Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jerem43 (talk | contribs) at 19:29, 7 March 2010 (Adding these, some one who knows what is going on should finish them...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut
WikiProject Stub sorting
Information
Project page talk
- Stub types (sections) talk
- Stub types (full list) talk
- To do talk
- Naming conventions talk
- Redirects category talk
Wikipedia:Stub talk
Discussion
Proposals (A) talk
- Current month
Discussion talk
Criteria (A) (discontinued) talk
Deletion (Log) (discontinued) talk
Category

Template:Archive box collapsible This WP:WSS subpage is for discoveries of stub templates not cleared by WikiProject Stub sorting which have been encountered on Wikipedia. Stubs that have been put on the official stub type list without discussion on this page or /Proposals should be listed here as well. If you discover such a stub type, please list it at the top of this page along with any relevant details. Do not enter it on the stub type list until it has been discussed here to determine whether it should be kept or proposed for deletion at stub types for deletion.

Instructions

To check whether a stub type has been discussed in the past, click on either the template or category link and select "What links here" from the toolbox on the left (set it to find only items in the Wikipedia space). Find the link to a WikiProject Stub sorting page such as Deletion or Proposals to see if there has been any discussion on this type previously. Checking the template or category's history link may also indicate whether the stub type is p[art of a larger group discussion at WP:WSS/P. Note: If possible, check both the template and the category, in case one has been discussed but not the other.

If the stub category or template has not been proposed, and is not clearly an inappropriate or deletable type, list it here under a separate heading at the top of the list for the month of discovery. Please also consider notifying the creator of the stub type by subst'ing {{wssdnotify}} on their user talk page.

If a stub type is of a clearly inappropriate or deletable type, it may be taken straight to WP:SFD. Again, in this case, the creator of the stub type should be notified, this time by substing {{sfdnotify1}} (for one stub type) or {{sfdnotify2}} (for more than one stub type) onto their user talk page.

March 2010

{{Samsung-mobile-stub}} / Category:Samsung phone stubs

Found this in Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories. Currently has 101 articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not sure the articles should exist, while they do I would rather them be in this category than flooding another category. Waacstats (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Canada-mag-stub}} / Category:Canada magazine stubs

Found this as I was reviewing the magazine categories again. There are 55 articles at this point, and I'm sure more could be found. I personally would argue that Category:Canadian magazine stubs would be a better category title. Dawynn (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

support rename. Waacstats (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OCriverstub / Category:Orange County river stubs

Template not named properly, overall likely too small in scope. –xenotalk 19:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take to SFD and delete Waacstats (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Category:African cycling biography stubs

Category created for {{Africa-cycling-bio-stub}}, {{SouthAfrica-cycling-bio-stub}} and {{Zimbabwe-cycling-bio-stub}}. Only 24 articles in the category, of which just under half have been prodded. SeveroTC 18:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could be deleted and the articles merged back into the cycling biogrpahy stub category. Waacstats (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review: Upmerged template already existed ({{LGBT-mag-stub}}), found 60 articles to put under it, found that there was already a category Category:LGBT-related magazines. So, I created the stub category. Dawynn (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the -related needs to be in there but seem to think that one of the other LGBT cats is the same. Waacstats (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used related purely to keep with the parent category. Since Category:LGBT-related magazines, then Category:LGBT-related magazine stubs. Dawynn (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found these on the list of existing stubs that are on the "to be vetted" list. Please advise whether acceptable.

Biographies

Companies

Software

Dawynn (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can keep any category with over 50 articles and the upmerged templates, the rest could probably do with some one going through the categories and seeing what can get up close to 60 and deleting what can't. Waacstats (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Category:2010s indie pop album stubs

I found this one in the list of uncategorised categories, along with its associated template Template:Pop-album-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). It appears to be an excessively narrow division of Category:Pop album stubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Category:Bacon stubs

I didn't know that there had to be a discussion before a stub was created so I created this stub category yesterday. I was suggested by a "busybody" that I should inform you of its creation. I however believe that it is a very useful sub-category of meat stubs, with 23 entries included when I last checked and with the Bacon WikiCup already running it is very likely to serve a good purpose for a lot more stubs within the relevant range. (I've already added a lot of articles with no stub category to it and have changed the meat stubs template on a few articles to the more specific bacon stub category. Do with this template what you will (I understand now that it should've been proposed before it was created) but I stronly believe it will be a very helpful subcategory within the meat stubs category.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 04:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

23 is a very small number for a new stub category - the usual threshold before the creation of a category is 60 existing stubs. If this gets to 60 soon, then it may be worth keeping, if not, then the likely outcome is to upmerge the template to have it point to Category:Meat stubs. BTW, referring to someone who suggests you actually follow WP guidelines and policies as a "busybody" isn't going to gain you many friends! Grutness...wha? 23:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the "busybody" comment was in humourous repsonse to this.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 00:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, the busybody in question referred to herself somewhat tongue-in-cheek that way initially (and is now going to stop referring to herself in the third person). LadyofShalott 06:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For more on-topic comment... I wonder about upmerging bacon-stub to something along the lines of pork-stub. Would that make the target number of 60? (I really am asking I don't know the answer to that.) LadyofShalott 06:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{Pork-stub}}/Category:Pork stubs would be a more widely-scoped stub type, and this suggests there would be over 60 articles. Best thing to do from here would be to take this to WP:SFD and mention this discussion there, asking that Category:Bacon stubs be deleted and the template upmerged into a new Category:Pork stubs, (with either the addition of a {{Pork-stub}} or the renaming of {{Bacon-stub}} to {{Pork-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 22:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'll take it to SFD now. Should be (hopefully) pretty straightforward. Taken o SFD for renaming/upscoping. Grutness...wha? 04:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Khmer singer stubs

Stub category that seems oddly named, not big enough, and it is used directly on articles and not with a template. Borgarde (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one should probably go straight to SFD. You've mentioned several problems with it - another is that splitting singers by language is a bad precedent to have. Singers are usually split by nationality, and many singers can sing in multiple languages. A Cambodia-singer-stub would be fine (probably upmerged), but not this. Grutness...wha? 05:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taken to SFD.Borgarde (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South Ossetia geography stubs/{{South Ossetia-geo-stub}}

Unproposed, only one page in category, category is malformed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template is misnamed too (should be at SouthOssetia-geo-stub). But if you check the SFD for Ossetia-geo-stub you'll see the reasoning behind it. It should have been proposed though - to save us the work of having to fix it up :/ Grutness...wha? 22:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:India-agri-stub

I noticed this one because it was using a non-standard category Category:Agriculture in India. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, November 2009

{{AIADMK-politician-stub}}/Category:AIADMK politician stubs and {{DMK-politician-stub}}/Category:Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam politician stubs

Two new stub types for Indian politicians, though only one of the four parts gives any indication of that by its name. Both categories are small, though one is fairly close to threshold - the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam one may need to be upmerged, however. And something - anything! -needs to be done with the names, even if only adding "-India-" to both templates and changing the DMK in the second template to something a little less ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is also relevant to any renaming which may be needed. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite honestly, when everything else in Wikipedia is create and then discuss/delete, I did not expect stub type creations to be any different. However, now that I know this, I'll bring the next few here before creating. At this point there are over 100 between 200-400 stubs each for these two stub types, they just haven't been categorized yet. Also, User:CarTick, User:Sodabottle and I expect to create at least another 100 each over the next two to four weeks for these two stub types. As far as the naming goes, I kept it consistent with {{INC-politician-stub}} and {{BJP-politician-stub}} which belong to the same Indian politician stub category. -SpacemanSpiff 01:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check the section of WP:BOLD which relates to templates and categories. This will give you some reasons for the more circumspect nature of creation of stub types. More reasons can be found at User:Grutness/Stub rationales. As far as the nameing is concernedf, the BJP in particular is widely known wirldwide as being a major indian political party, as is the INC (though less so, perhaps). I doubt you'd have the same level of worldwide recognition for either DMK or AIADMK. Grutness...wha? 09:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
many of the politicians from Category:Tamil Nadu politicians will belong to either ADMK or DMK, two main political parties in Tamil Nadu. useful stub as far as I am concerned. --CarTick 05:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that the aren't useful stub types. All I've said is that the names which have been used for the templates and one of the categories are non-standard, and if kept they will need to be changed; and that neither of the categories is yet up to the point where they should have been created. If they reach the threshold for stub categories (60 existing stubs), then only the names will be a problem. But these problems could have been overcome far more easily and with less work all round if the stub types had been proposed in the first place. Grutness...wha? 09:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And AIADMKazhagam-politician-stub? I could go with those, though I'm not sure about others in WP:WSS. Grutness...wha? 18:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that such long an acronym would exist elsewhere, but I could live with {{AIADMKazhagam-politician-stub}}. While I understand the logic behind attaching India, the concern I have is that both these parties have a presence restricted to only Tamil Nadu and Puduchery, and they aren't "national" parties per se. But if it is preferred to make it {{India-DMK-politician-stub}} or {{DMKIndia-politician-stub}}, I haven't any objection to that either -SpacemanSpiff 18:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
India-DMK-politician-stub would be the other way to go (as in {{Australia-Labor-politician-stub}}, for example). As long as they're the only parties of those names in India, it would still make sense, whether they're regional or not. It's probably less urgent for these parties than for the Australian one and others like it, because as far as WP articles are concerned, DMK is the abbreviation for only one political party worldwide. It isn't impossible that there are others, thopugh, and it's certainly not an abbreviation that is likely to mean much to anyone who doesn't know about Indian politics. Grutness...wha? 23:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, October 2009

{{Can-royal-stub}}/Category:Canadian royalty stubs

Found this while stub sorting, should be renamed to {{Canada-royal-stub}} and upmerged if kept. Borgarde (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly a deletion candidate - royal-stub is for biographies of members of royal families. None of the stubs marked are thus really royal-stubs, and very few of the stubs marked with this are even more than tenuously royalty-related. How, for example, a horse race in Hong Kong counts as either royalty or Canadian is completely beyond me... I've taken this to SFD. Grutness...wha? 22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Human genetic history-stub}}

I created this one a few days ago not realizing that there was a policy on stub creation. The stub is the only stub for the Human genetic history project. The creation of the stub followed upgrades of the HGH wikiproject banner which created a subcategory for Stub-class articles, where HGH is the primary category for the page. Only two pages have this stub so far but over 200 pages are unassessed and many of these will likely be stubed at some point.PB666 yap 05:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the current stub's name doesn't follow the conventions for stub template names. It also has no stub category, either dedicated or upmerged, feeds into a Wikiproject's category (not standard practice), has a name which doesn't agree with the stated subject in the template's text (molecular antthropology - there is no such article as Human genetic history, just a redirect to Human evolutionary genetics]]), and has no equivalent permanent category (no Category:Human genetic history, though there is a Category:Modern human genetic history, nor a Category:Molecular anthropology - the name here is Category:Genetic genealogy). It's also not clear why the existing {{Anthropology-stub}} wouldn't cover the topic, seeing as, at 160 stubs, it is hardly overused. All in all, it's a series of major problems. As stated at WP:STUB, if you're looking for a way to earmark stubs for one specific wikiproject (which it looks as if you are), a far better way is to use a dedicated talk page assessment template - that would allow you to keep track of all your project's articles, not just the stubs. If you feel that a stub template would be more useful, then we may well need to start from scratch with this one. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The person who wrote the above obviously did not read the project page.

Are available

Molecular Anthropology = Human genetic history - They are roughly equivalent. I did not name the project, if I had named the project I would not have used that name. I think the logic of blocking a stub because the project was named poorly is silly. Anthropology covers a wide range of topics that deal with material culture and social culture. Human genetic history deals with topics from Popular geneology to anthropoid evolution. It deals with Human genetics, matematical models, protein evolution. Many pages such as Chimp-human last common ancestor deal with topics generally outside the realm of material culture and language evolution. Almost all genetic studies on humans are anchored in an LCA that range from Orangutan (OHLCA ranges from 14 to 20Ma) to Chimpanzees with the suggested CHLCA of 7 to 10 million years. The CHLCA is 5 million years older than the first evidence of material culture. PB666 yap 19:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this stub does not follow the naming convention I will mark it for deletion however I need to unstub a couple of pages.PB666 yap 19:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was trivial so I repaired it, there is now a category labeled Human Genetic History stubs, which links to the wikiproject. This follows the convention of archaeology and anthropology stubs.PB666 yap 20:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the remaining problems are (present tense) trivial - you fixed one by creating a handful more problems, but the rest still remain. I did read the pages you mentioned, but they did not explain why a stub template was incorrectly named - which it still is - and why it failed all the other points I mentioned, most specifically how this stub type provides an advantage that other approved stub types do not. Perhaps you have not read the relevant pages on stub naming and stub creation (I'd start with WP:STUB and WP:WSS/NC). Your attempts to fix the one or two problems you have has simply created more problems - you now have a new base permcat with a key article with a different name, which is not connected in any way to the main category hierarchy (article categories are not meant to link directly to WikiProjects alone - that's what WikiProject categories are for). Rather than trying to fix problems on the fly - and thereby compoiunding the problems - it's far better to debatee things properly first.
If there are good reasons for having this as a separate stub, then I've no objection to it, though - as I say - there are so many problems with the current template that it would be easier to start from scratch with a proposal for a new template. Grutness...wha? 22:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what other name I would give it, without creating a whole new category of articles. And again I think the naming issues are trivial on what category pages to use as long is there is a central category which all fall into. As far as 'handful of other problems' that sounds like a distracting over-exaggeration inappropriate for Wikipedia. I am not going to create a whole new freestanding hierarchy simply for molecular anthropology when human genetic history already exists. This all boils down to a key point, human genetic history a WikiProject created by 10 'Sciencey' folks on Wikipedia does not have a Main. The reason it does not have a main is because the Project was improperly named, there is nothing I can or will do about that. Molecular Anthropology and HGH are too close in scope to have a separate project pages, so I am not going to attempt to create that either. What remains is a stub that could have the name MolAnthro-stub sort its main, but be categorized into the HGH project or what is currently a HGH-stub that has MolAnthro as the Main and is stubed into the HGH project. Seems to me that there is no big difference since both have at least one imperfection. The other altnerative is to change the link on the stub to human-genetic history and have it redirect to Mol. Anthro. page.PB666 yap 13:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Names and problems: 

Human genetic history (three so-called intersections)
 a. Human yes
 b. genetics yes and appropriate
   a-b. human genetics yes and appropriate
 c. History not appropriate branch
Molecular Anthropology
 a. Molecular - Molecular genetic yes and appropriate (Protein and DNA evolution)
 b. Anthropology yes and appropriate

Let's take these points one at a time.

  1. You may regard the naming as trivial, but that's because you have the luxury of only dealing with one stub type - not trying to keep the names of several thousand as uniform as possible.
  2. I listed six basic concerns with the template. You fixed two (and created further problems). Four existing problems, to my mind, is quite clearly enough to be considered a handful of problems. This is not an overexaggeration.
  3. I don't understand what you mean by "not having a main". A main what? If you mean a main stub type, many (if not most) Wikiprojects don't have main stub types. They don't need them, and most get by with the far more appropriate talk-page banner templates. The purpose of stubs is not connected with Wikiprojects - it is to categorise all stubs across the entirety of Wikipedia.
  4. Because stub types are not connected to wikiprojects, there is absolutely no need for a stub template to have a name that is identical to a wikiproject.
  5. Why are you talking about changing the link on the template to have it point to a redirect? The problem is that the template is incorrectly named, and changing the wording to point to a redirect isn't going to fix that. The current name is inappropriate for several reasons - the most obvious one from the point of view of stub-sorting being that it is not hyphenated. But even {{human-genetic-history-stub}} would not be appropriate, for the reason you say above - it would explicitly mean that the overall parent stub type was {{history-stub}}. If you hadn't created more work by suddenly creating Category:Human genetic history, but had instead created Category:Molecular anthropology, or Category:Genetic anthropology (perhaps the most appropriate name), then a {{Molecular-anthropology-stub}} or {{Genetic-anthropology-stub}} would have been an appropriate template name. Again, the choice of parent permanent category name is in no way connected to the name of the WikiProject and does not need to be the same as that name.
  6. You still haven't given any answers to the other problems I raised initially - most importantly, why this stub type is even necessary. Category:Anthropology stubs is below average in size for stub categories, and less that a quarter of the size necessary before a split should be considered. Similarly, Category:Genetics stubs, though larger, is not oversized.

Grutness...wha? 23:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{PJ-stub}}

Just found this. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gone to SFD. Grutness...wha? 23:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, August 2009

{{Mars-spacecraft-stub}}

I've just fixed the name on it (transclusions need updated). It's upcategorizing right now and seems like a good idea. Would need listed. –xenotalk 18:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. We'd either end up splitting spacecraft by space agency or target of mission, and the only other split so far is by target of mission (comsats) so this stub type makes a certain amount of sense. And at 700+ stubs, Category:Spacecraft stubs is getting lose to a split as well. The former name should be deleted, though, since it is not a naming-convention compliant name - and it has been orphaned, so you can do that as a speedy without going through SFD if you wish (as sole editor of the page). Grutness...wha? 10:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Welsh-Academics}}

Another oddly named stub -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To SFD with it. Any incorrectly named ones ccan go directly to SFD, because even if kept they'll need to be renamed. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SFD in progress --Kslotte (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Various (oddly named)

A few stub templates that don't end in -stub

As such, they couldd have been taken straight to SFD - which would savee duplicating all the discussions! Grutness...wha? 22:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrectly named, unused, SFD fodder Waacstats (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? unused in mainspace. More SFD fodderWaacstats (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrectly named and we have the correct name so Db-t3 for the one with a space. Waacstats (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SFD as unused, off to SFD Waacstats (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- WOSlinker (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While on the subject of odd naming... (Some of these are discussion elsewhere as well) –xenotalk 04:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
incorrectly named and only used on three stubs, SFD Waacstats (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
category that goes with this is probably useful given Category:Drink stubs is over 500 would suggest renaming template to {{Distilled-drink-stub}} or similar. Waacstats (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename template, category looks reasonable if it can be raised to 60 articles. Waacstats (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DB-T3 unused and substantial duplicate. Waacstats (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DB-T3 unused and substantial duplicate. Waacstats (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of the NorthKorea SouthKorea, why don't we have both North and South seperate normally? I think this is a logical split, they are just incorrectly named. Borgarde (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly because so many of the articles on poets and the like are for people who pre-date the 1950s. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DB-T3 unused and substantial duplicate. Waacstats (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DB-T3 unused and substantial duplicate. Waacstats (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename either to WNusaTenggara-geo-stub to match ENusaTenggara-geo-stub . Waacstats (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To SFD with all of them. Any incorrectly named ones ccan go directly to SFD, because even if kept they'll need to be renamed. As for speedying them, some of the ones you speedied will still need to go to SFD, so please don't! It simply makes more work for yourself. Korean bios, for instance, are mostly not split into North and South, simply because the vast majority of articles on them are pre-1950. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Central Asian archaeology stub}}/Category:Central Asian archaeology stubs

Found this one Borgarde (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category may prove useful, with either a corrected template or more probably upmerged by nation templates (after all whose definition of Central Asia is being used). Templates just wrong and needs deleting. Waacstats (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - nation-specific templates are better than a regional one, especially given that tthere are various definitions for this region. Not overly keen on the category either, but it may be useful. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:India-china-stub

