related stubs
  - Jewish history-related stubs
- Islam-related stubs
- LDS stubs

Science stubs
- Biology stubs
  - Anatomy stubs
  - Biochemistry stubs
  - Cell biology stubs
  - Animal stubs
    - Dog stubs
  - Plant stubs
  - Fungi stubs
  - Bacteria stubs
- Archaeology stubs
- Astronomy stubs
  - Astronomers stubs
  - Astronomic object stubs(*)
- Chemistry stubs
  - Substance stubs(*)
  - Biochemistry stubs
- Economic Stubs
- Geographical term stubs
- Geology stubs
- Math stubs
  - Mathematician stub
  - Number stubs
  - Knots
- Medicine stubs
  - Anatomy stubs
  - Biochemistry stubs
  - Cell biology stubs
- Oceanography stubs
- Physics stubs
- Psychology stubs

Sport stubs
- American Football stubs
- Baseball stubs
- Basketball stubs
- Cricket stubs
- Cycling stubs
- Football (soccer) stubs
- Ice hockey stubs
- Martial arts stubs (?)
- Olympic stubs
- Rugby union stubs
- Sportspeople stubs
- Tennis stubs

Substance stubs(*) -> Chenmistry stubs
- Mineral stubs
- Drug stubs(*)

Technology stubs
- Computers, gaming and programming stubs(*)
  - Computer Stubs
    - Programming stubs
    - Program and system stubs(*)
      - KDE stubs
      - Linux stubs
      - Mac OS X stubs
      - Microsoft Windows stubs
    - Wireless stubs
  - Computer and video games stubs
  - Game stubs
- Internet stubs(*) -> Media stubs
  - Internet domains
  - Web comics stubs
- Cryptography stubs
- Standards stubs
- Telecommunications stubsTemplate:Fn

Transportation stubs(*)
- Aircraft stubs
- Airlines stubs
- Airport stubs
- Automobile stubs
- Station stubs
- Rail and subway stubs
  - London tube stubs
  - New York City Subway stubs
- Road stubs
- Water-transport stubs

Military stubs
- Other appropriate stubs categorues (*)
- Weapon stubs
- Naval stubs

New sections and categories

Major categories

Transportation stubs
Stubs by area
1. areas: Balkans, Middle-east, South America, Europe
2. country-stubs and country-geo-stubs for all countries
Humanities stubs
Media-related stubs
Substance stubs
1. Drug stubs (include other active substances)
Computer, Gaming and Programming stubs
Business and economics stubs
Education stubs
1. School stubs

Other

Book stubs
Morphology stubs (expansion of Anatomy stubs to include plants)
Play stubs
Astronomic object stubs
Program and system stubs
Politician stubs

Deleted categories

(Won't be deleted if a wikiproject is using them)

City stubs (merged into country-geo-stubs or country-city-stubs)
Bomber stubs (Merged into AIrcraft stubs)
Van stubs (Merged into car stubs)
Female stubs (renamed to Feminism stubs)
Pub stubs (merge with structure stubs)

'Miscellaneous' categories

Agriculture stubs
Festival stubs
Food and drink stubs
Magic stubs
Pokemon stubs
Toys stubs

Proposed inter-supercategory moves

law-stub to "Government and Politics"
Magic-stub to "Arts and Entertainment" [new name for "The Arts"?]
philo-stub (Philosophy) to Science ?
Agri-stub (Agriculture) to Science?
fest-stub (Festivals) to "Arts and Entertainment"
PBS stub to "Arts and Entertainment"

Discussion on movement of subcategories across supercategories

I think fest should remain under reli, as many fests are reli; but should also be elsewhere. And I don't think entertainment is a suitable "elsewhere". —msh210 16:11, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In my current proposal, festivals are not under any supercategory. However, a new event-stub could cover that field quite efficiently and include news-event-stubs (recent events), fest-stubs (any regular/cyclic event? I haven't looked at it in details, but I do think it should/could encompass much morwe.) and hist-event-stubs (historical events, duplicated under historical stubs). Any though? --Circeus 16:45, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought I saw fest under entertainment or some such. I don't think news-event is a good category: every news-event becomes an hist-event after a finite amount of time. Just leave it at "event". Otoh, I don't think fest belongs under event. A fest is not a regular/cyclic event. It's a regular/cyclic/irregular/acyclic commemoration/holiday/etc. Some may be events but others (I'd say most) (e.g., Easter) are not. (The thing that Easter commemorates was an histrical (or mythological) event, but Easter itself is not, except in the sense that everything that occurs is an event (which is true but useless).) —msh210 18:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In general, I find that listing stub categories under other stub categories is a useful thing that should be done wherever appropriate. (Someone could easily put a religious festival into Category:Religion stubs without realizing that fest-stub exists.) It helps to keep things organized—as much as is currently possible, at least. -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposed new stubs

