Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting | Proposals
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Caerwine (talk | contribs) at 05:13, 14 December 2005 (→Proposals, October 2005). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposals, July 2005

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]

Dance album stub not created due to lack of corresponding non-stub parent. RnB album stub not created due to unresolved template name , other 4 stubs created. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:01, 14 December 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]
I'd be tempted to think that the {{Union-bio-stub}} was about people on the Union side in War of Northern Agression. :) Caerwine 19:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps something like {{laborunion-bio-stub}}? It's longer, but it's probably less ambiguous. --Mairi 19:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And we're not only back at the labour/labor, but manage yet another US-centric proposed name even aside from that, since the UK term (at least) is Trade Union. - SoM 15:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about having these go into the {{activist-stub}} proposal way down below with an option to split off if there are enough as {{worker-activist-stub}}? I'll grant that it's a bit wordy and nonintuitive, but it does avoid the problems with both "labo[u]r" and "Union". Caerwine 00:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda like this... cuts down on the hyphenation creep. nae'blis (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like it too, and it avoids all the issues of the other proposed names. --Mairi 06:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good - go for it! Grutness...wha? 04:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reproposed as {{worker-activist-stub}} in December. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, September 2005

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:

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]

Here's another different but related idea: Both the music and musician stub categories are jammed up with record producers. So, how about {{record-producer-stub}}? J. Van Meter 02:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have also noticed many various non-musician but music-related people stubs. Something should be created for them. I'd suggest {{music-bio-stub}}, in the same vein as film-bio-stub and poli-bio-stub, but it still sounds awful. --Joy [shallot] 18:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of the four instrument based stubs I suggested, I've just created {{woodwind-musician-stub}} and {{brass-musician-stub}}, while {{keyboard-musician-stub}} is covered by the {{keyboardist-stub}} someone else created, and I decided to create the {{string-musician-stub}} as {{bowed-musician-stub}} so as to exclude the guitarists and such, now I'm off to sort Category:Musician stubs which should take me a while, tho I'll certainly welcome help. Caerwine 23:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to record producers, there are also many conductors among the musician stubs. Also, to go along with bowed-string musicians, there are many plucked-string musicians. -Acjelen 05:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, October 2005

A whole bunch of road stubs, part 2

Per the discussions above I propose:

I suppose that New York and West Virginia could be abbreviated... {{US-road-stub}} will probably be down to under 200 articles if these stubs go through and when I finish classifying the ones I have approved above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 00:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a reasonable idea, but the names need work. IIRC, {{NewYork-State-Highway-stub}} (or maybe {{NewYork-statehighway-stub}}?) is the usual standard we're trying to keep to. Anyone? Grutness...wha? 01:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template:NewYork-State-Highway-Stub works for me... I'm trying to maintain consistency with the other stub templates. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 01:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All the existing state highway stubs capitalize "stub"... But I think there's something to be said for bringing atleast that bit inline with the rest of the stub templates. --Mairi 03:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I'm leaning towards capitalizing the stub, but... I'd prefer the consistency so that someone who is doing the classification won't type the wrong thing in by mistake. I'd remember the difference I hope but someone else might not. Otherwise it really doesn't matter to me. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 04:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

19:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't use the two-letter postal abbreviations. Please use the full state name, consistent with the split of the U.S. geo stubs. Please use {{WestVirginia-road-stub}}. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Please, for a modicum of consistency with other stub templates, use:

Alai 03:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that all of the other state highway templates are named with the -State-Highway-Stub convention or something similar. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 04:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting until the outcome of the SFD to create the templates listed above. Another note: {{Texas Highway Stub}} has been created (not by me). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

split of {{Physics-stub}}

I propose adding a quantum physics stub. Like relativity, this is a major area of physics that is in need of distinction. If you do a search for quantum physics, you will find that a large percentage of the articles fit this category.the1physicist 04:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that this is both a pressing split, and a viable one: there's over 1200 in the unsplit category. OTOH, is it perhaps too broad? Ideally one would split this category up to about say 6-10 ways, if there's a sensible scheme for doing so. Alai 16:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well gee, if you want another one I would suggest Theoretical Physics. I think between Relativity, Quantum Physics and Theoretical Physics we'll have covered nearly all physics stubs. If I think of more, I'll let you know.the1physicist 03:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds even more broad. My point is, if there are (by some chance) 800 stubs that come in the "quantum-" sub-cat, it's in no way an optimal split. Can you give us at least a rough estimate of the numbers involved? What about, say, particle-physics-? thermodynamics-? mechanics-? I'll drop a note at WP:Physics and see who else wants to chime in. Alai 04:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think theoretical physics would be way too broad: about 80% of the stubs could fit there so that wouldn't solve the problem. I'd recommend at least particle physics and optics. Would be a good idea to get something to cover condensed matter/solid state physics also. With relativity that would split off some relatively clean chunks. — Laura Scudder | Talk 05:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think theoretical physics is a bad idea, just as experimental would be, because all physics topics would fall into one of those two, not leaving room for other types of stubs. It seems to me more rational to make field-oriented stub categories, like the mentioned quantum physics, optics, and perhaps also astrophysics (I see alot of stubs on that, too) and amybe electromagnetism(?). I also think relatvity is not a good choice, because its more of a general topic, and overlaps with lots of things in QM and optics and al other fields, right? Karol 08:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions, both. Any guestimates as to how many stubs each of those suggestions would cover? Alai 23:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I went through 200 physics stubs in the middle and counted how I would classify them (assuming I'd put as many on there as I thought worked) and got these numbers (the projected total follows the actual number)
  • Optics: 16/96
  • Quantum: 41/246
  • Particle: 38/228
  • Sub-atomic: 17/102
  • Condensed matter: 25/150
  • Relativity: 3/18
  • E&M: 22/132
  • Astrophysics: 8/48
  • Theoretical: 75/450
I think my section of the alphabet (F-L) had an abnormally low number of astro stubs (and it only got relativity stubs still in Category:Physics stubs). — Laura Scudder | Talk 00:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just to put in my two cents... Why don't we divide the stubs as much as possible by the categories physicists actually use? So definitely don't use "subatomic." Also, theoretical still seems big. What kind of theoretical physics is it? All kinds, or is it "fundamental" theories, i.e. particle theory + GR? (I guess there aren't many articles on theoretical condensed mater anyway...) If nothing else, we might split up "theoretical" into "theoretical" and "string"...? That's what the seminars at Berkeley do. Good list overall, though. -- SCZenz 16:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a more useful sub-div of the "particle" stubs, all the better. Types of particles? Actual particles, vs. particle theories and other -related stuff? If not, particle-stub or particle-physics-stub is fine, just a tad hefty, based on the above estimate. I think there's pretty broad agreement that "theoretical-" is way too, well, broad. string-theory-stub would be grand (if the numbers pan out), but surely the "other theoretical" could be much better defined, and less confusingly named. Alai 17:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what all Laura was counting as "theory". It's easy to split off condensed matter theory and stuff like that. But if we're just dealing with particle physics stuff, let me try to give some very detailed possible subdivisions into stubs:
  • Articles on particles: particle-stub
  • Experimental particle physics: particle-expt-stub, maybe along with:
    • Equipment, accelerators, etc.: particle-apparatus-stub
  • Particle Theory: particle-theory-stub, with the following alternatives:
    • Current particle physics theory: standard-model-stub
    • String theory: string-theory-stub