Weird one. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More SFD fodder Waacstats (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. SFD. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Various

I would appreciate if someone could sort through these:

  • Marching-band-stub - looks like we have a category with 30 articles but not fed by this template, parent category seems to have numerous articles and subcats so maybe useful,
  • ISTR this being proposed at some point, but upmerged. -G
  • NorthDakota-county-route-stub - I thought we had standardised all these to state-road-stub, SFD fodder
  • We standardised them all as you said. This is either new or was missed in the mass renaming/cull. -G
  • Pacificnorthwest-stub - we don't split by areas split over two countries, SFD
  • penmanship-stub - looks like cat was deleted just not the template SFD or speedy
  • Phasmatodea-stub - given the way these genus' normally grow I would not be surprised if this wasn't worth keeping, upmerged to Insect stubs
  • Playstation stubs - used to have a cat (Sont computer entertainment stubs) may be worth putting it back there as that is currently undersized.
  • SouthAm-actor-stubs - readded cat as someone had removed it, this will probably become unecessary when we get round to creating the foo-actor-stubs for each country but keep till then
  • UFO-stub - may be of future use but can't think of any where to upmerge to. SFD fodder for now
  • Wales-music-stub - not a normal axis of split though we do have a proud tradition of music here in wales, still SFD fodder
  • Nid wyf i ddim yn hoffi Wales-music-stub. SFD. -G
Webzine-stub - may be useful I don't know how many webzines we have on here, upmerge to Magazine stubs and web stubs? would be my suggestion

Thanks! –xenotalk 03:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)suggest directing to category and seeing how it goes.[reply]

Hope no minds me putting the comments under each template just thought it would be easier if any need to be split into a seperate discussion. Waacstats (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the same (mine have a -G after them). Grutness...wha? 22:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I certainly don't mind. Do you mind taking the next steps with these? Thanks! –xenotalk 12:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get round to SFD'ing these later, any deletions will require an admin. Waacstats (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few more. –xenotalk 17:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schools are split by location, I see no reason to make an exception for Catholic schools. SFD. Waacstats (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
category exists and has ben changed in the past, will readd cat. Waacstats (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SFD and delete as unused. Waacstats (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Kwaito-album-stub}} / without cat

A handful of transclusions. No category. –xenotalk 00:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

made very difficult to look into by the fact that we don't even have a perm cat, the question then is if we don't have a perm cat why do we have a template. looks like even ore SFD fodder. Waacstats (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{FrenchWriter-stub}} / without cat

Unused, categorizes into a parent cat. –xenotalk 20:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SFD material - already thoroughly covered by {{France-writer-stub}}, which conforms to standard naming conventions (this one doesn't). Grutness...wha? 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
T3'd. –xenotalk 03:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Chinese-food-stub}} / without cat

Another lacking a cat. It did have one, but a bot removed it because I think no one created it. Only 3 members... –xenotalk 19:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SFD material - already thoroughly covered by {{China-cuisine-stub}}, which conforms to standard naming conventions (this one doesn't). Grutness...wha? 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged with {{deprecated template}}. –xenotalk 03:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Bible-stub}}/ Category:Bible stubs

2 members presently. Could probably have things split into it... –xenotalk 05:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already thoroughly covered by other stub types - this is possibly more SFD material unless a use can be shown for it which differs from the current available stub types. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly upmerge template at best, certainly SFD for category. Waacstats (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Gene-stub}}, {{Gene-1-stub}}, etc.

I already posted here about these, but it's only dawned on me that these are actually *discoveries*! Read the post there. I think they're good categories/stubs, but they need reorganization and renaming. — Skittleys (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These ones were actually proposed, back in about April last year. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Badminton-stub}}/without cat

Just found this one because bot didn't like it (no category). Please take a look. –xenotalk 02:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a reasonable idea, but it needs cleaning up and (unless there are more stubs) upmerging. BTW, something that probably needs adding to the instructions of this page is the use of {{wssdnotify}}, to let the creators of these stub types know that they've caused problems downstream. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly upmerged to Category:Sports stubs Waacstats (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Catalonia-politician-stub}}/Category:Catalan politician stubs

Found this irregularly split by sub-national identity like below. Borgarde (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bio one makes a certain (limited) sense, though I personally don't like it as a way of splitting bio-stubs. The politicians one doesn't, thouygh - politicians are split by nation and then by party alignment. Grutness...wha? 22:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Politicians aren't always split by party (just mostly), US/CAN are split by state/province and then which parliment they sat in, JPN/NOR are split by DoB if memory serves correctly. I think this should live or die with the catalonia-bio-stub, the only reason to keep would be to reduce double stubbing and there would be no double stubbing without the bio-stub so very week keep. Waacstats (talk) 08:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Catalonia-bio-stub}}/Category:Catalonia people stubs

Found this irregularly split by sub-national identity for biographies.Borgarde (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't normally split by subnational entity but given the fact that catalonia has a seperate language/culture to the rest of spain this may be worth keeping but I am doubtful. Waacstats (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{chromalveolate-stub}}/Category:Chromalveolate stubs

Found these taxon-specific items. Seem OK and well structured, so added to the List and sorted additional stubs in from Category:Algae stubs. Now 98 items in the new stub category. Apparently proposed in April 2007, but never listed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like one of the many that was created after proposal and never listed (I am probably one of the biggest culprits of that) and given that it is well over 60 keep. Waacstats (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bosniak people stubs

Found this category which has been manually added to articles, not generated by a stub template. Borgarde (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is bound to cause trouble and given the fact that we don't split people by subnational entities I think this should be taken to SFD. Waacstats (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Off to SFD we go then. Waacstats (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{8bitcomputer-game-stub}}

Seems to be OK, upmerged to Category:Computer game stubs and used on 53 articles looks like a keeper. Waacstats (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be called 8bitcomputer-videogame-stub ? -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Journalism-stub}}

{{Journalist-stub}}

{{newspaper-stub}}

{{US-newspaper-stub}}

{{mag-stub}}

Discovered all of the above at WP:WikiProject Journalism#Stub sorting. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These have all been around a long, long time and are known about. we were splitting subtypes out of mag-stub over three years ago, for instance (see here). They're listed on the stub lists under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types/Culture#Media_publications. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already on list? otherwise add to list Waacstats (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Mall-stub}}

Sorry guys, I didn't know there were such elaborate procedures for stub sorting. I created the above because the only templates available were US and Canada specific and frankly there are a lot of countries with malls. Rather than create individual templates at this time, I created a catch-all because we don't know where a mall might come from. I'd already created it before I realized there were such procedures. I'm going to put a few articles into it as there seem to be plenty that could use it. This will help the shopping malls project identify stubs in their scope that aren't from US/Can.--Crossmr (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mall-stub's probably one that's been needed for a while, for exactly the reasons mentioned. As long as any articles marked with it are marked with the appropriate national struct-stub (until such time as separate national-mall-stub types are proposed/made), I don't see any problems with it. It has thrown up a problem with the name of the US equivalent, though (see WP:SFD). Grutness...wha? 23:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep and add to list Waacstats (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, July 2009

{{MB-race-stub}}

From the same editor as below; Category:Cycling race stubs isn't particularly oversized (217), and even so a mountain bike races stub would only make a small upmerged dent into that. SeveroTC 19:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the amount of stub-class mountain bike races do not warrant their own category. Will blank and request for speedy delete. Andyo2000 (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be  Done --Kslotte (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mountain bike manufacturer stubs/{{MB-manufac-stub}}

Certainly sizeable enough for a template - but would certainly work better with less specialisation i.e. {{cycle-manufacturer-stub}} (not sure of the correct name to use here) and then category Category:Cycle manufacturer stubs) depending upon size. SeveroTC 10:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That would probably be {{bike-company-stub}}. Certainly we don't have any stubs for companies that manufac (or even manufacture) Manitoba, so MB-manufac-stub is right out as a name and should be changed ASAP. Via WP:SFD, since we certainly wouldn't keep the current name and - as you say - rescoping is a reasonable move. Grutness...wha? 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with widening scope. As we have Category:Cycle manufacturers, {{cycle-manufacturer-stub}} seems a logical name to me. The creator of {{MB-manufac-stub}} has already added it to cycle manufacturers who make other kinds of bicycle as well as mountain bikes, e.g. Dawes and Thorn Cycles. Qwfp (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with {{cycle-manufacturer-stub}} is that we have {{bike-stub}} and {{company-stub}} as the base forms from which it would be based. Uh - correction: {{Bike-stub}} is a redirect to {{cycling-stub}} - we don't have a stub type for bicycles (perhaps we should). In any case, we don't use "manufacturer-stub" as a base type; this would be a subtype of company-stub. And given that {{cycle-stub}} would be enormously ambiguous - and that no-one makes "cycles" anyway (they make bikes or bicycles) - {{cycle-manufacturer-stub}} doesn't seem like a particularly good name (to me, at least). Come to think of it, "bike" is ambiguous (motorbikes?), so {{bike-stub}} probably shouldn't exist (and certainly as a redirect to cycling-stub it seems inappropriate). Maybe {{bicycle-company-stub}} is a more logical name. In any case, that's something for the discussion at SFD rather than here. Grutness...wha? 11:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stub was created to categorize stub-class mountain bike manufacturer articles. Cat:Cycle manufacturers has 205 articles, which does not warrant a split (of those 205, perhaps only 100-150 are stubs). I can move it to Template:Cycle-manufac-stub and change the right words. I will wait until consensus is reached on a name though - it seems like there are many opinions here. Andyo2000 (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for agreeing to change it Andyo2000. I guess we may as well continue discussing the name here. Grutness's reasoning above makes sense to me, so I'd be happy with {{bicycle-company-stub}}, or maybe {{cycling-company-stub}}. Qwfp (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me, too - but note that the purpose of a stub category is not to split a parent category - everything marked with this stub template should sstill also be in the main Category:Cycle manufacturers category. {{cycling-company-stub}} certainly makes some sense given the current {{cycling-stub}}, and may have a slightly wider scope. The one concern is that it shouldn't contain companies only connected to cycling tangentially through things like sponsorship (e.g., Rabobank and Cofidis shouldn't be in there). Grutness...wha? 00:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As currently used, {{MB-manufac-stub}} is used on companies that manufacture/sell mountain bikes. After expansion, it can cover Bicycle manufacturers, bicycle product-related companies (i.e. also parts), or bicycle-related companies. I agree sponsoring companies would make the category too big, so I vote for the second option. Make the stub {{cycling-company-stub}}, for bicycle and bicycle parts companies, and add in its documentation where it should be placed. Andyo2000 (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets finish this and make the final conclusions

Is this the way I have understood it? Corrections? Support? Objections? --Kslotte (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeeees... Theoretically that should be done through a discussion at WP:SFD, but I doubt anyone would object if it was done here. One slight alteration to the proposed plan iss that {{cycling-company-stub}} should only have its own category if there are definitely 60 stubs using it. If not, it should place articles directly in Category:Cycling stubs and Category:Company stubs. I can't really see that being a problem, though. Grutness...wha? 22:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness wrote: "Theoretically that should be done through a discussion at WP:SFD"
Can you make references to this discussion on the WikiProject Stub and other pages where it is needed? --Kslotte (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know your stub rules from before. I could go through the Category:Cycle manufacturers for stubs the get the exact count verified. --Kslotte (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
169 stub articles is verified. One change from my suggestion above is that one of the parent will be Category:Manufacturing company stubs/{{manufacturing-company-stub}} not Category:Company stubs/{{company-stub}}. I will process the change with AWB after a week if there is no objections. --Kslotte (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair to me. Grutness...wha? 08:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List ready for processing --Kslotte (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A question that come up is what should we do about these categories?
Should we "downgrade" them to country only stub or leave them as such? Since one parent will be Category:Manufacturing company stubs it already includes the 'manufacturing'. Or should we get rid of both and make manufacturing industry specific instead of region specific. My opinion is that a industry specific categorizing is better. Several companies in these days are anyway global; for example headquarter in one country, engineer planing in second and production in third and shareholders from all over the world. --Kslotte (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pictorgram created --Kslotte (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Came to my mind that maybe naming Category:Cycling manufacturing company stubs/{{cycling-manufacturing-company-stub}} would match better if as parent is used Category:Manufacturing company stubs/{{manufacturing-company-stub}}. Comments? --Kslotte (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The permcat parent is Category:Cycle manufacturers , so it should really be Category:Cycle manufacturer stubs if we're following that. The tree of categories for manufacturing companies seems to be pretty mixed in terms of what permanent categories are called though. This is a precedent case for WSS, though - we don't have any other sporting goods manufacturer stub types of any kind - even a generic one. In fact, this is the first split of Category:Manufacturing company stubs by product made - which surprises me (I would have expected car manufacturers to have been split out some time ago). Grutness...wha? 23:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness, do you have any opinion of downgrading the country specific? US and UK? Maybe at a later point? --Kslotte (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suspect that once manufacturer stubs start to get split, they will be split on two axes -by product and by country. As such, keeping them makes some sense, if their size makes it worthwhile. I suspect thatCategory:Manufacturing company stubs is small simply because of undersorting of Category:Company stubs (or sorting primarily by ntionality), but I could be wrong. 00:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Second round of conclusions

--Kslotte (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. For the sake of form, I would suggest listing the deletion parts at WP:SFD with a link to this discussion. Hopefully it will be a formality, given the extent of this discussion, but past months of WSS/D aren't on the watchlist of too many editors, so some of those with opinions may not have nade them here. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the task list above to 'manufacturer' as the correct stub name. --Kslotte (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some confusion between cycle-manufacturer-stub (top task) and cycling-manufacturer-stub (the bottom two) - I think both should say cycle-manufacturer-stub (and the same for the category). Grutness...wha? 12:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed and I will make sure we proceed through WP:SFD with the deletion parts. --Kslotte (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Kslotte (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, June 2009

{{hockey-stub}}

This template currently redirects to {{icehockey-stub}}, but probably shouldn't. Several of the ice hockey stub articles are more correctly hockey articles. I propose rescuing this template from its over-specialisation. Metao (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirecthas been listed at SFD - it shouldn't exist. It was created without proposal by someone who obviously didn't realise that ambiguously named templates and redirects are avoided on Wikipedia. It certainly shouldn't be a redirect to icehockey-stub, since for probably 80% of the planet "hockey" primarily means field hockey. Grutness...wha? 07:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Green Day stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

Undersized stub category, no template. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Send to SFD and Delete. Waacstats (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Japan-mil-hist-stub}}

New unproposed creation by User:Nihonjoe, who should know better than to make a stub without proposing it (and by not proposing it initially created it at an incorrect name, {{Japan-milhist-stub}} - which he insists on keeping despite it being non-standard - thereby making more work for himself). It would be nice if he'd let us know if he intends it to be used by stub-sorters. I've fixed the coding of the template to standard coding. There's a dedicated category, but enough articles to fill it. Grutness...wha? 04:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was created at the other title because of a typo. I apologize for not being perfect like you apparently are. The whole point of proposing is to make sure the stub template is needed, and as this one is very clearly needed (and only used on about 20% of the articles it will end up being used on), there was no reason to propose it. WP:BOLD, WP:IAR, and all. Process for process' sake is bad. As for the redirect, I want it kept in case people mistype. Redirects are cheap, and it's very common to have a couple different redirects for likely typos. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Africa-academic-bio-stub}}

Created unproposed as {{African-academic-bio-stub}}, I've renamed it to convention-meeting format and added reasonable upmerged categoryies (the template had no category, but the creator of it attempted to add one by creating a dedicated category inb article space, now deleted). I'd say that the template looks like a keeper, in upmerged form at least, though by-country templates would have probably been better in the long run. Grutness...wha? 02:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Taiwan-hist-stub}}, {{ROC-hist-stub}}, {{ROC-party-stub}}, {{ROC-politician-stub}}, {{ROC-university-stub}}, and Category:Taiwan road stubs

All unproposed. The stub category doesn't have 60 stubs in it. {{Taiwan-hist-stub}} has no stubs. {{ROC-hist-stub}}, {{ROC-party-stub}}, {{ROC-politician-stub}}, and {{ROC-university-stub}} all have a very few stubs in them. impactF= 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, May 2009

{{Azerbaijan-hist-stub}} / Category:Azerbaijani history stubs

Unproposed - the template seems fine, but it has a dedicated category which is - and is likely to remain - woefully small. It may need upmerging unless it can be got to the 60-stub threshold somehow. Created by an editor who has made several (now deleted) stub types without proposing them in the past... some people seem to be slow learners. As in the past, he's also marked quite a few non stub articles as stubs (does this look like a stub?) Grutness...wha? 08:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your the first person to tell me that a stub needs to be proposed, my intentions for this stub are good and to make it easier to contribute to the related articles. Baku87 (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may be the first - but I told you in October 2006 and February this year (twice), as well as today. Your intentions may be good, but unless there are 60 existing stubs (not just articles, but stubs) that can use this, it shouldn't have a separate category - and whether there are 60 or not, it should still have been proposed. Grutness...wha? 11:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{USSR-film-actor-stub}}

Unproposed and upmerged, which would be fine except that anyone who could take this template would automatically be able to take a template for one of the 15 now-independent states which made up the Soviet Union. It's not usual for bio-stubs to be split by former entities; the only reason we have a {{USSR-bio-stub}} is fior people intrinsically linked with the history of the Soviet Union, e.g., people who represented the S.U. at sport internationally. I do note that we seem to have picked up unproposed types of USSR-actor-stub and USSR-film-director-stub at some point, too, which are also unnecessary, though if those are kept, there;'s automatically no need for this one (we have the -actor-stub type, which would cover this one well enough). This one also strangely linked to a permcat, which it shouldn't. Grutness...wha? 08:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{HK-hist-stub}}

Unproposed, upmerged (thankfully), misnamed. I've moved it to the naming convention-compliant {{HongKong-hist-stub}}, but sadly this creates yet another annoying HK redirect. Usage of this one seems a little odd - of the nine items marked with it, only five could really have been called history stubs. Was linked to a permcat, but wasn't linked to Category:Hong Kong stubs for some reason (both these problems fixed). Grutness...wha? 00:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{India-media-stub}}/Category:India media stubs

Unproposed & cat is missing {{Stub category}} template. User:Thomas.macmillan put an sfd on the cat in December (with edit-summ should be Indian media stubs, matching the category, eh?), but I've found no evidence that was ever proposed for discussion (and I'm not quite sure what his intent). Well-populated (163) and well-categorized - just needs properly forming & bringing into the fold? (Edit: forgot to sign again ACK apols.  • Lainagier • talk • 21:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Seems reasonable - so that would mean finally taking it to WP:SFD... Grutness...wha? 21:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrangling over adjective/noun forms in country stub cat names is a hairier business than I care to involve myself in, but I shall put it to Mr.macmillan.  • Lainagier • talk • 07:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, February 2009

NEW DISCOVERIES

{{BDSM-bio-stub}} / {{Category:BDSM biography stubs

Possibly useful but this currently has 22 articles and the parent less than 100, may be best to upmerge template. Waacstats (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Connacht-geo-stub}}

