Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2007/October
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2007. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
This is an archive of discussions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals for the month of October 2007. Please move completed October discussions to this page as they occur, add discussion headers to each proposal showing the result, and leave incomplete discussions on the Proposals page. After October, the remainder of the discussions will be moved to this page, whether stub types have been created or not.
Those who create a stub template/cat should be responsible for moving the discussion here and listing the stub type in the archive summary.
Stub proposers please note: Items tagged as "nocreate" or "no consensus" are welcome for re-proposal if and when circumstances are auspicious.
- Discussion headers:
- {{sfp create}}
- {{sfp nocreate}}
- {{sfp other}} (for no consensus)
- {{sfp top}} for customized result description (use {{sfp top|result}}).
- Discussion footer: {{sfd bottom}}
Category:Schleswig-Holstein geography stubs by district
- 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.
1260 articles. 11 kreise. While I don't want to truncate any possible fascinating, full and frank discussion, this looks like it'll be pretty straightforward. Alai 05:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Sfd bottom
Madeline Moore
- 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 do not create.
I propose a stub on the writer Madeline Moore.
Author Felix Baron/Michael Crawley would like to add an autobiographical stub.
- You didn't read the instructions did you? The bit that says "If you wish to propose the creation of a stub ARTICLE you've come to the wrong place." BTW, given your user name, (the initial comment was by User:Madeline Moore) I suspect there may be a conflict of interest. Grutness...wha? 22:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Computer Books
- 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.
How about a subcategory of Category:Science book stubs for technical books about computing? There is already Category:Mathematics literature stubs and many of the "science books" are computer books. At the very least, this would help people find non-computer science book stubs. — The Storm Surfer 20:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds plausible. Any idea of likely size? Would it by any chance with the horrendously-sized Category:Computer stubs? Put me down for an upmerged template at the very least. Alai 05:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Cattersect shows 22 articles in both Category:Science book stubs and Category:Computer books and 20 articles in both Category:Science book stubs and Category:Computer science books. There's a far smaller overlap with Category:Computer stubs or Category:Computer science stubs. So there's definitely enough for a template, though a category may still be some way away. Support upmerged template for now, though. Grutness...wha? 09:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oo, new toy. Looks like you're right about the present location of these, though I think you're missing the (other) subcats of Category:Computer books: I count 54 from that tree in total. So viability looks fairly likely, given even a smattering from elsewhere, or at least close. (Though I don't guarantee there are any elsewhere: everything in Category:Computer stubs seems to be double-tagged, and I could find nothing at all in Category:Software stubs...) Alai 05:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- I found 'em: there was a bunch lurking in the non-fiction books, which is doubly-handy since those had become oversized (yet again) too. It's a done deal, 84 in there at present. Alai 01:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
This pair of templates have long been an anomaly in the sequence of stub categories between that for the Category:19th century novel stubs and the decade based set that run from Category:1920s novel stubs to Category:2000s novel stubs. Currently each load Category:Novel stubs which is still overpopulated and includes many articles that need further sorting. This process is hampered by repeatedly falling over articles that would naturally sort to these categories is approved. Each of these now appear to have around 50 articles and seem to grow rather than reduce over time. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- if "whatlinkshere" is any judge, there are 68 articles with the 1910 template, so that's a definite speedy support. There are 56 with the 1900 one - enough for a non-speedy support, though another four stubs would be nice :) Grutness...wha? 09:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have built both of these as the article count has grown - so I am treating this a both supported. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
While not 100% sure of the figures, I know there are nearly 20 basketball biography stubs and a good number of boxing-bios as well. The parent category Category:Nigerian people stubs, is definite due for another split and this is a good place to begin.--Thomas.macmillan 06:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- No objection to an upmerged template, but oppose a category until there's evidence for numerical viability (I count around 44, btw), or indeed need (the parent's barely over one listings page, after all). Alai 20:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Created upmerged template, and combined with other templates, there is a total of 57. We can either wait for it to rise or just go ahead and create it, which I think is the better option.--Thomas.macmillan 03:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think I can refrain from hauling it off to SFD for the want of three articles. :) Alai 05:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support category as we already have football and athletics subcats so 57 articles and 2 subcats I think is enough for a category. Waacstats 07:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I'd missed the two subcats, sorry. I'd have supported in the first instance had I cottoned on. Alai 08:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support category as we already have football and athletics subcats so 57 articles and 2 subcats I think is enough for a category. Waacstats 07:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think I can refrain from hauling it off to SFD for the want of three articles. :) Alai 05:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Created upmerged template, and combined with other templates, there is a total of 57. We can either wait for it to rise or just go ahead and create it, which I think is the better option.--Thomas.macmillan 03:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Baseball splits
- 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.
Propose {{Cuba-baseball-bio-stub}} as well as {{DominicanRepublic-baseball-bio-stub}} along with the appropriate categories. Cuba is an obvious example, as there are 136 articles in Category:Cuban baseball players and over 330 articles Category:Cuban people stubs. A Category:Cuban sportspeople stubs would probably be useful too, considering how many stubs there actually are (Athletics has already been broken down). The Dominican Republic, while only having 112 articles in Category:People of the Dominican Republic stubs, has over 280 articles in Category:Dominican Republic baseball players.--Thomas.macmillan 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds very logical. Support. Alai 22:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. nb A cuba-sport-bio-stub would be viable with or without the baseball-bios I did a quick count and got at least 70 marked as stubs with about 36 being boxers so suggest an upmerged {{Cuba-boxing-bio-stub}} as well (though this may need a seperate proposal). Waacstats 09:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nah, I think it barely needs that one: support such an upmerged template. Alai 22:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. nb A cuba-sport-bio-stub would be viable with or without the baseball-bios I did a quick count and got at least 70 marked as stubs with about 36 being boxers so suggest an upmerged {{Cuba-boxing-bio-stub}} as well (though this may need a seperate proposal). Waacstats 09:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Two geo-speedies
- 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.