Those are the best I can do on the names, at least. To subdivide theory any more would require people with masters degrees in physics to do the stub sorting. -- SCZenz 00:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. I'm not at all keen on a general "resplit" of theory, but I could see that particle-theory-stub in addition to a more general particle-stub might well be feasible. Would that also be viable for quantum-stubs, or would quantum-field- and quantum-mechanics- make more sense? (I note the main "subfields of physics" template hass each of these at the top level.) Alai 00:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quantum-mechanics- and quantum-field- would both make sense, and maybe quantum-field- could take a lot of stuff that would otherwise have gone in particle-theory- (or maybe such articles would just get counted as both). As for splitting theory, it's the big one, so I thought it made sense to give the best idea I could for dividing it. The splits on experiment would be beneficial, at least in terms of thinking how small a list would need to be before I (as an experimentalist) would actually go down the list and try to fill things in. -- SCZenz 01:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I assumed theoretical would be way too big to be useful. I counted everything that would reasonably fit in theoretical physics (there's actually a good number of stubs on named condensed matter theories). All those I counted as theory I also counted in their respective fields of physics. I didn't make experiment/theory splits by subfield (particle theory stuff got lumped with accelerators), and I think that's best for the stubs, too, as it's rather how the field (and Wikipedia's physics categories) work. — Laura Scudder | Talk 04:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
would subatomic-physics-stub be useful, or too vague, or too broad? Grutness...wha? 09:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that essentially the same ground as particle physics? Alai 23:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a narrower category, as not all particles can be found in atoms. I would think particle would be a better choice, but I haven't checked out the distribution of stubs thoroughly yet. — Laura Scudder | Talk 23:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to the list proposed by Laura Scudder. Very nice job.the1physicist 00:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, if all those on my list existed, many stubs would fit in 3 of the categories. I simply wanted info on all those suggested so far. I would personally recommend the very broad ones on the list not be implemented and that we go with either particle- or sub-atomic- but not both. — Laura Scudder | Talk 01:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Noted; personally I don't think triple-stubbing is the heinous crime some would make it out to be, either. Thanks for the counts, that's a huge help. On that basis, I'd certainly support "optics-, "condensed-matter-" (can we just call this one "mechanics-stub"?) and "electromag-". I'd strongly oppose "theoretical". Quantum is obviously viable, but perhaps a tad too big? Is there a natural further split? I'd be pretty easy either way on that. On the particles, perhaps create both "sub-atomic-" and "particle-", making the former a sub-category (so that double-stubbing on these isn't necessary)? Alai 02:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with you except that the terms condensed matter physics and mechanics are not the same in physics usage. Condensed matter describes systems with large numbers of interacting degrees of freedom: a lot of superfluids, crystals, magnetic materials, etc. Most of the stubs I saw here were named theories of materials and a few crystal scattering terms. I'm not sure how useful optics and E&M would be as distinct stub categories. I'll run the whole thing by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics again. — Laura Scudder | Talk 04:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, there I go, mixing up continuum mechanics and condensed matter. D'oh. "condensate-stub"? The numbers would seem to indicate those would be useful categories, if only because if they're useless to everyone else, all the more reason to hive them off separately... But certainly, it'd be good to get as broad a consensus on said utility as possible. Alai 05:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Two other ideas, although I'm not sure how usefull they would be for stubs: biophysics (or "biological physics") and computational physics. Karol 08:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since Optics, particle physics, and quantum mechanics seemed to be unambiguously acceptible, I've just created {{optics-stub}}, {{particle-stub}}, and {{quantum-stub}}. Caerwine 16:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. I have been wishing for an optics-stub for quite a while. I have been uncomfortable with the use of physics-stub for optics articles, because optics really crosses over between pure physics and technology/engineering, in many cases. For this reason, Category:Optics is a subcategory of both Category:Atomic, molecular, and optical physics and Category:Technology. Is it possible to make Category:Optics stubs a subcategory of Category:Technology stubs as well as Category:Physics stubs?--Srleffler 23:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and changed the wording of the {{quantum-stub}} to include quantum field theory stubs as well. Among articles beginning with A-C, there are 9 stubs on quantum mechanics an 27 on quantum field theory. There are 6 stubs on string theory as well, not sure if they should be included. Conscious 07:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