I initally thought this was a great idea for splitting Ireland stubs, till I found out we split at the county level and we appear to have all the templates at that level. Given that it may be a keeper if there is significant numbers of articles likely to be related to connacht in general or be across numourous counties (mountains, rivers, lakes etc). Leaving here in case any of our geo experts think it will be useful. Waacstats (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per Waacstats, Irish geography is primarily categorised by county, and the stub categories follow the same pattern. However, Mejor Los Indios (talk · contribs) created last year a bunch of by-province categories for landforms, which were deleted at a 29 March 2008 CfD. Several of them were recreated by the same editor earlier this month, and I speedy deleted them a fortnight ago: see my note here.
    It looks like I missed this stub template in the tidyup, but it should be deleted along with the categories. It appears not to be used in any articles, so there is no need for any merger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take to SFD. It makes more sense to work on a by-county level. Also this would create a further problem, as hinted at by BHG, since it would suggest we should also have Leinster-, Munster-, and Ulster-geo-stub types - and the latter of those would be cross-border (taking in both RoI and NI). Grutness...wha? 00:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created it specifically for articles that cross county boundaries in Connacht, so as to avoid the necessity of having a stub for each county concerned, e.g. Lough Allen. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The parent Category:Geography of Connacht was deleted, so the question of whether of categorise geography by province has already been decided as a "no". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a totally different question; unlike replacing county geo-stubs with provincial ones, categorising by province does not exclude categorising by county. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional reply - what's wrong with using stubs for separate counties? That's the systemk used with all other geo-stubs for everywhere else worldwide. And having these stubs marked with a province-level stub type will simply remove them from the county-level stub categories - which is where local editors would be more likely to look for articles to expand. It would end up being counter-productive. Grutness...wha? 22:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it end? Rivers often go through several counties; are they all to get their geo-stubs and categories on the page? Mejor Los Indios (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maximum of four stub templates - if something is in more than four counties, the national geo-stub template is used. This is standard practice for stub sorting for all countries worldwide. Grutness...wha? 21:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It couldn't be; not all countries are divided into counties. But if a river flows through four different counties and stays in the same province (I very much doubt this is applicable to Connacht), would it then be acceptable to you to use a provincial geo-stub? Mejor Los Indios (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Counties or the equivalent, and in answer to your question, no. Grutness...wha? 01:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Electric-vehicle-stub}} Category:Electric vehicle stubs

mentioned in a discussion back in Sept 2008 but turned down as {{EV-stub}}, could be of use but there appeared to be a general dislike of this type at the proposal. Currently used on only 1 stub. Waacstats (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is similar to {{vehicle-stub}}, but about electric vehicles. I am sure the new stub type is vital for Wikipedia, because constantly are appearing new electric vehicles and the number of appearings is dramatically going to increase in the next months. Also, new govermental tax incentives are going to speed up this trend. Not used in more stubs, because of the recent creation. .--Nopetro (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Toponymy-stub}} / redlinked

Unproposed, currently unused, and, to be honest, I'd say of very limited use. Most articles relating to the toponyms of specific places are, by definition, geo-stubs. Those relating to the science of toponymy (of which there are very few) are usually best tagged with one of the geo-term-stub subtypes. SFD may be the best option for it. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Syria-film-stub}}

Unproposed, but seems a reasonable addition to the list. Well-formed and (thankfully) upmerged to Category:Syria stubs, though it should also be upmerged to an appropriate film stubcat. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this wasn't discussed anywhere. -- Stepheng3 (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly wasn't - and it uses the long-deprecated naming of "Foo-related stubs". Vague/ambiguous topic area, no category parents, and even from the two stubs it's gained in the ten months since it was created it looks like it would be a mixmatch of subjects covered by other stub types. Looks like WP:SFD material to me... Grutness...wha? 22:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After some false starts, I think I finally managed to take this to SFD. - Stepheng3 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Korea-voice-actor-stub}} / Category:Korean voice actor stubs

Unproposed, but along the lines of similar stub types. The problem - as seems to be predictable lately - is that this has been created with its own stub category where it should have been upmerged (it contains one stub, and the size of the stub parent makes its potential to reach threshold low). Also, given that the vast majority of voice-actors with articles would be post 1950, this should probably not have been created as a general Korean form, but rather as two templates, one for DPRK and one for RoK. Grutness...wha? 23:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Romania-hist-stub}} / Category:Romanian history stubs

The templates fine, though unproposed, and in line with other similar country-hist-stub types. The category, however, may be a problem if there are too few stubs, and there's certainly no current indication that it would reach the required threshold. Both Category:European history stubs and Category:Romania stubs are largish (though neither anywhere near the 800 mark), bujt the proportion of these that are Romanian history stubs doesn't seem to be that high. Grutness...wha? 07:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, January 2009

{{Commelinales-stub}} / Category:Commelinales stubs

New unproposed stub type for an order of flowering plants. Not sure whether this conforms to the staandard taxonomic level usually used for stub sorting, but there is definitely one problem with it at least - it has its own category, and even if every articles in Category:Commelinales was a stub, it still wouldn't reach threshold. The need for upmerging is a distinct likelihood. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I ignored the rules on this one, but I felt it was fairly uncontroversial. WikiProject Plants has many stub templates and categories, the majority of them at the level of order (see here and scroll down: Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Resources). I've recently begun adding many stubs in this order of plants and it makes more sense to add a specific stub tag now than having to come back once a certain threshold has been reached to do it all over again.DJLayton4 (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template's pretty uncontroversial, sure - the category, though, is another matter. Categories are only created once there's a guarantee that 60 stubs currently exist. Given that the permcat parent only has about 50 articles, this isn't the case - hence my comments about possible upmerging. And even if something's uncontroversial, it's still worth running it past the people who will actually be using it the most over at WP:WSS/P. Grutness...wha? 22:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your "standard taxonomic level" is, but if I wrote the rules it would be order rank, which Commelinales is. This particular order consists of a little over 800 species, plus about 70 genera, plus some taxa with a great many cultivars, such as Anigozanthos. So I would estimate that the topic served by this stub type has the potential to contain about 1000 articles. On the other hand, the category only contains 25 articles at present, and the parent stub category Category:Monocot stubs only contains 99 articles, so there was hardly a compelling need for this to be split off. On balance, I guess I favour getting rid of it for now. Hesperian 06:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub types are split out respective to the number of existing stubs, so a category certainly isn't an option right now. The template's probably fine if upmerged, though I don't know personally whether botanical stubs are split by order, family, or genera, hence my initial comment. Grutness...wha? 07:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely common for stub types to exist at and below this rank, take it from me, so there's no problem there. But personally I find templates without a corresponding category horribly confusing. If you reckon the category "certainly isn't an option right now", then I vote the template goes too. Hesperian 09:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerged templates are a standard stub-sorting practice. If we deleted the stub template as well, we'd have the work of de-stubbing/re-stubbing these articles now, then replacing the template if the numbers do warrant a seaparte category later. Simply upmerging now should make no difference to the basic running of the parent category that this would be upmerged to (the template certainly wouldn't be sitting there with no active category link at all)., and would save lots of potential work later. Grutness...wha? 22:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Zanzibar-footyclub-stub}}

This one'a bit tricky. We do have footyclub-stub trypes for separate nations, it's true, but Zanzibar is not a separate nation (it's part of Tanzania), and while there is a "Zanzibar national team" it is not recognised by FIFA. It took a stretch to get {{Zanzibar-stub}} up to the required 60-stub threshold, and Tanzania-footyclub-stub's only used on a large handful of articles, so chances are this will remain upmerged for a considerable time (as thankfully it currently is). In fact, if Zanzibar Premier League is anythingg to go by, we only have one article on Zanzibari club sides - and that one's already stubbed with the Tanzania-footyclub-stub template. Might be worth keeping, but personally I don't really see the point of it. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping and expanding the content on Zanzibari football clubs. As you said, there is certainly room to grow.--TM 20:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{UOxford-stub}} / Category:University of Oxford stubs

Unproposed, but in line with similar types which currently exist. hell, Cambridge has one, Oxford should too. The size of Category:University of Oxford suggests this might reach threshold, but Category:United Kingdom university stubs suggests the opposite. May need upmerging if it can't reach threshold (which is only 30 - there is a project). Grutness...wha? 00:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I created this in line with the University of Cambridge stub {{UCambridge-stub}}. I can add stub entries if it is deemed acceptable. Sorry not to go through "official" channels. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free - it's well-formed and in line with other types, so their shouldn't be a problem. Adding stubs is the only way to see whether it reaches threshold (I think it should pretty easily, but if it doesn't it may end up being upmerged into a more general category). If you're thinking of making any more templates or categories though, it'd be a help if you proposed them first :) Grutness...wha? 00:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Yugoslavia-film-stub}}

Really not sure about this one. We don't normally split things like films up by former, no-longer-extant countries, though I can see that this one might make some sense. It might just be a nasty precedent, though. Thoughts? Grutness...wha? 00:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created it as part of the upmerge into Category:European film stubs, to avoid articles just having the plain old film-stub tag. Yes, the country no longer exists, but the films created at the time did belong to Yugoslavia, and not another nation. It's quite likely that more films from (former) Yugoslavia get WP entries in the future too. Lugnuts (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Croatia-handball-bio-stub}} / Category:Croatian handball biography stubs

Yet another unproposed one where the template looks OK but a (likely undersized) category has also been created. Category:Handball biography stubs is moderately large, but Category:Croatian sportspeople stubs is under 200, so I have my doubts on whether this will reach the 60-stub threshold. Upmerging may be appropriate. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that it may get very close I'll see what I can do. Someone already has it at 60 so keep. Waacstats (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I didn't write here sooner... I have changed the stub-template on all Croatian handballer-bio-stubs. Almost all handball-biographies are stubs, regardless of country, sadly. So with a big handball-nation like Croatia, I don't think this will drop below 60 anytime soon... So its a keep from me too! =) lil2mas (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Paleo-amphibian-stub}} / Category:Prehistoric amphibian stubs

Seems a reasonable addition to the range, and the population of it definitely indicates some suggestion that it might be of use. Just a pity it wasn't actually proposed beforehand. If it had been, the template's coding might have been better... it's fixed now, but unfortunately it wasn't when the template was added tol over 100 articles. Given the slowness of the job cue, that means doing null-edits to the pile-up listed under * in Category:Paleontology stubs :((( Grutness...wha? 00:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{China-biologist-stub}} / Category:Chinese biologist stubs

Another unproposed one where the template looks OK but a (likely undersized) category has also been created. Given that Category:Chinese scientist stubs has fewer than 80 articles, the chances of this reaching the required 60-stub threshold in the near future are very slim, so upmerging may be appropriate. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having recently looked at scientists I very much doubt this would make it to 60 unless someone creates the missing articles. Upmerge template, Delete category. Waacstats (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Guyana-sport-bio-stub}} / Category:Guyanese sportspeople stubs

New unproposed stub type. The template's fine, nicely formed, and in line with similar types. Unfortunately, though, it's not upmerged and almost certainly should be. Given the number of articles in Category:Guyanese people stubs (a little over 100), there's no need to split out the sportspeople and little chance that this will reach the 60-stub threshold for a separate category. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge template, delete category. Unless someone adds a lot more articles, could be possible given that Guyana has had a number of fine cricketers play for the West Indies - I'll see what I can manage. Waacstats (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They have (Clive Lloyd, Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Colin Croft come to mind), but even then I think 60's a long way off. Grutness...wha? 22:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52 close enough? otherwise upmerge. Waacstats (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My rule of thumb is 60 to create or 50 for an existing category, so i've no objections, though if it can get to 60 all the better. I've managed to nudge it to 55, BTW. Grutness...wha? 22:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Africa-lit-stub}} / Category:African literature stubs

Unproposed. On the face of it, seems a reasonable idea, but there have been concerns raised recently about lit-stubs by country/continent (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#.7B.7BSouthAfrica-book-stub.7D.7D). If the template is approved it may yet need upmerging. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I created it, I was unaware that stub templates are usually proposed before creation. While doing some stub sorting I came across Template:India-lit-stub and Template:Japan-lit-stub, and since I've done a little work on African literature-related articles, I figured I'd go ahead and create such a template for African lit. As for whether such stub templates are desirable, I don't feel strongly either way. I just saw a hole and filled it. faithless (speak) 00:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is the one mentioned at the proposal page about South Africa - scoping could easily be for literature about Africa, literature from Africa, or literature within African culture. Some books, like Things Fall Apart, would qualify under all of these criteria - others, like The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency (novel) might be a little more borderline, and some, like Heart of Darkness or The Constant Gardener might qualify by some definitions and not by others. It's just a little ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 01:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, December 2008

{{Belgaum-geo-stub}} and {{Bagalkot-geo-stub}}

Two unproposed upmerged stubs for districts in Karnataka, India. Category:Karnataka geography stubs is getting close to the point where we need to think about splitting it completely, and the split that has been done so far on it is by Division (with separate district templates). So on the face of it this seems a reasonable couple of templates to have, and in this case - luckily - there are no problems. I say luckily, because a couple of the others may have had naming concerns if they were simply made in this way (Hassan, for example). May be worth making the other templates for the 30-odd {{Districts of Karnataka}} - but only after proper proposal and check for naming. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created them as it was non-controversal as already other district stubs for some states of India is already present. Example {{Kollam-geo-stub}} and other subtemplates of {{Kerala-geo-stub}}. As we are gearing up for making articles for lots of inhabiated villages of India, it is important to make district level stub template for all the 611 districts of Kerala.Should the template have the district level cats also instead of state level cats ? -- Tinu Cherian - 02:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Six hundred and eleven???? This definitely puts a different complexion on things - there are only 14 districts according to Districts of Kerala. If there are 611 districts in Kerala, then it would be ridiculous for them to all have stub templates. Others exist, it is true - but any new ones should still be proposed so that they can be checked before they are created, in case there are problems with them. if there are no problems, it will be straightforward to make them soon after proposal, but having them checked out first will ensure there isn't any need for considerable fixing-up work done later. As to the category, for now they should have the State-level category. If you feel that Division-level categories should be made - and also if you wish there to be new templates - please propose them in the proper way at WP:WSS/P. Grutness...wha? 03:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no... Kerala has only 14 districts. But India has around 611 districts in 28 states and 7 union territories. The one that I have created above are of Karnataka state of India. Karnataka has 29 districts. WP:WSS/P says if it is being discussed here, dont create a new proposal there. Division level cats are not useful as it this division is rarely used and not known to many. Some states like Kerala doesnt have the Divisons but has only Districts. So it is more useful if the stub templates are of district level. -- Tinu Cherian - 13:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only the Belgaum and Bagalkot ones are technically being discussed here - the rest of this discussion should be at the proposals page. The message at the proposal page is misleadingly worded though (and could be taken to contradioct itself) - I've amended it to what is actually standard practice. Basically it's just to stop someone proposing a template that's already been made and is already being discussed elsewhere - it's not to stop proposals for more similar types (like ones for other districts which haven't got templates yet). Personally, I'd say that district level templates would be useful, feeding into division level categories - if the 611 is for the whole of India it may not be too much of a problem, though it's still a lot of templates. It's still definitely worth proposing them, though, since there are likely to be naming (and possibly other) issues with some of them. Grutness...wha? 22:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I believe nobody has any issues with the above stub templates: For the rest of the templates of the missing districts, I will propose them @ WP:WSS/P. With me creating atleast 50 articles per day for each district of India, these templates are highly needed. -- Tinu Cherian - 07:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Linebacker-1990s-stub}} and Category:Linebacker, 1990s birth stubs

No problem with the templkate - apart from the fact that no-one thought to propose it first. The category's more of a problem, though (are there sixty 16- to 18-year-old linebackers with stub articles? My guess is no). i've proposed the category for deletion, but the template can survive happily enough as an upmerged type, IMO. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as below, Upmerge template delete category. Waacstats (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{NorthWestProvince-geo-stub}} / Category:North West Province geography stubs

Unproposed, but seems a perfectly reasonable addition to the other provincial splits for South Africa that seems to have been missed when we split the others. May need upmerging if it doesn't get to 60 stubs, but it will be close to it at least. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I proposed it here in March 2007, just never got along to creating it. Someone else beat me to it. You even supported creating an upmerged stub, Grutness!--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ergh. So many stub types - so little brain :) (me, not you, that is!) A short Christmas break for me may be in order! Grutness...wha? 01:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, November 2008

{{NewCaledonia-bio-stub}}

No problem with this one other than it being unproposed - it's nicely made and upmerged appropriately. A keeper, IMO. Grutness...wha? 07:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{SouthAfrica-radio-station-stub}}

Unproposed stub type for radio stations in South Africa. There's been a quiet but quite welcome uptick in the creation of articles for radio stations in Africa and {{Africa-radio-station-stub}} was approaching the magical number of 60 for the creation of Category:African radio station stubs when a bold editor created this new stub type. After careful combing of the African radio station stubs, there are currently 27 tagged as South African and 27 more tagged for other African nations. I believe this is close enough to the 30 threshold to keep the new stub type and rapidly approaching the borderline for a new continent-level category. - Dravecky (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the creation of this was implied in recent discussions about South African media stubs (the upshot of which was to create a Category:South African media stubs and any necessary templates for tv, radio, and film). It's mentioned in passing at both the proposal page and at SFD. In any case, keep. Grutness...wha? 06:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see now why my search came up dry: the SFD discussion explicitly calls for -tv and -film stub types but only implies the -radio-station stub type and the proposals page never mentions any specific templates at all. Also, this one isn't on the main list o' stub types so its inclusion here is probably for the best in any case. - Dravecky (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. More or less a legit creation, but not yet listed as such, so better safe than sorry. Grutness...wha? 07:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Bihar-stub}} / Category:Bihar stubs

Unproposed general stub type for an Indian state. We have similar stub templates for other states, so that's not much of a problem. The category, however, may be another matter, since there's no guarantee this will reach threshold. It may need upmerging (if not, it needs some finessing - it has no permcat parents and no standard templating). Grutness...wha? 10:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Montserrat-footy-bio-stub}}

Well enough formed, though sadly with its own (somewhat inappropriate) stub category. Needs upmerging to Category:Caribbean football (soccer) biography stubs, since this will never get close to threshold (unless 1/60 of Montserrat population each has a football biography stub). Grutness...wha? 00:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{IRC-stub}}

Newly created (without proposal), and linked to a permcat rather than a stubcat. Not sure how useful this would be - I suspect it overlaps with a lot of existing stub types. If it's useful enough to keep it will need to be re-pointed to a more appropriate category. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is an incredibly useful stub type and was even properly named. I discovered {{IRC-stub}} and this entry on WikiProject Stub Sorting/Discoveries while cleaning up the Internet Relay Chat categories, templates, and articles. This stub was previously dumping articles into the parent category under 'N', which was certainly not the right thing to do. I've since regenerated the stub and created a proper category for it as Internet Relay Chat stubs. The proper place for this stub and category in the stub types list is under the Computing and telecommunications section in the Internet stubs subcategory. Tothwolf (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the backlog I've gone ahead and converted this stub type from {{MetaPicstub}} to {{Asbox}} and added it to the sub types list. It currently has 71 articles in the category and will undoubtedly grow even larger as I continue to dust out this corner of Wikipedia and categorize all the stray Internet Relay Chat articles. Tothwolf (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Argentina-rugbyunion-bio-stub}}, {{Portugal-rugbyunion-bio-stub}} / Category:Portuguese rugby union biography stubs

