Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alai (talk | contribs) at 03:59, 13 September 2005 (→‎Communication stub). 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 (~~~~).
    • Please mind that a stub-category isn't about importance or noticeabiliy of the topic
  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 following the format on Wikipedia:Stub. 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, 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)

So, about that then. Do we agree on {{german-hist-stub}}? I see no objections. --Joy [shallot] 22:29, 24 August 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 county-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]
OK. I've used that - far easier, since most of the items had appropriate categories listed. I may have still slipped up a little with Teesside places around the Durham/Yorkshire border, but I hope not too badly. using ceremonial county means the Lancs/Manchester/Merseyside one's a bit more problematical, so I've left it for now. The first county split went well (Durham, Yorkshire, Dorset) and reduced the main category by over 25%, and I've started on Lincolnshire. The next few individual counties I'm thinking of splitting off are:
  • {{Northamptonshire-geo-stub}} (c 150 stubs)
  • {{Somerset-geo-stub}} (c 140 stubs)
  • {{WestMidlands-geo-stub}} (c 140 stubs)
  • {{UK-crown-geo-stub}} (for the Channel Islands and Isle of Man; c 50, and growing fast). The latter I'll only do if there are no complaints, since it doesn't yet reach criterion, but the stubs don't really belong in their current category, since they're not part of the UK. I'm also not totally happy with the name.
Those should cut the initial 3900 stubs down to just 2250 or so. Still huge, but a significant reduction. Grutness...wha? 05:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding {{Northumberland-geo-stub}} to the list - it's gone from 24 to over 124 in less than two weeks. Grutness...wha? 07:22, 6 August 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]

Just a thought with regard to stub sorting in the UK - how about grouping Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire together? The three together make up the Thames Valley, after all. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 03:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thought of grouping counties - at least as a temporary solution until they got large enough for separating out (I even mentioned a few possibilities above). Bucks and Berks are big enough though (especially if Milton Keynes is included in Bucks) - they each have over 100 stubs. At the moment I'm separating out a few at a time, since a huge amount of work is going on with UK counties, and I suspect most of them will end up with separate stub templates (for example, when I first counted a couple of weeks ago, there were 24 Northumberland stubs; there are now over 120). If combining is necessary, I'd be more tempted to combine Oxon and Glocs (the two Cotswold counties), Norfolk/Suffolk, Leics/Rutland, Hereford/Worcs, and possibly Hants/IoW (the last three pairs have historical ties, anyway) although I suspect that it'll simply be a case of waiting until each county have enough stubs. Other than those currently awaiting split, Bucks, Berks, Hants and Devon have over 100 stubs at present, and five others have 90 or more. I'm just not keen to suddenly start off 30 or so new stub categories at one time! Grutness...wha? 06:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hill stubs

A lot of the stuff in the category comes from hill articles. Who says we should have a UK-hill-stub category? It would help that group of people who are expanding the British hill articles. --Mark J 20:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No - see note at the bottom of the page about river-stub. Individual geographical features are a very bad idea for stub categories - they cut across the idea of dividing by region (which is very thoroughly organised and would take a massive effort to change, and they don't really help editors anyway, since most editors know features of a particular region rather than knowing one particular type of feature nationwide or worldwide. Such feature-stubs are actually specifically mentioned on Wikipedia:Stub as bad ideas for stub types (para. 5 of "New stub categories")! Grutness...wha? 01:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "little" counties

What should the counties with a smaller number of stubs like Wiltshire, Derbyshire, Kent, etc? Should they use England-geo-stub?

For now, yes. If they get to be big enough for their own stub categories, then these will probably get made... but England-geo-stub would be the best place for now. This is also the way the geo-stubs work elsewhere (there isn't a separate Saskatchewan-geo-stub yet, so it uses Canada-geo-stub, for instance). Grutness...wha? 01:35, 22 August 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]

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]

{{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]
Just created {{US-rail-stub}} and Category:US rail stubs, now sorting from {{rail-stub}} into it... slambo 14:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
There are now 249 articles tagged with {{US-rail-stub}}. Creating {{UK-rail stub}} would probably cut the remaining 711 {{rail-stub}} articles by about the same amount or more. There are also a large number of articles about Japanese and Indian railroad subjects, but I haven't counted them yet. BTW, Category:Rail stubs has a notice on it about the category's size; what is the threshhold for that message? I think rail stubs is still quite large, but if it's knocked down to 2/3 or 1/2 of its current size, when doe we remove that notice? slambo 18:09, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Elsewhere on this page I've gone on record for splitting off {{UK-rail stub}}; I think that we can go forward in another day or two if there are no further objections or comments. --CComMack 14:26, 11 August 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]
I'd forgotten about the Ulster Unionists... If it goes ahead, would {{Union-bio-stub}} get around the name problem? Or would that be too ambiguous? Grutness...wha? 13:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Union-bio would get round it yeah :) -- Joolz 17:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, August 2005

In my efforts to clear out Category:Corporation stubs, I have created Category:Food corporation stubs ({{food-corp-stub}}), as a daughter of {{food-stub}} and {{corp-stub}}. In my first stint of filling the new category (there are now 75 articles in the category), I have come across the problem that the scope of the stub template is too broad. Therefore I would like to propose splitting the {{food-corp-stub}} in two: food, candy, confectionery and/or beverage corporations retain the current tag, but a new tag will be created for restaurants and bars/pubs: {{restaurant-stub}}. This should also put an end to the length problem of the current stub text: "This article about a food, candy, confectionery and/or beverage corporation or company, or about a restaurant or a chain of restaurants, is a stub." Between 40 and 45 articles from the category as it is would be moved to the new Restaurant stub category. This number will probably have risen once I've sifted through the Category:Corporation stubs. Aecis 17:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the restaurant-stub template already exists, but it does not lead to any category and the wording could do with improvement. Because the template already exists, and because my proposal is part of an older "project" of mine, I would like to request permission to circumvent or "ignore" the one week waiting period. Aecis 17:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are also at least 38 articles in the Food and drink stubs category about cheese. Is that enough for a cheese stub category? (The 38 articles would place the new category between Category:Cooking tool stubs (21 articles) and Category:Fruit stubs (62 articles), other daughters of Category:Food and drink stubs.) Aecis 17:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because the restaurant-stub template had already been created, I saw no alternative but to be bold, act immediately, clean up the template and create a new stub category. So there now is a template ({{restaurant-stub}}) with a matching category. Aecis 23:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of this is covered in the first section of proposals at the very top of this page. Cheese is a very likely candidate, although 38 is a bit slim. I also wonder, now that drink stubs have been separated out, whether it should be moved to its own category and "Food and drink stubs" be changed to just "Food stubs" - any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 01:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Food stubs" would be a more appropriate category for the {{food-stub}} tag then "Food and drink stubs", which might be kept as a parent category of daughter stub categories. Aecis 11:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth: the number of cheese-related stubs has risen to between 50 and 60, and counting. Aecis 12:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC) (edit: judging from the Category:Cheeses, my estimate is that there are about 80 to 90 cheese-stubs on Wikipedia.)[reply]

I've now managed to finish counting the cheese stubs. In the Category:Food and drink stubs, I have found 40 41 cheese stubs. In the Category:Cheeses and its daughters, I have found 35 cheese stubs. This makes a grand total of 75 76 cheese stubs so far. This is above the threshold (60 stub articles) set for new stub templates/categories, so if there are no objections, I will create the template and fill the matching category. Aecis 00:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stub confusion: Broadcast and TV stubs

From what I can tell from looking at the articles in the various broadcast and TV categories, many other editors are as confused about what should go into the different categories as I am, and looking at the information on the category pages does not provide any enlightenment IMHO. Seeing that there are 7 pages of TV stubs, and over 500 articles just in US broadcasting stubs, I think that a major reorganization may be in order. Here's just a rough idea of what I was thinking should be done:

  • TV stations
  • TV shows
  • TV biographies
  • Radio stations
  • Radio programs
  • Radio biographies
  • Cable & satellite channels
  • Cable & satellite shows
  • Broadcast networks (any network--TV, radio, cable, etc.)

Many of these categories should get US & UK subcategories, and some may even need Canadian, Australian, EU, and Asian subdivisions. Many of the specialty broadcasting stubs (e.g. Star Trek) can probably stay, but some may need some changes (such as the soap opera character stub, which I think could be broadened into a general soap opera stub). At the same time, the reorganization could be used to drop some of the less useful broadcast stubs. Eventually we'll probably need an internet radio and even a podcasting stub category added as well. BlankVerse ∅ 14:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a very good idea. Ceyockey started to work on this sort of thing before he left WP:WSS to concentrate on other areas. A few questions/suggestions:
  1. would it be better to expand the soapchar stub into any stub relating to a fictional TV character, rather than expanding it into Soap operas in general?
  2. do we need the separate tv and radio biography stubs - wouldn't a lot of the people in there be better fitted into other categories such as actor-stub?
  3. I'm not entirely convinced by the cable & satellite show stub category. A lot of shows created and shown on cable TV are shown on terrestrial tv in other countries (here in NZ we get both Deadwood and Six Feet Under on free-to-air terrestrial, for example, but I think both were cable productions). I think those two categories could be happily subsumed by the TV stations/TV shows parents.

Grutness...wha? 14:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re:Soap operas: I was only thinking that soap opera fans are just as fanatical as SF fans—they just haven't had time to invade the Wikipedia yet. Even if we don't have a general soap opera stub in the near future, I KNOW that we will have one eventually. I've got Sunset Beach in my watchlist only because it's based upon near where I grew up, and that show, which only lasted a couple of years, has gone from a sub-stub into a very long, involved explanation of all the soap opera machinations.

re:TV & radio bios: I was thinking that TV-bio would be everybody but the actors—i.e. news anchors, directors, writers, show creators, network executives, etc. As for radio personalities also being actors—that only happens here in LA (e.g. Steve Harvey, Gary Owens of Laugh-In, etc.).

re:cable shows: I did that out of symetry, but you are right. Even here in the US, there are cable shows that have a second life as on-air reruns, or are shown on both cable and as first-run syndication. BlankVerse ∅ 16:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking on soap opera characters some more...it's probably best to leave that stub. I'm sure that eventually we will end up with a plethora of articles on soap opera characters, and although many of the articles will grow to the same size as many of the articles on characters in Frank Herbert's Dune, many more will remain lowly stubs. BlankVerse ∅ 13:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I find remarkable is that there is no Category:Media stubs with matching template. This category could be a parent category to {{tv-stub}}, {{news-stub}}, {{broadcasting-stub}}, etc, and some kind of a doggybag for articles that fit in more than one of these stub categories. Aecis 14:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

===U.S. Interstate Highway Stub=== (created, see below) This stub category needs to be created... US-road-stub has over 600 articles in it I believe... and a forthcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Interstate_Highways will need this classification as well. Any objections? --Rschen7754 21:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

See below Grutness...wha? 01:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's the count of potential Interstate stubs? I can't believe it would be many—most of them should be full-fledged articles. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 03:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Actually just about all of the interstate routes... since there is a new wp. There are several 1 par long articles on Interstates as well as longer ones that dont meet the standard and are as different as the desert and the ocean. --Rschen7754 05:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I created this as {{Interstate Highway Stub}}... who wants to type out the U.S. part? --Rschen7754 16:34, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Highway Stub

This stub category needs to be created... US-road-stub has over 600 articles in it I believe... and a forthcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Highways will need this classification as well. Any objections? There are 50-100 stub articles that are clogging up road-stub that could be put in this category.--22:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't one stub (maybe {{US-highway-stub}}) cover both highways and interstate highways - especially for those of us outside the US who haven't a clue what the difference is between them...? And would the various state route stub categories be subcategories of this/these or not? Grutness...wha? 01:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. highways and U.S. interstates are separate in the U.S. way of thinking, so I don't think they should be combined. (I question the need for an Interstate stub; see above.) State routes would not be a subcategory of U.S. highways; they would stay subcategories of U.S. roads. With 50-100 articles, I'd agree on the creation of {{US-highway-stub}}. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 03:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
OK - I'll defer to your knowledge of things in the US - if "Fingers" says it's a good move, chances are strong that it's a good move. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems ok to me too, though I'm a little bit confused. We're just going to put highways that are part of the U.S. Highway System in here, right? The problem with {{US-highway-stub}} is that some might put state and interstate highways in as well, since, after all, they are highways within the US. Maybe {{UShighway-stub}} would be better? Based on what I've seen, I think the dash usually is used to take split off regions, which shouldn't be the case here, IMO. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:38, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
The dash is used to split off countries as well - we have US-bio-stub, US-geo-stub, US-struct-stub, US-road-stub, etc. In proably 50% of stub types, stubs are split by theme then location (with a few exceptions), and take the form location-theme-stub. Sometimes the location is a city, state or region, but usually it's a country. As I see the above, we have US-road-stub as the parent, with US-highway-stub and the various state highway stubs (as and when created) as the children. There are already several state highway stub categories (California is one I can recall), all of which have horribly formed stub names, too, IIRC (they should all be taken to sfd to correct them). Grutness...wha? 12:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is my understanding, too. Only highways that are part of the U.S. Highway System will go here. I'm sure there will be stub missorting here just as with other stubs. With a proposed WikiProject, one would think they would be vigilant about keeping it sorted. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 13:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
When I said "regions", I was including countries. With the US-road-stub, it applies to all roads in the US, so it would seem natural for US-highway-stub to apply to all the highways in the US. But it doesn't—there are hundreds or thousands of "highways" (state highways, interstates, etc.) that aren't part of the specific set of highways known as the U.S. Highway System. The stub name should recognize this, I think. Maybe it's not a big deal though. --Spangineer (háblame) 14:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I understand what you mean. US-highway-stub could be construed to mean any highway (any type) in the US. UShighway-stub is supposed to imply stubs for U.S. highway system highways. (Why are they called highways anyway? New, better roads were elevated some to try to prevent flooded roads? And what about the term freeway? Free as opposed to a toll road (turnpike)? There's no article that I can find on road terminology. But I digress.) I don't have a problem with naming the new stub UShighway-stub. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:25, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Would it make more sense to have {{US-highway-stub}} be all US highways, and then as children have {{US-interstate-stub}} for Interstates and the individual state stubs as necessary? As it appears that there is little distinction, beside numbering, between highways that are part of the U.S. Highway System and other state highways. Incidentally, many US Highways get called Routes, atleast where I live... --Mairi 19:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's exactly what we don't want. What is proposed is a separate stub category for highways in the U.S. Highway system. And from my point of view, there is a huge distinction between U.S. highways and highways of individual state highway systems.
For clarity, here is what the stub types page could show if both this and the interstate stub categories get created.
Or maybe down the road:
— Fingers-of-Pyrex 20:28, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
If there is such a difference, U.S. Highway system ought to be made clearer, as it currently says The United States Highways are state highways, funded just like any other state highway. --Mairi 21:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kinda making this up; take it with a grain of salt. I suppose there is the physical highway, and then there are the route designations. The states I'm familiar with have state-designated routes on primary and secondary highways. Each state has different schemes for numbering their routes. To facillitate interstate travel, the U.S. Highway system has its own route designations that stay constant as they cross the states' borders. In a particular state, even though one only (usually) sees the U.S. route designation, most of the time, the highway also has a "hidden" state route designation. (For examples of this, see Knox_County,_Tennessee#Tennessee_State_Routes and Tennessee State Route 1. So when I read the sentence that you quote above (which I agree is not clearly worded), I interpret it to mean that the individual states maintain their own highways. In other words, they maintain those "hidden" routes that are overlaid with a U.S. route number the same as they maintain their other highways that are not U.S. routes. The U.S. federal government distributes highway monies to the states, but I'm not sure on what basis—perhaps the mileage of U.S. routes and interstates in each state. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 22:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we name the stubs US-route-stub? Individual states could be named, for example, Michigan-route-stub? If a general stub category for state routes was to be proposed, it could be US-stateroute-stub? (I don't like that last one.) — Fingers-of-Pyrex 22:57, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
US-route-stub sounds good and clear to me. Assuming that useage is common thru-out the country. Things of the form Michigan-route-stub sounds like a good idea (we currently have {{Arizona State Route Stub}}, but also {{California State Highway Stub}}, which have naming issues anyway). Not sure what to do about US-stateroute-stub, tho. USstatehighway-stub would be clear enough, but not consistent with the other names (and I don't care for sticking that many words together like that) --Mairi 23:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A thought here. AFAIK, like with state parks, the US is the only country which has separate interstate highways and state highways (I haven't heard of the term re Australia, and can't think of anywhere else it might apply). Why not just interstate-stub, statehighway-stub, and UShighway-stub? Also apologies if this makes no sense from an American viewpoint, since here we have national and provincial highways but the two terms are largely synonymous (ironically, they're both generally known as "State highways"). I'm still getting to grips with how Hawaii can have "interstate highways". Grutness...wha? 01:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those names are not offensive to me. Let's say two weeks, months, years down the road, some other entity needs a statehighway stub. Would we change these names at that point to USstatehighway-stub. That's not offensive to me either, but I expect one could find fault with it. After thinking about it some more, I'm liking the "route" name more. Perhaps we should let the wikiprojects shape up first, and revisit this in a month or two?
P.S. From what I think I know: Hawaii wasn't originally going to have interstate highways. (I don't think Alaska has any.) But it's all about the funding! Hawaii needed freeways, expressways (bigger and better roads), so somewhere along the way, they were added so they could get a share of the monies. (Here's that grain of salt again.) — Fingers-of-Pyrex 01:20, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind that {{California State Highway Stub}}, {{Washington State Highway Stub}}, and {{Arizona State Route Stub}} already exist, as does {{US-road-stub}} which holds the 600+ road stubs on roads/highways located in the US. The difference between US Highways and state (route) highways is that US highways are managed/numbered by the AASHTO (I forget what that stands for) but maintained by the DOTs (as are Interstates). State highways are maintained/numbered by the individual state DOTs. I believe that a USstateroute-stub would not be adequate because eventually stubs for all 50 states will be created. (Idaho State Highway Stub, etc.) However, I'd like to have those who actually work on the US road articles and WPs weigh in on this. Also, the official term is US Highway, not US route.... most WikiPedia articles are named U.S. Highway 101 not U.S. Route 101(the latter is a redirect). (BTW: Alaska does have Interstates, but they are not signed. Interstate Highways in Alaska) So what I would propose is this:

etc... --Rschen7754 00:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

And just to confuse Grutness even more, besides the interstate highways in Hawaii and Alaska, there are also interstates in Puerto Rico which isn't even a state. BlankVerse ∅ 23:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. And actually your example of Canada-road-stub would be a useful one to split off, too. BTW, I'd like to propose a very slight change to the way we deal with urban/suburban roads. Currently they're usually put in road-stub, which makes sense, but I'd like to propose that they only be put in there if there is no specific city-stub or city-geo-stub. In cases where these stubs exist, i think it mkes far more sense if they're put with the city (e.g., London-geo-stub, NYC-stub, Chicago-stub). Any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 00:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's my two cents: A number of stubs that we have now are "WikiProject-specific stubs". In other words, they were specifically created by the participants of various WikiProjects so they could organize those particular stubs that they are working on. Therefore, if there is going to be a specific WikiProject that will only involve Interstate Highways, then there should be a separate stub for Interstate Highways. Likewise, if there is going to be a specific WikiProject that will only involve U.S. Highways, then there should be a separate stub for U.S. Highways. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So is it okay to create the stubs as proposed above? --Rschen7754 19:10, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Should the proposed stubs (as be Rschen7754) have dashes put into them (e.g. {{U.S.-Highway-Stub}})? BlankVerse ∅ 23:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm creating it now... I won't just so they are consistent with the other road stubs. However noone sees what they are called anyway... --Rschen7754
It probably ought to be {{US-Highway-stub}} to be consistent with all the stubs other than road stubs... --Mairi 18:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it should be {{US-highway-stub}} - or better {{UShighway-stub}}, as argued above. All the US state highway stub templates are misnamed and are on a list to take to sfd for renaming when we get through the backlog of redundant stubs. Definitely no full stops and definitely no gaps. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Movie stubs

This idea has been debated here several times, but we've never reached a decision over it - we've had the ideas of splitting by genre, by decade, or by country of origin (some of the previous debate is in Archive 16. It really does need splitting though. if the main categories are most clearly split by genre, then perhaps that would be the best way. Perhaps
  • comedy-film-stub
  • drama-film-stub
  • sf-film-stub
  • biopic-film-stub
  • action-film-stub
would be five logical splits. Any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 01:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think : crime-film-stub would be useful, too Lectonar 09:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should start these stubs now! --SuperDude 17:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dont't be hasty; give it a weeks time... :) Lectonar 09:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Diplomatic stub

Going through the backlog of Encylopedia Brittanica articles to be created, I came across Macedonian Question. There are a number of articles like this to be made; Oregon Question, Skane Question, Strait Question, etc. Diplomats also have their own lingo not found elsewhere, such as diplomatic rank, diplomatic minister, etc. Therefor I propose diplo-stub. Alba 18:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the "Question" articles would get hist-stub, but I see your point. {{Diplomacy-stub}} would be a solution to it (not {{diplo-stub}} - a bit too ambiguous. The first thing that came to mind for me was a large sauropod!). Would there be enough stub articles for it, though (if there are approaching 100 the answer is "yes"). Grutness...wha? 00:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that diplomats (their biographies) are sorted under politician-stub. It's probable that some of those people could benefit from further subcategorization, but in many cases it would merely split semi-randomly... --Joy [shallot] 21:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subdivisions of {{rail-stub}}

I have thought of several more sub-categories that could be added. Our Phellap 23:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are a fair number of stub articles for each, and it would help reduce the overall list from Category:rail stubs as it is getting rather over-populated.

Hm - wouldn't it make more sense to divide by country? I mean railbuffs are far more likely to know about the railways in one region than one type of item worldwide. A railways fan interested in British railways is far more likely to know about British rolling stock, British locomotives and British track than to know about rolling stock worldwide. And since there's already an {{Australia-rail-stub}}... (I know we have loco-stub for locomotives, but that wasn't a "sanctioned" creation here, and could easily be split up into UK-loco-stub, US-loco-stub and the like). Grutness...wha? 00:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC) (LNER A4 Pacific fan)[reply]
Yes I think using UK-loco-stub, France-loco-stub etc. would be a good idea. This could be extended to the railcars/multiple units and rolling stock, as I proposed above e.g. UK-rollingstock-stub or UK-multipleunit-stub (or alternatively UK-railcar-stub if people prefer shorter names). The categories UK-loco-stub, UK-railcar-stub etc. could then be subcategories of UK-rail-stub. Our Phellap 19:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, {{UK-rail-stub}}, AFAICT, doesn't exist yet. It probably ought to be split off from {{rail-stub}} as soon as possible, considering the very large size of the latter category (and in parallel to the Australian and US counterparts.) After that settles down, we can see how far each category needs to be further pared down. So, oppose sort by rolling stock type for now until further sorting by nationality takes place, but this is not a hard position. --CComMack 22:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree more on subdividing by region than by equipment type. I got through sorting rail stubs out into the new {{US-rail-stub}} just yesterday, and suggested that we should probably add {{UK-rail-stub}} and {{Japan-rail-stub}} due to the number of stubs for those two regions, but I haven't made a count of them yet. BTW, when I started sorting rail stubs, there were well over 2,000 of them, and it's now down to around 700. slambo 19:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I am in the process of writing articles on Dutch and French trains, so it might be a good idea to create {{France-rail-stub}} and {{NL-rail-stub}}. There are also a fair few stub articles about Irish trains so maybe {{Ireland-rail-stub}} should be created as well. Our Phellap 21:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That should be {{Netherlands-rail-stub}}, not {{NL-rail-stub}}, BTW (as per stub naming conventions)! Grutness...wha? 14:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Being the crazy 'Merkan that I am, would {{Ireland-rail-stub}} be a subtype of {{UK-rail-stub}}? My first thought is no, but it'd be nice to know for sure. slambo 11:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Try saying that in Dublin. We'll all come and visit you in hospital afterwards! :) Grutness...wha? 14:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Republic of Ireland is a different country to the UK, so it wouldn't be a subtype. That would be like putting {{Canada-rail-stub}} as a subtype of {{US-rail-stub}}!! As a side point, a Canada-rail-stub should probably also be created as well, and any articles wrongly classified as US-rail-stub could be corrected. Our Phellap 13:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. I haven't paid enough attention to that part of the world. We definitely need to prioritize these country subtypes. In the two sorts that I went through this month, it seems to me that UK and Japan were the most prevalent of the remaining rail-stubs, but now that you mention it, Canada had a significant number as well. I think best at this point would be to create UK-rail-stub and Japan-rail-stub, do the sort and see what's left. I suspect that Canada will then be the most prevalent, but that may change with your France and nl stubs. slambo 13:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Probably best to start with UK and Japan. from there it will be easier to see which countries have large numbers of stubs and should be split off next. Otherwise we might end up with some very small categories. Grutness...wha? 14:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue to create all the country stubs mentioned above now, that way it will save messing about in the future. True some of them may not have many articles at the moment, but as I say am am in the process of writing French and NL locomotive articles, so the categories will be more populated in the future. I would also argue, that for the time being at least, the {{loco-stub}} articles should be reclassified by country. If there are enough articles, then perhaps, for example, a {{UK-loco-stub}} could be created in the future.
To summarise, I think the following stubs should be created: {{UK-rail-stub}}, {{Canada-rail-stub}}, {{Japan-rail-stub}}, {{France-rail-stub}}, {{Netherlands-rail-stub}} and {{Ireland-rail-stub}}. Our Phellap 14:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of stating what country stubs to create, I suggest seeking approval for creation of region-rail-stub, where "region" will be a continent, with nation-rail-stub being created when more than a certain number of stubs for a nation are discovered. Then the stub sorters doing the initial sweep will create what they find is required. (SEWilco 15:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
That definitely sonds reasonable - it would parallel how geo-stub developed. It sould also be possible to do a quick straw poll - take the first 200 articles and see where thy refer to - and work out a few of the more obvious candidates for splitting from that. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing no objections and several supports for {{UK-rail-stub}}, I created it and just finished sorting into it (and I found a few more that I either missed on previous sorts or were created since then). {{rail-stub}} is now down to 437 articles, and the UK category holds 250 articles. slambo 20:47, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I have also created the {{France-rail-stub}}, which currently contains 41 articles. Our Phellap 23:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Created and sorted {{India-rail-stub}} and category. There are 38 articles currently marked with this stub template, and after another sorting pass through {{rail-stub}}, that category is down to 253 articles. slambo 13:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Relatives stubs

The following was moved from further down the page - in the middle of a vote! - to its correct place Grutness...wha?

In { { bio-stubs } } I have come across people whose only achievement is to be a relative (spouses mostly) of someone who has an entry, a couple of times. Is there a stub-category for them ? MartinBiely 18:10, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

No, there isn't... Some of those articles should simply be merged with the article about their famous relative and/or sent for vfd (being a relative of a famous person isn't usually regarded as notability enough in the person's own right for an article). If the person is notable in their own right (which some will be), then simply tagging them with one of the nationality bio-stubs would probably be enough IMO. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Invertebrate stubs

The invertebrate-stub category is getting quite large: I propose stubs for major groupings within this category e.g. { { butterfly-stub } }, { { dragonfly-stub } } etc. Invertebrate people tend to specialise in one or more groups rather than being generalists, so this might encourage contributors to tackle some of these articles - at the moment they are rather swamped. And we're only at the tip of the iceberg in terms of coverage when it comes to inverts at present; good idea to tackle this before it becomes too big a task. --SP-KP 17:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So far you have provided two insect types. Unless there are a significantly large number of butterfly and dragonfly stub articles, I think the higher level {{insect-stub}} (or something similar) might be more appropriate. I haven't looked at the category to see what the distribution of articles is, but I would imagine that branching off into the many high level invetebrate groups would be the way to go. --TheParanoidOne 20:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree, although I can see Category:Insect stubs getting big quickly. Insect-stub would be a good start though - and possibly also crustacean-stub? Grutness...wha? 01:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did a rough tally of the invertebrate stubs category using a 5% count (42 articles). The number and groupings I found are:
  • Insects: 28
    • including 12 butterfly/moth articles and 4 beetle articles
  • Arachnids: 3
  • Worms: 3
  • Crustaceans: 3
  • Molluscs: 3
  • Other: 3
Given these (admittedly quick and dirty) results, {{insect-stub}} would certainly cut a big swathe in the category. {{butterfly-stub}} (with or without moths) might be worth doing immediately as well. --TheParanoidOne 20:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{insect-stub}} created. I'll do butterfly later on today. --TheParanoidOne 05:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Having sifted through Invertebrate stubs, {{crustacean-stub}} and {{mollusc-stub}} seem to be suitable candidates for further splitting. --TheParanoidOne 21:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Both created and being populated. --TheParanoidOne 05:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Of the remaining invertebrate stubs, ~20% are arachnids and ~16% are worms of various types. But seeing as this category is now at less than 200 stub articles, I won't bother dividing any further. --TheParanoidOne 22:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

splitting {{UK-struct-stub}}

This has about 1000 articles. Suggest splitting off some bits of it, but not clear which. Morwen - Talk 12:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

London and Scotland would remove two large sections, I think. Grutness...wha? 06:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking geographically but more sort of church-stub etc but London and Scotland would be good idea, yes! Morwen - Talk 09:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a London WikiProject, so that one's definitely worth considering. Separating out buildings by use is viable, though - although that would need to tie in with all the struct-stub categories, so might need more thought. I could see a series of UK-church-stub, US-church-stub etc, and also UK-stadium-stub, Euro-stadium-stub, etc. The church one might be difficult, though, since it would be best if it covered all places of worship, not just Christian ones, so the naming of it might be a problem. I'd definitely go with London-struct-stub though - buildings by type could easily be split off that one later as well if necessary. Grutness...wha? 09:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a few days sorting {{rail-stub}} articles into, among others, {{UK-depot-stub}} which is already a subcategory of both {{UK-struct-stub}} and {{rail-stub}}. Many of the station articles had both rail-stub and UK-struct-stub, so sorting one also sorted the other; on articles that had both, I removed both and used the more specific stub category. I wouldn't necessarily object to sorting by location, but sorting by structure type seems more appropriate to me. slambo 19:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Mmmm, maybe. I still think that having a WikiProject able to find buildings on the city it's working on might make a London-struct-stub useful. But there'd be nothing wrong with having a UK-church-stub with London-church-stub as a subcat of it, so perhaps that would be the way to go. Wish there was some better term than church, though, to cover all places of worship, not just Christian ones. Grutness...wha? 14:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu mythos stubs

{{Cthulhu-stub}}

I saw a proposal for this, so in keeping with Wikipedia's be bold directive, I went ahead and created it. If there are no objections, I would like to start using it as soon as possible. Gate2Valusia Frying pan into fire? 21:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]


Sorry, but could you give us some numbers, and perhaps have a look at #Proposing new stubs - procedure? I didn't see much stubs pertaining to Ctulhu around Lectonar 06:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm. The reason it was where you found it - uncreated in our archives - was because we decided not to create it. Having said that, it was fairly close to creation, and with the expansion in the number of stubs in recent months it might approach threshold. Is there an associated WikiProject on Lovecraft? If not, and if it doesn't come near threshold, you might have trouble convincing people of its worth. Grutness...wha? 06:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Cthulhu mythos stubs (revised proposal)

This is a proposal to create the Cthulhu-stub template, to appear under the category Cthulhu mythos stubs. This new stub will be a sub-category of Fantasy stubs. Currently, Cthulhu mythos-related stubs are labelled with the largely generic {{Fantasy-stub}}.

