On this WikiProject Stub sorting subpage, you can propose new stub types (please read the procedures beforehand!), as well as the reorganization and subdivision of existing stub types. You can also discuss anything else related to stubs on the talk page.
Proposing new stub types – procedure
Important: If you wish to propose the creation of a stub ARTICLE you've come to the wrong place. If you don't have a username yourself, please go to WP:AFC for proposing a new article. If you already have a username, you can create the article yourself. If you don't know how, add {{Helpme}} to your user talk page to request help from other editors. This page only deals with stub TEMPLATES and CATEGORIES; we cannot help you with creating articles.
Proposing new stub types
If you wish to propose a new stub category and template, please follow these procedures:
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.
If you use any category scan (from the tool mentioned above or from any other), please link to it so that other users can confirm that the results are still accurate.
Others may do the same, if they so desire.
5 days after listing it here, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new category and/or template following the format on Wikipedia:Stub. List the new stub type on the stub types list in an appropriate section. If consensus is not clear, or discussion is still ongoing, the proposal will remain open until consensus can be reached.
If you wish to propose a stub type which does not currently have 60 articles that could use it, you may propose an upmerged template in a similar way. An upmerged template would feed into currently existing stub categories until such time that there are enough stubs for a separate stub category. At that point a category for it may be separately proposed. Some times, it may be difficult to be sure how many stubs would get a tag - in which case you can also start with an upmerged stub tag until you're sure there are enough.
DO NOT place a proposal here for any stub type which has already been created and is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. The proposal page is only for stub types that have not yet been created, and it is better to keep any discussion of such stub types in one place rather than splitting it between different pages. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is the correct page for proposals to delete a stub type.
^Good number means about 60 articles or more, or 30 or more if it is the primary stub type of a WikiProject, though this figure may vary from case to case.
"Speedy creation"
A stub type may be proposed for "speedy creation" if it meets one of the following criteria:
S1 - the creation of a category for which an approved upmerged template already exists and is now in use on more than 60 articles.
S2 - the creation of an upmerged national-level template for a subject in which other such national-level templates currently exist (e.g., X-bio-stub, X-hist-stub, or X-geo-stub, where X is the name of an internationally widely recognised country) or other instances where a clearly established pattern of similar subtypes exists. The proposed topic may not be controversial in scope. Many templates qualifying for S2 are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/To do/To create.
List speedy creation proposals in the same proposal listings as normal stub proposals below.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Traditional African religions
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was create.
Hi all - although Category:New Zealand building and structure stubs isn't overly stretched, thanks to subdividing by type, I feel an Auckland-specific stub type would be useful here. Auckland has 1/3 of New Zealand's population and close to an equivalent number of structure stubs. As such, an {{Auckland-struct-stub}} and Category:Auckland Region building and structure stubs seem like a reasonable addition. I don't think any other region has enough for a similar stub type yet, but it would pave the way for possible later additions if they do get to a reasonable number (Canterbury and Wellington would be the obvious next to look at). Grutness...wha?06:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was create upmerged Amara-stub template.
Stub for "Amara (genus)". It's a genus of beetles. There are between 60 and 70 stub articles, listed in three stub categories (only one of those categories is actually correct, and I plan to move the others--but I'd like to set up their own category). There could potentially be many more, since the genus does include over 600 species. NB: I propose naming the stub category "Amara (genus)" even though "Amara (beetle)" would normally be preferred, because the non-stub category for the genus is called "Amara (genus)." Uporządnicki (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 200 sub-categories under Category:Beetle stubs, many of them are for individual genera although quite a few are for families or other clades, so there is plenty of precedent. I don't see why the proposed stub category couldn't be called Category:Amara stubs, although I don't think that the category should be created until you can show that there are sufficient stub articles - Category:Amara (genus) presently has 80 members, and they're not all stubs. Start off with a stub template, called {{Amara-stub}} upmerged to Category:Pterostichinae stubs, apply this template to all appropriate stub articles, and when there are 60+ uses, create the corresponding category. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did say, between 60 and 70 STUB articles. They're scattered over 3 stub categories, and it was only those I counted. One category is currently correct (my proposed stub category would be a subcategory to that one). The second is the parent stub category to the first. The third is another stub subcategory--incorrect--to that parent stub category. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please always link the names of pages (including categories) that you want us to look at, don't make us waste time guessing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential to this proposal, there's a big list of possible beetle templates proposed and approved at the 2011 archive which were never created. Are these still viable, and would they help with the size of the parent cat? Her Pegship (?) 15:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Library organization(?) stubs
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