Two new unproposed templates - both seem well-formed, and at least one of them will prove fairly useful, I'd think - so keeping them seems fair enough. Unfortunately, one of these comes with its own category, which will almost certainly not reach threshold, so upmerging is in the offing there. Ironically, the one without a dedicated category would be quite likely to reach threshold fairly soon, I would think. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Port-stub}} / Category:Port stubs

I was looking for a stub tag for a few articles about ports in China (PRC). I found this stub type in use on Port of Yingkou, but noticed it was not on the official list. I think this article is the right place to report this unofficial stub. {{Water-transport-stub}} seems the closest official stub-type that would work for a port article (ex: Port of Yantai, Port of Qinhuangdao). Should I continue to use it? —fudoreaper (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an official one - it's only just been made though which is why it isn't on the canonical list yet - the proposal is here - so feel free to use it, but note that it should be used in conjunction with PRChina-geo-stub or some regional equivalent. Grutness...wha? 22:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, cool, if it's official i'll go ahead and use it. And i gotcha on combining it with a geo stub. Should I add this (and the others just approved) to the master list? —fudoreaper (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - it's very easy to forget to add things to the main list when they're made (I'm always forgetting, so I know how easy it is to do), so feel free to any that aren't on the list that have been approved. Grutness...wha? 04:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, added. Properl, i think. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types/Transport Does that look good? —fudoreaper (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup - that looks good. Cheers. Grutness...wha? 21:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Iran-footyclub-stub}} / Category:Iran football club stubs

Brand new, and created seemingly with a SFR notice attached! No objection to the template, but there's no clear evidence that there will be the required number of stubs for a separate category (and given the number of articles in the permcat parent, it seems highly unlikely at present) - this may need to be upmerged to the Asian parent stub category. Grutness...wha? 11:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ohio-bio-stub}} / Category:Ohio people stubs

As below, so above. We seem to be fighting a losing battle against subnational region bio-stubs, which is a shame, given the complications they cause with people moving from place to place. This one was created less than 24 hours ago, and already has close to 100 articles, many of which are for people with only tentative links with Ohio (e.g., Anthony Hancock (American football), who could just as easily be a Missouri- or Tennessee-bio-stub); NYC resident Amy Braunschweiger, and Ontario-raised Ab DeMarco, Jr., whose potential list of subnational bio-stub templates would be fairly sizeable). Grutness...wha? 01:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anothony was born in Cleveland, Amy was raised in Toledo, and Ab was born in Cleveland. Natives of Ohio are known as Ohioans. I created this stub after I saw the same had been done for Oregon, Texas, and Indiana. People born in Ohio, should be tagged with Ohio-bio-stub; there's no other way around it. If I lived in Texas, but was born in Ohio I'm an Ohioan not a Texan. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might sort them that way,m but can you guarantee that everyone will? Would, for instance, anyone instantly think of giving {{Connecticut-bio-stub}} to George W. Bush (if his article were a stub) - or would they be more likely to associate him with Texas?{{Texas-bio-stub}} certainly isn't being used only for people born there - how will you guarantee this won't end up equally mixed and problematical? Grutness...wha? 05:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why Bush couldn't have have both stub templates? His talk page is covered by WikiProjects Military, Baseball, Connecticut, Texas, and Presidents. No one can control what tag someone on any wiki will use. Princeton says and Ohioan is someone who is "a native(a person born in a particular place or country) or resident(someone who lives at a particular place for a prolonged period or who was born there) of Ohio". Parenthesis mine. As long as the stub template clearly states who the template is for there shouldn't be a problem with the user interpreting its use. The reason there were almost 100 is because I didn't want to get this stub swatted down for not having enough members. I precompiled a listed to make sure (in my mind atleast) that there was a need, created everything and then out of the 700 articles I checked over I tagged 80 some. After typing this, I made another list. This list is a list of biographical articles (4 are sketchy and I need your opinion) that tranclude Ohio-stub or Cincinnati-stub. Would you agree that those articles should be Ohio-bio or in your opinion should they just be Ohio? Like I said above above: I'm new to the stub thing, I'm not trying to step on any toes. But at what point will we have to start cutting down Category:American people stubs? I thought 800 was a limit followed here, but I could more than likely be wrong. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is - but from national level they're cut down primarily by occupation - there's just considerable undersorting of Category:American people stubs (it's always a hard one to keep to a reasonable size, given that there are tens of thousands of US-bio-stubs, mainly further sorted). Most of the subcats of this are for occupations. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more quick note, I didn't say it could only be used for people born in Ohio, that's just what I started with. If someone has a stronger relation with another state I don't see why they can't be tagged with their home state and the state they connected with in other's minds. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And there's the problem, and the reason why stubs like this aren't generally as useful as they initially seem. Take as an example Ab DeMarco, Jr.. He's played for teams from New York, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Vancouver, LA, Boston, Edmonton - and was born in Ohio. That's potentially eight region-specific bio-stubs, even excluding the icehockey-bio-stub he would normally be given. Many other sportsmen and women are the same. Given that there's a maximum of four stub template per article, it's a toss-up which ones we should use so as not to get complaints from other editors for marking "our boy" with the wrong stub - the right state in one person's mind may not be the right state to others (there's a "state of mind" joke waiting to be made there somewhere, I'm sure). People move around a lot, and that's the main reason why we generally from on state-specific bio-stubs - they need too much regulation, control, and infocreep, which (despite what some people seem think of stub sorters) we don't really like. As I poionted out, though, WP:WSS is generally onto a losing battle with these types, so now that it's there chances are good that it'll stay and be used. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about others opinions on the matter, frankly I don't care that much either way, but I wouldn't automatically accociate someone who played for the Cincinnati Reds with Ohio, but with the state they were born in. Unless they were born in Ohio and played for the Reds, then following my own logic I'd associate them with Ohio. Am I free to change the articles I listed from Ohio-stub to Ohio-bio-stub? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, though in the unlikely event that this gets taken to WP:SFD they'll be restubbed. The cincinnati ones can possibly be double stubbed with ohio-bio-stub and cincinnati-stub. As to the queried ones, I wouldn't give a bio-stub to Grassman (not a person), the Ohio Gang (ohio-stub), Queen City Balladeers (looks more like an org-stub or a band-stub) or Steve Weingart (no longer a stub). The rest, though, yes - including the "family" groups. Grutness...wha? 04:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wording: For some reason This Ohioan biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. doesn't seem to flow. What do you think of one of these alternatives This Ohio biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it., This article about an Ohioan is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it., This Ohio-related biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. ? I'm leaning more towards 2, but 3 isn't half-bad and I think 1 follows what the some other state-bio-stubs say. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 05:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any of them seem reasonable, but it largely depends what you're trying to say (back to the problems above)> Do you want the stub type to be specifically for Ohioans, or for "Ohio-related biographies" - they may be fractionally different in scope. Grutness...wha? 06:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohioan and Ohio-related are the interchangebale word because they mean the same thing, one who is from or inhabits/inhabitted Ohio. Are there rules for changing wording, or can I just do it? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, if it's an uncontroversial minor change, then feel free to change it. If someone changes it back, then it's better to talk it over on the template's talk page than to get into a revert/revert situation, though. Major changes would be better discussed at WP talk:WSS/P, preferably with input from any relevant Wikiprojects, but for a small change like this there shouldn't be any problems. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Catalonia-bio-stub}} / Category:Catalonia people stubs

Unproposed. We generally try to avoid splitting people by subnational region - they move around too much. More of a problem though is that there's no sign this is likely to reach threshold; Category:Catalonia stubs, at 160 articles, is nowhere near requiring to be split yet, and very few of the articles marked with {{Catalonia-stub}} are biographies. May be a case of upmerging, at least. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, October 2008

{{Punkmusic-stub}}

Unproposed though thankfully upmerged, but misnamed - should be {{Punk-music-stub}}. I'd question, however, just how useful it will be. We've already got stub types for {{punk-song-stub}} and {{punk-album-stub}} - a separate {{punk-band-stub}} and {{punk-musician-stub}} might be more useful than this - what else is there that will really make this useful? There's only so many articles that can be written on punk clothing and lifestyle - most of which isn't really punk music per se.

There's also the less important but still worth-mentioning problem that "punk" is really two specific genres - the current style of music that goes by that name and the "classic" punk from the late 70s (which itself could be split into UK and US). I'm a little concerned as to which style this would be used for.

Grutness...wha? 01:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about creating it without a proposal. I was copying from another Wikiproject & didn't notice the banner on the top of the category until after I'd created it & then linked over to the category. Renaming would be fine. The idea is to have a catchall stub type for articles that don't fall into the existing types (album & song). Separate stubs for band & musician certainly would be useful, but there are also a lot of films, books, magazines, websites, clothing, persons, tours, artists, etc. etc. that are within the general category of "punk" but aren't covered by the existing stub types. That's what this one is meant to be for. As to the second point, it covers all eras of punk, from late 70s to today. Anything that's labeled "punk". I know that doesn't sound too specific, but remember it's a catchall for topics not already covered by the existing stub types. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Crypto-stub}}

There are 456 in the category, but it's not properly presented as an official stub type. It lists within Category:Cryptography under "s" rather than at the end, so I missed it first time round. I don't know where it fits in the hierarchy of stub types... perhaps under "Miscellaneous"? PamD (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's there - under science. This one's been around for a long time and, judging by the history - which contains edits from both Alai and former stub sorter BL Lacertae - it's known here. No sign it was ever proposed, but it looks reasonable enough. At one time it was stabndard for stub categories to be listed under "s", BTW - this probably just wasn't switched over to a "µ" piping. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Gibraltar-bio-stub}}

Perfectly sensible-looking addition to the by-nation/country/territory/whatever bio-stub range. Mercifully it's upmerged, since I doubt this would get close to stand-alone viability for some time. A keeper, IMO. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this stub in order to separate the biographical articles, as is done for other countries/territories. It just makes for easier sorting. It's already proving to be very useful. I apologise for not having taken the necessary step of proposing the stub for creation, I will make sure I do so next time.
I would also like to create a new category for this stub in order to separate these stub articles from those listed in Category:Gibraltar stubs, are there any necessary steps I need to take? Thanks, --Gibmetal 77talk 09:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup - first, there need to be 60 stubs marked with the template (in this case, you can include any marked with {{Gibraltar-politician-stub}} in that count, since it would also feed into any new category. At the moment, their "what links here" buttons say they have 25 stubs between them). Once there are, propose the category at WP:WSS/P. There shouldn't be any objection if you can reach 60 - it's a standard way of splitting out stubs from a generic country stub cat. Grutness...wha? 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ohio-tv-station-stub}}

Apparently unproposed, although decently formed (has its own category, which are placed into appropriate higher categories, etc.), and parallel to similar stubs for other US states. The stub itself appears fine, although perhaps the category will need to be deleted and the stub upmerged to the regional category, as I counted only forty pages tagged with this stub. I've never before listed stubs here: should I notify the creator, Stepshep? Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - use {{wssdnotify}}. Grutness...wha? 05:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello WPSS. I didn't realize this meant every category; just new templates. Alas, I have been proven incorrect. What's going to happen now? My actions:Downmerge the template's category from regioanl (midwest) to state (Ohio) because I believed there were enough articles for there to be a split. Is there a cutoff? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What happens is it gets left here for a while (often a few months) to discuss it or see if it will reach the necessary threshold (60 stubs). If there's no sign of it doing so, it'll be probably be taken to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion where it will likely be upmerged. Grutness...wha? 05:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that if it was used primarily by a WikiProject that 60 became 30? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite - for the principal stub category for a wikiproject it's 30, for all additional ones it's 60. So the threshold would only be 30 here if there was a WikiProject Ohio television stations. For WikiProject US television stations (if there is one) US-tv-station-stub would have a threshold of 30, all state-specific ones would have heshold of 60. Grutness...wha? 20:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, I understand now. Then where would I list the same template for Indiana and a basketball stub template for Ohio teams? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um...not quite sure what you mean by "where would I list them?" If you mean where can you propose them for creation, then WP:WSS/P is the place. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think §hep means where to list {{Indiana-tv-station-stub}}, {{Ohio-basketball-team-stub}} and {{Indiana-basketball-team-stub}}. Which of course would be here. I support all these templates, categories for any that reach 60. Waacstats (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not being clear. Anyways the matter at hand is the template above. I really think that this project has a bit too much power, similar to BAG. If a group creates a category to better classify articles, and they're willing to maintain what they create there shouldn't be any problems? Right? (And the Indiana TV stub only has 44 articles) §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Creating permanent categories is fine, but not stub categories - these are all primarily maintained by WP:WSS (hence the banner template which should be at the top of them). Reducing the threshold below 60 for some cases where there is no specific Wikiproject would set a precedent for the same thing happening elsewhere. Even reducing the threshold to 50 would likely risk doubling the number of categories we'd have to keep track of. As Waacstats points out, the idea of templates os fine, but there should only be categories if there's over 60 stubs - other than that they should be upmerged into larger regional categories. If any group wants to check what articles use a specific template, then it's just as easy to use the template's "whatlinkshere" link in the toolbox if there are small numbers of stubs. Grutness...wha? 21:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it wouldn't be taken to stub types for deletion? The stub is an official one, the category is what's new. Two clicks and a {{db}} should do the trick, right? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(slaps forehead) You know, for some reason that's never been done here, but you're right. A repointing of the template would instantly render the category as a speedy candidate. Why the hell don't we do that normally? (this isn't sarcasm - it's a genuine, if partly rhetorical - question) Grutness...wha? 00:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also have 4 more articles to create, but I just checked over all the Ohio TV stations and the cat hit 60. I used AWB to check the articles so if they were not stub length (whatever they use for that) it shouldn't have gotten tagged. If it gets to the 64 can it be kept? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's generally the way it goes, so yup, I guess that would be fine :) Grutness...wha? 04:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

↔Most of those ended up working better as redirects. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cemetery-stub}}

Unproposed, and poorly formed (no category link of any kind, but possibly not too bad an idea. Cemeteries currently get geo-stub types, which isn't altogether appropriate (though not too bad). If kept it would certainly need a category, and would also need many subtypes (there are possibly enough cemetery stub articles for about a dozen viable by-country types and several US by-state types). Should go through some form of formal count-up and propose process, though. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the creator, and wasn't aware of the proposal required. Should we just can it, and I can propose it the right way? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on further examination it looks like it has been proposed in the past, waaay back in 2005. In which case, simply tidying it up and adding a category would be the way to go with this one - though separate by continent/country/region ones would still need proposing (and probably will need to be, from the numbers point of view. It seems likely there will be some problems of overlap with things like NRHP-stub, but we'll just have to deal with them as and when with double-stubbing, probably. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, refactored the stub template for proper formatting, and added it to the Geography category. I would assume possible future stubs would be along the lines of newyork-cememtery-stub, unitedkingdom-cemetery-stub, etc when proposed? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no -you've got the right idea, except we use camelcaps and always abbreviate the UK and US (but nowhere else), so those two examples would actually be NewYork- and UK- respectively. Other than that though, that would be the style of them. Grutness...wha? 21:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It happens that a category for U.S. NRHP cemeteries has just been discussed, along with others, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Discussion of categories related to religion. It was noted there by User:Elkman, who has an NRHP database, that there are 1472 cemeteries, 687 grave/burial sites, and 102 mortuaries listed on the NRHP. Hope this is helpful somehow; it is very random that i happened by the discussion. doncram (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely relevant - number of stubs and number of articles isn't directly related - but if the percentage of stubs is high, then that definitely indicates that this would have plenty of use. Mind you, it also indicates a complication, since it would cross the existing NRHP-stubs. Grutness...wha? 20:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does complicate it a bit, since most cemetery stubs would more than likely be NRHP's, not all, but most. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it complicates it for US cemeteries, at least, but there are plenty of cemetery stubs from other countries that don't have that problem. We can always double-stub when cemeteries are also NRHP sites. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{SouthAfrica-cricket-tour-stub}}/Category:International cricket tour of South Africa stubs

Created in July 07, empty category, probably should be deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Devon-stub}} / Category:Devon stubs

While there is might be sense in having a template for this, there is no current justification for a separate category, especially since the one stub marked with this was a bio-stub (not normally given a subnational stub type except in rare cases) and was best served with other stub types. If there are 60 stubs, then a category is fine, if not, this probably needs upmerging. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, September 2008

{{Niue-stub}} / Category:Niue stubs

Unproposed, but well-formed. The idea of a template is a perfectly reasonable one; every country should have a generic stub template of its own. The category, however, is never going to come within a bull's roar of threshold - even adding in the six articles marked with {{Niue-geo-stub}} would only bring the total up to nine at the moment. If all the articles in Category:Niue and its subcats are stubs (highly unlikely) and if there's no double-catting there (which there is), and if every article in there was best suited by a Niue-stub (unlikely, given that articles like English language are in there) then there'd be 73 stubs - just 13 above threshold. But all that seems highly unlikely. This should almost certainly be upmerged to Category:Oceania stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that when you count unique articles there are only 64 I think, this should be upmerged. Waacstats (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ransacked Category:Niue stubs - there were a grand total of 40 stubs. Very slim. Grutness...wha? 11:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Beijing-Subway-stub}} / Category:Beijing Subway stubs

Unproposed - the template seems reasonable, but given that there are only 41 articles in Category:Beijing Subway, the category seems doomed to fall below threshold. Will probably need upmerging. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Supergiant-star-stub}}

Unproposed. No stub category of any kind. Could potentially reach threshold for its own category (there are 110 articles in Category:Supergiant stars and its subcats), but unless there's evidence that it does, this should be upmerged (if kept) into Category:Star stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{16thC-novel-stub}}

Upmerged and in line with naming of other templates, but I can't see any sign this was proposed. Looks like a keeper, though. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Netherlands-cricket-bio-stub}} (upmerged)

Not really sure if it's needed or not, but it's upmerged to the directory the stubs would be in anyway. (Assuming I've understood what upmerging is correctly... bit new to this. :)) Does not appear to have been proposed, as far as I can tell - was created in Feb 08 but no sign of it in that month's proposals log. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Gymnastics-stub}}

Seems necessary but appears not to have the stamp of approval, nor to have the parent category Category:Sports stubs. 45 pages in it - will be 47 in a minute as there are 2 to go there in the current stubs list. PamD (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was proposed, but for some reason must have slipped by withoutthe category being properly parented. A little small, but likely as not that's due to undersorting. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Taiwan-edu-stub}} / Category:Taiwan education stubs