First of all, be aware that the so-called Cthulhu mythos constitutes a large spectrum of writers and their creations. You will find that there are scores of authors who have written in the Cthulhu mythos genre, and the quantity of mythos-related stories numbers in the hundreds. Its popularity is underscored by Robert Bloch – the author of Psycho and himself a writer of mythos stories – who writes in his essay "Heritage of Horror":

. . . the "Cthulhu Mythos" is a literary creation far surpassing the word-worlds of Cabell, C. S. Lewis, or Tolkien in breadth and scope. . . While imaginary worlds abound in modern fantasy, few of today's writers set their sagas in Poictesme, Perelanda, or Middle-earth. But stories and novels based on the Mythos continue to proliferate. In terms of imitaton and inspiration, Lovecraft may well have had more influence on other writers than any contemporary except Ernest Hemingway.

If you are still not convinced, take a look at Chris Jarocha-Ernst's "A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE CTHULHU MYTHOS". This is a listing of about 900+ mythos-related works (!).

There are presently about 50+ Cthulhu-related stubs (some of which are borderline and are very close to becoming proper Wikipedia articles), constituting almost 20% of the Fantasy-related stubs. And this number is likely to increase, especially if a number of as-yet-unlabelled Cthulhu-related stubs are eventually designated as Fantasy stubs. If nothing else, just the sheer number of Cthulhu mythos stubs warrants the creation of a new stub category. (Note: In some cases, I myself have tried to wikify these stubs, but they still do not qualify as true articles. In other cases, I've merged stubs into other articles, or created new articles outright to house the stubs. All in all, I've eliminated several dozen Cthulhu-related stubs – but there's always the chance that some future editor will dissent and split these stubs back into articles.)

One problem is that most are of the Cthulhu-related stubs are labelled with the standard "Fantasy-related" template, which tends to disguise their true content. In addition, since most Cthulhu mythos stories are considered horror stories – or perhaps in some cases, science fiction stories – their placement here may make it difficult for editors to find Cthulhu-related stubs. Conversely, the presence of so many Cthulhu-related stubs makes the list harder to peruse by non-Cthulhu mythos editors.

I've also noticed that other users (mostly anonymous ones) regularly add new entries to the Elements of the mythos list in the Cthulhu mythos article. Most of these new entries are currently red links, but should bold editors go ahead and turn them into stubs, the total number of "Fantasy-related" stubs will skyrocket. Another complication arises when we consider that although most new entries probably come from lesser-known Cthulhu mythos stories, a significant number may originate from the Call of Cthulhu role-playing game. Purists, such as myself (who believe that only elements derived from mainstream Cthulhu mythos stories qualify as Lovecraftian fiction), might object to these new, yet obscure, additions, but their importance to others (especially role-playing enthusiasts) probably justifies their inclusion. With that in mind, Cthulhu mythos stubs are likely to continue to grow in the future.

Along with the reasons I have outlined here, we should also look at the issue from the point of view of the Cthulhu mythos devotees. Not only would a Cthulhu mythos stub be welcomed by such enthusiasts, it is probably also expected as well (just as there is already a tolkienstub in use). Furthermore, perhaps Cthulhu-editors would be more inclined to use a Cthulhu-stub if one were available – it would certainly leave no doubt as to which stub to use (for example, I once saw a Cthulhu-related article labeled with a Literature stub). Hence, I believe that a new Cthulhu mythos stub is needed.

Gate2ValusiaOh?..(latest mischief)..Playing by the rules this time.04:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll bite :) 50 stubs is still below normal stub category threshold, especially if the total number of fantasy stubs is 250 (which it is if 50 = 20% of it). It would be a reasonable threshold if there were a Cthulhu mythos-related WikiProject (which it sounds as though there should be, given some of your comments. I agree that these stubs are fairly difficult to place - they lie on the borders between fantasy, horror and sf - nmany of the authors int he field (such as Bloch) have worked in more than one of these genres and incorporate elements from all of them in their stories (I'm surprised you didn't mention August Derleth, BTW). As such, I've done a bit of a hunt and found the following: Cthugha, Deep One (Cthulhu mythos), Cykranosh, Lesser Outer God, Basatan, Y'Golonac, Pnakotic Manuscripts, Magnum Innominandum, Yibb-Tstll, Xiurhn, Nodens (Cthulhu mythos), The King in Yellow, Dunwich (H. P. Lovecraft), Chaugnar Faugn, Tulzscha, Ubbo-Sathla, Lomar, Shoggoth, Yellow Sign, Lake Hali, Carcosa, High Priest Not to Be Described, Olathoë, The Case of Charles Dexter Ward, Gnophkeh, Nyogtha, Prisoner of Ice, Shadow of the Comet, Elder Gods, Ithaqua, Aphoom-Zhah, L'mur-Kathulos, Arcane literature (Cthulhu mythos), Celestial body (Cthulhu mythos), Elysia, Fire vampire, Ghatanothoa, Shan (aliens), Ghroth, The Dunwich Horror, Celephaïs, The Shadow over Innsmouth, Kadath, Cerenarian Sea, Moon-beast, Oriab, Nightgaunt, Ythogtha, Azathoth, Glaaki, Zoth-Ommog, Cthylla, Summanus, Dhole (Cthulhu mythos), Yugg, Kthanid, Mu (Cthulhu mythos), Mi-Go, Miskatonic University, Abhoth (Cthulhu mythos)... that's 60, and it's barely scratching the surface. Mind you, all the Cthulhu and Lovecraftian articles seem to need a bit of a rethink in some way, there are redirects leading to redirects, sections leading to sections that loop back on themselves, cavernous abysses of uncanny resonance where the very bones of the planet seem to ring in... um... yeah, there'd be enough for a separate category, I think. Excuse me while I go and wash my keyboard. Grutness...wha? 05:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And we must keep in mind that not necessarily all the above are in need of their own articles; some of them could go into a list of Cthulhu-mythos deities and/or Ctulhu-mythos beings, at least 2 belong in the book-stubs (Shadow over Innsmouth and The Dunwich Horror (and I would not have the slighest compunction to put them into fantasy-book-stub)). So, just to put things right (here I go again): stub sorting isn't about something being noticeable and/or important (there is no discussion about it: Lovecraft and his work are both, and I revere him (and it) very much), it is nothing more or less than a tool, and we don't need to create a stub-template for articles which are not written yet; IMHO, this one still doesn't pass the criteria for a specialised stub to be created...IÄ! Shub-Niggurath, dreaming in R'lyeh lies Ctulhu... Lectonar 13:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another Corp-stub daughter

There are about 60 to 70 (perhaps more) articles in the Category:Corporation stubs about biotechnological, medical and pharmaceutical corporations, from Allerca (yikes) and Aeterna Zentaris to YM BioSciences. I hereby propose {{pharma-corp-stub}} or {{medical-corp-stub}} (I don't know which is more appropriate) and a matching category. Aecis 10:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since one of the parent category templates would be med-stub, med-corp-stub would probably be better. it would also allow for inclusion of companies that make medical equipment. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oz-stubs

I want to make a series of stubs for the new WikiProject related to the Wizard of Oz, for example: oz-stub, oz-book-stub, oz-character-stub, etc. Right now they are scatered around in other categories, and I would like to concentrate them. --[[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 00:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give us some numbers there? How many stubs pertaining to Oz are around at the moment? Lectonar 06:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently about 100 articles in the Oz/Wicked series. I would say approx. 75% are stubs, with plans to create new articles in the future. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 23:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to Be bold and created the stub tag and category. It's currently populated by around 80 articles, with room for expansion depending on how prolific the Wikiproject contributors are. GeeJo (talk) 17:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

{{astronaut-stub}}

I propose an astronaut-stub for astronauts, cosmonauts and the like. This would feed from Category:Astronauts, Category:Astronauts by nationality et al. It would also reduce {{bio-stub}} as well as a number of country-bio-stubs. I have been able to find 50 stubs from the Astronauts category alone (at which point I stopped).

The majority of them are stubbed as country-bio-stub. This is what I have been using for astronauts so far as there is currently no suitable stub type. A few were also stubbed with {{space-stub}} which makes sense. Combined with a country-bio-stub, that's the closest thing to an astronaut-stub we currently have. --TheParanoidOne 22:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea, especially with them currently lacking any suitable stub category. --Mairi 19:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Created. --TheParanoidOne 20:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Filled with stub articles from Category:Astronauts and its subcategories. Left articles with country-bio-stub tags dual-tagged for now. GeeJo (talk) 00:13, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

{{Georgia-geo-stub}} and {{GeorgiaUS-geo-stub}}

This is in the category of an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. (Sorry, I don't know the metric equivalents.) In pondering the possible future splits of geo stubs in the U.S., the disambiguation between Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state) arose. I'm afraid that someone might jump the gun and create {{Georgia-geo-stub}} for the U.S. state. The early August count by Grutness shows 40 stubs for Georgia (country) and 64 for Georgia (U.S. state). Even though 40 < 60, I propose to create these two stubs at the same time to avoid any future messiness. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:38, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm. probably a good idea. As for Georgia (in the Caucasus), most of those are already marked with Caucasus-geo-stub (which is a redirect to Euro-geo-stub) so it should be easy to split out. it would be easy to produce a list of articles for both categories. And 28.35 grams of prevention being worth 0.4536 kilograms of cure sounds silly. :) Grutness...wha? 00:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stubs and categories created: Category:Georgia (country) geography stubs and Category:Georgia (U.S. state) geography stubs. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 13:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

New Hampshire Stub

It'd be nice if there was a stub template for all 50 states. I've seen a few stubs based on topics here in New Hampshire. Karmafist 01:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"A few" isn't really enough, though. If there's a wikiproject or if we know that there are a lot of stubs (preferably the best part of 100), then yes, it would be worth breaking a separate NewHampshire-stub out. At the moment, though, neither really apply. (BTW, I've moved this to the right place on the page) Grutness...wha? 01:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scots Law Stub

I propose the creaton of {{scots-law-stub}} as I am increasingly finding more and more stubs on Scots law for law in Scotland and having to identify them as {{law-stub}}. The Law stubs page is already massive. Davidkinnen 09:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How many of them do you think there are? I know Scots law is very distinctive, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were quite a few. And - although I can understand the reason for name you suggest - would there be any objections to Scotland-law-stub? (BTW - you might want to remove your sandbox from Category:Scottish law! Grutness...wha? 10:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the {{law-stub}} category is massive, and for people who may wish to edit stubs that are specific to a particlar legal system it may be more sensible to subdivide the whole lot into {{common-law-stub}} and {{civil-law-stub}}. Davidkinnen 09:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm - that didn't really answer my question. If we assume that there are enough then - since it's true that Scottish law is unique - is the name Scotland-law-stub acceptable? It would be more in keeping with normal stub naming. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Create {{G.A.A.-Club-stub}} Stub

There are many G.A.A. Club articles.Enought to warrant their own stub.--Fenian Swine 22:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My initial reaction is, "What is a GAA club?". Without knowing this, the following generic questions still apply: Roughly how many current stub articles could this stub type be applied to? What are these stubs currently marked as? What existing stub category/categories will this help to reduce? --TheParanoidOne 22:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it were needed (which I don't know, since I'm not certain what a G.A.A.Club is), then GAA-stub would be a far better name. My guess is that it's Gaelic sports (based on Gaelic Athletics Association and the proposer's user name). if so, gaelic-sport-stub would be an even better name - and that one might get enough stubs, since it would be more all-inclusive. Not only would it cover the clubs, but also the sports and biographies of people like Michael Hogan (sportsman). Grutness...wha? 00:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maldives-geo-stub

Since I last did the geo-stub tally two weeks ago, someone has created more than 200 Maldives geography stubs. So, it seems a Maldives-geo-stub may be in order... Grutness...wha? 04:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done and populated, with the help of ace Maldivian stub-creator User:Oblivious. Grutness...wha? 23:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroanatomy stub

There are hundreds of anatomy stubs, and the list is becoming bloated. I propose a sub-stub, the neuroanatomy stub. Here's some examples of stubs that fit this category:

That's only up to "C". As you can see, this is a necessary category. Semiconscious (talk · home) 09:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The anatomy page divides anatomy up according to major body systems:
which seems as as good a way as any to divide up this stub category. So following on from that, perhaps {{nervous-anatomy-stub}} might be better? --TheParanoidOne 10:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest a {{neuroscience-stub}} since many of these articles do not only contain anatomy facts. Many of the stub articles have specific cellular or molecular neuroscience content and fit better within a neuroscience category rather than anatomy or bio-science or cell biology stubs. Nrets 15:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the template feed into the Category:Biology stubs instead of a category of its own? Aecis 23:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added a link to it in the last step of the procedures on the top of this page. Hopefully that'll help some... --01:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Battle stub

At present, stubs concerning battles use {{hist-stub}}, so Category:History stubs contains 150+ obvious "Battle of ..." articles, and quite probably more under different names. I think that creating a {{battle-stub}} is appropriate at this point. -- Kirill Lokshin 21:04, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Phrasing is needed which limits usage to past battles, to prevent spread to many current types of conflicts. (SEWilco 21:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Many battle-related stubs are sorted under {{mil-stub}}. Aecis 23:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{card-game-stub}} and {{online-game-stub}}

{{game-stub}} is now below 400, but is still heavy on at least two pretty discrete constituent elements: card games, and online games (mostly MMORGs). The former looks to be well over the magic 100, and even though it itself is a rather diverse group -- traditional standard-pack games, CCGs, and "boardless board games", it'd correspond to a monophyletic class as regards the underlying categorisation scheme. There's an existing {{poker-stub}} (somewhat undersized, with <30 articles) that this should either superclass or incorporate. The latter looks pretty decent-sized too. Alai 00:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{card-game-stub}} sounds like a good idea. Poker-stub could probably be merged into card-game-stub, unless it's likely to acquire quite a few new articles soon. Online games would belong in {{cvg-stub}}, and the consensus seems to be to divide that based on genre, and not platform (that discussions is further down on this page). --Mairi 01:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As the card game one seems to be profoundly uncontroversial, and was earlier mooted, also without objection, I've been slightly speedy and proceeded to create this one. Alai 00:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{miniatures-stub}}