Two more countries (well, one country and one country-like entity) have reached the 60-stub level, so I'd like to speedy:
Grutness...wha? 13:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- And I think you oughta. Alai 14:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- in that case... done. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
3 Speedy cats?
- 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.
Propose speedy creation of the following categories as the corresponding templates have over 60 articles each.
- Category:Pennsylvania sports venue stubs (64)
- Category:Ohio sports venue stubs (69)
- Category:North Carolina sports venue stubs (61)
Waacstats 09:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Most certainly. Alai 09:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
AMSR
- 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 misplaced request.
Eslobl 19:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR) for Earth Observing System (AMSR-E)
Instrument on Aqua, a NASA afternoon satellite, and part of 'A-train'
For details see http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/AMSR
--Eslobl 19:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? What's that got to do with stub types? Grutness...wha? 00:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Madeira Islands geography 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.
{{Madeira-geo-stub}} now has 60 articles. Note cat name is to parallel Category:Madeira Islands, "Madeira" being considered on WP to relate to the main island of the chain. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- See previous discussion for possible naming. Support. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah - it went through CfD for discussion on its name. Actually, I see that Category:Madeira islands is a subcat of Category:Autonomous Region of Madeira, so that would be a better permcat (making this the fairly cumbersome, but Wikipedially correct Category:Autonomous Region of Madeira geography stubs). Grutness...wha? 00:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Split of airports
- 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.
there are over 100 articles in NorthAm-airport-stubs also in Airports in Mexico so I propose
Waacstats 09:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Template:Sfd bottom
Another speediable geo-stub 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 result of the debate was create.
After a half-hour or so of stub creation, Mauritius is now up to the point of having enouygh geo-stubs for its own category. Therefore, I'd like to propose the speediable Category:Mauritius geography stubs. Grutness...wha? 03:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Sfd bottom
Split of Cat:Mosque 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 templates by country, cats as needed.
I scanned Category:Mosque stubs to see if there were enough articles for a template:africa-mosque-stub - there weren't (only 22), but I did get well over 60 Malaysian ones. So, I propose template:Malaysia-mosque-stub and the accompanying category. The category would be a subcat of Category:Malaysia stubs, Category:Mosque stubs, and Category:Asian building and structure stubs.
Alternately, a template:Asia-mosque-stub could work (there were a good deal of Iranian mosque stubs, and some Bengali and Indian ones too). Picaroon (t) 22:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- It certainly seems reasonable to split this, and Malaysia certainly sounds viable - IIRC, there are quite a large number of Iranian ones, too, though perhaps a more generic MEast-mosque-stub is a better idea. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Again, a regional template seems more trouble than it's worth in the long run, and in this case I have my doubts about the utility of that particular regional category. Support templates for any <country>-mosque-stub you care to name, and categories as needed. Alai 03:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Split of Category:Sports venue 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.
I propose the following splits
- Category:Canadian sports venue stubs / {{Canada-sports-venue-stub}} & {{Canada-icehockey-venue-stub}} (+80)
- Category:Australian sports venue stubs / {{Australia-sports-venue-stub}} (+80)
as well as the following to complete the continintal split
- Category:Central American sports venue stubs / {{CentralAm-sports-venue-stub}}
- Category:Caribbean sports venue stubs / {{Caribbean-sports-venue-stub}}
both would appear numerically viable but having gone through sports venue stubs I forgot to kep count and catscan doesn't give up to date figures. I believe the following countries would be worth having templates for Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba, Costa Rica and Puerto Rico
- Two more countries to add to the mix
- Category:Chinese sports venue stubs / {{China-sports-venue-stub}} (78)inc Macao and HK
- Category:Korean sports venue stubs / {{Korea-sports-venue-stub}} (74 South + 6 North)
- Waacstats 14:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- The "China-" one I would instead scope (and name) as "PRC-", given the past 'issues' with the scoping of "China". (It's a bit like "Ireland-", really, just with more edit-warring.) As usual, I'd prefer as many upmerged by-country templates as people have the patience to create, and no regional templates unless they run out of same, but it's not a deal-breaker by any means. Oh, so that's a support, and I suspect these are speediable. Alai 19:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's PRChina-, not PRC-, Alai. The PRC-x-stub types were changed over not that long ago. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- The B&S template is at {{PRC-struct-stub}}, not at {{PRChina-struct-stub}}, unless my eyes (and WP's edit and deletion histories) deceive me. If someone wants to make a redirect-preserving move in line with the -geo-stub, I'd have no objection. Let's just avoid more of the "China" scoping issues, though. Alai 18:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Rouge admin that I am, that's no sooner said than done :). That one must've got missed out when the geo, bio, politician, etc stub types got moved recently. I note, somewhat worryingly, though, that we have a {{China-struct-stub}} redirect to it used on about a dozen articles - presumably dating to the "Instantnood Wars". That probably needs sfd'ing. Grutness...wha? 23:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- While I'm on a counter-pedanting roll, when you say that "one got missed", I think perhaps you mean that "only the -geo- was nominated": see Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/September/1. Others are still at {{China-politician-stub}}, {{PRC-airport-stub}}, etc. The China- redirects-from-move where never deleted, at the time of the original move (Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/March/2), and now that the original scoping brouhaha's long since died down (touch wood), I'm not at all sure that deleting it would be productive. "PRChina-" would be about the third on the list -- or lower -- of name elements people are likely to guess when using this. (Adding redirects from PRC- to PRChina- was mooted at that time, but seemingly not implemented, until the move of the -geo- to that name.) The transclusions I've looked are all nothing to do with IN, were used by a number of different editors, and date more recently than the renaming. (In fact, it looks like I bot-edited all the "old" translusions, which makes me wonder if the original intent was actually to delete it -- but I'm afraid that if the closer (Amalas) and I were to have a summit on that now, I can guarantee that at least one of us wouldn't recall, unless there's an on-wiki note lying around someplace.) Anyway, the consistency could clearly stand to rise, here: I suggest moving all the "PRC"s to "PRChina", most definitely keeping the redirect and transclusions thereof; the "China"s may be less clear-cut, since the current or intended scope might be China-in-general (or "Mainland China", heaven forfend, or something else), so this could represent a narrowing (or widening) thereof. I wouldn't necessarily be offended by a redirect-preserving move of those too, but the categories will presumably have to be renamed too, so maybe it's better done at SFD. Alai 01:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's PRChina-, not PRC-, Alai. The PRC-x-stub types were changed over not that long ago. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- The "China-" one I would instead scope (and name) as "PRC-", given the past 'issues' with the scoping of "China". (It's a bit like "Ireland-", really, just with more edit-warring.) As usual, I'd prefer as many upmerged by-country templates as people have the patience to create, and no regional templates unless they run out of same, but it's not a deal-breaker by any means. Oh, so that's a support, and I suspect these are speediable. Alai 19:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Query So does all this mean that 'China' should be Category:People's Republic of China sports venue stubs / {{PRChina-sports-venue-stub}}
Colombian sportspeople 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.
I propose{{Colombia-sport-bio-stub}} and Category:Colombian sportspeople biography stubs catscan shows approx 80 articles with a footy subcat already in existance. Waacstats 12:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Sfd bottom
- 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.
Propose the following templates
- {{Ukraine-footyclub-stub}} (59)
- {{Serbia-footyclub-stub}} (51)
- {{Greece-footyclub-stub}} (46)
- {{Bulgaria-footyclub-stub}} (31)
- {{Poland-footyclub-stub}} (30)
{{Portugal-footyclub-stub}}(30)
numbers per catscan, also propose categories for any of these that reach 60 along the lines of Category:Fooian football club stubs. Waacstats 12:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Template:Sfd bottom
Split of Canadian sportspeople 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.
Category over 600 I propose splitting out boxers and wintersports with
- {{Canada-boxing-bio-stub}} Category:Canadian boxing biography stubs (60)
- {{Canada-wintersport-bio-stub}} Category:Canadian winter sports biography stubs (79)
figures per catscan.Waacstats 12:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Template:Sfd bottom
Nigeria-ethno-group-stub
- 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.
Nearly everything in Category:Ethnic groups in Nigeria is a stub, so I propose {{Nigeria-ethno-group-stub}} (without category, for now). With most of Nigeria's hundreds of ethnic groups still lacking articles, this template has plenty of potential growth in use. How far less populous and ethnically-diverse countries like Zimbabwe and Kenya have their own ethnic group stubs, while Nigeria was passed over, escapes me. Picaroon (t) 05:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- So, double-upmerged to Category:African ethnic group stubs and Category:Nigeria stubs? I don't see why not. I don't see why it couldn't be speedied, in fact. Alai 05:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've created the template. If I notice it has reached sixty transclusions, shall I switch over to its own category? Picaroon (t) 03:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Templates for Zanzibar
- 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.
Propose {{Zanzibar-geo-stub}}, {{Zanzibar-bio-stub}}, {{Zanzibar-politician-stub}} and {{Zanzibar-stub}} templates, all upmerged for the time being into the Tanzanian template. Zanzibar-stub might be viable with all of the other also feeding into it.--Thomas.macmillan 19:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Sfd bottom
Irish geography 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.
Propose creating {{Kildare-geo-stub}}, {{Wicklow-geo-stub}}, {{Meath-geo-stub}}, {{Tipperary-geo-stub}}, {{Leitrim-geo-stub}}, {{Waterford-geo-stub}}, {{Wexford-geo-stub}} and {{Donegal-geo-stub}}.
{{Ireland-geo-stub}} is getting huge, and it will be much easier for editors to find articles needing expansion if they more of them are grouped by county. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Less huge than some, mind you... Support templates for all remaining counties, but upmerged until numerical viability is clear (at time of last db dump, none had reached 60, though Wicklow and Donegal were in the low 50s, though doubtless some have grown signicantly, the frequency of en: db dumps currently being "highly in-"). If none are, and the parent continues to grow, provincial upmerger targets would be a feasible option. Alai 02:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support upmerged, per Alai - also support categories for any that reach the 60-stub threshold (the others should stay upmerged). Grutness...wha? 02:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- OK, will create the templates on that basis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
More Irish geography 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.