Unproposed, and used on ten articles, nine of which are actually school stubs and should be marked as such - only one would really count as an edu-stub. I've no objection to creation of an upmerged Taiwan-school-stub, but I'm not convinced we need an edu-stub for Taiwan, nor that we need a separate category. Grutness...wha? 08:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize this would be a problem and I'm sorry I didn't go through the proper channels. I work extensively with school articles, and I say that placing all the Taiwan school stubs under Category:Asian school stubs was not ideal, as it made finding Taiwan stubs quite difficult. It seemed easiest to group all Taiwan school stubs under an education category like Category:Hong Kong education stubs and per convention at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Education i.e. everything covered under Education in Taiwan and for any future project such as WikiProject:Education in Taiwan. There are certain to be Taiwan stubs for libraries, schools, school districts, universities, vocational schools, examinations, and teachers, but I'm not convinced we are at the quantity where a subcategory of stubs is needed. When such a breakdown is needed, I think it should be done as Category:United States education stubs where there is a breakdown between schools and universities and then a further breakdown by territory --Jh12 (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No real problem, though as I said, a Taiwan-school-stub would make more sense, and I'd suggest renaming and rescoping this one appropriately, especially if you're intent on filling it up rapidly. In most cases, Category:Foo education stubs are made largely as holders for separate school and university stub subcategories, and the -edu- templates are mainly used for things which don't really fall under either. This is the case, for instance, with the United States education stubs category you mentioned. Note that they should never be used for biographical articles in individual educators, as you have done with quite a number of articles since I listed this category here! As for the Hong Kong category, it was largely the work of an editor who was long a thorn in the side of the stub-sorting project, and we simply haven't got around to renaming it yet :/ Grutness...wha? 09:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm; perhaps if I simply created Template:Taiwan-school-stub as well, and have Taiwan-school-stub and Template:Taiwan-university-stub add articles to Category:Taiwan education stubs. The policies regarding all this could be made somewhat clearer. I saw educators under the Hong Kong category and assumed they belonged; note that Hong Kong and Singapore are the largest Asian school categories, at least for WikiProject Schools, so I hope those categories are made clearer. I also work on all of the base Category:Schools from time to time, and it's often a mess. Was there a specific guideline page regarding education stubs? Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as I know - it is a little ad hoc, as you point out above. Theoretically, a new {{Taiwan-school-stub}} should be proposed at WP:WSS/P too - just for form, since I doubt there'd be any objections (it's a speediable type). It may even have enough stubs for its own category (which would be a subcat of both Category:Asian school stubs and Category:Taiwan education stubs). {{Taiwan-university-stub}} already exists, but yes, it could be upmerged to both Category:Asia university stubs and Category:Taiwan education stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{England-footy-midfielder-1870s-stub}} (upmerged)

Seems sensible, and in line with other similar templates, and thankfully it's upmerged. Would have nice if it had beeen proposed, though. Grutness...wha? 08:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not proposing it first, genuinely didn't realise I needed to. The coloured notice says "please propose new stub categories here" and as I wasn't proposing a new stub category, but only a new template which generated the existing stub category Category:English football midfielder, pre-1940 birth stubs, I thought I didn't have to. Will know better in future. Should also declare {{England-footy-defender-1860s-stub}}, also created by me yesterday without proposing first, for which I imagine there'll be rather less demand than for the 1870s one. The rationale for both would be for consistency with the other English footballer playing position/birth decade stub templates. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Norway-newspaper-stub}} / Category:Norwegian newspaper stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 list on WP:STUBS

Can't find any sign of this being proposed. The template looks fine, but it may be struggling to reach threshold (the parent permcat and its subcats have at most 133 articles, even assuming no double-catting in parent and subtype - and a considerable proportion of them are not stubs), so upmerging may be on the horizon for this one. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stub is now used on 108 articles, which should put it over the limit for its own category. Arsenikk (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it's fine - I'm surprised there are so many, though. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{AFL-bio-1850s-stub}}

Upmerged, and in line with other similar by-decade types, so seems keepable on that basis. Doubt this will ever need splitting out with its own category though, given that the earliest organisation of the AFL was only in the late 1850s - there can't be that many stubs on Aussie Rules players from that era. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Liliales-stub}} / Category:Liliales stubs

New unproposed stub type for an order of monocot plants, complete with its own category (don't you love it when unproposed categories spring up with the WP:WSS notice saying not to create stub types without proposal already in them? Sort of adding insult to injury, or - in this case - perhaps gilding the lily is a better term). Problem with this one is that Category:Monocot stubs has fewer than 210 unsubcatted stubs, so it's not within a bull's roar of needing a further new split. It also greatly reduces the chances that this type - currently with 25 stubs - will get close to threshold. The template may well be useful in the long run, but it should very likely be upmerged for now. Grutness...wha? 11:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The count at the time was 68. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And now it's at 80. May we keep it, please? Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Sorry I didn't know qabout the proposal - trouble with "implied splits" like this one and the one below is that there's no link to the proposal in the "what links here" of the category or template, so it didn't look like it had been proposed. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a link to the category from the proposal (but admittedly not to the template). Alai (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and I spot them when I go through Special:NewPages/Templates each day, which explains why I didn't see it. I'm far more likely to check the template's links, and didn't recognise the creator's name, so assumed it was unproposed - sorry :/ Grutness...wha? 05:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No harm, no foul. Not my proposal in this case, but I must admit I tend to only link (or indeed explicitly list) the category. Of course, if something is proposed initially as an upmerged template, the reverse will be the case (and perhaps otherwise, too). Alai (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have assuaged my (admittedly microscopic) feelings of indignation by adding a note to the top of this page. :P Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Defensive-lineman-1990s-stub}} / Category:Defensive lineman, 1990s birth stubs

Unproposed, but at least the template seems reasonable. Seems to have been pasted over from the equivalent 1980s template and category... Unfortunately, the new category is a problem, however, since it's clearly not likely to reach threshold in the immediate future (I doubt we have 60 stub articles on teenaged defensive linemen at present). Suggest that for the time being upmerging would probably be the most sensible option. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, August 2008

{{Pakistan-lit-stub}} / Category:Pakistani literature stubs

Unproposed. No objection to the template, which looks fine, but the category looks likely to remain woefully undersized for a considerable time. Category:Pakistan stubs is getting close to needing splitting (more on that at WP:WSS/P), but this isn't the best option for a split. I'd recommend keeping the template but upmerging it. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Student-org-stub}} (redlinked)

Unproposed, but this one sounds pretty useful... though not with this name. The parent permcat would be one of Category:Students' unions, Category:Student societies, or Category:Associations of students, which suggests that this should be at {{Student-union-stub}}, {{Student-association-stub}}, or {{Student-society-stub}} and either be upmerged to Category:Youth organization stubs or - iff numbers warrant - have its own (not redlinked!) {{equivalently titled stubcat. Student-association-stub might be the most all-encompassing of the three options (and would allow the fraternities and sororities types to be subcategories of it), though student-union-stub also has its merits. BTW, I have proposed at CFD that Category:Associations of students be renamed to a more reasonable-sounding Category:Student associations. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Parthian empire-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion 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 deleted; replaced by infobox


This stub was created in 2006 by Seektrue. It has no parent stub. It has only one member Orobazus. I have added Orobazus to the stubs that I think it should belong to.Adimovk5 (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking this straight to SFD. It isn't a stub template in anything more than name, and as such shouldn't be named as one. It seems to be deliberately trying to link in a stub message to an infobox and also automatically adding in permcats that won't belong with many of the articles it could be used with. A bit of a dog's breakfast overall. Grutness...wha? 23:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's true, I created this Stub in '06, was planning to set a do it to a few parthian empire articles as well, Shoot it off- it's a good idea. "A bit of a dog's breakfast overall"....what does that mean?

Seektrue (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just that it's a bit of a mess (see Wiktionary - "dog's breakfast") - it's not coded in the way that stub templates should be coded (in fact, it's simply an infobox with an extra line - stub templates and infoboxes are completely separate things and never coded together like that). Grutness...wha? 01:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{US-private-equity-bio-stub}} and {{US-private-equity-bio-stub}}

User:Urbanrenewal proposed several templates recently, but when he created them he added in a couple of extra ones (upmerged) for good measure. Probably worthwhile in the long run, though the icon sizes are pretty outrageously large. Grutness...wha? 04:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with adding these differentiations. I have added two sub-stubs on the expectation that these will likely be subcategorized and would rather tag the articles once rather than have to go back and re-tag. As there was no opposition to the creation of the stubs {{private-equity-bio-stub}}, I see no problem with adding {{US-private-equity-bio-stub}} and {{UK-private-equity-bio-stub}} which both feed into the same category. I made the image size 5px smaller - I think "outrageously large" is somewhat overstated. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 12:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though yuou don't see any problems with differentiating them, and - as I pointed out - they're probably worthwhile, they should have been proposed with the others. As to the size of the icon, reducing it from 80px to 75px when the standard for stub icons is 40px means they are still outrageously large. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Neopaganism-stub}} / Category:Neopaganism stubs

Unproposed, though well formed. May meet threshold requirements, given size of permcat parent, but this is not guaranteed. Likely to have significant overlap with several other stub types... Seems like a "wait and see" approach may be best for this one? Grutness...wha? 04:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I was looking and searching stubs but I did not find what I was looking for. So I had two posibilities: to create stub for Kemetism or create some general neopaganistic stub. I choose the second option, because I believe, that this general stub can be more usefull. And believe me I would rather use existed stub than cerating a new-one. But there was not what I needed. The closest was paganism stub, but paganism is not the same as neopaganism (each-one has here individual articles and whole individual cathegories).
If that stub will be considered as a mistake I will accept verdict.
But at that moment I did what I considered as the best.
--Niusereset 25.VIII. MMVIII, 13:35 CEST

{{Ontario-bio-stub}} (upmerged)

Unproposed, and we don't normally split biostubs by subnational reason, per previous precedent. I see noreal reason why Ontario should be an exception to thzt. Grutness...wha? 21:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Australia-plant-stub}} / Category:Australian plant stubs

Unproposed, and counter-hierarchy. I'd have taken this straight to WP:SFD if it wasn't for the fact that this has already over 800 stubs! Which is understandable, when you think about it, since that's bound to happen with any plant category based on a country - one of the reasons why WP:WSS doesn't split plant stubs in this way. All other plant-stub subtypes are by taxonomy, exactly the same way that animals, fungi, viruses, etc are divided up. Even with 800 stubs, rthis should be deleted: it sets a nasty precedent (do we want country-plant-stubs cropping up for 200-odd other countries?) Yes, much of Australias biota is unique, but enough of it isn't for this to cause many problems, either of overlap or usage definition. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Counter-hierarchy"! Crikey Moses! If you delete this, you'll have to upmerge its 850 stubs to {{Australia-stub}}, which currently only has 398 articles in its root category. And do you know what will happen? Someone will look at Category:Australia stubs, notice that more than two thirds of its 1200 articles are plant articles, and say "we really really really need a plant subcategory". And rightly so. So how about doing the sensible thing, and accept that there is a first time for everything, and that this is a perfectly reasonable stub even if it is "counter-hierarchy", whatever than means. Hesperian 00:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The assertion "All other plant-stub subtypes are by taxonomy" is false; we have {{vegetable-stub}}, {{fruit-stub}}, {{tree-stub}}, {{fruit-tree-stub}}, {{Fabaceae-tree-stub}} and arguably {{Grass-stub}}. Hesperian 01:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These wouldn't be in Australia stubs for the most part, since they'd be in their taxon groups (several of which might be possible as subtypes of Australia stubs, but generally they wouldn't go in there). And it isn't a "perfectly reasonable stub" for the reasons I mentioned. And though "tree" and "grass" may not be specific parts of the taxonomy of plants, they are descriptive enough that specific taxonomical groups lie totally within them or are readily split by them without overlap - such as the Fabaceae-tree-stub type you mentioned. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the false claim that all that other plant stubs are taxon specific, and the irrelevant observation that this is unproposed, "The reasons [you] mentioned" boil down to "it sets a nasty precedent", which is rather begging the question since you haven't actually given a cogent argument why it is "nasty"; and "problems of overlap".
With the respect to the latter, no doubt you realise that every tree-stub is also some kind of taxon-stub, just as every Australia-plant-stub is also some kind of taxon-stub. Yes, you are able to eliminate some overlap by creating hideous cross-stubs like Fabaceae-tree-stub, but I am equally capable of eliminating overlap by creating hideous cross-stubs like Australia-Proteaceae-stub. So what's the difference, other than the fact that you like one and not the other?
And the problem of overlap with other (presently non-existent) country-plant-stubs will still be there regardless, since these stubs will end up tagged with the parent country-stubs, which overlap in exactly the same way.
I might just as well say that "native to Australia" may not be a specific part of the taxonomy of plants, but it is descriptive enough that specific taxonomic groups lie totally within it or are readily split by it without overlap.
Hesperian 02:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Offtopic: some confusion was perhaps caused by the fact that a number of taxon-stubs had been inappropriately made children of tree-stub. Sapindales-stub should not have been a child of tree-stub, as many taxa are not trees; e.g. Boenninghausenia is a herb! Palm-stub should not have been, either; e.g. Desmoncus grows as a vine! Ditto Myrtaceae, Acacia, Salicaceae, Ulmaceae, Ilex, and Fagales, all of which have shrubby species) Hesperian 02:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find this stub category to be very useful and have already used it to update and maintain quite a number of Australian flora articles. Melburnian (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion, creating a stub type based on its country is only valid if such templates is created for all the nations listed in List of countries. Singling out a country can show systematic bias. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why are people !voting "keep", "support" etc on this page? This is not SFD, this is WP:WSS's discoveries page. There is no point in !voting here - keep that until the if-and-when of this getting transferred to WP:SFD. All that is asked for here is a rationale for the creation of this stub type, and possible arguments for and against it - preferably ones which refer to normal stubbing practice. Grutness...wha? 21:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because the other two sections that have attracted comments here have also attracted !votes? So who gets to decide whether this gets transferred to SFD if opinions on the matter are unwelcome here? Or, to put it another way, if you're going to take this to SFD regardless of what people say here, then what is the purpose of this forum? Hesperian 01:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other two? There are seven other sections on the August section of this page lone, and only one of them attracted similar !votes - followed by a comment that such !votes were inappropriate. As to "what is the purpose of this forum", the purpose is to report to WP:WSS stub types that have been made out of process, to get a response from the person who made them as to why they were made, and to have other members of WP:WSS discuss whether they fit in with that project - this is, after all a WP:WSS subpage. At that point, it should become obvious whether the stub types are definite keepers or are worth opening up to debate by the rest of Wikipedia on WP:SFD. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Arctic-stub}} / Category:Arctic stubs

