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.
Italian politician 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 result of the debate was created.
This category has grown quite large, and so I'm proposing to create categories for these upmerge templates under s1:
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.
Observations While I've undertaken (and completed!) more than a couple of category projects of similar scope as this would be, I'm not sure how useful it would really be--UNLESS! ...
If we set up the new stub subcategory, the only way I know then to populate it is to go to each of the more than 1300 articles and edit each one. It would be the same copy/paste-over edit for each, but it's still one at a time. And we would have a parent category of 35 or so, and a subcategory of almost 1400. Furthermore, that subcategory would be alphabetized all under one letter heading. It would show the automatic ToC template (to two letters, since the category is so big), and it would all be under "C-O".
... UNLESS there is a way to set up in a stub something akin to the sortkeys we use in regular categories. This is extremely common in larger categories for single genera; we add a Sortkey to alphabetize each article under the SPECIFIC name (the second part of the two-part name of each species). Redoing genus category pages to accomplish that has been the majority of my work over my years as a Wikignome. In fact, that is the way the non-stub Category:Coleophora is organized. But I don't know if it's possible with a stub page; I'm sure I've NEVER seen a stub page done that way.
The only other possibility I see for avoiding one very large single-letter category is if it turns out that species of this genus are more or less evenly distributed among several subgenera; I don't see any indication that that is the case here. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2024 (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.
Tetrapodomorph 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 result of the debate was created.
I would like to make a stub category for early tetrapodomorphs (animals closer to modern limbed vertebrates than to other modern animals). Tetrapodomorpha contains many taxa that don't fit neatly into the traditional "fish"/"amphibian" dichotomy. This template lists most of the articles about the group, most of which are stubs. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 00:52, 23 February 2024 (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.
Cynodont 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.
Sawfly 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 result of the debate was created.
The Template:Sawfly-stub upmerges to Category:Hymenoptera stubs. I propose to create the page for Sawfly stubs. There are about 150 articles marked as Sawfly stubs. Hymenoptera is an order of insects, specifically the ants, bees and wasps, and their relatives (like sawflies). The Hymenoptera stubs page itself, currently with 257 articles, has a banner saying that articles should be put into subcategories whenever possible, and the the category should contain mostly subcategories. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2024 (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.
Category:Indian passenger trains 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 result of the debate was create.
To categorise passenger train stub articles into a separate sub cat in Category:India rail transport stubs.
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.
Nitidulidae stub upmerging--propose own category
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.
Category: National Trust 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 result of the debate was no consensus.
I'm proposing Category:National Trust stubs to enable editors to navigate directly to articles relating to the National Trust that could benefit from improvement, as part of a paid editing pilot for the organisation. There's 94 results using Petscan (ID). You can read more about the pilot here.
Note:This is my first stub category nomination, so please bear with me as I work out what to do if the nomination is successful. Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the stub house! I have several questions about this proposed stub type:
Does "National Trust" here mean the National Trust that involves England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (but not Scotland, which has its own)?
If this stub type is to be applied to properties and objects, the template and category should reflect that (i.e. "NationalTrust-England-stub, National Trust properties in England stubs").
Would this project benefit more from a stub type as proposed, or from a separate non-stub category such as those used by WikiProjects?
Thanks very much for the questions @Pegship this definitely helps me think what would be useful.
1) Yes, it's the England, Wales, Northern Ireland one
2) I'm very happy to take more experienced advice on this - I suggested "National Trust stubs" as a catch-all, but am happy to be guided by editors with more experience in this area
3) Currently there isn't a WikiProject National Trust. My thinking with the general stub type as proposed was that it would be a one-stop-shop that we could point new editors to as place where all the NT content that might benefit from expansion could be held. Again, happy to take advice on this, I am new to the work in this project
I see that the items on the PetScan list are mainly locations or structures or art. Maybe a more general {{NationalTrust-property-stub}}, without the geography involved? Also, I assume that this template would be applied in addition to existing stub templates rather than replacing them; the articles already have templates like {{castle-stub}}, {{painting-stub}}, etc., which they should still keep. Her Pegship (?) 21:45, 9 February 2024 (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 result of the debate was created.
Excluding the British Columbia Coast river stubs, here are the results for possible sub-cats of the above, which I propose:
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.
Re-creation of Norway geography stub categories
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 re-create.
Good morning. As of January 2024, Norway has seen 7 counties reborn; three short-lived counties have been split. So it is time to re-create the following categories:
When all the corresponding categories have been re-populated, etc. then the categories corresponding to the split counties shall be deleted. Best, --Fadesga (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2024 (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.
Stub category for Leiodidae stub, currently upmerging
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.