- We have now have stub templates for half of the 26 counties, and I am busy dispersing {{Ireland-geo-stub}} articles as appropriate. However, this got me thinking again, and it seems to be unhelpful to editors for some of the counties to have stub templates, but not others. Editors are more likely to use the by-county templates if they don't have to remember a list of which counties don't have them. So I propose creating templates for the following list, with categories only if they reach 60: {{Carlow-geo-stub}}, {{Cavan-geo-stub}}, {{Clare-geo-stub}}, {{Kilkenny-geo-stub}}, {{Laois-geo-stub}}, {{Limerick-geo-stub}}, {{Longford-geo-stub}}, {{Louth-geo-stub}}, {{Monaghan-geo-stub}}, {{Offaly-geo-stub}}, {{Roscommon-geo-stub}}, {{Sligo-geo-stub}} and {{Westmeath-geo-stub}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I proposed exactly that under the earlier heading. Alai 17:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misread your comment at the time as just support for the listed templates. Have now created all the latest batch, so we have one for each of the 26 counties. I am now busy dispersing {{Ireland-geo-stub}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I'll see what's bot-populable (albeit my offline data's horribly old by this point, so it certainly won't get anything like 'em all). Alai 19:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misread your comment at the time as just support for the listed templates. Have now created all the latest batch, so we have one for each of the 26 counties. I am now busy dispersing {{Ireland-geo-stub}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I proposed exactly that under the earlier heading. Alai 17:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Irish 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 all except -law- for now.
Propose creating {{Ireland-law-stub}}, {{Ireland-school-stub}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Likely sizes? Alai 02:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- To partly answer my own question, the -school- type is now populated to exactly 60 (and I think there's a few others lurking around, too). Alai 04:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- The school one seems sensible for an upmerged template, at least, as long as the template text makes it clear these are for the RoI - the law one though is a little more tricky, since it would presumably cover historical laws dealing with the time the entire island was part of the UK. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the law stub has to be a 32-county one, because as Grutness points out there are many articles on pre-1922 statutes, many of which are still in effect in Ireland, and the same goes for case law. There may at some point be a case for an {{RoI-law-stub}} for the post-1922 issues, but I suggest starting with a 32-county law stub.
I have created the school template and categ. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)- Any objections to {{Ireland-law-stub}} on 32-county basis? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've no idea how sensible that is in scope or size terms, but it does seem to be making the ambiguity of the "Ireland" element in templates more acute. Not that a sensible alternative immediately suggests itself, but ideally we'd make a systematic distinction. Alai 17:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- The ambiguity is not avoidable without a lot more complexity, because there is a large body of articles on Irish law which predates partition. The alternative to having an all-Ireland template is to have separate ones for North and South, plus a parent template for all Ireland. That seems messy unless we know we have enough articles to justify it, so why not start with the all-Ireland template and split later if numbers justify it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- The ambiguity is avoidable at the template-naming level, which is all I'm concerned about at present. (The ambiguity in general I'm more than cognizant of.) Admittedly, if we start using IoIreland or some contrivance for the all-Ireland categories, that's inconsistent with the resolution of the articles at Ireland and Republic of Ireland, and if we want to maintain that, we'll have to revisit a number of existing Ireland- templates, and consider renaming them to RoI- or RepIreland-, or some such. (And in some cases it's as clear as mud which is intended and/or applied in practice.) If we can't achieve and maintain a systematic distinction, I'd be inclined to say let's try to avoid all-Ireland scopes entirely, and double-stub where appropriate. (Which will doubtless degrade in practice due to people's invoking a precision of definition that correlates precisely to their personal sensiitivities, but that's true of pretty much any possible resolution.) Alai 04:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- The ambiguity is not avoidable without a lot more complexity, because there is a large body of articles on Irish law which predates partition. The alternative to having an all-Ireland template is to have separate ones for North and South, plus a parent template for all Ireland. That seems messy unless we know we have enough articles to justify it, so why not start with the all-Ireland template and split later if numbers justify it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with that is that a lot of those should be stubbed with UK-law-stub... of course, double-stubbing is an option in those cases, but sadly items double-stubbed with UK and Ireland equivalent stubs tend to get into small edit-war flurries. We can try it, see what happens, but it tends to get a bit messy. Grutness...wha? 22:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've no idea how sensible that is in scope or size terms, but it does seem to be making the ambiguity of the "Ireland" element in templates more acute. Not that a sensible alternative immediately suggests itself, but ideally we'd make a systematic distinction. Alai 17:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Any objections to {{Ireland-law-stub}} on 32-county basis? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the law stub has to be a 32-county one, because as Grutness points out there are many articles on pre-1922 statutes, many of which are still in effect in Ireland, and the same goes for case law. There may at some point be a case for an {{RoI-law-stub}} for the post-1922 issues, but I suggest starting with a 32-county law stub.
Zimbabwean 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 upmerged templates.