Unproposed. Makes some sense, given the number of articles this might be useful for. Certainly with the politics of the area, um, heating up, this may be of use, but atthe moment there's no guarantee of those numbers, so it may need upmerging... somewhere. I';ve fixed the coding on the template and I'm about to give the category some sensible parents, BTW. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of you need to know what this page is for - there is not much point in expressing "support" or "opposition" here - this is simply a page for announcing new unproposed stubs and assessing them in the context of stub sorting - something which none of you have really done - not for indicating whether the stub should be created (which should have been done at a proposal stage at WP:WSS/P) or kept (which may be done if this stub type is nominated for deletion at WP:SFD). Indeed the notice I placed on Cirt's talkpage only asked for some reason for the stub type's creation. I'm at a little bit of a loss with these replies, since none of them really relate to the need for this stub type, so I'll reply to each in turn:
  • Cirt, you have given perfect reasons for having a talk page banner template, but none whatsoever for having a stub template. Stub templates are not used by individual WikiProjects; they are used across Wikipedia as a whole. As such, a stub type is never a "companion" to a WikiProject. WikiProjects use specific talk page banners which allow them to assess all articles relating to their subjects - that's why they're generally preferred by Wikiprojects to stub templates.
  • Icewedge, how does it meet the inclusion threshold? The "inclusion threshold" is to have 60 existing stubs (well, 30, given that there's a WikiProject)which are marked with the template prior to the creation of the category, or the same number of stubs listed which may use it prior to the creation of the template. This template is not used on any articles and the category is empty.
  • SriMesh, how does having GA and FA articles in any way indicate that a stub template is needed? The stub articles relating to the Arctic, what there are of them (which is a fairly small number) are already categorised into effective stub types. Again, it wwould be easier to find articles if a talk page template (such as, for example, {{WPBeatles}}) was used by your project instead.
  • CBW, there are 33 articles in Category:Nunavut stubs - there are, however, lots of Category:Nunavut geography stubs - by definition, these wouldn't be marked with {{arctic-stub}} - they would need to be marked with {{Arctic-geo-stub}} - something which hasn't been proposed and would be highly unlikely to be agreed to, since where possible geography stubs are classified by whichever nation or subnational region they lie within (in this case, quite obviously Canada and Nunavut respectively). It seems highly unlikely that threshold can be reached from those 33 stubs alone. As for the idea of needing 57 stub types, that is - to be frank - fairly ludicrous. A comparison of the necessary split of the Arctic region to the split of Africa into the 57 sovereign nations within that continent is a very poor one - how many sovereign nations actually exist in the Arctic which are not already part of another continental designation? Any at all? Grutness...wha? (adding signature here, since SriMesh has decided to reply in the middle of my comments rather than at the end)
Because of the Ilulissat Declaration, economics, ice melting, oil drilling, the Arctic boundaries are currently being re-drawn and the scientiic progress will last from now until around 2013. So...Labelling content with a country name now, may change, an arctic related articles//stubs would be so much easier to find all labelled as arctic. Trying to install a wikinew Arctic portal, and arctic new articles are categorized by many countries, but nothing to bring coherency to the arctic. So is the same with arctic related articles. The north pole belongs to no one right now. Every north pole explorer should be tagged with arctic to be accessible, until perhaps the finale of Ilulissat Declaration where maybe there will be an owner. So some things need to be arctic stubs.SriMesh | talk 06:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to tell me that places in, say Nunavut might suddenly find themselves becoming part of Greenland, or Svalbard might suddenly find itself part of Russia? Because if not, then no difference will be made that is significant to stub sorting by the declaration, and even if it was, if that difference is not going to occur for over four years then it is not an issue which needs addressing now. All the land mass around the Arctic will surely remain in the countries it now lies within. All the sea and pack-ice area will still be within the ocean, and as such will use marine-geo-stub. All the exploration which has been done by individual countries will still have been done by those individual countries and will be stubbed accordingly. All the oilfields will still use oilfield-stub. All the geological details will still use geology-stub. Every north pole explorer will still be marked with explorer-stub. All these things are already stubbed in such a way that they can be found by general Wikipedia editors, and any editors within a specific Arctic wikiproject would be far better off looking for them using a banner assessment template by which they can find all articles on the arctic, not just stubs. Grutness...wha? 08:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...any editors within a specific Arctic wikiproject would be far better off looking for them using a banner assessment template by which they can find all articles on the arctic, not just stubs"' - I agree. But this seems to be an argument against stub templates in general, and in favour of WikiProjects. Wouldn't someone looking for, say, plant stubs, be better off looking at WikiProject Plants (or whatever)? Ditto for lots of stub types. My assertion is that if you look at the current set-up of the Antarctic stubs, you have explorers and expeditions there that are classified by where the exploration took place, rather than the country that did the exploration. Can you explain that? Carcharoth (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Compare instead the situation as it is with stub types for Antarctica. The main reason why an antarctica-gteo-stub was created was because Antarctica, by both definition and international treaty, is a continent which is not within the jurisdiction of any nation. As such, any stubs on Antarctica could not be automatically assigned to any currently existing national geo-stub type. Eventually, the number of these stubs became so great that a separate stub type was created for the geography of subantarctic islands covered by the Antarctic treaty. A third stub type, for items about Antarctica that were not geography-related, was eventually created, but it only just scraped into the size where a separate category was warranted. The same geopolitical situation does not occur with the Arctic. It isn't a continent, and national sovereignty covers much of the area. As such, most of the stubs which would possibly warrant an arctic-stub are already well-covered by national stub types. The area which is open sea (or pack ice) outside national jurisdictions is covered by marine-geo-stub as far as its geography is concerned.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that having this stub type is a bad idea per se - I indicated as much in my initial comments. All I'm saying is that the reasoning behind it seems pretty faulty, as does the expectation of what articles should andd could use it - and your WikiProject would be far better off handling the articles in a different way, via a talk page banner. Grutness...wha? 09:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear. I created the category (Category:Arctic stubs) while tidying up Category:Arctic (mainly to dump the Alaska stubs in there), but I was waiting a bit before creating the stub template, as I knew it would need to be approved. I was also waiting to propose the WikiProject and the Portal, but it seems a wave of enthusiasm has resulted in everything being created and lots of work being done. Admittedly, as Grutness points out, not a lot of stubs have been identified and people might be misunderstanding what stubs are for, but can someone who knows more about this clarify what degree of "permission" is needed for new stubs, new wikiprojects and new portals. Anyone? Carcharoth (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On another point, Grutness, would you have time to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arctic/Likely articles, a long list of about 1500 articles that are in the Arctic Circle (if the bot got this right). Is there a way to identify the stubs in that list and to decide the best way to handle them? I understand your geopolitical argument above, but I think if there is more motivation for people to tackle and improve stubs from an Arctic perspective, than a national perspective, that might be an argument for having this stub type. Ultimately, though, if we just assess stuff within the scope of the project as stubs, then we end up with Category:Stub-Class Arctic articles - which then leads me to ask: Why have stubs at all? Why not just mark stubs by talk page assessments? I'm also looking at Category:Antarctica stubs, and similar stub articles exist for the Arctic, they just aren't tagged yet (look at Category:Arctic). But before we try and find 60 stubs not covered by any other stub type, could you suggest what would be a suitable example of an Arctic stub? Carcharoth (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making a third post to bring up some detail. I've looked through Category:Arctic, and the areas I think are most suitable in terms of having stubs that *might* benefit from such a stub template, are Category:Arctic research, Category:Government of the Arctic, Category:History of the Arctic and Category:Culture of the Arctic. And Category:Arctic Ocean does have a lot. Could you explain how {{marine-geo-stub}} would be used for that? Carcharoth (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooookay... this will probably need a long answer. As far as "permission" is concerned, it is true that no formal permission is actually needed for new stub types - it's not policy. It is, however, a very strong recommendation, given the huge number of stub types ion Wikipedia and the necessity to have them organised in some form of order so that they don't become unmanageable. Trying to keep the stub types useable is so much of a case of herding cats as it is that anything that can be done to reduce the free creation of new stub types is a major advantage, not just for WP:WSS, but for Wikipedia as a whole. It is the only way that the creation of tens of thousands of stub types on a host of trivial ssubjeects 9and also the creation of hosts of virtually identical stub types) can be avoided. That's why WP:STUB gives pretty comprehensive guidelines on the best way to create stubs. It's also why we have a "discoveries" page here, rather than simply taking any unproposed stubs to WP:SFD to be deleted or keept by consensus (in a way, this discoveries page acts as a stepping stone to either acceptance of the unproposed stub or - if it has too many problems - nomination for deletion. In the case of this stub, acceptance is likely, I'd say, though there are, as I've pointed out, some concerns with it. (BTW - there is a Category:Alaska stubs with four subcategories for those stubs!)
Unfortunately, the easiest way to assess which articles in a list like that are stubs and which aren't is by manually sorting at them. An article isn't simply a stub by virtue of its length (see my short essay on that point). And if you're going to sort them manually, then going the whole way with assessment templates and FA- A- B- C- Stub-Classes is probably handled at that time. As to why have stubs at all, the reason lies in the fundamental ddifference between assessment templates - used by just one WikiProject - and stub templates - used by the whole of Wikipedia. If every simgle possible subject had its dedicated WikiProject, and all Wikipedians were members of those projects, then we probably wouldn't need stub templates. But that isn't the case. So two parallel systems are used, one to cover specific subjects by specific projects, and one to cover all subjects and for all editors. This also gives some indication as to why individdual WikiProjects are better off concentrating on assessment templates (a point also made in the blank wikiproject template {{WikiProject}}). A suitable example of an arctic stub might be something like SCICEX, currently listed in Category:Oceanography stubs
Admittedly, marine-geo-stub couldn't be used for all of those articles you mention, though others, such as, for instance, {{explorer-stub}}, {{Greenland-stub}}, {{geophysics-stub}}, {{ocean-stub}}, {{{{glaciology-stub}}, {{NorthAm-native-stub}} (a separate inuit-stub might be a reasonable idea, as might a svalbard-geo-stub, which seems to be missing from our Norwegian geo-stubs), do exist. If there are enough articles tagged with these stubs that would qualify for an arctic-stub, then they could be double-stubbed with them (i.e., adding the arctic-stub but also keeping the stub that's there) - and remember that as the main stub type for a wikiproject it only needs 30, not 60, to be regarded as a reasonable stub type. Those stub types would probably be the best first places to start looking for arctic stubs. The main problem really is defining exactly what should and shouldn't have such a stub type, especially given that - as I pointed out - the Arctic isn't a sovereign nation, and as such many stubs which seem to qualify are better stubbed in other ways. {{Glaciology-stub}} is an example of the sort of problems faced - that stub type is for glacier science, but the category doesn't (or at least shouldn't) articles about the glaciers themselves, each of which has its appropriate geo-stub. As for marine-geo-stub itself, BTW, if it grows to several times its current size it may well eventually be split by region - in which case an arctic-marine-geo-stub would be a logical type (not yet, though!). Grutness...wha? 00:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed reply, which has helped clear things up a bit for me. In terms of actually getting things done, do you think having both a WikiProject-assessed stub category and an article-tagged stub category would help, or just the WikiProject stub category alone? My other question concerns areas where some of the articles have already been expanded beyond stubs. If this has happened, and the remaining stubs are low in number, does this preclude the creation of a stub category? What happens to existing stub categories when they only have 10-15 stubs left? Are they upmerged and deleted, or are they left in place in the hope that more stubs will be created? How is it decided when an "approved" stub category has finished its purpose and can be deleted? I'm still looking at Category:Antarctica stubs, and I suspect that it used to have a lot more stubs in it that got expanded (not that it is easy to tell). Carcharoth (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that concentrating on the assessment template would probably be best, though the stub type may be useful as well if enough stub articles are found (the two can coexist comfortably enough). With the assessment template it wouldn't matter if the number drops too much, though you're right that it might cause a problem with a stub category. It rarely happens, given that the rate of new article creation is usually greater than the rate of article expansion, but proposed stub types have been taken to SFD in the past, though usually simply for upmerging (i.e., keeping the template but pointing it at a larger, more general category). WP:WSS usually takes a 'wait and see" approach tol see whether the numbers go up again, so it's often a year or more between the number dwindling away towards zero and anything being done about the category. Antarctica stubs hasn't changed in size too much since it was made - the threshold for category creation is often lowered if there's a natural subcategory such as the geo-stub one. Grutness...wha? 08:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I feared, this stub type is being thoroughly misused. At the time of writing there are 100 stubs marked with arctic-stub. Of those, eight seem to use it legitimately - the remaining 92 are geo-stubs already marked with appropriate geo-stub templates. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kleinian theory/object relations/depressive and paranoid-schizoid positions

kleinian theory/object relations/depressive and paranoid-schizoid positions: hi. im not sure this is how or where to ask or say so, but this is my discovery. Object relations theory is part of the psychology portal, and Melanie Klein is a major theorist. The Object relations page needed work, so i wrote little subsections on the theory. Today, I realize there are already stubs written on Depressive position and paranoid-schizoid position but they are just danglers, and not linked up. They should be within the object relatons page at a minimum. I would be happy to do something about this, but im not really sure what or how, i just know it needs to be linked, or integrated, or something. and it seems one is requested to say so here. Thanks. Majicshrink (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the forum for this - this is to discuss stub templates and categories. You'd be better taking this to somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{UFO-stub}} / (redlinked)

Seems vaguely reasonable, though size and actual scope could be an issue. Should it, for instance, include religions and similar like raelism and scientology? Seems plausible that it might reach threshold, though if not it can always be upmerged into the correctly but somewhat unnervingly named Category:Paranormal stubs (do these stubs dematerialise before your eyes? Or edit themselves?) Grutness...wha? 01:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkish Olympic medalist stubs

Currently only 36 articles, but I'd hold off with anything for a couple of weeks for obvious reasons! SeveroTC 21:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{France-swimming-bio-stub}} / Category:French swimming biography stubs

Seems a reasonable - if unproposed - addition to the range of stub templatyes, though the category seems woefully undersized at present. Category:French sportspeople stubs is getting close to the point of needing to be pared back, though, so trying to find the remaining 30 stubs necessary is probably a first option over upmerging. Grutness...wha? 02:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, July 2008

{{Law-term-stub}} / Category:Legal term stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 list on WP:STUBS

This was created April 30th by Waacstats (talk · contribs), with the summary "new stbu cat as per wss/p". Despite the reference to WSS/P, it appears this never happened! I have sifted through proposals, discoveries and deletions for March and April, along with Waacstats' WP-space history for those months—a task in itself!mdash;but can't find any evidence that this proposal ever occurred and was approved. That said, this should definitely be kept—I came across it when I was about to propose it myself—as it is already populated and there are plenty more articles in Category:Law stubs that should be sorted here; I just don't want to add it to the list without there ever having been any discussion! — Skittleys (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/June 2007#Cat:legal term stubs. SeveroTC 18:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Thanks! Adding this to the list now... — Skittleys (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Cuba-film-stub}} / Category:Cuban film stubs

And another unproposed one. Seems reasonable in scope, but will likely never get close to threshold for a separate category - the parent permcat only has 24 articles, less than half the number needed for a stubcat. Even if stubs were made for every redlink on List of Cuban films it still wouldn't get within 15 of threshold. Upmerging is definitely desirable. Grutness...wha? 01:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another unproposed one.Possibly useful and in line with other similar splits, but unlikely to reach threshold for its own category (I've upmerged it). Grutness...wha? 02:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Turkey-writer-stub}} / Category:Turkish writer stubs

Unproposed, and probably fine as an upmerged template, at least. This linked both to upmerged types and also to its own new category (a clear example of overcatting if ever there was one). The Category:Turkish writer stubs is currently undersized, and may well stay so - if it does, upmerging looks the most sensible option. Grutness...wha? 02:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Brunei-road-stub}}

Unproposed, and likely to remain very small - but it is standard and upmerged, so it can probably stay in that form. Grutness...wha? 02:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{England-viscount-stub}} / Category:Peerage of England viscount stubs

Despite the categories rather combersome name, this is in line with other similar categories. Unproposed, and currently undersized - will probably grow to threshold, but if not upmerging is always an option. Grutness...wha? 02:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - I didn't realise all new stub templates had to be proposed now. Yes it is rather undersized at the moment. Feel free to get rid of it as it can't always be merged back into Category:British nobility stubs. Craigy (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, June 2008

{{Saxophonist-stub}} / Category:Saxophonist stubs

An interesting one... we have Category:Jazz saxophonist stubs, but its parenting is directly to Category:Woodwind musician stubs with no middle step. However, the number of non-jazz saxophonists with articles is very considerably below threshold (this is used on two articles, though the only other rock saxophonists I can instantly think of - John Helliwell and Raphael Ravenscroft - also have stubs, which I shall mark with this template). There may well be more, however, especially from the 1950s era of rock & roll and from the ska/reggae booms of the 60s and 70s. It may be that keeping the category as an intermediate step between the jazz and woodwind categories is a good move, but I worry about size - the template would be fine, upmerged or as is. If kept, the category will need to be formatted properly (it's a bit sparse at the moment in terms of its details/parentage - and has an unexpected commo0ns link, too). Grutness...wha? 02:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought it was a little odd that there was no category for non-jazz sax players too, seeing as I could think of a few (Saxa (musician) and Ian Kirkham had to go under {{musician-stub}}because I could not find a better-suited one). I am currently trying to find as many articles I can put there as possible - I think that it will hit the threshold soon. Rdbrewster♪♫♪ 17:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that if it does not hit the threshold, then Category:Jazz saxophonist stubs should be merged into this one.

{{Turkmenistan-footy-bio-stub}} / Category:Turkmenistani sportspeople stubs

Yet another unproposed footy-bio-stub "upmerged" by the artificial creation of a parent stub category (it seems an extremely annoying trend has started in the last week or so). Though the template may have some use, the category is likely to remain very tiny (we don't even have enough stubs for a Category:Turkmenistan people stubs category yet!). Grutness...wha? 07:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this stub by mirroring many others that have been used in WP:FOOTY. If it is annoying, please feel free to delete it. It does however serve a useful purpose even if there are not yet that many stubs in this category. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the comments regarding the Lebanon-footy-bio stub, and it seems this stub was already proposed and accepted. Sorry that I didn't follow the proper channels, but I think the stub should be kept if someone else proposed it and it was approved. Jogurney (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, all Asian football biography upmerged stubs were approved awhile back by us, I think Valentinian proposed them. I will look back and find exactly the date.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, the proposal didn't include any new categories - it was for upmerged templates (i.e., upmerged to existing categories). Grutness...wha? 21:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Canada-mall-stub}}

Unproposed and redlinked. We haven't started to split mall stubs up by country too much, though it's probably a reasonable idea. This would probably be better upmerged into Category:Mall stubs - if we had one (why don't we?) - and the Canadian B&S stub categories though. Grutness...wha? 02:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A universal mall (or shopping centre) cat would be best. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 02:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's likely no Category:Mall stubs because there's also no {{Mall-stub}} to fill it. I'm not saying there's no need, just that nobody's gone through the motions yet. - Dravecky (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, we do have a long-accepted {{US-mall-stub}}, though. A more generic mall-stub would be a good idea (though is probably better discussed at WSS/P than here. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanian sportspeople stubs

Seemingly as an upshot (albeit unproposed) of this proposal, Category:Samoan sportspeople stubs, Category:Lebanese sportspeople stubs, Category:Tongan sportspeople stubs, Category:Papua New Guinean sportspeople stubs, Category:Cook Islands sportspeople stubs and Category:Fijian sportspeople stubs have been created. Few of these are likely to break a dozen articles. The parent categories (national (bio) stubs, Oceanian sports people stubs and sport bio stubs) are not oversized. Not worth keeping any imo. SeveroTC 23:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fijian one was proposed and should reach 65 at least - the others probably need monitoring but yes, upmerger definitely seems possible. However it wouldn't surprise me if several of them could get to 60 stubs (we're not talking Category:Pitcairn sportspeople stubs, after all!). As for whether Lebanon is in Oceania, that's another matter... :) Grutness...wha? 00:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A quick scan through the What-links-here of {{samoa-bio-stub}} reveals about 35 rugby union, boxing, and athletics bios to go with the 22 rugby league ones - it will come very close to 60 overall. Tonga would also get a significant boost towards threshold. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. You're right about the proposal though - looks like the creator of these completely misunderstood what had been said about upmerging - these should all have simply been templates pointing to Category:Rugby league biography stubs, their own Category:Fooian people stubs, and (in all cases except Lebanon) to Category:Oceanian sportspeople stubs. There shouldn't have been any new categories made (other than the Fiji case I mentioned). The parenting of these new categories is a bit shocking, too - there's the assumption that all sportspeople from these countries are rugby league players, and the categories are also recursive. If these are kept they'll also need separate {{Foo-sports-bio-stub}} templates. This is in the "needs a lot of work" basket. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tidied up the categories and parenting; they could make viable categories, although they seem quite premature. Some of the countries here don't even have {{foo-stub}}, let alone {{foo-bio-stub}} (particularly Cook Islands). I'll have a look at numbers tomorrow. SeveroTC 22:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following playing with CatScan, all bar PNG and Cook Islands appear to be viable as cats (which will also need standard {{foo-sport-bio-stub}} templates); I support PNG and Cook Islands as upmerged templates. SeveroTC 23:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, Category:Cook Islands sportspeople stubs would also need moving to Category:Cook Island sportspeople stubs following this recent discussion. SeveroTC 08:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Coal-company-stub}} / Category:Coal company stubs

Unproposed, and not really needed given the size of its stub parent (Category:Energy company stubs has only about 360 unsubcategorised stubs - only about halfway to the point where splitting's desired). No indication whether it would reach the 60-stub threshold either, though it seems implausible at present (Category:Coal companies and all its subtypes between them have fewer than 70 articles). Might be worth keeping, but upmerging is definitely a prospect unless it grows beyond its current size of one stub! Grutness...wha? 01:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Large number of Middle Eastern footy-bio-stubs

Our old friend Matthew hk has created a large number of new stub templates for football biography stubs by country in the Middle East, all of which are listed at thge top of the unfortunately named (also by mhk) Category:West Asian football biography stubs, a category which I've taken to SFD for renaming. Grutness...wha? 23:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{feminist-stub}}

I found this stub on the article Anne Carr that has no Stub Category. Do you know what should be done about this? I've looked through the Stub List and can't find it. Kathleen.wright5 10:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already listed under discoveries from February - basically it's an unproposed copy of {{Fem-activist-stub}} (which was decided some year or more ago to be a more precise name for what it shoud cover. {{tl|Feminist-stub will probably be taken to WP:SFD for either deletion or redirection at some point - for now, just change any stubs you find using it to use {{fem-activist-stub}} instead. Grutness...wha? 22:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Australia-rugbyleague-bio-1990s-stub}} / Category:Australian rugby league biography, 1990s birth stubs

Unproposed, though well-formed. No problems with the template, and no doubt the category will be needed sometime soon, but is it needed yet? Do we have stubs for 60 current Aussie rugby league pros under the age of eighteen and a half? This may be a case of "upmerge for now, with no prejudice against re-creating the category later". Grutness...wha? 01:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with upmerge. Waacstats (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Albania-basketball-bio-stub}} / Category:Albanian basketball biography stubs

Unproposed, small, and unlikely to come within easy reach of the category threshold any time soon. Also a severe case of "cart before the horse" since we don't even have an {{Albania-sport-bio-stub}} yet! Indeed, the number of otherwise unsubcategorised people in Category:Albanian people stubs is fewer than 150, so no split is needed, and the size of Category:Albanian basketball players (two articles) is hardly reassuring. Upmerging is probably the most sensible option here. BTW, on a related subject, it appears that there's something wrong with the subcategorisation of several basketball-bio types, if the population of Category:Basketball players is anything to go by... Grutness...wha? 02:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion and upmerger. As an aside I think the cart is already ahead of the horse given that we have more foo-footy-bio cats than foo-sport-bio cats (Albania included), but this is certainly not a case where we need to go that way. Waacstats (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cambodia-politician-stub}} / Category:Cambodian politician stubs

Seems pretty well formed, and at 53 stubs is only slightly short of threshold - looks like a keeper, though it would have been nice to have found out about this before it was made :/ Grutness...wha? 02:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm on a huge run from a spreadsheet of these (check Special:Newpages), and there should be about 100 (or more?) when i'm done. i figured it was ok since there are similar ones for other countries. Mangostar (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They should still be propsoed (they're speediable in cases like this, so it's not a huge hold-up). It's still a good idea to do that, since how are the stub-sorting project supposed to be able to sort stub types using stub templates they're not aware of? Grutness...wha? 02:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Manhwa-stub}} / Category:Manhwa stubs and {{Manhua-stub}} (redlinked)