If you wish to propose a new stub category-and-template, please follow that following procedure:

List it here, under a header, like the ones shown (if any). But mark it with a datestamp (~~~~).
Find a good number of stub articles, as mnay 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),
- whose categorizaion is highly ambiguous or
- not marked as a stub.
Others will do the same, if they feel like it.
One week after listing it here, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new category and template.

weather-stub

not discussed before, there are numerous stubby weather articles without labels, or are labeled as sci-stub or geo-stubs

Wrong name Use meteo-stub (meteorology) over weather-stub. --Circeus 17:39, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

fashion

dance

slang terms

Currently moving to lang-stub

EXTREME disagree with both merge and new term. lang-stub is for languages (French, Nahuatl etc.) stubs, NOT word stubs. Also, I think a categorization (slang terms, obviously) is more appropriate than a stub categorization. Circeus 11:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I, too, disagree with the merge. Lang is for languages, as Circeus has noted; ling-stub is for linguistics. Slang terms belong there more than they do under lang-stub, but I don't think they should even go under ling-. How about a new word-stub, if there are enough articles (which I doubt!). These would be articles solely about words, not about the referents of those words. But such articles are candidates for being moved to Wiktionary.... How about we just drop this whole idea, huh? —msh210 17:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disagree: use the categorization option as noted and avoid slang categorization => Lang-stub Courtland 12:48, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

children's literature

Public-Transport

Might be an idea under Transportation. Unless there is opposition I'll add it to the hierarchy. --Circeus 17:39, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

ocean-studies

Has been implemented as category: Oceanography stubs, which SHOULD NOT include oceans or seas.

This stub was actually around on the list for quite some time, but seems to have been overlooked. It's for such things as trenches and other seafloor features, ocean currents, and the like.

Birds

Weak support. Ask at Wikiproject Birds. If they like it, do it (don't forget to list it on the above hiererchy!) --Circeus 17:39, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Scientists

Appropriate under science (include astronomer and mathematician) and people. Will add to hierarchy unless opposition --Circeus 17:39, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Your proposal is to roll Astronomer and Mathematician into a general Scientists category and place this category under Science, right? Courtland 02:36, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Microorganism

~~(or anything that would cover bacterias and virii)~~

Use bacteria stub

Hinduism and Paganism

Will add them to hierarchy unless there is opposition. --Circeus 17:39, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Buildings and structures suggestions

Now that the geo-stubs are organised by country (which I feel a bit embarrassed avbout, having embarked on that project and largely completed it before I knew how bureacratised the stub-sorting section was - apologies if I trod on any toes doing that!)... erm, where was I? Ah yes. Now that the geo-stubs are organised by country, I'd suggest that it would make more sense to organise buildings and structures by that method than by type of structure. It seems logical to me that someone living in a particular area would have more resources to find out about the structures in that area than they would to find out about all bridges worldwide, say. Given that there are about 500 struct-stub articles, I'm not proposing the large numbers of subcategories that there are for the now over 5000 geo-stubs, but having the following three might be very useful: US-struct-stub, UK-struct-stub, and Euro-struct-stub. Each of those would have at least 50-100 articles. Any others subcategories would only be considered by me if there were more than about 50 from a particular area (Canada might just scrape in, I'd have to check). Any thoughts? Grutness|^hello? 11:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A quick sample suggests around 170 UK, 110 US, and 60 European struct-stubs, with 160 from elsewhere. Grutness|^hello?