Proposing {{Zimbabwe-org-stub}} (National Constitutional Assembly, ZOSS, National Arts Council of Zimbabwe, Africa Center for Holistic Management, WOZA to name a few)
{{Zimbabwe-writer-stub}} (Catherine Buckle, Chenjerai Hove, J. Nozipo Maraire, Charles Mungoshi, Yvonne Vera, Onesimo Makani Kabweza)
{{Zimbabwe-musician-stub}} (David Chifunyise, Stella Chiweshe, Dumisani Maraire, Dorothy Masuka, Oliver "Tuku" Mtukudzi, Ephat Mujuru)
{{Zimbabwe-business-bio-stub}} (Phillip Chiyangwa, Strive Masiyiwa, Mutumwa Mawere, Trevor Ncube)
Just to have a variety of sub-categories for stubs so that our members of WPZimbabwe can choose a category of their interest to expand on. Many thanks for your considerations. Mangwanani 16:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- As a member of the WikiProject, I suggest templates for all, but categories for none. They aren't close to numbering 60, but may well be if the project continues. --Thomas.macmillan 17:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support upmerged templates, per Thom, "numerosity" and possible future use. Alai 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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 by region.
Oversized. We could just about split out the socialists (59), but I'm guessing we probably want to split by countries, or failing which, regions. Largest country is Namibia (48); that'd make Category:Southern Africa political party stubs viable, regardless of how it's defined. I strongly suggest we define it by the UN subregion. (I'll get back to you on numbers for the other regions if anyone is gung-ho for them.) Alai 07:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. BTW, since all the countries in Africa now have separate geo-stubs, those can be realigned to the UN standards very easily if necessary. Mind you, there are so few unsubcategorised stubs there now that it might be better to re-merge them into Category:Africa geography stubs. That's all a bit of an obiter dictum on the current proposal though. Grutness...wha? 23:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Either works for me, slight preference for the former. (I won't rag on the BTW, since it does make sense to make a joint decision on these, rather than leaving them inconsistent.) Alai 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Splitting by ideology wouldn't work. The dominant factors in African politics are ethnicity and religion, not secular political ideology. A country's "socialist" party can have its base in one ethnic group, while the "conservatives" will draw their support from another. And the party platforms could be incredibly similar or incredibly different based on a variety of factors, none of which is their nominal standpoint. I'd recommend by region instead, maybe a separate template for Islamist parties (if there are enough) and by country for the larger countries - eventually. Picaroon (t) 05:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Islamists didn't seem to come up, so either there's not that many, or else their categorisation is wonky (or a combination of the two). Let's go with regions. Alai 05:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Category:Primate stubs split
- 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.
Category:Primate stubs is getting big - it currently has 340 articles. I recommend the following split:
- {{oldworld-monkey-stub}}/Category:Old World monkey stubs - 84
- {{newworld-monkey-stub}}/Category:New World monkey stubs - 116
- {{prosimian-stub}}/Category:Prosimian stubs - 73
Od Mishehu 23:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly, that's really not that big, and it's unlikely to get significantly larger (and certainly not over 800), unless this starts getting populated on some entirely unforeseen basis: there's only around 400 primate species in total. Have you checked at the primate WPJ to see if this is something they're especially gung-ho for? Are there lots of specialist editors in any of these areas that would find these particularly useful? Personally, I wouldn't bother with any of these. I'm afraid I certainly have to oppose the prosimians as polyphyletic. (BTW, on a very niggling note, those template names are somewhat suggestive of there being a {{monkey-stub}}, which there currently isn't.) Alai 03:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps compromise with {{monkey-stub}}? Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also not monophyletic (i.e. not a coherent group as regards current evolutionary and genetic understanding), and also not really needed, for the same reason as above. If one really must split these, I'd suggest oldworldmonkey-stub and newworldmonkey-stub with the first two cats, but I think the best option is to leave things as they are. Alai 06:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
pharm-stub subtypes
- 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 as discussed.
At #4 on the Spit List, the following types all look at least superficially viable, by permcat-count:
- Category:Pharmaceutical industry stubs 106
- Category:Analgesic stubs 86
- Category:Sedative stubs 80
- Category:Terpenes and terpenoid stubs 75
- Category:Anticonvulsant stubs 70
- Category:Steroid stubs 69
- Category:Hormone stubs 65
- Category:Antihypertensive agent stubs 63
- Category:Hormonal agent stubs 63
I don't imagine we'd want to create all of these, so please cherry-pick the combo that seems to make the most sense, not overlap excessively, etc. Alai 04:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- You can speedy the analgesic, sedative, anticonvulsant, and antihypertensive types; they were all approved in June. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- This seems to be making the whole stub thing way too complex. Most people probably don't want to remember every single category of stub tags related to pharmacology articles, and will just tag it with the default {{pharma-stub}} tag anyways, which seems to be working just fine. The only one that I could even see making sense to separate is the pharmaceutical industry stubs, since it's more business-related and not related to the science of pharmacology. Dr. Cash 04:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- 1675 articles in one stub category is not "working fine" in my book, unless the model is "dump and forget". Are there no differential interests of editors within the pharmacology domain? (Or indeed, is no-one interesting in expanding any of 'em?) Alai 05:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Would the "industry" type be more viable as {{pharm-company-stub}}? Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- I, personally, would support creation of most of these stub types. Lower-level categorization would certainly help focus (future) expansion efforts; judging by WP:PHARM's participants list, there are several participants interested in particular types of compounds/fields, etc., and I do feel creating sub-stub types is a good idea. Category:Terpenes and terpenoid stubs, Category:Steroid stubs and Category:Hormone stubs, however, should really not be under the "jurisdiction" of the Pharmacology project; the importance of such compounds is more far-reaching. Category:Hormone stubs and Category:Steroid stubs, if created, should be subcats of Category:Biochemistry stubs IMHO. Steroids are terpenoids by the way—too much overlap perhaps? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Shouldn't those mentioned by Her Pegship, at least, be created? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes indeedy. If you'd rather not make the templates, please drop a note & one of us will. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- (ec)Yes, I think they should. You make a good point about those that aren't solely pharmaceuticals. They may make sense as bio-chem subtypes, as you suggest, or we could scope them as Category:Pharmeutical steroid stubs, etc, or something to that effect. (A bio-chem subtype doesn't help with the size of the pharms if they end up being double-stubbed, but as the bio-chems are also enormous...) I'll look more closely at those. Alai 21:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've left Dr. Cash a message regarding these "speedyable" subtypes, I'll create them myself if he's OK with it (otherwise we may discuss some more). As for Category:Pharmaceutical steroid stubs or something—that's a bit too much. Perhaps these overlapping ones should be kept as they are. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Shouldn't those mentioned by Her Pegship, at least, be created? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I, personally, would support creation of most of these stub types. Lower-level categorization would certainly help focus (future) expansion efforts; judging by WP:PHARM's participants list, there are several participants interested in particular types of compounds/fields, etc., and I do feel creating sub-stub types is a good idea. Category:Terpenes and terpenoid stubs, Category:Steroid stubs and Category:Hormone stubs, however, should really not be under the "jurisdiction" of the Pharmacology project; the importance of such compounds is more far-reaching. Category:Hormone stubs and Category:Steroid stubs, if created, should be subcats of Category:Biochemistry stubs IMHO. Steroids are terpenoids by the way—too much overlap perhaps? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Category:Thuringia geography stubs, by district
- 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 by district as needed.
In the tradition of German states, never knowingly just a little bit oversized: 1085 articles, and there's 17 districts. At least some look numerically viable. A total split would run into some very small districts, and nor are there any intermediate-layer regions that I'm aware of. At a real push, the GDR split this area up into roughly three chunks, but that'd be a bit much as regards use of the way-back-when machine. Alai 04:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Sfd bottom
Africa-footy-bio breakdown by region
- 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 by region.
Category is nearing 700 in total, so I propose splitting the category by region as per African politician stubs. None of the current countries with templates are over 60 (Mali (52) and Burkina Faso (54) being the closest. All regions seem viable.--Thomas.macmillan 19:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Sfd bottom
Botswana-bio-stub needs a category. What should it be called?
- 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 as Batswana people stubs.
Adding up the templates, {{Botswana-bio-stub}} has it 60 and should have its own category. However, I am not really sure what it should be called. Botswanan would be the standard, but it is incorrect, as people from Botswana are called Batswana, which is not really known throughout the world (or on Wikipedia categories, for that matter). Perhaps "People of Botswana stubs" is best?--Thomas.macmillan 03:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- The permcat's at Category:Botswanan people. I'd either follow that, or else CFR it, and go with wherever it ends up. Alai 03:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say rename propose a rename of that category to Category:Batswana people, and base the stub category's name on the result of that discussion. Picaroon (t) 23:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that be confounding nationality and ethnicity? I don't know about Botswana in particular, but it sounds like the Sotho/Lesotho/Basotho problem. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Botswana and Tswana appear to flatly contradict each other on this, which is what I get for using unreliable sources, clearly. This is clearly well above my pay grade, and I certainly can't improve on the above advice. Alai 06:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, hopefully if the permcat is taken to CfD, there will be useful comments and opinions from someone who knows what they're talking about (unlike us ;) Grutness...wha? 07:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that be confounding nationality and ethnicity? I don't know about Botswana in particular, but it sounds like the Sotho/Lesotho/Basotho problem. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say rename propose a rename of that category to Category:Batswana people, and base the stub category's name on the result of that discussion. Picaroon (t) 23:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Split of struct-stub
- 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.