Two new unproposed stub types for different yet related forms of Asian comics. Given the size of the parent permcats, it's doubtlful whether either would currently meet bthreshold (this is partticularly true for the Korean one). Perhaps creating an overarching Category:Asian comic stubs would be a better idea than having these two separate marginal stub types, with these two templates upmerged into it. Grutness...wha? 02:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the talk page note! For some background, the World Comics working group at WikiProject Comics has been almost dormant since its creation, but now we're actively doing an enormous amount of work getting things set up to truly handle world comics, and we're starting with manhua and manhwa. These stub templates were created following current comics categories, and were separated because they deal with subjects in entirely different languages, thus largely attracting entirely different editors. Until now there has been no coordinated effort for dealing with Asian comics outside of Japan, and currently many articles in these subject areas are uncategorized or incorrectly categorized as Japanese manga. We are currently getting things correctly categorized, so their present size isn't necessarily indicative of their "actual" size, or potential size in the future. Lumping everything as "Asian comics" is, in my opinion, too broad and yields the tag fairly useless. At the absolute minimum, this large and diverse continent would need to be broken down. Note, the manhua-stub template is red-linked because the admin who's been working on the categorization is likely in bed at the moment. :) Sorry about all this - I had no idea I'd skipped an important step. Learning all the wikiprocedures can be quite an overwhelming task! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now spent some time tagging many known stubs with the two new stub templates. There are now over 100 articles split between these two tags, I believe. I'll now spend time trying to find uncategorized or incorrectly categorized articles, and get them tagged, too, which may take quite a while. I'm also making a list of redlinks that I run into repeatedly or that I know are notable enough to deserve an article. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 10:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the need for these stubs is that the areas of manhua and manwha have rather been overlooked and there is an effort through the Comics Project World comics workgroup to get things up to scratch. We've already been sorting out the relevant categories and the next stage will involve the creation of a number of new articles on the major works not yet covered which will probably involve translating from the original Chinese and Korean versions of Wikipedia. So one of the reasons they each need one is because we'll be working with the respective sister projects who will providing input on translation, transliteration, etc. and sinking the two into some broader category (which itself could conflict with the work of the Anime and Manga Project) would reduce the usefulness of them engagement with the different projects. (Emperor (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Category:Manhwa stubs now just sneaks in over the threshold with 62 stubs - Category:Manhua stubs (created since this was listed here - again without proposal, but still) is still well below threshold at 41 stubs. Sounds like there's enough material that it may get up to the required 60, but if it doesn't, it may still need to be upmerged somewhere. It would have been very useful and saved a lot of fuss if these had been proposed first, though - please, in future, if you're planning to create stub types, propose them at WP:WSS/P for discussion! Grutness...wha? 00:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thank all of you for the input on this. I do believe that the two category need their own stub, because the subject is also associated with Chinese and Korean WikiProject respectively. Naturally, many editors who edit manhwa articles are likely Korean editors or editors interested in Korean pop culture so does the same on manhua. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Grutness, for the feedback. Again, had I known this had to be pre-approved, I certainly would have gone through the process. The amount of procedures on Wikipedia is extremely overwhelming (not a criticism, just a fact). These stub tags go a long way in helping us identify where work needs to be done, and what's missing. As an essentially brand-new project, it would be very tough to get off the ground without them. I do have a procedural question, though. What happens now? You say it may still need to be upmerged somewhere. When does that happen? What does that mean for all the articles we've tagged? Who makes the decisions? Thanks for your help. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 01:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, to cut a long story short, there's a set threshold of 60 stubs for separate stub categories, so the Manhwa one's fine. As for the Manhua one, it will sit on this page for some time (often months!) to give us the opportunity to see whether it will get to 60 stubs (which of course you can help out on). If there's no sign of it doing so, it will be proposed for deletion/upmerging at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. In this case, it seems likely it will get to 60, but if it doesn't, then upmerging's the most likely outcome. That will simply mean changing the category link on the template to put all the articles into Category:Comics stubs. Even then, you'd still be able to see what articles use the template using the "What links here" link in the toolbox. The template will still remain in use, so if it is eventually used on 60 articles then a separate category can be proposed for re-creation at WP:WSS/P. Hope that makes sense. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, thank you so much! We'll have 60 in no time. I was worried this would happen, like, tomorrow or something.  :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Scotland-newspaper stub}}

Unproposed and badly named (spot the missing hyphen). When found it had no category, either - I've upmerged it into the UK category until we decide what to do with it. Potentially useful, though Category:United Kingdom newspaper stubs is hardly in need of splitting at only around 350 stubs. Probably reasonable as an upmerged template - if renamed to {{Scotland-newspaper-stub}} per standard. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are 30 articles in Category:United Kingdom newspaper stubs and in Category:Newspapers published in Scotland so it seems fair enough to have an upmerged template. SeveroTC 23:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it seems to have been renamed and the version with the space is not used on any articles, I've done my "rouge admin" act and got rid of the original version. I agree that the rename is a reasonable upmerged type. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Nagano-rail-station-stub}}

Upmerged and cookie-cuttered from an existing stub type, so probably perfectly fine. Why on earth it should feed into a geo-stub category is beyond me, though - buildings aren't supposed to go into those. Grutness...wha? 11:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Maharashtra-stub}} / Category:Maharashtra stubs

A non-geo type for an Indian state. Plausible, but the number of stubs may not warrant a separate category. Grutness...wha? 02:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Grutness: I think this stub will attract people from Maharashtra to contribute to articles relating to the history, culture and geography of this state. It's a lot easier for someone like me who knows something about Maharashtra, but very little about other states in India, to have a specific category to look for articles which need to be expanded. {{maharashtra-geo-stub}} doesn't quite cover it, as many articles (e.g. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Battle of Khadki, Nana Fadnavis, Maharashtra Academy of Sciences, Maharashtra Rashtravadi Congress, Shiv Sena) are directly or indirectly associated with the state, while not being "geographical" articles.
Additionally, as a state organized along linguistic lines, Maharastra's history and culture is tightly bound to all the languages found within its borders, including the Marathi language, Konkani language, and Gujarati language, along with their respective writers, poets, scholars, social activists, and so on. Stubs within these areas could also be tagged as a {{Maharashtra-stub}}.
In particular, I'm hoping to create stubs for the Peshwa and people relating to their history, and I'd like a way to attract people to work on these stubs in a more specific way than setting it as an {{India-hist-stub}}. I suppose the argument could be made that you're likely to get a better quality of edit from people who are more interested in Indian history than in Maharashtra in particular, although this way you'd probably get more enthusiastic edits. Although the Maratha empire and confederacy were India-wide in their influence and area, the Peshwa himself was always associated with Pune and its surroundings, particularly during the final, tumultous years of the empire.
This stub would also not be without precedent: Both Kerala and Karnataka have stub categories with plenty of articles. Personally, I think it'd be nice to have Peshwa, modern history, culture, religion, writing and poets based mainly or significantly within the state of Maharashtra all having their stubs in one place, so that people with an interest in or who are familiar with the state can work on them.
One possible counterargument in that all of the above deserve their own stubs: sub-stubs of Category:Indian writer stubs, Category:Indian royalty stubs, Category:Indian political party stubs, and so on. Counterarguments: there's bound to be some articles which are hard to categorize, this will create even more stubs (while the current proposal only results in one), and I think that using {{Maharashtra-stub}} will be an easier mechanism for new contributers to bring their articles to the attention of other writers familiar with this state than {{WP India}} in the talk page.
That's my five cents, let me know what you think. -- Gaurav (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hey - one question. I see that once a category has sixty articles or so, it's generally accepted unless it's really silly. Would it be unethical if I try to find sixty such articles - it'll all be wasted effort if this stub is deleted, but it might help make the point. What's the right thing to do under these circumstances? Thanks! -- Gaurav (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Best thing to do is either to create a list of them on a user subpage (e.g., User:Gaurav/Maharashtra stubs) or simply to mark any you find with {{Maharashtra-stub}} - chances are that even if it doesn't reach 60 stubs we'll keep the template and upmerge it (i.e., make it add stubs to a more general category like Category:India stubs). That way, if there aren't 60 stubs now, the template will already be ready for when there are. As you pointed out, there are already similar categories for a couple of states, so this is a reasonable type - it's just a question of whether there are enough articles for it. As for the points about what could be covered by it, the solution is often to "double-stub" articles - e.g., buildings in Maharashtra would get both {{Maharashtra-stub}} and {{India-struct-stub}}. Most of the sub-types you suggest wouldn't have enough articles to warrant separate templates, and in any case, some types are specifically not made for national subregions (most bio-stubs don't have them, for instance, since people are free to move from place to place - most of them are more likely considered connected to a country than to one specific region of it. for that reason, we wouldn't consider a Maharashtra-writer-stub, for instance). Grutness...wha? 06:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good; I'll go hunting tonight and put {{Maharashtra-stub}} anywhere relevant. If I can't prove that the category is useful, it'll get merged upwards somewhere. Thanks for your help, and all the best with cleaning up the stubs - it must be the Aegean stables itself! -- Gaurav (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Messianic Judaism-stub}} / Category:Messianic Judaism stubs

WPJ, smattering of articles. Looks like a rename and upmerge to me. Alai (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree. A rename's a definite (to lose the space), and unless there are a few dozen more articles areound upmerging seems a sensible option. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Natural science stubs

Not sure I see the point of this. I'm by no means against "container" categories, but this looks like it's trying to be an index of some kind. I'd be inclined to at the least remove the categories that wouldn't logically be top level children of this. Alai (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not overly sure of it myself, though as a parent-only type I doubt it does too much harm. Perhaps if it's kept a similar Category:Natural science researchers (or similar) subcat should become a first level child to house the astronomers, biologists etc. If it's kept. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Sims-stub}} / Category:The Sims stubs

Not too bad an idea for an upmerged template, perhaps, but there's damn-all evidence that this is going to come close to threshold for its own category. The parent Category:The Sims only has 23 articles, so even if every single one of them were a stub it would still be 37 short. The current Category:The Sims stubs contains one article, and has no parents - stub or permcat. Potential upmerger candidate, perhaps? Grutness...wha? 02:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Lebanon-footy-bio-stub}}

Looks OK, and I've now corrected the links to the (upmerged) categories. Would've been nice if it had been proposed first, though! Grutness...wha? 01:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, a split of Asian football biography stubs was proposed somewhere awhile back and accepted, so this shouldn't really be here.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Pittidae-stub}} / Category:Pittidae stubs

Unproposed creation, a split from the hardly-overpopulated Category:Tyranni stubs, which only had 130 unsubcatted stubs. This currently has 30 stubs, and seems unlikely to reach threshold at present. Upmerging seems a most likely outcome. Grutness...wha? 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, didn't even know there was a Wikiproject regulating this when I created it. Just as a suggestion, is there a way to place the warning banner on the actual create-a-new-stub page? Anyways, upon viewing the criteria, the stub template won't meet the 60 benchmark as there are not 60 species of pittas. I created this new template because I thought, as the pittas are a unique family of birds with a fairly sizable number of species, it deserved its own stub template like many other bird families, such as the tyrant flycatchers or tapaculos. Additionally, the picture on the Tyranni stub template is that of a Scissor-tailed Flycatcher, which in terms of body shape looks nothing like a pitta; as for most of the stub articles it is the only image on the page, new readers unaware of what precisely a pitta is may see the picture of the flycatcher and assume that the pitta is similar in build. With a pitta-specific stub, a picture of a pitta can be used so that, even though there is not a picture of the actual species, a miniature image of a bird with a similar build is on the page. I didn't bring it up for discussion because A. I didn't know this place existed and B. I thought that it would be an uncontroversial move that I didn't need to mention at the Birds Wikiproject.
That said, per the 60 benchmark at least, the pitta stub seems to fail the qualifications outlined by this group, although I feel they are unique and numerous enough to warrant their own stub. If my logic above is not enough to merit the pittas having their own stub group, feel free to delete the group. I'll help put the Tyranni stub marker back in if there isn't a bot to do it. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there are less than 60, the template can survive. The problem is with the category. If you look in Category:Tyranni stubs there are a couple of other templates with the same problem which are upmerged (i.e., the template feeds into the broader stub category. The same could be done here with no problem. As for your comment about the "create-a-stub page", I'm not sure which page you mean by that... most people wanting to find out about stubs would most likely go to WP:STUB, where it's already fairly prominently mentioned. Grutness...wha? 03:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, if the category is the problem then go ahead and fix it; I created it only to deredlink it at the bottom of the pitta stubs. For the "create-a-stub page", I made the stub by taking the existing stub command (whatever {{Pittidae-stub}} is called) and replacing the word Tyranni with Pittidae. I then previewed the page and clicked on the red link to create the stub. I copied the text from the Tyranni stub code and replaced it with the Pittidae specifics. The only note I ever saw was a small thing at the top of the create template page which asked me to make sure I wasn't duplicating anything. Does that help? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it's not really possible to put a separate warning on that, since stub templates are fortmed in exactly the same way as other templates. I'll take the category to WP:SFD - the template's not a problem though - I put it here as much as anything just because it was a discovery (i.e., not known by the stub-sorting WP). Grutness...wha? 01:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Do I need to do anything else? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really - as with my comments on Swaminarayan-stub below, if it gets close to 60, then feel free to propose re-creating the category at WP:WSS/P - other than that, it's pretty much sorted out :) Grutness...wha? 02:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Thailand-road-stub}} (redlinked)

Unproposed, but a reasonable template. Should be upmerged for now rather than having its own category if kept, though. Grutness...wha? 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Swaminarayan-stub}}

Unproposed, and with no category link. presumably for the Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism, though Swaminarayan itself is a dab page. If kept, it will therefore need rewording, and likely also upmerging into Category:Hinduism stubs. Grutness...wha? 04:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone help with the rewording. I created the stub not knowing about this. There are at least 15 articles that could use it    Juthani1   tcs 15:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Grutness...wha? 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, is there anything else that needs to be done?    Juthani1   tcs 11:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine as it is now - if ever it gets to be used on 60 or more articles, feel free to propose a separate category for it at WP:WSS/P, too. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, May 2008

European school-stub types

User:Ratarsed has been on a bit of a spree creating several country-school-stub types for European countries. 34 of them, to be precise - too many to list here, but suffice to say that we now seem to have most of them from {{Azerbaijan-school-stub}} in the east to {{IsleofMan-school-stub}} in the west. All the ones I checked seem to be upmerged, which is a relief, and all seem OK. It would have been nice to have been told, is all :/ Grutness...wha? 02:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2008/May#European school stubs by nation, with speedy support -- Ratarsed (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Euh -oops. Sorry, I missed that one :) Grutness...wha? 00:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Almería-geo-stub}} / Category:Almería province geography stubs

Unproposed, and looks reasonable, though the category is very much underpopulated (so may need upmerging). As with other Spanish provinces, there are naming concerns about both the stub and permcats, which I've outlined very briefly at WP:CFD. Grutness...wha? 02:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Moldova-singer-stub}}/Category:Moldovan singer stubs

Unproposed. 7 member articles to date. - Lainagier (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Montreal-geo-stub}}/Category:Montreal geography stubs, {{Montreal-stub}}/Category:Montreal stubs

Created without proposal yesterday. The geo-stub one does at least seem reasonable in terms of a likely necessary split of Quebec-geo-stub (though whether this is the best subregion to start that split with is another matter). A general Montreal-stub is less of a necessity by far, though, since there are fewer than 400 Quebec stubs that have not already been subdivided, and the major form of subdivision there is, understandably, by subject rather than location. There is a wikiproject, by the looks of it, which does mitigate in favour of it to some extent, though (as per normal) a banner talk-page template may be more useful for them in the long run, and the usefulness of a stub template to the rest of wikipedia may be limited. Grutness...wha? 02:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these stubs are long overdue, especially the general Montreal stub which corresponds to {{Toronto-stub}}, {{Vancouver-stub}} and {{Ottawa-stub}}. Allows for a consistent approach to articles related to Canada's four largest cities. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The important thing is not so much that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but more that there are sufficient stubs to warrant a new stub type. In the case of a Montreal-stub, that's not yet apparent. In the case of a Montreal-geo-stub, geo-stubs are split at sub-provincial level by aqdministrative regions, so any Montreal-geo-stub would have to make clear that it is for the region rather than just the city. Even then, the existence of a category would depend on the necessary number of stubs currently existing that could use it. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't making a purely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument - but in any event, I'm not sure I agree that's the only consideration. Even if it were, what is the threshold? Where are the stats that suggest fewer stubs exist for this stub type than for existing stubs? And as for your geo-stub comment, I am not sure that presents a problem of any kind, but could you point out the guideline for my own information? Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And {{QuebecCity-stub}}. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that the number of relevant articles might not be immediately obvious yet, as the stub templates haven't been all that widely applied yet. For what it's worth, though, in my experience I can pretty safely assert that most Canadians (the people most likely to make use of these in the first place) would simply assume that the stub notices and categories applied to the whole Island of Montreal, and not just the city proper, anyway, so I don't know if a special usage note to clarify that is necessary. I don't think a lot of Canadians even know, for example, that Westmount, Côte Saint-Luc, Hampstead, Outremont, DDO and Senneville are actually separate municipalities; most people just think of them as neighbourhoods of Montreal. Half the time I can't even keep straight which places are separate municipalities and which are just boroughs of Montreal.