Sounds logical. They could be listed under country-(geo)-stubs and structure-stubs by categories. Go ahead. (don't forget to edit the final hierarchy accordingly) --Circeus 14:12, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to add - this doesn't mean that types of structures (such as the museum-stub) aren't also useful. There's nothing to stop a museum in London, say, from being both a UK-struct-stub and a museum-stub, in the same way that a Swedish writer might be both a writer stub and a Sweden-related stub. That way it would feed subcategories of UK-geo-stub, and struct-stub, and museum articles. In fact subcategorising them by region might make it more apparent what types of structures the stub articles are about (I'd be able to tell if there were lots of bridges or stadia, for instance) Grutness|^hello? 22:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cthulhu

I've noticed an awfully large number of Lovecraftian stubs... is it worth having a separate Cthulhu mythos stub (maybe Cthu-stub so it's easier to spell!) as a subcategory of lit-stubs? Grutness|^hello? 23:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

State-stub

For some of the larger US States, there's enough information to warrant individual stub categories. I'm working on Template:Texas_stub right now (Currently has 18 pages, will be expanding). This will allow those who have lots of knowledge for an individual state (not uncommon) to focus there instead of sifting through oodles of United States stubs. --YixilTesiphon 02:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not really a vote (although I sway towards yes), more a question - Are these state geo-stubs, or just basic state stubs. If the latter, do you intend to put individual state geo-stubs in there as well? There are certainly enough US-geo-stubs to subdivide them like this, but I suspect there are other types of articles (e.g., politics and bio) which would also go in there. In either case, it would be worth linking the new category (up to 50 categories?) into both the US-geo-stub and US-stub categories. Grutness|^hello? 05:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I sway the No = Disagree direction. What I've been doing for place-related stubs is stubbing them to the available geography categories (at the country or region level) then categorizing the article to the finest geographical category available. For instance, see the stub Dauphin county library system for an example. This might put the stub in front of a local person who knows a lot about Dauphine County, PA, USA perhaps while knowing little at the state-level. Courtland 06:30, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

That's fine if you know all the local area categories for the US... personally I think it would be easier just to remember the names of the 50 states. Also, many articles will be about items that transcend local county boundaries while staying within a state: large geographic features, state politicians, and the like. It also saves people from having to look us all the county names in a state if they do know about the whole state. Most states will only have 100 stubs tops, at a guess - a reasonable number to look for for things to write - whereas US as a whole currently has just over 1000 geo-stubs - too many for a casual Wikipedian. The more I think about this, the more it seems like a good idea to me. Grutness|^hello?

06:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. Most of them are likely to be small localities and counties thus I say we resurrect a us-city-stub (Or something akin). If that doesn't eliminates most of the small towns little can be written about by outsiders anyway, then add maybe regional us-geo-stub. Please, DO NOT mix stub types, country-stubs are for country-related topics, state politicians goes into the future politician-stub. --Circeus 13:07, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Archived discussion on formerly proposed new stubs

The following discussion is archived. You may add to it as appropriate. However, to start a new discussion about a new stub proposed above, please discuss it under that stub's heading. Thanks!

I've went ahead and create the biochem stub. I definitely think we need a weather/meteorology. I don't really consider philosophy a science (not even social science). --jag123 16:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, philosophy was a science if you consider historically... all the Greeks who have put down some of our basic (our starting point) were all philosophers. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true (for western philosophy, not eastern) but it doesn't really mean anything. If Jesus had actually been a carpenter, I wouldn't put Christianity into woodworking. However, the "Is philosophy a science?" debate has been going on for ages and I doubt it'll be settled here, so I don't really care eitherway. --jag123 09:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Entertainment-stub: To hold things like Jim Rose Circus (which is actually a very interesting subject and deserves to be much larger and would be enhanced greatly by some photos). gK ¿?

Language-stub: I've recently run across several stubs that should have a language stub tag. This should go under "Culture", but I couldn't find a subcategory where it would fit. gK ¿? 20:01, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The edu-stub was based on the fact that all University and Colleges in the United States uses a ".edu" extension for websites. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, it would be a bad idea to use 'uni' for University and Colleges -- simply because 'uni' means one of something, and maybe confused with something else. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added a proposed new warfare stub to handle stubs such as Rules of Prize Warfare. BlankVerse 02:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Microbiology stubs. I have added some ideas for microbiology stubs, this could be just microbiology, but I feel splitting into diciplines would be better. There are hundreds of articles on individual species, genera and orders that are currently all lumped in to biosci-stub. Onco p53 22:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about using the five kingdoms of Carolus Linnaeus's Scientific classification system: Animals, Plants, Fungi, Protista, Archaeobacteria, and Eubacteria? Andrew Watt 05:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In theory, the purpose behind sorting stubs would seem to be the creation of categories/lists where eager Wikipedia contributors can find articles in need of their contributions, in their subject areas. Yes? If we sort stubs into alien categories, no one is going to know how to look for them. Also, do we want to suggest some minimum length at which point any stub-tag, in any category, should perhaps be removed? Andrew Watt 05:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will be creating the following new stubs (very soon), as a subset of biology:

Microorganism (for any other microorganism which doesn't fit in fungi or bacteria)
- Mycology (for all fungi related stubs)
- Bacteria (for all bacteria related stubs)

This will remove several articles of organisms which don't fit into plant or animal, out of biology. If someone decides to change the hierarchy/structure/naming of the stubs in the future, I don't mind going back and changing all of those affected, but for the present, this can't hurt. --jag123 06:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am happy with that, I guess we can use bacteria in the broad sense including the Archaea Onco p53 06:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

After going through the biology articles, I've realised there are very little stubs that fit into fungi or microorganism/microbiology, and a stub is not necessary. Any suggestions as to what should be done with these living organisms? Simply keep them in biology? --jag123 10:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have though about a generic {{life-stub}} category for living organisms (Which I believe to be currently out of place under bio-stubs). Also, until there is some form of contribution or objection, I will at the end of the monh, be very bold and start reorganizing the stubs myself. --Circeus 13:40, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean put everything under Animal, plants and bacteria into one life-stub? If you do, I object. On the other hand, if you mean recategorize Animal, Plant and Bacteria under life-stub, and place any other living thing in life, then I have no complaints. Why do you consider living organisms to be out of place under biology? --jag123 22:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

if you mean recategorize Animal, Plant and Bacteria under life-stub, and place any other living thing in life Just that. I think they're out of place because I don't expect to have to go into science->bio to find them. (I might duplicate them, though, like substance-stub)--Circeus 23:01, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you wouldn't expect to find living things under biology, the science of living organisms, but so long as the current categorisation is left intact (ie: all animals under an animal stub, plants under plant stub) then it's not really a big deal what main category they sit under. If that's what is decided, then the fungi and microorganism stub I made should be delete since there's not enough articles unless all of the fungi related articles are hidden somewhere else. Who propose the mycology stub anyway, and why? --jag123 03:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh there will be plenty of fungi-stubs when I start creating tax boxes for all the genera / order ect.. (Where possible, fungi taxonomy is nowhere near as clear cut as bacteria). Onco p53 14:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about micro-stub? Should that be kept or deleted?--jag123 22:12, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposed stub deletions

disney-stub:merge into film-stub or geo-stub as appropriate
Importantstub

Categories tat include others should not be deleted: there will always be articles we can't fit anywhere precisely

Comments on proposed stub deletions

Please put any proposed stub deletions up above, but put your comments here.