Further to the above, it might also be a plan to have a stub category for miniatures wargames: there's a fair number, admittedly mainly due to Warhammer and Battletech. Alai 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May be worthwhile, but it would need a better name. "Miniatures" can mean many things. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
game-miniatures-stub, or something of that nature? (assuming it's needed) --Mairi 01:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
miniatures-game-stub would be a little better, but is still quite a mouthful. miniatures-wargame-stub somewhat moreso, on both counts. mini-game-stub or minis-game-stub would be far less clear. By and large I'd be inclined to stick with my original suggestion, which would be familiar to those in the gaming hobby, and is not that deeply mysterious otherwise. Alai 04:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
miniatures are also used in some roleplaying games, which is why I didn't want to make it specific to wargames. I agree with mini-game-stub and minis-game stub being less clear. And while miniatures-stub might be clear to those involved in gaming, it wouldn't to other people, which would lead to it being applied to articles it wasn't meant for. miniatures-game-stub would work for me too, assuming there are actually enough stub to warrant creating the category.
I used to do miniatures wargaming myself, but when I see miniatures-stub my first though is miniature bottles of spirits and liqueurs, so I'd still tend towards miniatures-game-stub (assuming there are enough articles). Grutness...wha? 05:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, I'm a Scotch drinker, and not a miniatures wargamer, but that reading never occurred to me. I must not be drinking enough, as Don Henley would say. To argue against myself: it's only going to be an immediately viable stub-cat if we include the numerous Warhammer stubs, which strictly peaking aren't filed under wargames or miniatures games categories -- perhaps because most of the stubs seem to be WF/WH40K 'universe' topics, and thus not wargame-specific as such (there being video games and RPGs in that setting too). Alai 13:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What occured first to me was cameos and similer small art forms. Other possibility, "toy" dog breeeds. The more specific name is clearly needed. DES (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More English county geo-stubs

I've just done a re-tally of the UK and England geography stub categories (now thankfully a lot smaller than they used to be, but still very big - 2500 stubs rather than 3900). The following seven counties have now reached 100 geo-stubs and are probably worth splitting off with their own stub categories:

  • Berkshire and Buckinghamshire (both over 125)
  • Cumbria, Devon, Hampshire, Kent, Norfolk (100-125 each)

Any objections to me splitting these off? Grutness...wha? 11:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly encourage. Alai 13:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{fashion-bio-stub}}

For fashion designers and whatever (makeup artists?). Can't figure out where to sort them as it is now. --Joy [shallot] 22:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How broad of category would it be? Would it, say, include fashion photographers? --Mairi 03:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think those would be covered by the next proposal down ↓ Grutness...wha? 03:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would think so to, but I'm wondering how broadly fashion-bio-stub is going to be worded, such that they'd be excluded (as they would be biographies relating to fashion...), while not just limiting it to fashion designers. --Mairi 02:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{photographer-stub}}

For photographers. Also can't figure out where to sort them right now. I sorted some under artist-stub but that's stretching it. --Joy [shallot] 22:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. There's easily enough stubs for it, too. --Mairi 03:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Til now I double-sorted them under {{photo-stub}} and an appropriate country-bio-stub...Lectonar 11:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, this will make sorting out {{bio-stub}} a lot easier. Jaxl | talk 15:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Small Business

I propose a small business and entrepreneur stub category. --Arithmomaniac38 23:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

At what point would a small business stop being a small business and need to drop into the main Category:Business stubs? Same question with entrepreneurs and Category:Business bio stubs. GeeJo (talk) 00:19, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Kenya stubs

I propose {{kenya-stub}} and {{kenya-geo-stub}}. Uganda already has equivalents and has far less represented on wikipedia. Google searches in en.wikipedia.org show 13,000 references to Uganda and 17,600 references to Kenya. TreveXtalk 15:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uganda-stub and Uganda-geo-stub were created by someone not aware of this project and only narrowly survived being sent for deletion, since there were nowhere near enough items for either category. Since then, there have been many more stubs created, since the person who created the stub types was actively working on Uganda articles. The size of a parent "main" category is irrelevant as far as the creation of stub categories is concerned - the number of stubs is far more important. There could be 1000 articles on a subject but none of them stubs - in which case there is no need for a separate stub cqategory. In the case of Kenya, there were - at last count (today!) 50 geography stubs related to the country. Geo-stub categories are only created when there are more than about 65-70 - and preferably closer to 100 - stubs, especially when the parent stub category is not heavily populated (and Category:East Africa geography stubs is not heavily populated). As far as Kenya-stub is concerned, if you can show that there are 60 currently existing stubs that could take the template, then there's no problem (the non-geographic region-related stubs are not regularly talled by us). With the geo-stub, it may well get created when the number of geo-stub articles relating to Kenya increases - but it isn't needed yet. It's not too far away, though. Now if you were to create 15-20 new stub articles on Kenyan geography and add {{AfricaE-geo-stub}} to them, suddenly the creation of a Kenya-geo-stub would look more viable (don't tell anyone I suggested that! :) Grutness...wha? 10:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radio personalities

We don't seem to have a specific category for "radio personalities". I stumbled into a fair few of those while trawling People stubs. --Joy [shallot] 22:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorting them into radio-stub now, and leaving bio-stub in if applicable. Google search for 'site:en.wikipedia.org "This biographical article is a stub." radio' returns less than two hundred hits so I'm not so worried. --Joy [shallot] 18:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them can have bio-stub replaced by journalist-stub, but many can't. --Joy [shallot]

Don't worry, radio fans seem to be just as obsessive as rail fans, metro fans, road geeks, etc. As soon as they finish writing stubs for every single radio station around the world they will start writing articles on every radio DJ in the world. When I've found any in the LA area, I've tried to merge them into the articles about their radio stations. There are only a few LA DJs, such as Jim Ladd, who deserve their own articles. BlankVerse ∅ 19:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US Politicians by State

After noticing {{Maryland-politician-stub}} and the huge bloated size of the main US politician stub category (around 2200 stubs), I thought I'd make a quick check to see how the numbers work out. Results are HERE. I moved through them rather quickly, so there is a margin of error built into the numbers, but they should be proportionally accurate given the size of the category. Which state do we want to stop at? GeeJo (talk) 01:47, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I use 75 for the state-geo-stub splits... so the borderline would be around the Alabama/Texas area. If you split down to 9and including) Texas, that would give seven more state-specific politician stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of the editors involved in the California WikiProject just created List of Speakers of the California State Assembly, which, if fully populated, would add 50 more stubs to the 149 that already exist to California. Since he seems to be a bit of political junkie, I'm sure that a {{California-politician-stub}} would be very useful. Also, there are probably more politicians in {{US-bio-stub}} who haven't been categorized (and is another huge category that could probably have some state-bio-stubs created). BlankVerse ∅ 10:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Earth scientist stubs

I've been doing a lot of sorting of the scientist stubs and I think there definitely needs to be a {{geologist-stub}} and maybe another one for climatologists and meteorologists (it could be a combo one, like the existing one for climatology and meteorology). I've never proposed for one of these, forgive me if I'm going about this wrong. :) --Etacar11 17:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly how many stub articles would fit in each of those? If there isn't enough for splitting them, perhaps a combined geosci-bio-stub or earthsci-bio-stub (or other varient) would work. --Mairi 05:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check the numbers when I get the chance. And thanks for moving this, I missed a heading there. :) --Etacar11 05:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rough numbers: I counted about 125 potential geologist stubs (including mineralogists and petrologists). And that's not even including the paleontologists, who probably should have both geologist and biologist stub listing. For climatologists/meteorologists I count about 60. Enough for two separate stubs, do you think? --Etacar11 15:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that's enough for 2 seperate stubs, altho 60 is borderline. Perhaps call the one for climatologists/meteorologists {{climate-bio-stub}} (to match the existing {{climate-stub}}), altho I'm not sure I like that name much. --Mairi 21:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
what about something like {{geoscience-bio-stub}}, which could then include more than just geologists (geographers e.g.)? and the other one perhaps {{weather-bio-stub}} (that sounds weird...) Lectonar 08:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Too late, I made the geologist stub last night! :) Of course, a geoscience one would do for geographers, geodesy people, etc. Personally, for the climatologists and meteorologists, I think climate-bio-stub sounds better. --Etacar11 14:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
tststs (using a chiding tone)...you could have waited the appropriate time (see procedure) ;) Lectonar 11:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oooops, missed the last line in the procedure. Sorry, again! My bad. --Etacar11 14:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Stubs

I am think it would be cool to categorize drug stubs first of all marijuana stubs, then uppers, hallucionegens, downers, inhalants, etc. I love to draw and design and would love to volunteer to design a whole bunch of drug stubs. I already have a bunch of good ideas for "Cocaine" based stubs. What about a crack stub? too.Wiki brah 04:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's already {{hallucinogen-stub}}. Anything else could go under {{med-stub}}, {{plant-stub}} and/or {{inorganic-compound-stub}}/{{organic-compound-stub}} (depending on the nature of the drug). Or perhaps {{culture-stub}}, if it's more about the affect on society. --Mairi 06:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Jewish Actresses?

I dont know about you but did you see my sample work on the "hot jewish actress" stub i did I mean I'd make a whole bunch more if it was ok. I love jewish women they are sooo exotic just check out my "Cherie Fleur Juive," Lisa Kushell (I made that stub for her)Wiki_brah (talk · contribs)

Yes we did notice - it's currently on "Stub types for deletion", because it isn't a category that makes any sense to use. Actresses are classified with actors - since the same editors will be likely to know about both - and sorted by nationality. "Jewish" isn't a nationality, and "hot' in this case is firstly very point-of-view and secondly a fairly dubious way of describing people. If you want to make more stub types, then coming here and proposing them (by name - don't just say you want to make "a whole bunch more") so that they can be debated before possible creation. Also note that templates are only made when they'll be useful to editors - that's the whole purpose for them, not as decoration! Grutness...wha? 07:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very muchb ut one thing I love decorations I mean I have a talent for design and drawing and graphic design can't you tell I would be happier if i could like design professional stubs for you guys. I know the categories might be a little rare but can you agree my Scarface Stub and jewish Acress stubs did ast least look really nice?Wiki brah 18:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General Relativity stub

I want to create a {{general relativity-stub}}. It would be nice to have a little picture in there somewhere for easy identification, maybe something like [Image:Wavy.gif] ---Mpatel (talk) 09:57, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I have my doubts about whether or not there is a need for this. How many existing stub articles do you forsee being labelled with this proposed stub type? --TheParanoidOne 10:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, quite a lot. Just take a glance at the general relativity pages (e.g. Kerr metric, fluid solution, Kerr-Newman metric, electrovacuum solution, Bonnor beam, lambdavacuum solution, Anti de Sitter space, to name a handful) and you will see a plethora of red links to GR related stuff. In recent months, there has been a surge of activity in the GR pages, but this has just started. There are many GR articles that will be of stub-status soon. Also, we have at least one expert on the subject helping to clean up the GR pages and many red links seem to be forthcoming. ---Mpatel (talk) 10:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Forgive me - physics is not my field - but would there be any confusion in just calling it {{relativity-stub}}? Grutness...wha? 11:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's a possibility, but GR is the more comprehensive theory. Special relativity (SR) is a related theory, but 'simpler'. However, it may be better just to call it {{relativity-stub}}, as there will certainly be more stubs that way. Once I get more GR people involved in this issue, we should reach a decision on the name. ---Mpatel (talk) 11:55, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
The advantages I see with a {{relativity-stub}} are that the name is simpler and the subject is more all-encompassing. Whereas it might be a struggle to get 100 stubs related to general relativity, 100 related to both general and special relativity would be more likely. It is also likely to be the same group of editors who would work on both topics, I would think. The general idea with stubs is that you want to specialise a topic enough for it to be useful, but not so much that the category formed is too narrow. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, as one of the general relativity editors I strongly support the creation of either a {{relativity-stub}} or {{general relativity-stub}}. It would be very helpful to have a place to go to find the relativity subjects that need work. This stub, if it automatically places articles into an related category, will be very helpful in that regard.
That said, my support is more for the relativity stub. My primary reason for this is the large overlap between the special and general theories, such that it would be better to pull the relativity-related stubs aside as whole and worry later about how to subset it if that is ever necessary. (It is not a given that stubbing needs will divide themselves out a neatly as the categorization needs do.) On the other hand, I will note that Grutness is mistaken about the SR and GR editors being the same group. GR is a much broader and arcane field of study than SR is. Those of us who have chosen to focus on it have a depth of knowledge and experience such that working on SR almost seems like a waste of our time. (That is not to say that we do not work on SR pages at times, but usually we are content to let others do that work.) Even so, a unified relativity page will give both groups a chance to make appropriate contributions in the area as a whole, and I think that is an advantage. --EMS | Talk 04:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the {{relativity-stub}} seems more appropriate and popular. I say we go for the {{relativity-stub}}. ---Mpatel (talk) 13:40, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Hi all, I, Mpatel, and EMS are working on drafting a manifesto founding a new project, WikiProject GTR. We all have at least some technical expertise in this area at the graduate or Ph.D. level. A still incomplete draft of our "manifesto" for this project can be found at User:Hillman/Wikiproject GTR draft, which may give some impression of the amount of thought we are putting into this. (At the moment, this is an informal project; we expect to pursue creating a formal project once the manifesto has been completed.) The basic goal of the project will be to greatly expand and improve the pages dealing with general relativity, one of the most successful and beautiful scientific theories of all time, and also one of the most misunderstood, because of the many conceptual challenges it presents. Our intent is by improving organization and content of existing articles and by adding many new articles (and merging in cases of multiple articles on the same topic) to help the general public and students at all levels find reliable and current information at a technical level they can handle.
The proposed {{relativity-stub}} will assist us in doing this work. As for the name, our focus is on general relativity, but we are working on honor of the World Year of Physics, which honors all of Einstein's achievements, so the broader {{relativity-stub}} is not inappropriate. On the other hand, I would also be happy with the name {{gtr-stub}} which would be consonant with the name of the project. Note that "gtr" is a very commonly employed acronym likely to be understood by most people seriously interested in black holes and so forth, regardless of their level of technical expertise. Also, Grutness, on the order of a hundred GTR stubs is not by no means out of the question! But again, I would be quite happy with either name.
If you look at Category:General relativity you will see some new subcategories which we need to populate; some lists I am keeping, contributors to general relativity and lists of links (mostly to articles yet to be written) at the end of articles listed at the end of exact solutions in general relativity should give some idea of the kind of articles which might initally be {{gtr-stub}}s. As we proceed with the work, I expect that we will identify more areas which need work, and here too the new stub should be helpful. If you look at my contributions, you should see that I have already created many of the articles listed in these categories during the past few months. Grutness, I can assure you that on the order of a hundred GTR stubs is not by no means out of the question!
A question: it might be helpful to us if we could tag biographical stubs for Category:contributors to general relativity with both {{gtr-stub}} and {{physicist-stub}}. As far as I know, this would be fine, but please speak up if you know otherwise.---CH (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{gtr-stub}}? Only if they're guitarists! We avoid abbreviations where possible here because they could lead to ambiguity. I think {{relativity-stub}} is the better name by far - it would also be easier to split later into general-relativity-stub and special-relativity-stub, if needed. As to double-stubbing, that's a standard practice here, although if there were going to be enough biographical stubs it might even be worth splitting off a relativity-physicist-stub. Grutness...wha? 03:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so how exactly does one go about actually creating a stub ? ---Mpatel (talk) 11:22, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
It's mentioned in the proposal steps at the top of the page. --TheParanoidOne 12:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Mongolia related geo-stub (Central Asia geography stubs ({{CAsia-geo-stub}})), but nothing for any other Mongolia related topics. Some (OK one) new stubs that I have encountered are Khan related (Category:Mongol_Khans) like Tughlugh_Timur. Something like Mongolia-related stubs {{Mongolia-stub}} or {{CAsia-stub}} (See also talk at MediaWiki_talk:Central_Asia) should do the job. {{CAsia-stub}} would naturally include more stubs, hard to say how many though. Google search "site:en.wikipedia.org Mongolia stub" yields 338 pages, [1], adding -"location article" to remove those geo articles gives 285 hits [2]. It seems that currently those articles get a bio- or hist-stub mostly. One example of an unavailability for a stub tag is here Treaty_between_Tibet_and_Mongolia_(1913) (although probably not a stub anymore) - having a tibet-, but not a mongolia-stub (CAsia-stub). Future additions are probable so whynot create one. I would go for the {{Mongolia-stub}} since it seems more accurate and less troublesome (geopolitical correctness), than a {{CAsia-stub}}. Comments? Suggestions... feydey 11:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps start with {{CAsia-stub}} and see how full it gets - it can always be pared off into separate countries later. That would parallel what's happened ith the geography stubs. I suspect some items - especially historical ones - will overlap national boundaries anyway. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orchid Genera and Species