I believe the following will all pass 60
- {{SouthAfrica-struct-stub}} / Category:South African building and structure stubs
- {{Nigeria-struct-stub}} / Category:Nigeria building and structure stubs
- {{Malaysia-struct-stub}} / Category:Malaysia building and structure stubs
- {{Iran-struct-stub}} / Category:Iran building and structure stubs
- {{Brazil-struct-stub}} / Category:Brazil building and structure stubs
- {{Argentina-struct-stub}} / Category:Argentina building and structure stubs
- {{Chile-struct-stub}} / Category:Chile building and structure stubs
also
may proove useful as a parent for three of the above and any national templates people feel like creating.Waacstats 09:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support all. Iran, Malaysia and South Africa were getting close even back when I was manually counting these early this year. perhaps upmerged Caribbean and Central American templates would be useful too? Grutness...wha? 09:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps we ought to go straight to national templates for all of South America and just skip {{SouthAm-struct-stub}}, but otherwise support all. —CComMack (t–c) 14:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Alai 16:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps we ought to go straight to national templates for all of South America and just skip {{SouthAm-struct-stub}}, but otherwise support all. —CComMack (t–c) 14:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Add to this the following european countries
- {{Austria-struct-stub}} / Category:Austrian building and structure stubs
- {{Switzerland-struct-stub}} / Category:Swiss building and structure stubs
- {{Netherlands-struct-stub}} / Category:Dutch building and structure stubs
- {{Czech-struct-stub}} / Category:Czech building and structure stubs
- {{Slovakia-struct-stub}} / Category:Slovakian building and structure stubs
- {{Turkey-struct-stub}} / Category:Turkish building and structure stubs
- {{Romania-struct-stub}} / Category:Romanian building and structure stubs
- {{Bulgaria-struct-stub}} / Category:Bulgaria building and structure stubs
- {{Ukraine-struct-stub}} / Category:Ukrainian building and structure stubs
- {{Finland-struct-stub}} / Category:Finnish building and structure stubs
{{Ireland-struct-stub}} / Category:Irish building and structure stubs
last one scoped for Republic of Ireland. Waacstats 09:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I support {{Nigeria-struct-stub}}, I could probably find 60 articles to put that on (there are a good amount of football stadiums with articles.) Should the malaysia-struct-stub supersede my malaysia-mosque-stub proposal below, or should they both be created? Picaroon (t) 23:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- When cheking the articles on catscan (unfortunatly down at the moment) I discounted the mosques because of your proposal so there should be eneough to create categories for both mosques AND building/structures for Malaysia. Waacstats 07:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support any which are at 60, but please lets keep the categories consistent! You've got Nigeria, Argentina, Iran, Brazil, Bulgaria, Malaysia and Chile at the noun form, but then Austrian, Swiss, Dutch, etc etc etc. IIRC the existing ones are at the adjectival form, so the first seven I named should be changed. Grutness...wha? 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- And that shows exactly why people should propose and wait before creating. Of course the first group should be adjectices not nouns. Waacstats 07:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Adjectival would also correspond to normal usage in all of these cases. Not that "normal usage" holds sway in all portions of the stub category hierarchy... Alai 08:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- And that shows exactly why people should propose and wait before creating. Of course the first group should be adjectices not nouns. Waacstats 07:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Category:Southern United States radio station stubs Subcat
- 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 do not create.
Since Category:Southern United States radio station stubs is maintained by the stubs creation process, I am proposing to add a sub category of Category:Mississippi radio station stubs to compliment the already present subcats for Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virgina. The template {{Mississippi-radio-station-stub}} will place Mississippi radio station stub articles into this proposed subcat. As the one trying to resurrect WikiProject Mississippi, there's a lot of organization that needs to be tended to and this is part of that goal. Thanks. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 07:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- There's already an upmerged {{Mississippi-radio-station-stub}} (as you know, from adding a permcat to it); I suggest that be populated to the normal "numerosity" threshold of 60 articles before being "downsplit". Alai 07:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Umm, wha? haha The Mississippi-radio-station-stub puts any articles tagged with it into Category:Mississippi stubs and Category:Southern United States radio station stubs and not into any Mississippi radio-specific cat. I could see it being left that way if there was a Radio Stations subcat within Category:Mississippi stubs but there isn't. Actually the same could be said for the Missisisppi newspaper, tv, structure, sports arena, and school stub templates being used already. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 07:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- You'll have to be a little more specific in your question than "umm, wha?" if you're expecting a useful answer. Your comment seems to be to the general effect of "there must be a subcat, unless there's a subcat". There does not appear to be enough articles for such a subcat: see WP:STUB#numerosity. Alai 07:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- What Alai is probably attempting to get across (in his/her own inimitable fashion) is that, in order for {{Mississippi-radio-station-stub}} to have its own Category:Mississippi radio station stubs category, according to stub-sorting guidelines, there should be at least 30 articles tagged with it. (If there were no WikiProject, the standard number is 60.) Currently there are 26 articles; if you can create 4 more I think we can justify the category. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 13:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be terrible to have an imitable fashion, though? We're not looking for just another four, however (otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it). The WPJ scope is "Mississippi", not MI radio stations. There's already a Category:Mississippi stubs, which at significantly less than one listings page, is not presently remotely in need of any sort of splitting at all, to the point, I think where there ought to be a presumption in not splitting it, even were a > 60 subcat just about feasible (as might be the case with the "media" type currently at SFD (or preferably, a media category fed entirely from upmerged templates)). I've no objection to templatising everything to death for the sake of symmetry, and in case of future need, but I have the usual standing objections to over-sorting a small number of articles into below-critical-mass cats. Alai 18:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- What Alai is probably attempting to get across (in his/her own inimitable fashion) is that, in order for {{Mississippi-radio-station-stub}} to have its own Category:Mississippi radio station stubs category, according to stub-sorting guidelines, there should be at least 30 articles tagged with it. (If there were no WikiProject, the standard number is 60.) Currently there are 26 articles; if you can create 4 more I think we can justify the category. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 13:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- You'll have to be a little more specific in your question than "umm, wha?" if you're expecting a useful answer. Your comment seems to be to the general effect of "there must be a subcat, unless there's a subcat". There does not appear to be enough articles for such a subcat: see WP:STUB#numerosity. Alai 07:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Category:Romania Centru geography stubs, by county
- 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.
I trust no-one objects to "downsplitting" the upmerged county templates that were (over-)populating the regional cat. (I already have.) Alai 20:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Sfd bottom
- 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.
I've sped this, because: the parent's oversized again, and generally is growing at a madcap rate; the established pattern seems pretty clear; and because I started sorting these, in the mistaken belief they already existed. (Pesky I-states.) Alai 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Sfd bottom
Skeleton racers
- 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.