Agree with van->auto, pub->struct and bio into separate fields. I think Disney is popular enough to have it's own stub. Not much in City now but it's brand new. I'd wait a while. By the way, why is Knot a stub in math? Is that a new field or a mistake? --jag123 16:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1) There is currently only a single stub in the Disney-stub category. If there is no corresponding WikiProject to support the stub, it should be eliminated. 2) The city stub should not have been created since most cities should be put into appropriate geographic categories (for example, stubby US cities into US-geo-stub), or when there is no geographic subcategory, then listed as a geo-stub. 3) The are mathematical implications to knots and Knot theory is a branch of topology so the knot-stub should be listed as both a subset of math-stubs and as a miscellaneous stub. gK ¿? 17:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are always going to be people who don't easily fit into the various people stubs (musicians, scientists, etc.) so the bio-stub should stay and the various people stubs should be a subset of the bio-stub. There are, however, several new people stubs that probably should be created, such as a politician-stub. gK ¿? 17:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can you give me an example? I just don't see any need for the bio-stub, and I don't believe the argument that there are people who don't easily fit into people stubs. Perhaps you can change my mind. If you propose to eventually move the responsibility for stub maintenance to WikiProjects, then eliminating (or at least discouraging) the use of the bio-stub and instead using discipline-specific categories (like the regional geo stub) will help move this project along. --Viriditas | Talk 10:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All the examples that I can think immediately would be taken care of by some of the additions that I've suggested. For example, a Chilean President would currently fit (uneasily) in either the political or government stubs, but both a politician-stub and S-Amer-stub have been proposed. There are some people, however, that don't really fit well in any category or straddles multiple categories, and the bio-stub might still be the best default--for example, the eccentric French transgendered diplomat Chevalier d'Eon (a France-stub, for example, is probably not the best choice since he spent his most colorful years in England). Yes, it is best to discourage the bio-stub, but I think that is mostly because a stubby biographical article will be more likely found and improved when they are in a topic stubs. gK ¿? 23:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's precisely my point. Adding the bio-stub isn't helping the expansion of the article. And, if some people don't fit well in any category, we should use the bio-cat as a last resort. --Viriditas | Talk 11:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is an article that I just found today: Margaret Tyndal Winthrop. It probably has almost all of the info that an encyclopedia should have on her (and more), so the stub message should probably be removed. If the article was still a stub, however, what would you label her with instead of a bio-stub? gK ¿? 08:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for posting an example. The article in question is less of a biography and more of a political genealogy, so I would label it as a poli-stub. --Viriditas | Talk 11:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, your point is valid, but as I stated below, do you truly want to create a stub for every job profession? I certainly do not think so. Suppose there was a garbage person who became really famous for, let's say, saving an entire building from a terrorist bomb and died from the bomb. What would you mark this person as? Hero-stub? The thing I am trying to see is that we create only stubs of useful value, stubs that really are going to be used. I can clearly see how you wish to address the fact that by not classifying people under their approprate fields, bio-stubs won't be expanded. My point is that the bio-stub should remain as a point where they can be re-sorted. Stubs will be always recategorized based on need, but this doesn't mean we need to get rid of the stub. This is like saying that we need to get rid of the Sci-stub template and create a stub for every obsecure field of science. In the event that someone creates a bot, for example, that creates stub articles for famous people who's entry is not listed in the Wikipedia, they may be able to use one stub for the job. We would certainly want them to avoid using the stub template, we would optimally like them to pick one of a job profession of the person, but we can't expect their bot to be smart enough to do so. Certainly, our project would be a lot easier if they had a feature to allow us to somehow reference the main category along with our own stub category or allow a unionized view if we use two stubs... Here's another example: France A. Córdova. This is an article I created, because this article talks about my University's chancellor. My University is part of the University of California so it is notable, and the chancellor of a notable school certainly deserves an article. Especially when she was the chief scientist at NASA. (See references.) -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If they were required, I would certainly create stubs for job professions, i.e. more than 10 articles in need of a stub; there really aren't that many professions, as many are just subsets. The sanitaiton engineering example might be more accurately categorized as a regional bio (I notice that canada-bio-stub is in use). The article about France A. Córdova seems to be about her role in academia, (perhaps we can get WikiProject Academics involved) so an edu-stub might be appropriate, or perhaps even a us-bio-stub, since there is no academic-stub at this time. But if she is more notable for her work in astrophysics, then a stub in that field would be an apt choice. In any case, if we are going to pass responsibility of stubs to WikiProjects then we are going to need to start moving the bio stubs into more specific categories and at the same time, start discouraging top-level bio-categorization. Sorting all the American bio-stubs into us-bio-stub is a step in the right direction. What's the status on getting some help from WikiProject Biography? Are they willing to help out? --Viriditas | Talk 10:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are only three users in that project... doesn't seem enough to handle all the bio-stubs... -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the single stub in the Disney category and it's not new, so may as well delete. Ditto for city. Thanks for the tidbit on Knot theory in math. The scientist/writer/politician/etc stubs, do you think they should be as sub categories of the bio-stub (my preference) or under each respective field (science, literature, etc)? --jag123 23:15, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Look at how the existing topic stubs are currently categorized. Category:Musician stubs, for example, is a child of Category:People stubs, Category:Music stubs and Category:Musicians. There is no problem having the scientist-stub under the Category:People stubs and Category:Science stubs, as well as Category:Science.

What did you mean by there is no Wikiproject to support the stub? Is there a WikiProject for the other stubs? --jag123 23:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no requirement to have a connection between stubs and WikiProjects, but stubs seems to be better looked after if there is a corresponding WikiProject. For example, there is a template:anime-stub and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. There probably should be a SF-stub, but without a matching WikiProject, it is much less likely that the SF-stubs will be developed into full articles.