As a new editor in the Wikipedia I've been noticing that my area of interest, Orchids, has a nice long list of many of the Orchid genera but there are many of these genera that are red links. Furthermore when I go into the actual blue-link genera many of the entries simply have the species listed as text in the article. Example: Dracula (orchid) genera. I started looking into the stubs to see how I might bring attention to this gap in information and only found the {{Plant-stub}}. I've already added a couple entries of this stub to the genera pages, but before I go running off with this approach on the 800+ genera and the species I'd like to call attention to, I figured it made more sense to propose more specific stubs. My proposal is to add the following two stubs as sub-categories of the plant stub: {{Orchid-genera-stub}} and {{Orchid-species-stub}} (Brett Francis 03:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Again, two separate templates is probably overkill. The same editors would be working on the two types of articles - so why increase their work by having them look in two separate categories - surely a single {{orchid-stub}} is enough? Grutness...wha? 07:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Plant stubs is at 8 pages right now, so I guess it's in need of a split. I don't enough about plants to know how to split it, but orchid-stub seems reasonable. --TheParanoidOne 10:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The only thought about two stubs; one for genera and one for the plants themselves... is that it is my understanding there are people that are experts within one genera (i.e. {{Orchid-species-stub}}) and then people that are experts across genera (i.e. {{Orchid-genera-stub}}). But for the sake of starting with less-is-more, I'll shrink my proposal to {{orchid-stub}} as suggested which can always be grown later. (Brett Francis 01:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
OK it has been a week, I'm adding {{orchid-stub}} as there have been no other objections. {Brett Francis 04:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

A whole bunch of road stubs

I'd like to have a whole bunch of stubs approved per the discussion under U.S. Highway Stub:

I'm not sure if dashes are needed, or if I should use route instead of highway. However, {{US-road-stub}} has over 600 articles in it, as does {{road-stub}}. Something needs to be done about this... --Rschen7754

I also need to add that {{Kentucky State Highway Stub}} has been created (for its associated WP). --Rschen7754

In anwer to your question, theoretically they should have hyphens, but so far none of the other State Highway stubs do. I noted in a section further up the page that they're "in a list of stubs to take to sfd for renaming at some point". Personally, I'd prefer to see them shortened, too, perhaps to something like Maryland-SHwy-stub, but I might be in the minority. One more point - if they were to be hyphenated, it should be as xxx-statehighway-stub, and one of them would be NewHampshire-statehighway-stub (or possibly -StateHighway- ). Input is greatly needed here from other stub sorters! Canada-road-stub, though, is long overdue, and I've often thought of proposing it myself. Grutness...wha? 03:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I too would like to see them hyphenated. at the very least, "stub" should be lowercase. Something of the form xxx-statehighway-stub would be my preference, as it fits best with the other stub categories. Shortened would be nice, but I don't thing there's any obvious way to abbreviate "State Highway"... --Mairi 17:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can we do something so that more WikiProjects are aware of this project? As a lot of them make stubs for their project, but usually any standardized names, and without this project knowing about them. It'd save alot of trouble discovering/renaming/deleting them... --Mairi 17:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering starting a US Roads WP to coordinate the us road articles... and I'll try to say something about this WP if I do.--Rschen7754 06:03, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'll start creating the stubs listed above soon (within next month)... I'm currently classifying the Interstate stubs right now. When I do create them I'll note it above and on the stub types page. I'll substitute hyphens instead of spaces for now for consistency... how do I create a stub redirect for WA though?.--Rschen7754 00:58, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Simply move the template to a new title. The old name will automatically redirect to it (and don't do what I didthe first time I tried this - remember to specify that the new name is a template!) Grutness...wha? 01:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hip-Hop Stub

A stub for all things Hip-Hop that are stubs. It fulfills everything necessary to warrant it becoming a stub.Urthogie 17:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across so many hiphop stubs recently that I wholeheartedly support this proposal. Aecis 18:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea - may I suggest that hiphop-music-stub, or perhaps just hiphop-stub, would be the best way to hyphenate it? Grutness...wha? 01:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hiphop-stub for now, cus i think almost all of the hip hop categories's articles have to do with the music-- thus, theres no need to alienate the other articles relating to hip hop. definitely hiphop-stub.Urthogie 01:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-i approve: this stub category would help tremendously in reducing the number of musician stubs. (as would a rap category). what's the next step, is anyone creating it? J. Van Meter 15:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, September 2005

Jewish biography stub

Proposal by Nowhither 19:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I propose the creation of a stub tag for biographies of Jews, tentatively called "Jewish-bio-stub". This would be for biographical stubs about people who are notable primarily as Jews.

This tag would be appropriate for a number of existing stub articles that have no meaningful biographical stub tag; that is, they either have the (relatively useless) "Bio-stub", or else no biographical stub tag at all. Some examples:

Other biographical stubs, that currently do have a meaningful bio stub tag, might still be candidates for "Jewish-bio-stub". For example:

This last category includes some marked as "religious figures":

I am aware that biographical stubs are traditionally sorted by either nationality or occupation, and being Jewish is neither of those. However, I think it is clear that this tag would be a useful way for editors to find articles to work on (which is the point of stub tags).

— Nowhither 19:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't simply adding the already existing {{JewHist-stub}} do the trick? Grutness...wha? 00:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{JewHist-stub}} is not a biographical stub. It's semi-appropriate, of course, and, as my links above show, it is used. Similarly, we could mark all scientists with {{Sci-stub}}, but we don't because we have a biographical stub: {{Scientist-stub}}. Use of {{JewHist-stub}} is very appropriate for articles like Second Temple Period and Government of ancient Israel, but it is not quite optimal for stubs about people. — Nowhither 18:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
:) Believe me, I know that. Which is why I said adding the stub rather that replacing. Nationality and occupation are the usual ways to split people, and while I realise that the jewish faith is a specific case where a religion-bio-stub would make sense, I'm just a bit chary about setting a precedent that crosses other categories. Rather than being like marking scientists with sci-stub, it's more like marking relativity researchers with both physicist-stub and relativity-stub. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for New Jazz Stub

Proposed by J. Van Meter

hi all, i'd like to propose this new jazz stub: {{jazz-stub}} to clarify and organize the huge number of music and musician stubs, and also tie in the many jazz festivals, jazz producers, songs, albums, etc.

for example, it could be applied to:

...to list just a very small portion of them.

i think the jazz contributors would be well-served with this new classification. let me know. (hope i've formatted this proposal entry properly.) thanks, J. Van Meter 03:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC) 1 september 2005[reply]

While I agree with the proposal, normally one proposes things (and then waits a week for consensus) before creating them: {{Jazz-stub}}. --Mairi 03:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-oops, so sorry. thought it had to exist in order to be proposed. J. Van Meter
Nope, the proceedures are at the top of this page. The category also still needs to be created... --Mairi 04:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-understood. but aren't i supposed to wait a week to do that? J. Van Meter 11:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The important thing is to create the category and template at the same time - articles can be "lost" otherwise (long story - it's the way templates work). Normally you'd wait a week to make both, but since the template's already there, the category should be too. Wait a few days before you start stubbing articles with the template, though, just in case there are any objections (though I doubt there will be). Grutness...wha? 11:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-thanks for the input grutness. i didn't tag any of the articles yet. i knew to wait for the approval process, so i'm a bit confused about how things might become lost in the meantime. but i'll take you're word for it and get to work today to create the category now too. should i list it in the stub category page, or should i wait on that part?J. Van Meter 12:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a glitch in the way templates work when they assign things to categories. If the category is added after articles are stubbed, the articles don't appear in the categories and have to have a null-edit done to them to make them appear. If a category's heavily used, the non-appearances may get overlooked, so the articles effectively "go missing". Grutness...wha?
-ok, per grutness's instructions, i've created the category (and placed it as a sub-category on the music stubs page). again, i'm very sorry to have gone out of order on the proceedure steps. i read the whole entry prior to starting and thought i'd done it properly. i'll continue to wait before i start tagging. J. Van Meter 13:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This would definitely prove to be a very useful stub. I approve this proposal. Haon 04:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely sounds useful. Grutness...wha? 11:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Next batch of geo-stubs

I've just finished this month's check of geo-stub numbers, and the following look ripe for splitting:

The Vietnam one in particular would be very useful.

Someone is happily writing stub articles for every tiny rock off the coast of massachusetts. even if a few of them end up vfd'd, there should be plenty for this stub.

Probably more than that in each case, because I haven't yet added in articles that straddle two counties. Again, someone is busily creating new stub articles on Shropshire. The Sussex stub would cover both of the two counties that used to be Sussex (East Sussex and West Sussex), in the same way that Yorkshire stub covers North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, etc. Grutness...wha? 11:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make it {{WestVirginia-geo-stub}} (no space) to be consistent with the other state stubs (for example, {{NewYork-geo-stub}} and {{NorthCarolina-geo-stub}}). I'd also like to propose {{Virginia-geo-stub}} at this same time, too. It currently has between 70 and 80 articles, and it would be easier to split it out at the same time as West Virginia. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 11:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Right of course - the space was a slight slip of the keyboard, which I've corrected. And it probably is a good idea to deal with Virginia at the same time - the Southern US category is pretty full. Grutness...wha? 14:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Merseyside, too. it's got 90 stubs and is growing fairly fast. Grutness...wha? 11:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but think that for the sake of consistency, if you're going to have a stub category for one English county, you should have one for all of them. Combining the parts of Yorkshire, Sussex, etc. makes sense, although not having a Staffordshire geo-stub seems silly when there is a Shropshire one, for instance. Although some may not meet the required 60-100 articles straight away, it would make a lot more sense. Similarly for US states, Canadian provinces, etc. (RFBailey 18:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
The aim of stub templates and stub categories is not consistency, but usefulness. If there are not enough articles for a certain category, that category apparently isn't useful enough yet. It is irrelevant how many comparable categories there are. Categories have to be viewed in their own light, not in the light of their "brothers" and "sisters." Aecis 21:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From the point of view of entering/editing articles, or if categories are for presenting information in an organised manner, then surely consistency is important, as well as useful. (RFBailey 22:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Usefulness is the prime consideration here, though of course consistency is also important. But consider this. If we were going to favour consistency over usefulness, we would have a geo-stub category for every country on the planet. We'd have one for Dominica, for instance - even though it only has one stub article. That would be a waste of our time and a waste of editors' time. Some US states and English counties have the same problem (though not quite as extreme as that). As far as Staffordshire is concerned, it will almost certainly soon get a stub category of its own at some point - it is approaching the 90-100 threshold we've been using for splits of English counties (it has 77 and is currently tenth ranked out of counties without their own stubs). From the point of view of the effort involved in splitting off and sorting counties, though, it makes sense to deal with a few at a time, starting with the biggest ones. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've created stubs and associated categories for Massachusetts, Virginia, and West Virginia. I know it's only been five days since they were proposed; but these are fairly "low risk" (plus I'm taking a wikiholiday and wanted to get these created beforehand). — Fingers-of-Pyrex 12:05, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
OK - I'll put up the lists for those states on my geo-stub splitting page. Grutness...wha? 09:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stock exchange stubs

The Category:Economics and finance stubs is filled with articles about stock exchanges and indices (I hope to have the exact count finished by tomorrow). This leads me to propose a template {{stock exchange-stub}} and a category that goes along with it. Aecis 00:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like the idea, but not the name - losing the space to make stockexchange-stub would be better, but something else is likely to be better still... Grutness...wha? 01:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've now gone through Category:Economics and finance stubs and Category:Stock exchanges. So far, I've found 70 stubs articles relating to stock exchanges, 46 in Category:Economics and finance stubs and 24 in Category:Stock exchanges. So the size of the new stub category shouldn't be that much of a problem. What do you see as an alternative to {{stockexchange-stub}}? I can't think of any. Aecis 14:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. I had a nagging feeling that there was a better name, but couldn't put my finger on it. Perhaps stockmarket-stub? That would also allow for a slightly broader interpretation of what could be stubbed with it. I'm a little unsure of the difference though, and the Wikipedia articles are a bit vague, just saying that they're not the same thing, without really pointing out the differences. Or brokerage-stub - or is that too ambiguous? If the term bourse was wider used it would solve the problem, but it isn't. Perhaps it's best to go with stockexchange-stub. Grutness...wha? 14:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another option might be stock-stub or stocks-stub, but that might be too ambiguous and might not be intuitive enough. I think stockexchange-stub is the most intuitive of all options (NYSE, FTSE). I'll see if I can find a better option in the next few days. Aecis 15:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand politician stubs and French politician stubs

I propose two separate stub tags, {{NZ-politician-stub}} and {{France-politician-stub}}, for New Zealand and French politicians. While sorting through all of the {{bio-stub}}s, I noticed myself sorting a lot of articles under {{politician-stub}} and {{NZ-bio-stub}}, and {{politician-stub}} and {{France-bio-stub}}. I did two Google searches to find out approxamately how many stubs there are for each tag, and the results were:

Comments? Jaxl | talk 04:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds viable. I'm surprised there are that many Kiwi ones, but with an election looming in two weeks, a lot of stub articles on candidates have probably been written recently. Thumbs up from me. Mind you, be warned - that sort of google search may overestimate slightly due to chance combinations of words. Grutness...wha? 04:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured the searches weren't entirely accurate, but I'm under the impression that there will probably be more NZ politician stubs popping up because, like you said, the election is approaching soon. Also, note that I didn't search for "New Zealand politicial figure" or "French politicial figure", so there may be more out there... Jaxl | talk 15:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More Musicians/Music Subcategory proposals