I propose {{Skeleton-bio-stub}} and Category:Skeleton racing biography stubs catscan shows 64 articles for this sport.Waacstats 12:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- The suggested template name conjures up the question of what we'd call a stub tag for the sport in general, but I suppose we can burn that bridge when we come to it. Support. Alai 04:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I had the same thought but the permcat for the sport is actually at Category:Skeleton while the article Skeleton is about the bone system. Waacstats 21:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Will you CFR, or shall I? Alai 04:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Having never been involved in a CFR before let alone started one, I'll let you do it if you don't mind.Waacstats 11:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Have sent it to CFR; stay tuned. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Having never been involved in a CFR before let alone started one, I'll let you do it if you don't mind.Waacstats 11:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Will you CFR, or shall I? Alai 04:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I had the same thought but the permcat for the sport is actually at Category:Skeleton while the article Skeleton is about the bone system. Waacstats 21:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Update: The permcat has been renamed to Category:Skeleton racing. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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 template.
Currently all articles on agricultural domestic birds have to be tagged with {{livestock-stub}} which is arguably inappropriate (semantics, but "livestock" normally connotes only mammals), and in any case, livestock is far too broad a category, or they must be tagged with {{Agri-stub}} which is even broader.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Permcat-wise, Category:Poultry is a subcat of Category:Livestock, implying the broader definition. If the nicety is a concern in and of itself, I'd suggest an upmerged template, feeding into the same category. If you really want to split them out into a separate category, the question of numerical thresholds hoves into view. Are there 60 existing such stubs? Alai 06:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I can see there's a little over a dozen spread between agri-stub, livestock-stub, and various bird-stub subtypes. Probably enough for a template, but certainly nowhere near enough for a category. If livestock-stub was going to be split up (which at 190 stubs seems unnecessary), then splitting the cattle andpigs out as subtypes would probably be a better move, numbers-wise. Grutness...wha? 08:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe I misunderstood how this works. I really only wanted to have {{Poultry-stub}} for now. I read the instructions above and it said to format the request like the other ones, so I did. Now I see that there are others formatted differently. How do I fix? I do not understand the usage "permcat-wise" nor can I find it on Wikipedia:Stub or Wikipedia:Category.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Try Wikipedia:Glossary :). A permcat is a permanent (i.e., non cleanup or stub) category. What Alai means is that Category:Poultry itself is a subcategory of Category:Livestock, so although livestock sounds like it would be mainly mammals, birds are included. Basically, a {{poultry-stub}} template sounds a sensible idea, but - given the small number of stubs that would currently take it - it should feed into a more widely-scoped category (or categories) for now (as per the thresholds given at the top of WP:WSS/P). If there are enough articles using {{poultry-stub}}, then a separate Category:Poultry stubs will become a reasonable idea, but for now it would be a bit too small. If all you're after is an upmerged template, though, I don't see any problem 9and I've amended the heading to match that - hope you don't mind!)Grutness...wha? 01:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe I misunderstood how this works. I really only wanted to have {{Poultry-stub}} for now. I read the instructions above and it said to format the request like the other ones, so I did. Now I see that there are others formatted differently. How do I fix? I do not understand the usage "permcat-wise" nor can I find it on Wikipedia:Stub or Wikipedia:Category.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not at all! Thank you. And thanks for the explanation. I haven't put any time into understanding categories yet, so I guess I didn't know what I was getting into here. I'll have to do some more reading.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 13:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
Indiana-geos are now oversized; this looks like the logical place to start, being the largest CSA in the state. (Thereafter I'd imagine the remaining large *SAs, and thereafter the informal regions characterising the rest of the state, on the pattern of the couple of other states that have been done.) Alai 20:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Sfd bottom
- 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.
Thoughnot exactly proposed, I created this template while splitting the struct-stubs as i realised many SouthAfrica-structs would fit this. It now has over 60 articles so I propose Category:South African sports venue stubs. Waacstats 16:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Sfd bottom
- 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.
The above template has over 60 stubs propose creation of Category:Canadian ice hockey venue stubs. Waacstats 14:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- OMG it is 150+. Sped. Valentinian T / C 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
The above cat is getting close to oversize (748) propose the following
- Category:United States hospital stubs / {{US-hospital-stub}} (297 per catscan)
- Category:United Kingdom hospital stubs / {{UK-hospital-stub}} (113 per catscan)
I'll let the closer decide who wins the almost inevitable discussion as to American/United States and British/United Kingdom. Let me say that these match what is used in the permcats. Waacstats 22:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Template:Sfd bottom
Split of Actors
- 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.
Catscan indicates that the folloeing are viable
- Category:Turkish actor stubs / {{Turkey-actor-stub}}
- Category:Brazilian actor stubs / {{Brazil-actor-stub}}
Waacstats 13:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think that by long and numerous precedents, this would be speediable (as would be those below). Alai 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- No problems here. Speedy. Valentinian T / C 21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
There are currently 101 pages that link to {{Colorado-radio-station-stub}}, which I feel is sufficient to warrant these particular stubs getting their own category, a sub-category of Category:Western United States radio station stubs. JPG-GR 06:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Arr, me hearties! (um, that's a support, provided you spell Colorado without the pirate R ;) Grutness...wha? 06:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think that can pretty safely be speedied. Alai 21:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)