The other side of the coin, and something that I've suggested, is that we should try to look for WikiProjects and Regional Notice Boards that don't currently have topic stubs associated with them. We should, in consultation with those groups, try to create some new topic stubs that they should find useful. gK ¿? 02:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep disney-stub, and bio-stub. Redirect city-stub to geo-stub, (avoids recreation). Disney stub is new, and Disney is big enough to warrant its own stub. Bio-stub should be kept for the same reason stub is still kept. You actually want to create a stub for every profession in the world? Don't you think that's a bit excessive? -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete disney-stub and recategorize articles ... unless the current 23 articles can be expanded ~~past 100~~. I'd suggest a time-limit on that of 7 to 14 days. Courtland 12:45, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

I'm sure there are a ton of Disney movies that are listed under film-stub. This strikes me as precisely the sort of category that a dedicated fan might find useful. I'll see what I can find. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Update: Without any actual effort, I managed to increase the category to 75 articles. I would say that there are definitely enough for this to be a viable category. (Category:Movie stubs is enormous and needs to be divided further rather than having other categories merged into it.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Importantstub: Currently only being used by newbies to tag unimporant articles, such as JanSport. We already have template:attention. Any really important articles that are just stubs should usually be improved through the various WikiProjects and Collaborations of the week, rather than sitting around (forever?) with a huge "Importantstub" tag. If it is an article that has been cited in a publication as an example of why the Wikipedia is not a good encyclopedia, then a notice should go in the Village Pump that will result in quick improvements. gK ¿? 04:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the point of org-stub and corp-stub. Virtually any article that is a corp or org stub will also be another stub (although perhaps not one that there's a template for). For example, American Correctional Association is an org-stub but is also (and more properly) a prison-stub (or law-stub, as I've listed it). Who on earth will go around to all the org/corp stubs and say "I think I'll be able to expand a lot of these"? No one; hence they're not a useful templates/categories. I recommend we delete them. —msh210 20:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, better yet, I recommend we delete the categories and have the templates redirect to stub (and remove org and corp from the list of stub templates), so that we don't have to edit all the articles that have these templates in them. —msh210 20:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please don't do the redirect. That makes it much more difficult to resort them. The reason for the organization and corporation stub was that prior to its creation, several organizations and corporations did not have appropriate stubs for them. And I certainly do not want to create a stub for every type of organization. We'd end up with Humanitarian, Federal, Non-Profit, Computer companies, Software companies, etc. If we need to remove the stub, we can ask for a bot to do that for us. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another one to get rid of is struct-stub. Much like with org and corp, no one will go through these to find articles to fix. Rather, buildings/structures that are famous in a country (e.g., the Moscow Kremlin, the Gateway Arch, etc.) should be placename-stubs (or other, as appropriate), and architecture stubs should be architecture-stubs (currently nonexistent). Others also have appropriate categories (e.g., christianity-stub for St. Peter's Square), and any that don't will (I'm guessing) be too few to sort. —msh210 17:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See the discussion above about subdiving struct-stub. This should help. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yup, this is covered further up the page - although I think the idea of a arch-stub for general architecture terms is a very good one! Grutness|^hello?

05:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge Hong Kong

There are currently 6 stub categories for Hong Kong

Politics of Hong Kong stubs 3
Hong Kong education stubs 4
Hong Kong geography stubs 59
Hong Kong people stubs 12
Hong Kong stubs 46
Hong Kong-related stubs 18

(number at end is approx number of articles)

Is there a procedure to get these merged into a more reasonable number of fewer categories? RJFJR 02:25, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

The last two should definitely be merged

I'll second that - merge 5 and 6 Courtland 04:56, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

..., but I do believe the HK wikipedians' notice board would disagree with the other (just like the Canadian one would object to merging away Canada-bio-stub) They will simply be listed as subcategories of Hong-Kong-related stubs, I say. --Circeus 03:40, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I know I'm biased, but the general HK stub and the HK geo stub look like the only viable ones to me. But who knows, more HK people, politics or education articles may turn up. The last two should definitely be merged though - they seem identical. is this a remnant of the old Hong-Kong-stub vs HK-stub argument? Grutness|^hello?

05:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about consulting the HK board on the issue, see what they think. Getting into a war now won't help --Circeus 17:59, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Of course. The only reason I made my comments here is it's probably better if we reach a consensus or at least discuss different views we might have, so that we have some coherent point of view when we go over there. I'm certainly not suggesting we ignore their opinions! Grutness|^hello?

22:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)