To further reduce the overpopulation in the Musicians and Music stub categories, I'd like to propose a few more subdivisions: {{Classical-musician-stub}} {{Country-music-stub}} {{Blues-stub}} {{Gospel-music-stub}} {{Folk-music-stub}} The already proposed Hip-Hop stub will go a long way in the Musicians category as well. Thanks for any feedback. J. Van Meter 12:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do think this will help the music category. Go for it. -Haon 13:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although it might seem a little contrived, it'd be useful of all the genre stubs had the same number of hyphenations, so I'd suggest countrymusic-stub, gospelmusic-stub amd folkmusic-stub. Also, given the recent jazz-stub - which seems to include a lot of jazz musicians, perhaps {{jazz-musician-stub}} would also probably be useful. The one problem I see with both that and classical-musician-stub, though, is that splitting of musicians so far has been by instrument rather than genre. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- i'll do whatever you want with the hyphens. i didn't think there was quite the need to split the jazz musicians from the other jazz related stubs, although maybe, to be a purist, i should have. the problem i'm seeing w/ the musician-stubs split by instrument (as they are) is that people are getting lost within those categories. going on the assumption that the stub categories should be grouped to attrack the interest of potential contributors and editors, it seems to make the most sense to pull some of these folks into genre categories. someone willing to write about Bill Frisell for example, would be more apt to also write about Richie Powell or the Brecon Jazz Festival, than say, about Jesse Pintado. i've been trying to chisel away at the musician stub category for several days already and it's just killing me that people like András Schiff, Marcel LaFosse, Papa Charlie McCoy and Ruth Laredo are jammed into a huge category with the likes of MC Chickaboo, Flesh-n-Bone, J-Kwon, Fan 3, and MC HotDog.  :-J. Van Meter 01:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I'm not a fan of the "musician by instrument" categories myself - I feel that it would make more sense, say, to have Andre Segovia with Yehudi Menuhin than with Jeff Beck. It may be that some more thought is needed over the way musicians are being split - especially since you can get multi-instrumentalists. Mnd you, you also get people who perform in several styles, so I suppose it's not clear-cut either way. Grutness...wha? 05:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-I certainly don't think it's necessary to peel everyone out of the musicians category and put them all into a million ultra-specific sub-stub categories. As you mention, there is a lot of cross-over and gray area. I just think pulling some of the glaringly obvious ones out would be a fine improvement. Right now there is an opera-stub, an opera-singer-stub and a classical-composition-stub. So how 'bout for starters I do a {{classical-music-stub}}. This will handle the musicians, as well as any composers, conductors and misc. historic figures. I think that will make for a decent sized category without the need for getting any more specific. (Opera singer stubs, for example aren't divided up for contraltos and tenors.) How does that sound? (No pun intended.)
J. Van Meter 14:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Genre is useful, but so is instrument. Personally I think {{woodwind-musician-stub}}, {{brass-musician-stub}}, {{keyboard-musician-stub}}, and {{string-musician-stub}} would all be useful. Those who are multi-instrumentalists in one genre would get just the one genre stub, those who are multi-genre artists on one instument (family) would get just the one instrument stub and those who play but a single genre on a single instrument would get both. After all, Wikipedia is not a tree.
- at this point, after browsing through the current music and musician stubs for a while now, i just don't believe there are that many classical artist stubs there to warrant so many and such specific categories. J. Van Meter 14:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Polymer-stub}}

I'm back from holiday and back on the trail of clearing out {{chem-stub}}! Polymer-stub has the advantage of having Wikipedia:WikiProject Polymers behind it, so I hope that you will find it acceptable. No logo for the moment, but all suggestions are welcome. Physchim62 00:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Footyclub-stub}}

The Category:Football (soccer) stubs is getting seriously overpopulated. Most of the articles in the category are about football clubs. And since there already is a daughter category English football club stubs, I would like to propose new daughter categories of Category:Football (soccer) stubs:

  1. {{Africa-footyclub-stub}} / Category:African football (soccer) club stubs
  2. {{Asia-footyclub-stub}} / Category:Asian football (soccer) club stubs
  3. {{Euro-footyclub-stub}} / Category:European football (soccer) club stubs
  4. {{SAm-footyclub-stub}} / Category:South American football (soccer) club stubs
  5. {{US-footyclub-stub}} / Category:United States football (soccer) club stubs

If there are any clubs (for instance from Australia or New Zealand) that are not covered by these categories, there are two options:

  1. They remain in the Category:Football (soccer) stubs
  2. They are moved to a Category:Football (soccer) club stubs, which could then function as a parent category of the stub categories I proposed.

After this move, creating national daughter categories should be much easier, similar to what is happening with Geo Stubs. I would also like to propose renaming {{eng-club-stub}} to {{eng-footyclub-stub}}. Aecis 16:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phase 2 of sorting out Category:Football (soccer) stubs would be the creation of three other stub templates and categories ({{footyorg-stub}} for national federations and continental confederations, {{footystadium-stub}} for stadiums and {{footyleague-stub}} for domestic and international leagues), but their viability can only be established once the club articles are moved to daughter categories. Aecis 17:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good - though I think that the Euro category will probably need further splitting. I'd suggest a couple of minor changes though (my changes in italics)-
  1. {{Africa-footyclub-stub}} / Category:African football (soccer) club stubs
  2. {{AO-footyclub-stub}} / Category:Asian and Oceanian football (soccer) club stubs
  3. {{Euro-footyclub-stub}} / Category:European football (soccer) club stubs
    1. {{England-footyclub-stub}} (rather than Eng)
    2. {{Scotland-footyclub-stub}}
  4. {{SAm-footyclub-stub}} / Category:South American football (soccer) club stubs
  5. {{Concacaf-footyclub-stub}} / Category:CONCACAF football (soccer) club stubs (see note below)
    1. {{US-footyclub-stub}} / Category:United States football (soccer) club stubs

This divides up the soccer world in much the way that FIFA does (but combines Asia and Oceania, something which may happen yet with FIFA anyway). CONCACAF is the official FIFA term for North and Central America plus the Caribbean. A better name would be desirable here, if someone can think of one! Grutness...wha? 23:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about simply {{NAm-footyclub-stub}}? Central America is usually viewed as a part of North America and given a choice between only NAm and SAm, I know that I's include the Caribbean in NAm as well. Caerwine 07:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
erm... excuse me for asking an impertinent question, but where abouts do you live? I only ask because I've never heard of Central America or the Caribbean being viewed of as part of North America. I think if you had a NAm-footyclub-stub, someone would come along very quickly and create CAm-footyclub-stub and Caribbean-footyclub-stub. I'd certainly never consider adding NAm-footyclub-stub to clubs in Jamaica, Honduras or the like. Grutness...wha? 13:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S., but I'm hardly alone in considering Central America as part of North America. To quote the first sentence of Wiikpedia's own article on Central America, "Central America is the region of North America located between the southern border of Mexico and the northwest border of Colombia, in South America." As for the Caribbean, I agree that it might require some patrolling to populate the stubs appropriately, but there shouldn't be all that many Caribbean footy stubs. Of course, the text of the stub should make it clear that Central America and the Caribbean are included. Caerwine 13:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting discussion, between Caerwine and Grutness. Which brings the following thought to mind: wouldn't it be less ambiguous to sort by confederation, instead of by continent? This would mean that clubs from for instance Kazakhstan, Turkey or Israel would fall under {{UEFA-footyclub-stub}}, while clubs from North and Central America and the Caribbean (and Guyana and Suriname from South America) would fall under {{CONCACAF-footyclub-stub}}. Any thoughts on this? Aecis 14:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do many parts of the world think of soccer when they hear the term "footy club"? I think of Aussie Rules as "footy". --Scott Davis Talk 15:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the Template:Football-stub is a redirect to Template:Footy-stub (there is no Template:Soccer-stub). And since the template is footy-stub, I think it's best to make this template use footyclub-stub, for the sake of consistency. Australian Rules football uses {{afl-stub}}, American Football uses {{Amfootball-stub}}. Aecis 15:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An elaboration of the above proposal on sorting by confederation instead of by continent: this proposal, if approved, would lead to six new stub templates: {{AFC-footyclub-stub}}, {{CAF-footyclub-stub}}, {{CONMEBOL-footyclub-stub}}, {{CONCACAF-footyclub-stub}}, {{OFC-footyclub-stub}} and {{UEFA-footyclub-stub}}. Aecis 15:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea as far as sorting is concerned, but the names aren't widely known to non-soccer fans. Also it leaves the problem of Oceania - almost all the (small number of) stubs for that will be Australian, and Australia is in the process of moving from OFC to AFC. I still think it would be better to combine those two regions (in terms of stubs). Grutness...wha? 00:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that there seems to be little argument about Euro-footyclub-stub, US-footyclub-stub or Africa-footyclub-stub - even just splitting these three off will be very useful, so perhaps it's worth doing that for now and thinking some more about how to split off the rest. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, and after 5pm CET I can help :) What about SAm-footyclub-stub, or for instance Brazil-footyclub-stub and Scotland-footyclub-stub? The Euro-footyclub-stub category will probably become large enough to already start thinking about split-offs. Aecis 11:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They probably would be useful - but I'd stick with a few main ones first - that will at least empty the main category considerably, and will make it easier to work out where the next splits will be. It may be that you find yourself thinking "wow - a lot of these seem to be from Norway!" or something like that. I know from the geo-stubs that it isn't always the obvious places that have the most stubs. Grutness...wha? 14:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find myself thinking that, I found myself being impatient ;) Aecis 16:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have created euro-footyclub-stub, Africa-footyclub-stub and US-footyclub-stub. Australia doesn't have to be much of a problem: there are probably enough Australian clubs for an Australia-footyclub-stub template. For as long as Australia is under the OFC, it can be sorted under Oceania-footyclub-stub. When Australia moves to the AFC (I don't know when that will happen), it can be sorted under Asia-footyclub-stub. If Asia and Oceania are fully merged, we might retain both templates, but have them both feed into "Asian and Oceanian football clubs," or something to that extent, and delete "Asian football clubs" and "Oceanian football clubs." What also needs to be made very explicit, is that clubs from Israel, Turkey and Kazakhstan should get euro-footyclub-stub, because their national federations are UEFA members. After all, we follow the sports continents, not the geographic continents. (Right?) Aecis 15:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it certainly makes sense to do so in cases like this. With geo-stubs, we tend to overlap a bit, putting individula country categories into two continent parents where necessary, but given that the confederations make handy divisions, I don't think that's necessary here. It'll need a bit of wording in the category (and maybe the template) to make sure that countries are put into the right categories though. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History Stubs

I just got through with sorting the history stubs and managed to cut them down by about half. I didn't keep an exact count on possibile new sub groups as I went through, but I did find myself wishing for the following stubs to help reduce the size, stubs which I think would pass the 50 stub barrier.

{{Ancient-Greece-stub}} - {{Euro-hist-stub}} just isn't appropriate for some of these as the ancient Greek world crossed over into modern Asia.
{{Armenia-hist-stub}} - Some of these might be AfD candidates as well since it seems like someone added every piece of Armenian trivia they could, but I don't know enough about Armenian history to judge them.
{{China-hist-stub}} - {{EAsia-hist-stub}} would be slightly more inclusive, but I didn't encounter much in the way of Korean or Japanese history stubs.
{{SAsia-hist-stub}} - trying for a neutral name since some of the old places and personages on the Indian subcontinent don't fit into the pigeonholes of the modern states there.

{{Arab-hist-stub}}, {{Persia-hist-stub}}, and {{Africa-hist-stub}} would also be nice, but I don't think they cross the 50 stub threshold at the moment. {{hist-bio-stub}} might also be a viable category if there are enough entries in {{bio-stub}} of historians to justify it, but from those that had just {{hist-stub}} it wasn't. Caerwine 07:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be {{historian-stub}}, in line with e.g. {{economist-stub}}? Aecis 21:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grant that the majority of occupational bio stubs follow that format (the exceptions are largely an attempt to make the stub gender neutral, and in the case of {{mil-bio-stub}} service branch neutral) but we also have {{law-bio-stub}} with {{lawyer-stub}} as a redirect for a counter example. {{hist-bio-stub}} is slightly shorter and if we ever go for a single standard on these, it will have to be {{*-bio-stub}} so that's why I prefer that form. Caerwine 22:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely historian-stub. Hist-bio-stub sounds like biographies of historical characters. "Occupation-stub" is the far easier standard when it comes to later possible splits by nationality. The reason law-bio-stub is like that is so as to cover lawyers, judges, and all other legal occupations. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What Grutness said - law-bio- has the same rationale as mil-bio-, and this doesn't seem necessary for the historians. --Joy [shallot]

I've decided to be conservative for now and only create {{Ancient-Greece-stub}} and {{historian-stub}}. I'll keep track of the others as I reparse the history stubs with these two and make certain that there are enough for the others. Caerwine 20:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haiti Stub

Articles identified:

There may be more.

HalD 02:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we normally need at least 60 stubs before a stub type is worth doing. In any case, all three of these would be bio-stubs, anyway, rather than general country-stub candidates. A {{Caribbean-bio-stub}} would probably be very useful, though, to cover both these and articles about other caribbean people. Grutness...wha? 04:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More, wth current stub settings. I suggest gathering therm into Haiti People and Haiti Places.

Caribbean Stubs --> Haiti Places

  • Artibonite
  • Bois Caïman
  • Gonaïves
  • Hinche
  • Jacmel

Bio Stubs'' --> Haiti People

  • Georges Biassou
  • Dutty Boukman
  • Buteur Métayer
  • Jean François
  • Jeannot

Military Stubs --> Haiti People André Rigaud

Étienne Polverel France stub -- Haiti People Politician Stubs --> Haiti People Raoul Cédras René Préval politician stub

Political Party Stubs --> Haiti organizations Fanmi Lavalas political party stub

12.217.186.109 04:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC) Halcatalyst[reply]

Far too many categories for Haiti at present. there are nowhere near enough stubs for any of these. The largest possible stub category here would be Haiti geography stubs, and there are currently only 22 of them in total. Compare that with fellow Caribbean countries Trinidad and Tobago (61 stubs), Dominican Republic (51), Cuba (41) and Puerto Rico (50), none of which are yet at threshold. Grutness...wha? 07:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Proposal: On the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types page there is no stub at all listed for Haiti. For this page I propose TWO new subdivisions. Both these changes would make it more efficient to sort stubs related to Haiti. At present, as demonstrated above, they are lost in the shuffle.

  • Geographical
    • Place-related, by region - general
      • North and Central America
        • Caribbean Stubs
          • Haiti (new)

This entry would parallel Cuba stubs and Caymans Islands-related stubs

  • People
    • People by nation or region
      • North and Central American people
        • Haitian people stubs

This entry would parallel Belezian people stubs, Canadian people stubs, and American people stubs.