String theory should not be included in {{quantum-stub}}, since it's an over-arching theory that includes theories about forces and phenomena that are not part of quantum mechanics. --EncycloPetey 08:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-midwest-road-stub}}; {{US-northeast-road-stub}}; {{US-south-road-stub}}; {{US-west-road-stub}}

{{US-road-stub}} is splittable, but equally, many statesworths are well below the normal creation threshold. I suggest we follow the same split as with the {{US-geo-stub}} subtree: four regional sub-categories, to be resplit as viable, using the "-road-stub" terminology for consistency and inclusivity. Alai 02:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd postpone this one until we see what happens with all the highway stubs at SFD. Ideally, I'd knock them together, so that every Foo-state-highway-stub is changed to Foo-road-stub, allowing it to include all roads and streets in the state as well. Grutness...wha? 04:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, it doesn't really depend on that, though, as it'll make very little difference to the numbers in US-road-stub: the splits would be viable, but not necessitated, either way. My deletions would add a couple of dozen back into the general category; my renamings would allow some, probably only a handful, "back in" to state-specific categories that weren't "State Highways" and the like. Alai 18:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but any renamed "State Highway" categories would have to be children of your new categories, no? So they'd be stubbed then restubbed a few days later. Grutness...wha? 22:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Grutness here... it would be too much work to go back and fix things (California has over 100 stub articles alone for example). Let's wait until we see what happens at SFD. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Subcatting them that way would make sense, sure. So I'll agree it's sensible procedurally to wait, certainly; which presumably is what'd happen anyway. (I certainly wasn't about to "speedy" these...) I just don't see it why it would logically effect the outcome, either way. So if you meant postpone creation, certainly, I took you to mean postpone consideration.
Rschen, I'm not proposing anything here that would affect those California stubs at all; certainly not recatting them as US-west-road-stub, which would be pointless, nay, counterproductive. Nor would it affect anything in any other stub category of feasible size -- yours included. The point is to use it for the unsorted articles in US-road-stub, of which you'll recall complaining about the excessive size. (OTOH, fixing 100 stub categorisations is hardly infeasible, where required -- I believe it's somewhat traditional for Grutness to scoff lightly at such propositions at about this point...) Alai 04:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Commonwealth-mil-stub}} or {{Oceania-mil-stub}}; and {{Europe-mil-stub}}

Doesn't look like any further country-specific mil-stub categories are going to come close to 60. The above two would do so as a catch-all (well, catch-some, at least), and would also be useful for a number of "generic British commonwealth military" and "generic European military" stubs, of which there are also a number. Alai 02:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Europe definitely. Willing to be swayed on the Commonwealth one - from the point of view of military relationships it does make a little more sense than regional ones, but it does go against precedent in other stub types. Certainly there is overlap in, say Australia, New Zealand, Canadian, and South African military so it might work. Grutness...wha? 04:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, makes no sense geographically: pesky imperialists. Based on a count-down of mil-stubs, it seems to be the only one likely to fly at all for these (at least until someone comes along and creates a shedful more of 'em). Though adding in counts from mil-ship-stubs might make Oz and/or NZ "viable" (either individually, or as Australasia-/Oceania-mil-stub), if those were then systematically double-stubbed. Alai 16:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oceania would be my preference (and probably that of many NZ editors - the term Australasia's not universally accepted here - in any case we use oceania for most of these things). I'd have suggested ANZAC, but while the term nowadays refers to just about anything that is done jointly by Australia and New Zealand, its army origins would make it ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's indeed a fair few Oz naval stubs, putting that possibility into the 50s, as against a couple of dozen more for the (unsorted) C/w as a whole. I'd prefer the latter as it'd get more things out of mil-stub, but either will do in a pinch, so I'm adding your suggestion as an option to the proposal. Anyone else have a view on this? Alai 03:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Created Europe-mil-; starting to populate. Alai 20:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to do this to you, but shouldn't that be {{Euro-mil-stub}}? Grutness...wha? 12:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So now you tell me... I dunno, I see the root category is at euro-, are we using that consistently? Alai 05:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive15&oldid=31292215"