Specifically, the following would go under Haiti Geographical and Haiti People:

Geographical: Artibonite, Bois Caïman, Gonaïves, Hinche, Jacmel

People: André Rigaud, Georges Biassou, Dutty Boukman, Buteur Métayer, Étienne Polverel, Fanmi Lavalas (political party), Jean François, Jeannot, Raoul Cédras, René Préval

HalD 20:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC) Halcatalyst[reply]

That's still only 15 stubs. Under these circumstances, only {{Haiti-stub}} is an option, imo. And if that category grows, the geo- and bio- categories can always be split off. Aecis 21:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The comparisons you have made are either with categories which were incorrectly created from outside this project (e.g., Belizian people stubs, which may well soon end up at WP:SFD), or are well over the threshold level (Canadian and American people stubs each have many hundreds of articles). One separate Haiti-stub may just be viable, but even then it would be a very small category compared to the thresholds we use. I wonder if you misunderstand the purpose of stub categories. They are not separated in the same way as standard categories, but only when there are so many stubs in a larger category that i would make it difficult for editors to find stubs they are looking for. At present, there are not a huge number of stubs in the Caribbean stub categories, and it is still easy to locate Haitian stubs within them. As such, I don't really see the need for separate categories at this time. I can understand you wanting separate categories if Haiti is a country that interests you, but unless the number of stubs increases, it's not really viable or necessary. My advice would be to create more stub articles on Haiti - if there are clearly enough articles, it is inevitable that a separate stub will be created. Take geo-stubs, for instance. At present, with 22 geo-stubs (and a threshold of around 70) there are clearly not enough Haiti stubs. If, however, you were to write stub articles on a further 60 places in Haiti, it would be over the threshold for the creation of a stub type. But until there are more stubs, there'd be little point in it. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-mil-stub}}

Many, many stubs from United States-related stubs and Military stubs could be filtered into {{US-mil-stub}} (and associated category United States military stubs). — Fingers-of-Pyrex 17:12, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Definitely. Was surprised this one doesn't exist already, when I happened across such a stub. Logical sub-cat, and there certainly seem to be plenty of 'em. Alai 00:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I too was very surprised this didn't exist. See also my comments on the "Discoveries" page about redirecting the newly discovered and horribly named {United States Armed Forces-stub}} to it. Grutness...wha? 09:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. bio stub sorting

How about subdivisions of the U.S. bio stubs? I imagine there are plenty that would fit into new york, california, etc...others can be done either by state or by region as needed. I'll work on it if someone gives the OK (not sure what protocols should be followed to create new stub templates.) Thanks... Paul 14:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would correspond with {{UT-bio-stub}} (shouldn't that be {{Utah-bio-stub}}?). So this proposal has my support, provided ofcourse the threshold can be reached. Aecis 21:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It should be Utah-bio-stub (and I think I might just move it there...). Sounds like a reasonable scheme. I'd suggest following the same sort of pattern as I've been doing with the geo-stubs, both in terms of the naming (and please note GeorgiaUS-geo-stub!) and sorting. If you can, as you go, keep track with a spreadsheet, literally listing each article alongside the state. That way not only will you know which states have enough to split off (maybe a threshold of about 70?) but also which ones should be tagged with the new templates. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not 100% about this one. We already have several US-<profession>-stub templates, wouldn't continuing that pattern be more useful? Any number of the profession sub-cats look big enough that this would be sustainable for them. Alai 05:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm. You could be right, maybe with the exception of things where there is a specific state relevance (like politicians). As far as Utah goes, the main resson that was created was that there is a separate WikiProject for it. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the exceptions, though somewhat on a "cross that bridge when we come to it" basis; much better to split on the country-profession-stub in the first instance, then see what we're "left with". If US-politician-stubs (say) are already big enough to require re-splitting, then certainly I'm all in favour of doing that on a per-state (or per region) basis. Alai 06:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An anon user has also just created {{Florida-bio-stub}} and its category. --Mairi 05:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist bio stub

I have found many people who do not fit in any other stub category (see below), but they are convicted or suspected terroists so I think it would be benificial to have a terroist bio stub. All of the below people either have a bio stub or a country bio stubkralahome 3:42 UTC, September 9, 2005

Unless "Terrorist" is a nationality, that would be better as {{terrorist-stub}}. However, we have had this discussion in the past, and the name is a very POV one. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, and we'd soon have to start patrolling Category:Terrorist stubs to make sure that a certain neutrality was maintained. And that's not the sort of work this project was created for. Two of these atre, in any case, Indonesia-bio-stubs (which I didn't realise we had...). And we could probably do with a {{MEast-bio-stub}} for the other two. Grutness...wha? 06:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As an example of potential problems, one of those articles on the list, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, makes no assertion of any terrorist activity or allegation of terrorist activity, only that he was detained as an unlawful combatant by the US. Which doesn't necessarily mean that even the US gov't alleges that he's a terrorist. --Mairi 04:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with G and M. I'm not sure there's even a very clearly defined "profession" here -- bombers, media producers, and unspecified material witnesses -- much less the still-POVer questions like ends and means. I'd rather they remain under their respective countries, and whatever main category they might merit, rather than open this particular can of worms. Alai 04:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Having a Middle East Bio Stub does seem like a better idea. kralahome 9:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

{{Canada-writer-stub}}, {{France-writer-stub}}

I have been bad by being bold and created these two. I've been sorting through {{writer-stub}} and without even being halfway through, I've encountered over 60 stub articles appropriate for each. This way, as I continue sifting I can send these there directly. Thee are others that deserve creation as well, but there may be some nits to pick, so I'll wait until I have a complete census and propose them properly. Caerwine 02:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty... yeah, these don't look as though they'll cause anyone any harm. But you really should wait (it's hard enough getting no WSS people to wat now, without giving them excuses!) Grutness...wha? 02:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Netherlands-stub}}

I keep on running across stubs that could be marked with this template, and each time I'm amazed that it doesn't exist. (The latest was Special school). Any objections? Grutness...wha? 06:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a Dutchman: no, I don't have any objections ;) Aecis 08:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, just listed the associated category on "discoveries"! Or the category that thinks it's associated with this non-template, as it were. For some reason a template of this name was deleted a couple of months ago, and a handful of articles currently "redlink" to it (or to the lack of it...). I'd be inclined to 'speedy' this one, due to it being such a gaping hole in the category scheme, at least if we get a couple more yays, and no nays. Alai 06:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ill add a yay. BL Lacertae 06:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Croatia-bio-stub}}

Few days ago I created {{Croatia-stub}} (I didn't know I had to propose it here, but everything went well, and experts say stub category is well formed), and the category is now growing at rather large rate (it has 62 articles as of this moment, which is 3 days after it's creation). As more than 30% of stubs in that category are bio-stubs, and category is expiriencing it's initial filling, it is not hard to see that when filling is done, there will be a need to create {{Croatia-bio-stub}} and move the bio-stubs there. So, I reckon it would be better to create the category now and bypass the work of moving stubs from {{Croatia-stub}} to {{Croatia-bio-stub}}. Oppinions? --Dijxtra 10:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Indeed, the Croatian politician stubs may actually warrant another stub subcategory for themselves :) But let's just have Croatia-bio-stub. --Joy [shallot] 22:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I jostled through Category:Political_parties_in_Croatia, and my!, Croatia really has to many political parties. I think we'd need another stub category for those as well... but, let us take one step at the time. :-) --Dijxtra 09:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Various math stubs

The Mathematics related stubs are in need of some more subdivision, as there are currently over 1000 entries in Category:Mathematics stubs. Some of these can go in the current classifications, but there are some obvious grouping that are not included, and probably have a lot of potential entries. I propose {{analysis-stub}} and {{algebra-stub}}, which would cover analysis, and algebra respectively. These are fairly general, so should cover a significant number of these entries. There are other categories that might be useful too, such as probability, set theory and category theory. I think we should probably start with the first 2 categories, then see what we have left. Silverfish 17:08, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Another possible one might be geometry-stub, although I don't know how the numbers would stack up for that. Anyone keen to do a break-down? Grutness...wha? 19:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a {{geometry-stub}} --Mairi 19:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! (slaps forehead) Grutness...wha? 23:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, there are 5 math categories at the moment, on Cryptography, Geometry, Knots,Numbers, and Statistics. I'm proposing Analysis and Algebra as 2 new ones that I want comments on, and any suggestions on other topics to cover. Silverfish 21:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I'll try to do a count tonight to see what other topics would make sense. --Mairi 22:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That would be very useful. A couple more subjects to consider, as well as those mentioned above, are graph theory and combinatorics. Silverfish 22:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Analysis could be a tricky one - it has many meanings in maths, some of which overlap statistics and number theory. Can't see any way around that though - if you called it something like maths-function-stub it would overlap algebra. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By the overlap with stats and number theory, are you referring to p-adic analysis, and Analysis of variance. If so, we can probably specifically exclude them from analysis. Perhaps {{Math-analysis}} would be better as a title, addressing Mathematical analysis-related subjects, and using that article as the basis for what to include. We could possibly include related topics such as Measure theory (related to Lebesgue integration), and metric spaces (with a concept of distance, and thus continuity). Silverfish 13:40, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately my knowledge of the subject is limited enough for most of the things you mentioned to be beyond me. But in many analytical sciences the name "statistical analysis" is used for techniques from random sampling through to ANOVA and chi squared. It seems to me that, given this name, trying to divide mathematics into statistics and analysis will be a bit confusing. Grutness...wha? 10:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I think Mathematical analysis is a reasonably well defined area of mathematics, and we should use that article (and the section desribing the various areas of analysis) as our guide for what to include. There are other topics which include analysis in the title, such as statistical analysis, which aren't really part of mathematical analysis, but seem to be using the common meaning of analysis as the result of analysing something. I've done a bit of analysis below, by the way, to give a rough idea of the likely size of each category:

Subject Count

I've done a rought list of how many articles there are in a variety of categories, some that I've proposed, and some other possible categories. It is just for the letter A. The * indicates where I've listed something twice. Using A is a bit misleading, as it gives 5 articles starting algebra, boosting the total, but even with that we get 6 other articles on algebra, versus 3 for the most common other categories. I'm considering whether to just go with algebra to start with, then see what we have left after that. Note I've missed some subjects off the list, where I'm not sure what the subject should be, or where an article could be part of more than one subject. I'll probably do some more of this on other letters too. Silverfish 18:05, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Cellular automata

Information Theory

Books and publications

Algebra

Algorithms

Graph theory

Analysis

Organization

Game theory

Journals

Combinatorics

Proof theory

Finance

Probability

Mathematical logic

Category theory

Numerical analysis

UK Retail Stub

How about a UK retail stub? Similar to the current retail one but with UK added to the name. Greaterlondoner 21:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-retail-stub}} could be useful... IIRC, though, we're dividing up retailers by type of business, rather than location, though I'm not 100% certain on that - anyone here involved in the retail-stub split care to comment? If we are dividing by location, this would definitely be a useful one. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{philosopher-stub}}

After a few months of double-sorting those people with bio-stub and philo-stub, I'm convinced that there's enough material here to warrant its own stub. I was reluctant to propose it earlier because of a potential for abuse (branding people as "philosophers" could be construed as POV in some contexts), but it seems to me now that we have way too many academics in the field of philosophy now that the amount of possible abuse will be peripheral at best. --Joy [shallot]

While sorting Bio stubs, I noticed that there is a need for a stub category for philosophers; currently it is only possible categorize them under writers or academics or according to their origin.--Carabinieri 18:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS, I didnt notice that it was already September and that there is already such a proposal in the September proposals section, so I guess nevermind this proposal--Carabinieri 18:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created it, and went through the Philosophy stubs category up to (incl.) the letter I, and there's 108 articles in the Philosopher stubs category now. --Joy [shallot] 22:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{crime-bio-stub}}

I propose that a stub category be created, to include people who are notable for committing illegal acts: terrorists, famous criminals, etc, because it is often difficult to categorize such people.--Carabinieri 20:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea as far as categorisation, but it needs to be carefully and narrowly defined to avoid abuse. Needs to be limited to people who are notable primarly/only for their [alleged] criminal activity, not just anyone who ever [allegedly] committed a crime. --Alynna 00:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{poli-bio-stub}}

I would also find a person stub category for people involved in politics, who aren't politicians: political activists, campaign managers, etc.--Carabinieri 20:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{politician-stub}} could be a daughter category of this category, if it is created.--Carabinieri 20:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Writer Stubs

I finished going through all the current writer stubs.

Stats

Thresholding at 50 known stubs and combining into larger groupings where feasible I get the following.

  • 85 stubs in Africa (less Egypt, see discussion below)
  • 75 stubs in the Americas (less US and Canada which have their own cats)
  • 18 stubs in Asia but not a subcat
    • 158 stubs in East Asia (includiong China and Japan)
      • 69 stubs in China
      • 87 stubs in Japan
    • 63 stubs in Middle East (not including Armenia, Egypt, or Turkey)
    • 77 stubs in South Asia
  • 35 stubs in Europe but not a subcat
    • 116 stubs in Central Europe (less Germany)
      • 81 stubs in Germany
    • 121 or 162 stubs in Northern Europe (Nordic + Baltic states + possible Ireland)
      • 112 stubs in Nordic states (Iceland, Scandanavia, Finland)
    • 170 stubs in Southern Europe
      • 57 stubs in Southwest Europe (Spain, Portugal and Andorra) [Could be in Western Europe]
      • 54 stubs in South central Europe (Italy and Malta) [Could be in Western Europe]
        • 52 stubs in Italy
      • 59 stubs in Balkans (less Turkey and Romania, see discussion below) [Could be in Eastern Europe]
    • Western Europe (Benelux + either Ireland, SW Europe, or both needed to reach 50 stubs, might also include Italy)
      • 34 stubs in Benelux
      • 41 stubs in Ireland [could also be in Northern Europe]
    • 48 stubs in Eastern Europe (could also include Romania, Balnkans, Baltic, and Armemia)
  • 66 stubs in Oceania (including Australia)
    • 55 stubs in Australia
  • Miscellaneous
    • 2 stubs in Armenia
    • 8 stubs in Egypt
    • 8 stubs in Turkey

Proposal

  1. {{Africa-writer-stub}} - At 85 stubs it's large enough and obvious enough to use.
  2. no Americas stub - At 75 stubs its large enough, but possible confusion with {{US-writer-stub}} leads me to suggest waiting until we have enough stubs to make a {{SAm-writer-stub}} is feasible.
  3. {{EAsia-writer-stub}} - China and Japan are large enough for cats os their own, but with the hanja common to all East Asian writing, it makes a good choice for an icon and no matter how we slice it, will be no {{Asia-writer-stub}} for the Korean stubs to go into, if go country specific here. Could also house the few Vietnamese wrier stubs.
  4. {{MEast-writer-stub}} - With 63 to 81 stubs its large enough. Culturally and historically Egypt, Turkey, and Armenia belong here, despite the possibility of their being placed elsewhere on geographic or political grounds.
  5. {{SAsia-writer-stub}} - The only question I see is should we also include the Southeast Asian stubs from other Brahamic script using languages?
  6. no Oceania/Australia stub - By itself, Australia is too small, and Oceania is likely enough to be unobvious as a place for Australian stubs that I don't see the value. I prefer to wait until a {{Australia-writer-stub}} is feasible and then create that.
  7. {{Euro-writer-stub}}, {{Nordic-writer-stub}} or {{NEuro-writer-stub}}, {{CEuro-writer-stub}} - Western and Southern Europe are just too fragemntary to be obvious or significantly more useful that stucking them in Europe. Eastern Europe just has too few stubs. None of the Nordic countries exceeds 40 stubs so there's no likelhood of restubbing the Nordic countries anytime soon. While Germany has enough stubs to justify a cat of its own if it was needed, the cultural interaction with the rest of Central Europe and the difficulty of deciding between Germany and Central Europe for pre-20th century German language authors residing outside the current German borders makes it best to just simply use only Central Europe as a cat for now. The Southern European sub groupings are all so close to being creatable that rather than making one large {{SEuro-writer-stub}}, I'd prefer to wait a bit and see if {{Iberia-writer-stub}}, {{Italy-writer-stub}}, and {{Balkan-writer-stub}} become feasible.


Discussion

Well I've outlined what I think, now I await your comments. If I hadn't promised to be a good boy after my earlier transgression, I'd go ahead and create {{Africa-writer-stub}} as I see no likely objections there, but these can all wait until the 19th to be created if there is consensus. Caerwine 04:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo. Well researched! My thoughts on your proposals: {{Africa-writer-stub}}, {{MEast-writer-stub}}, {{Euro-writer-stub}} yes. The others, maybe, but I'd prefer to wait for separate countries, simply because of the problems of definition - already several are close (Germany, Italy, China, Australia and Japan are probably already worth splitting). An overall {{Asia-writer-stub}} might also be a good umbrella category. That would give the following:
The Europe category's still pretty big, but is likely to get more splits relatively soon by the sound of it, and it wouldn't surprise me if India also had quite a few by itself. Grutness...wha? 05:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
India won't split for quite some time. Only about 30 of the existing South Asia writer stubs can be clearly attributed to India. Anyone living pre-partition in Bengal, Punjab, or Kashmir can't be easily pinned down to the current borders so by the time we have enough India stubs for a separate category, there likely will enough of the undifferentiatable South Asia ones as well (especially after one adds in Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. South Asia's fairly easy to define, so long as we don't try to split SE Asia between E Asia and S Asia, so I'll concede the point and leave Burma and the like out of it.
For the most part, individual European countries don't go over even 35 stubs. Lowering the bar below 50 would separate out Spain at 46, Ireland at 41, Russia at 37, and Poland and Croatia at 36 each. Given that it looks like someone has been actively creating Croatian related stubs, I think that country's total is a bit bloated and not likely to grow further anytime soon. The Nordic stubs are pretty much evenly split beteen the individual countries, so unless we get a whole lot more writer stubs, we aren't going to get per country writer stubs for them. With the Nordic countries being easily defined, a Nordic stub makes sense and we can even use the Nordic Council logo for the little picture found stage right in many stubs. Caerwine 07:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Um, not to sound overly local-patriotic, but in comparison .hr and .ie have a similar population (including diaspora, even) so it cannot be strange that they have a similar number of writers. If anything, it is strange that we have so few .es and .ru writers (or their articles aren't stubs, which would be good but unlikely) because those are much larger nations. --Joy [shallot]
I don't know if you can read too much into that. It could be that there are far more writers from those countries that are beyond the stub level, or it could simply be a language bias. Ireland is, after all, a largely English-speaking country. That explains why there are nearly as many Australian writer stubs as Chinese ones, whereas China has a few more people. Grutness...wha? 10:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splits of ({{Academic-bio-stub}} and ({{Reli-bio-stub}}

Looking for outsize profession-stub categories, I've found these two, both now north of 800 stubs. If we split on country lines, it's likely to help with US-bio-stub; OTOH, splitting respectively by discipline (possibly) and religion (almost certainly) may actually be more attractive options. Canvassing opinions either way. Alai 01:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Communication stub

Proposal by Rauh 03:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I propose a stub for topics on communication field of research and science. Many stubs that would fall in this category are assigned to psychology, political, linguistics etc. when the main research effort is done by communication scholars and publshed on communication journals. This spread of topics on other discipline stubs makes it hard for people who know the communication research domain to fill out these articles.

Some examples:

Rauh 03:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that this would be very well-defined. In particular, none of the above articles have a common permanent category, or category parent in common; surely proposing that would be a logical first step? Alai 03:59, 13 September 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)
Update: I moved Category:Disney stubs to Category:Leisure corporation stubs. I'm 99 44/100 % happy. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 11:35, August 19, 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=== (now created as see below) 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]

After reading this discussion, ADeveria might not be very happy with me: I moved many stubs about game developers from corp-stub to cvg-stub. So I propose a new category: cvg-corp-stub, for the game developers. And because I created a large part of the mess, I volunteer to clear it up and fill the new category. Aecis 10:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's alright, go with whatever's appropriate. :) I'm all for a cvg-corp-stub, sounds great. I'll help out with that if I find the time to. ADeveria 12:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
cvg-corp-stub would be a good addition. Also perhaps ones for characters. cvg-char-stub or something. I think these two would be a great start at the very least. K1Bond007 16:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Note cvg chars can already be put in {{fict-char-stub}}. If we create cvg-char-stub it should probably feed into that. DES (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, to get things moving a little further here, I propose the following stubs:
I've tried to make the genre stubs as encompassing as possible, so shooter can be for 3rd person shooters as well as scrolling shooters, etc. I think "fantasy" might be a bit too vague for games, so I didn't add that. Please edit this list at will, however. ADeveria 23:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't racing cvg stubs simply be covered by sport-cvg-stub? Or would the category be too big and unwieldy? (I'v also edited down your list by one - you had platforrm-cvg-stub there twice!) Grutness...wha? 05:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Grutness: the sport-cvg-stub is enough for now; let's just have a look at how it evolves; and I would (for the moment) refrain from the cvg-char-stub, becuase of the redundancies created with the fict-char-stub (see also my comments above: in sjort, many characters from games are also characters in books...) Lectonar 07:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right, racing should be in sports (and thank you for removing the duplicate platform!). My argument for the cvg-char-stub would be that these specific stubs would help out those only interested in improving this particular type of fictional characters. But I can understand your point too, so I've removed it for now. There are two other genres I'm wondering if we should add, {{puzzle-cvg-stub}} and {{fighting-cvg-stub}}. Puzzle could be put under strategy perhaps, while fighting might be considered a sport... ADeveria 12:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How many puzzle-cvg-stubs would there be ? (and I agree, fighting should, for the moment, go into sport-cvg-stub)...and I've come up with another one, hehe (being already a little older): adventure-cvg-stub (for the likes of Baphomets Curse or Monkey Island type games); but I really couldn't say if that genre is still going strong, being just the owner of an X-Box Lectonar 12:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure how many puzzle game stubs there are, so never mind that...I like the adventure game idea though, and not only because I'm a fan of those games myself...I believe it would also be good for "Action Adventure" games like Zelda, and any other modern 3D game that's not quite a shooter nor a platformer. Also, it could apply for ye olde text-based games too. ADeveria 13:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dost thou mean ye mighty olde infocom-dainties Lectonar 14:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not specifically, but probably, yeah. I know there's plenty of them made, and thus plenty of stubs will be made...ADeveria 22:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting this stub category out will definitely be a hell of a lot of work: there are currently 2,423 articles in the category... Aecis 18:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming there are no objections to the list of stubs mentioned above, and general approval continues, let's begin creating them starting Wednesday, August 24 (the required one week after suggestion). I've never made a stub or any other kind of template before, so help would be appreciated. :) ADeveria 13:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've created about a dozen stub templates now, and about the same amount of "other" templates so I'm more than willing to help out with this "project". I'm not a gamer, so I'll focus on the sorting out the cvg-corp-stubs, but as I said, if you need help with the templates, I'm willing to help. Aecis 16:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to remove the {{rpg-cvg-stub}} from the list for now, as I get the feeling that these games could be thrown in with the {{adventure-cvg-stub}} too. If this category would get too big, we could add the rpg-cvg-stub. ADeveria 22:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By and large this looks like a pretty decent split. I'd argue though, as per my earlier suggestion, that {{online-game-stub}} would also be a sensible addition (being more a 'mode of play' than a genre, and not suffering especially from the 'stub escalation' problem). At least as regards "mmorgs" where 'onlineness' is an inherent part of game-play, as opposed to a CVG with an online mode/add-on. Alai 02:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All the genre stubs have now been created, so anyone willing to can start adding to them. No images on the templates yet, however. If no one else beats me to it, I'll add the {{cvg-corp-stub}} shortly, too. And I personally have no problem with {{online-game-stub}}, your reasoning sounds good to me. ADeveria 20:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I beat you to it ;) Aecis 12:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If {{online-game-stub}} is clearly restricted to games that are primarily/entirely online (MMORGs, MUDs, etc), I think it sounds like a good idea. --Mairi 18:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That was exactly my conception. Perhaps slightly more specifically still, online computer role-playing games, if that fits the main category scheme a little more closely, and the stub numbers would suit that. Alai 04:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. If it's going to be online role-playing games, perhaps call it online-rpg-stub? While it wouldn't quite match the main category system (which splits off MMORGs and MUD/MUCK/MU*s as seperate categories, without a general "online role-playing game" category), I'd be fine with a online role-playing game stub. --Mairi 00:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been around here for a long time. Anyway, why don't you consider moving the game developers and designers to some kind of cvg bio stub? --AllyUnion (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea; that would also cover the {{Video game music composer-stub}} up for deletion, with no real consensu so far...Lectonar 09:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stubs by region shows that most regional stubs have names which follow the pattern "X-related stubs". It has been mentioned that these should be changed to remove "-related". I propose such a change, to remove "-related". If the change is done, a bulk Stubs for Deletion entry will be used. This proposal only applies to regional stubs and not other Categories which happen to contain "related". (SEWilco 19:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Possible issues: "Norway stubs" implies it is directly related to Category:Norway, while "Norway-related stubs" specifies the stub might be indirectly related to Norway. Also, country-referencing grammar rules suggest "Norway stubs" perhaps should be "Norwegian stubs" (which already exists), but "Norwegian" is the name of the language of Norway and thus might be reserved for language-related stubs. (SEWilco 19:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

But "Norway stubs" ARE connected to items in Category:Norway, or certainly should be. Every other section of stubs predominantly uses the formula "Category:Noun stubs", with the stubs connected to items in "Category:Noun". The reasons for this are two-fold. One of these reasons was clear when Category:Historical stubs was changed to Category:History stubs recently. Using an adjective makes for a description of the stubs themselves, rather than a description of the subjects to which they are referring. In many cases, this makes little difference, but in others it definitely does (these were stubs about history, not old stubs). Also, we are frequently told that the names of the stub categories should reflect the names of their parent non-stub categories. So, for example, "Category: Iceland" should have Category: Iceland stubs as its child, not Icelandic stubs, nor Iceland-related stubs.
Adjectival usage does cause confusion, and not just as far as the names of languages are concerned. Would Dominican stubs be about Dominica, the Dominican Republic, or a holy order? Then there's Nigerian and Nigerien... and would many intuitively realise what adjective should be used for Monaco (Monegasque), Kiribati (Gilbertese), or Shropshire (Salopian), to name just three examples?
All in all, using the same "Noun stubs" formula as used on the vast majority of other stub categories is the most logical answer. Note too that most of the new discoveries (e.g., the recently discovered Category:Saudi Arabia stubs) follow this pattern. Grutness...wha? 01:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Since writing all this I have re-read SEWilco's original comments, and notice that I had originally mis-read them. For this reason, I seem to be arguing aginst him even though we are largely in agreement. Sorry for that! Grutness...wha? 01:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)) [reply]

Standardise to X stubs

  1. Approve: Standardize all these. (SEWilco 02:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  2. Standardise to the same as other stub categories. Grutness...wha? 05:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The simplest solution. -- grm_wnr Esc 08:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I've hated the x-related stub categories, but was too lazy to propose changing them. They were awkwardly worded and irrregularly formed. Get rid of the danged things and give the categories much more reasonable names that matches their stubs and their "parent" categories. BlankVerse ∅ 14:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I find the comments of Grutness above persusive. DES (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. At last... Lectonar 10:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yep. --Spangineer (háblame) 15:18, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Simplest, clearest solution. --Mairi 19:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This seems like a much better idea. --ScottDavis | Talk 11:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standardise to Xian stubs

Do not standardise

Dynamic stubs

Many stub articles (i.e. substubs and good stubs) have no apparent potential of passing the stub line. Due to this issue, we should make a new template: {{dynamic-stub}}.

Just like there is a template called {{dynamic list}} for lists that have no apparent potenetial of becoming complete. --SuperDude 01:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether this item belongs down here under "Discussions" or whether it's a proposal (in which case it should be further up the page - but it's probably more of a discussin thing anyway. Actually, wev've had discussions on the WSS talk page about similar things in the past, ISTR. My two cents is that most things can pass the stub line. The few that can't aren't stubs, they're just short articles, so shouldn't have any stub template. All they need is invisible text saying something like <!-- although this article is small, it is no longer a stub - please do not add a stub template -->. Grutness...wha? 03:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
and this one would be naturally very subjective to use and to place; how would you define something which has no potential to grow (the only things that jump straight to my mind are kind of dicdefs, which shouldn't be around anyway) Lectonar 06:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
a bit of thinking aloud here... if we went the invisible text way, that could be added by a template called something like non-stub (not dynamic-stub - it's actually the opposite. It's the one type of stub-length article not likely to change!) Grutness...wha? 06:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds more like a Merge in search of someplace to be merged into. (SEWilco 06:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Education stubs

Major problems exist with the various education stub categories. In the last week or so, {{edu-stub}} has been repointed at Category:University stubs, and a new category and stub type, both miscapitalised, have been created: {{General-Edu-stub}} and Category:General Education stubs. The main reason for this confusion is the current mishmash of names for categories and templates relating to universities and other tertiary institutions. What I propose is the following:

(there are also some other inconsistencies with the category names at present - noun university stubs and adjective school stubs - but they're a minor quibble for later).

This would require the following changes:

Thoughts? Grutness...wha? 00:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would make alot more sense than the current system. --Mairi 21:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Even with all of the university stubs and stub categories I've created, it's all still a huge mess. The Hong Kong and Canada education stubs are particularly frustrating because they cover a much broader topic than they probably should. And on that note, what about {{seminary-stub}}? Should that even exist, since most of the schools in there could go into country categories instead? Same with {{lawschool-stub}}. Kamezuki 00:32, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
They might be a problem with the system, but I think tidying up the main part and worrying about those two later would be the best way to proceed. Grutness...wha? 01:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just to repeat what I already wrote at SFD - I already agreed with you about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria/Archive16#Category:Education_stubs_and_the_situation_with_education-related_stubs_in_general --Joy [shallot] 23:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I've made a start - any help would be appreciated, especially on changing articles with General-Edu-stub (removing the "General-")! I'm working my way through the Canada-edu-stubs moving them to Canada-university-stub. After that it will be the task of going through the University stubs, to see where they are all from and whether any other countries can be split off. Hong Kong should be fairly simple (it only contains about 40 items). Grutness...wha? 09:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate stub criterion

I have proposed text, at Wikipedia talk:Stub#Proposed "depth of coverage" standard to try to captue in words the notion thaqt what a stub is cannot be solely defined by a mere mechanical counting of words, sentances, or paragraphs. Please visit and comment. DES (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This section is for general discussion or proposals relating to stub types and stub sorting. Proposals for specific stub types should go in the current month's section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals&oldid=23142436"