When it comes to the geo cat, it's true that almost all other similar Canadian categories are at the level of a region rather than an individual city. Toronto, as far as I can tell, is the only Canadian city that actually has its own dedicated geo-stub category — but going by pure numbers, even Category:Toronto geography stubs isn't strictly necessary, as both Category:Toronto stubs and Category:Golden Horseshoe geography stubs could accomodate an upmerge without becoming excessively large. And in doing a quick scan, I noticed also that it contained numerous items that aren't really geography stubs by any normal definition of that word, including a stadium, a yeshiva, three environmental organizations, a church, a department store, several subway stations and a historic post office. So I might very well propose that one for deletion and upmerging too, and I'm thus unconvinced about the need for Montreal-geo-stub. However, the general Montreal-stub is definitely valid, useful and populatable. Keep the latter, but I reserve judgement on geo for the moment. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Music-business-stub}} / Category:Music industry company stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 renamed

Unproposed, created in mid-Feb by the creator of Nimbit, which remains only entry. Catted to Category:Music industry but no stub categories. Could happily be merged into Category:Music organization stubs (which currently holds several music industry company stubs), but on the other hand I can see it being useful and populable. Lainagier (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a use for this category, however I think to match other similar templates use -company- so the template should be renamed {{Music-company-stub}} Waacstats (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - a rename/rescope would probably lead to a fairly useful stub type, though upmerging still remains a viable option. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{AncientGreece-battle-stub}} (redlink)

Unproposed, but well-formed and probably useful, although it needs some form of category (probably upmerged for the time being at least to Category:Ancient Greece stubs). Grutness...wha? 00:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Marching-band-stub}} (and its redirect {{Marching Band Stub}})

Unproposed, but possibly useful, given the number of articles in the permcat. Certainly needs better than to be directly linked to it, though! Upmerging...erm...somewhere would probably be the best solution for now. As for the name of the redirect, the less said the better (it's probably just about speediable as unused anyway). {{Marching-band-stub}} is currently used on two articles (surprisingly, both US ones. I didn't realise it was an organised sport there as well - I thought it was an Australia/New Zealand oddity!) Grutness...wha? 04:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I created the stub and please accept my apologies for not listing it here first. I'm still getting used to the protocol and requirements for things on Wikipedia. Anyway, I would propose this stub will be useful in the immediate future if nothing else. In the next 3-5 days I was planning on creating another 6-7 pages on particular marching bands here in the US. Marching bands are world-wide and this stub could be put to use anywhere, even with bands that you mentioned in New Zealand or Australia. I'm trying to help expand and create pages for college marching bands here in the US and I would love to have this stub available. I believe that we in WikiProject Marching Band, in particular, would use the stub quite often when we create a page for a particular marching band to encourage growth of the topic. Fliry Vorru (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief Grutness! I have three words for you: Drum Corps International. Please keep this one, renamed as Category:Marching band stubs. Cheers! Her Pegship (tis herself) 14:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gah - you're right, of course. For some reason, when I saw the stub I instantly thought of marching teams, not marching bands (there doesn't even seem to be an article about competitive marching teams - the closest is majorettes, which seems to be quite different). I've no real objection to the properly-named template (though the redirect should still go). If there are enough stubs for a category, that's fine too (otherwise upmerging is still a likely option). Grutness...wha? 00:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a summer project of mine to attempt to establish (at the very least, if not more) a stub page with the essential basic information for the marching bands of every college football program in NCAA I-A and I-AA (generally speaking, the bigger schools here in America). Giving it a quick look/estimate, I'd venture to guess that there could be anywhere from 20-70 stubs by the time I'm done with my personal project and that's just me and my goals. Just in colleges and universities here in the US I'd guess there are 300-400 marching bands and there's probably 50 or so documented on Wikipedia. Fliry Vorru (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I posted a message regarding this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Marching band. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ukraine-university-stub}}

Unproposed, both redlinked to its own category and upmerged, and with icon troubles. Possibly useful, but given the number of articles in Category:Universities in Ukraine (30), a separate category will not be needed any time soon. Grutness...wha? 02:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created it as in past List of law faculties in Ukraine article used {{Russia-university-stub}}, but Ukraine is not Russia. In fact what we really need for the template: someone should create an image like Image:Flag-map of Russia.svg --eugrus (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like Image:Outline of Ukraine.svg, as used on {{Ukraine-geo-stub}}? The liost article you mentioned would have normally had Europe-university-0stub on it, though separate country-specific templates are a good idea. the main problem is the number of potential stubs, which indicates that a separate category isn't needed at the moment (it should instead feed into both Category:Ukraine stubs and Category:Europe university stubs). Grutness...wha? 03:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Vanuatu-stub}} / Category:Vanuatu stubs

Unproposed. It's time all countries had their own basic stub template, but I can't see this one reaching even close to threshold for its own category any time soon. Notwithstanding the geostub subcat, unless there's some serious move towards threshold, this should probably be upmerged into Category:Oceania stubs. Grutness...wha? 02:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I created the stub. Sorry if I didn't go through the proper channels. I had created a stub article relating to Vanuatu, and I was surprised to see that there was no Vanuatu-specific stub, so I created one. My reasoning was that there should be a stub template for each country, and that since small countries such as Nauru (pop. 10,000) and Kiribati (pop. 100,000) already had their own stub templates, there seemed to be no reason for Vanuatu (pop. 200,000) not to have its own. Aridd (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Templates, yes, you're right... but not categories. They are created dependent on the number of stub articles, not on the size of the country; they are only created when we know for sure that there are enough stub articles on a subject to make their creation useful to editors (as explained at WP:STUB). Note, for instance, that there are over 80 Nauru stubs and it has its own category, but that {{Pitcairn-stub}}, which is only used on about 20 articles, is upmerged into Category:Oceania stubs. So, as I said in my initial note on this page, a Vanuatu-stub template is fine, but the category may be a problem. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the category would have one sub cat (the geos) and the fact that we already have a {{Vanuatu-bio-stub}} with around 20 articles that could be upmerged here, it should not be that difficult to find 20-30 extra stubs on vanuatu. (Off hunting I go) Waacstats (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now has 58 articles, 2 templates and 1 sub cat. Keep Waacstats (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, W - looks like a keeper now. Grutness...wha? 03:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Iran-business-bio-stub}}/Category:Iran business biography stubs

Unproposed, undersized, and very likely to stay that way - there are only 55 articles in total in the Category:Iranian businesspeople permcat and its subtypes, so getting to 60 stubs is unlikely any time soon. Vategory name is also incorrect (should be "Iranian..."). Category parenting is slightly off and template icon is also oversized, but those things more easily dealt with. Iran's bio-stubs are in need of splitting sometime soon, but this looks an unlikely candidate as part of that split (something like a stub for Iranian royalty seems a far better start for such a split). An upmerger may well be needed here. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Australia-museum-stub}}/Category:Australia museum stubs

Unproposed, but the template seems reasonable. The category, however, may struggle to reach the required threshold, so upmerging may be in order. Grutness...wha? 03:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerging is not required. The above Category now has 71 Stubs. Kathleen.wright5 05:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Creator comment sorry, didn't know there was a process because I did it directly from the template for the US museums. There already existed US and UK museum stubs and I thought an Australia category to be appropriate. Please hold off any discussion on up-merging until I have a chance to tag what needs to go in there. I intend to look at those tagged stub that are in Category:Museums in Australia as there are a large number of stubs that fit in the category and articles that aren't tagged at stub but should be. I only *just* created the stub category and posted it to WP:MUSEUMS today TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Normally separate categories are only created for stub templates if there are a guaranteed 60 stubs that will go in them (as is the case with the US and UK museum categories) - less than that and it becomes fiddly for editors hunting for stubs to expand. But don't panic - if something's posted here, there's usually quite a "grace period" before anything's done. This posting will probably hang around here for at least a couple of months, which should give you and us the chance to see whether there are 60 stubs. If there are, all well and good, but if it peaks too much lower than that then it may be nominated for upmerging at WP:SFD. Grutness...wha? 04:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply ooh good, wasn't sure if this was a Prod/?fD-esque 5 day timeline. I got about 15 in a quick squiz through some of the category and its subcats before I got tired (It's 12:30 EST) but based on that and the fact that we've a list of museum stubs to be createdt I don't think I'll have a problem getting it to 60. The problem will be not bringing those from stub to at least start o:) Thanks for the info and notifying me TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 04:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Malaysia-airport-stub}}

Seems a reasonable addition to the set of country-airport-stub types, and upmerged as well, so no problems from undersized categories. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Fermanagh-geo-stub}} / Category:County Fermanagh geography stubs

One of the six traditional counties of Northern Ireland. unproposed, but with 400+ stubs, N.I. is getting close to consideration for a split. Masy need upmerging if there are fewer than 60 stubs, but other than that and a bit of a tidy-up, seems reasonable, and templates for Down, Antrim, et al are probably worth considering, too. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, April 2008

{{Portugal-actor-stub}} and {{Portugal-film-director-stub}}

Neither proposed, but both upmerged and potentially useful. Looks like keepers. Grutness...wha? 03:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cooks-geo-stub}} (up-categorized to Category:Oceania geography stubs)

Useful but not in the list. Powers T 02:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'twas proposed, though. Lots of nation-specific geo-stubs which have yet to get their own categories aren't on the main list, to avoid cluttering it up still further (you'll find a comprehensive "by country" list at User:Grutness/Geo-stub list. FWIW, at 35 stubs, the Cook Islands are well on their way towards "category independence". Grutness...wha? 03:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And how was I supposed to know where to find that comprehensive list? Is there something wrong with the official list being the comprehensive one? Powers T 12:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, though the list I linked above has been mentioned frequently on the proposals page and elsewhere. As to "is there something wrong with the official list?" yes there is - it is already under fire for being too long and causing huge problems with loading (see, for instance, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types and Wikipedia: Village pump (technical) , for instance). Grutness...wha? 01:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I meant the "Geo" list moreso than the mega-huge(-won't-load-for-me-either) combined list. =) Powers T 21:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Child-stub}} / redlinked category

Unproposed, and possibly useful, though the potential scope for this one could be used for is so wide as to make it impractical - covering psych-stubs, med-stubs, toy-stubs, sociology-stubs, school-stubs, and a host of other more specifically-scoped stub types. As such, SFD is a possible outcome. Category is redlinked, which is just as well, since it uses the long discarded "-related" format (Category:Child-related stubs) Only used on one article, which is also a psych-stub. Might be better changed into something like a child-psych-stub (or developmental-psych-stub) or paediatrics-stub rather than having something this broad and unwieldy. Grutness...wha? 02:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry—I checked at the main page (WikiProject Stub Sorting), but at first I couldn't find a proposals/policy page, but that's because I only skimmed it. Anyway, it's my fault. So…pretty much any outcome is fine with me, especially if it turns out something more specific that can be used in articles related to the one I first put the stub on. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:59 27 April, 2008 (UTC)

{{Alaska-bio-stub}} / Category:Alaska people stubs

despite WP:WSS's general rule of "no bio-stubs for subnational regions", Alaska has now become the sixth US state to have an unproposed bio-stub and category created for it. On size grounds it's fine, but - as always - there's the distinct risk of these stub types being used liberally for anyone who lives in a state for a few years, leading to massive overtemplating of anyone who moves house a lot. Grutness...wha? 02:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone "moves around a lot" — not just living here and there, but actually doing something during their stay, something worth mentioning (otherwise few would know and fewer would care about the places the person had resided, making massive over-templating improbable as the selection of stub templates generally depends on the article's existing content) — that alone would likely yield enough information to expand their article beyond the magical "stub" threshold. Thus if there is a "distinct risk" of a problem, it would be self-correcting in most cases.
In the remaining cases, yours would be a better argument for adopting guidelines on how to decide which stub templates are most appropriate (and omit those of lesser relevance) than for limiting the types of stub templates which should be created. Apologies if something like this already exists, but if so I haven't seen it. — CharlotteWebb 10:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that something like that is probably needed. An example of the sort of potential problem I mentioned with people moving would be something like George Andrews (footballer), which would - if stubbing were based on subnational region - be not only and England-football-bio-stub, but also a Bedfordshire-bio-stub, WestMidlands-bio-stub, Cardiff-bio-stub, Lancashire-bio-stub, Shropshire-bio-stub, Staffordshire-bio-stub and Worcestershire-bio-stub (these on the basis of the clubs represented) - all without yielding enough information for this to be more than a stub article. The same problem would occur with many sportspeople worldwide. Using the most appropriatee templates almost always results in there being no need for a specific subregion-bio-stub - the few bios that are specifically related to particular subregions are usually covered by subregion-politician-stubs and (every now and again) subregion-pioneer-stubs. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been my experience that over-templating occurs more often with people who fall into multiple occupational categories, such as musicians who play multiple instruments and do a bit of acting on the side. I don't think the free agency of sports leagues is a legitimate reason to use geography-based stub templates for any location other than place of birth. If other users disagree about this, which they might, it would be another reason to adopt a guideline for when to use what, or to just impose an arbitrary maximum like "pick the 2/3/4 most relevant ones and forget about the others". — CharlotteWebb 17:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your experience tends to be different to mine, I must say. As, it would seem, do your experiences with people reading and sticking to guidelines. We already have a guideline as to the number of stub templates to use (up to four of the most relevant ones, preferably only two or three), but that doesn't mean people sticking to them. As to only using country of birth, that simply wouldn't work - it would mean, for instance, that a stub on Golda Meir would be a Ukraine-bio-stub, and one on John McEnroe would be a Germany-bio-stub. John McCain's would of course be a Panama-bio-stub, and Freddie Mercury's would be a Tanzania-bio-stub. Going by place of birth ignores the areas they are most associated with - areas that often encompass a whole country rather than a specific subnational area. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "country of birth", I said "location of birth" and I was referring to sub-national regions as in the example above about George Andrews (footballer) having played for several UK teams. I thought that was made clear where I said "free agency of sports leagues". I agree the suggestions regarding John McCain, et al. are absurd. If his article were a stub and it would probably be an "arizona-bio-stub" (if said template exists and "arizona-politician-stub" doesn't). Sincere apologies for the confusion. — CharlotteWebb 13:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think state-level stubs are okay if the numbers exist to support them. I realize we don't generally categorize by sub-national divisions but if the numbers require it, why not? Individuals not strongly associated with a single state (or maybe two) would just be categorized under the country as normal. Powers T 13:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's probably the way we're heading. There has been strong resistance to the idea in the past though, so it was definitely worth mentioning as a potential problem. As I said, there are a few other US states that have their own bio-stubs though, so purely personally I don't think it's too much of a problem as long as it's kept monitored. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Brazil-scientist-stub}}/Category:Brazilian scientist stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, but seems a sensible scope for a template at least. Currently only a couple of stubs, so upmerging may be an option if that doesn't change drastically. Category also needs some work (no parents, a single article link as the description, etc). Grutness...wha? 01:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Brazil-scientist-stub is based on the French template. I thought, in creating the new template, that this would be standard across countries, and I did not know about the need for prior proposal. The parent category should be Brazilian scientists. With few exceptions, these biographies are stubs and need work. I can think of at least 30 top Brazilian biologists whose bios will have to start out as stubs until we can fill an Infobox scientist. --Wloveral (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)--Wloveral (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposals are useful (both to double-check that they are made properly - including things like adding parent categories - and also, how else are stub sorters to know what stub types to use?). Also, there are set thresholds for the number of stubs currently existing before a category is created - unless there is a specific WikiProject relating directly to brazilian scientists, the threshold is 60 stubs. If you can find 60 articles tha will fit the category, then all well and good; if not, it may need upmerging (i.e., keeping the template but pointing it at a more general category like Category:Scientist stubs unil the number of stubs grows). I've fixed the category with appropriate permcat and stubcat parents, BTW. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is upmerged it should be upmerged to Category:Brazilian people stubs and Category:Scientist stubs. Waacstats (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The highly diverse List of Brazilian scientists includes well over 60 Brazilian scientists who are notable but yet without biographies on Wikipedia. Many of the existing biographies of Brazilian scientists are, in fact, stubs, albeit without a proper Brazilian scientist-stub template. In due time, I would like to contribute biographies of Brazilian zoologists and reduce the red links on this list. --Wloveral (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC) corrected --Wloveral (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once they are made, there will be no problem having a stub category. Until there are, there is no indication that there are 60 stubs. Stub categories are created based on current need and current stub numbers - not on potential future numbers. Almost every soublecy theoretically could have 60 stubs created for it, but unless it actually has those stubs the category is just clutter. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How much time do I have to write 60 scientific biographies? There are already 19 on the "Category:Brazilian scientist stubs" page. Maybe by the end of the week... Cheers, --Wloveral (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Correction: we have 22. --Wloveral (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no immediate hurry - items often hang around here on the discovery page for some time. If there's no change in the category for a month or so, it's likely to be proposed for deletion at WP:SFD, but if it's clearly growing it'll be likely left here until it either stops growing or reaches threshold. Grutness...wha? 07:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the information. We are at 29. --Wloveral (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC). Correction: 44. --Wloveral (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC). Update: over 60! --Wloveral (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, it looks like a keeper. Good work :) Grutness...wha? 02:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{mil-memorial-stub}} & Category:Military memorials and cemeteries stubs

Doesn't appear in the Stubs category hierarchy. Found while looking for a generic cemetery stub template (which doesn't seem to exist, so not sure where in the hierarchy this should go). Powers T 14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Mobile-stub}} & {{Mobile}}

The former appears to have been unproposed, but is being used in a number of mobile phone related articles. It doesn't have its own category, instead it feeds Category:Wireless stubs. The latter seems to be a poorly worded and little used duplicate. PC78 (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawdy. I was sure those had been SFD'd, but I can find no sign of it (I may be getting confused with Category:Mobile, which I took to CFD a few months back). These both need sfd'ing, and the sooner the better, before we start getting stubs about Alabama piling up in them. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Actinopterygii-stub}} / Category:Actinopterygii stubs

Unproposed... I can definitely see the sense in this split, but it cuts across the current part-completed split of fish stubs. Actually, in some ways, this makes more sense than the current split, since splitting by class (rather than order, which is how the other splits have been done) makes for broader, larger categories. Something needs to be done one way or the other though... many of the stubs that would fit into this new stub type are already covered by the likes of characiformes-stub and its ilk. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, the reason I did it by class instead of order was because I had read somewhere once that a stub should be good for something like 250+ instances, and so I took the fishes I was wanting to stub with more than just {{fish-stub}} and took the deepest taxon I was sure I had seen hundreds of times, and made a stub out of that. As I mentioned on Grutness's talk page, let me know if I need to take any action to fix any problems this may have caused. Bob the Wikipedian, a WikiDragon (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reading what you wrote a bit closer, what you are saying makes sense. I didn't even realize I was doing cutting across the system, the appropriate thing to do would have been to create {{Acanthomorpha-stub}}, {{Alepisauriformes-stub}}, and {{Aspidorhynchiformes-stub}}, although Acanthomorpha contains 11 pages and won't expand much further, and Alepisauriformes is near its max at 2. Aspidorhynchiformes still has quite a ways to go and could probably qualify for its own stub. Bob the Wikipedian, a WikiDragon (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

56(!) new airport-stub templates and five new categories

The spring thaw must've got to CambridgeBayWeather... in the last 24 hours he's created unproposed {{Foo-airport-stub}} types for every country in Africa (including at least one unrecognised territory), plus five regional categories for them. Since we only had 450 or so African airport stubs, this seems like overkill, but at least the regional categories all scrape past the 60 stub threshold (in one case only just). On misnamed one, plus the unrecognised state one (Somaliland) have gone to SFD, but the rest can probably stay, I guess... full details are shown here. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Flevoland-geo-stub}} (upmerged)

Somehow this one got missed out when we were dividing the Dutch provinces out of Netherlands geography stubs. An editor has seen fit to correct that - a clear keeper, I'd say. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, March 2008

{{Oceania-university-stub}} / Category:Oceania university stubs

see under Vietnam, below. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{CentralAm-university-stub}} / Category:Central America university stubs

see under Vietnam, below. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Caribbean-university-stub}} / Category:Caribbean university stubs

see under Vietnam, below. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Vietnam-university-stub}} / Category:Vietnam university stubs

Unproposed, but looks well-formed and well-populated - though in one or two cases it looks like the new template has simply been added to an existing Vietnam-stub template rather than replacing it. A keeper, but the stubs themselves need tidying. Grutness...wha? 02:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the category and stub should stay. It definitely looks like a WP:AGF stub creation by a new editor (account created just hours ago @ 19:25, 25 March 2008). - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 07:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to think so, but since being informed of the proposal process, the same editor has created three more stub types, which I've listed above. All three of those are going to struggle to meet threshold, and two of them (the Caribbean and Central American ones) should almost certainly be upmerged as things currently stand. The oceania one has at least got child subtypes. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Estonia-Olympic-medalist-stub}} / Category:Estonian Olympic medalist stubs

Unproposed, but looks well-formed. The only concern is with the size, especially given that Estonia - even if you include its time competeing under the Soviet banner - has only won 72 Olympic medals. Some of those medals were in team sports like basketlall, though, so its conceivable this willc rfeep past the required 60 stub threshold. If it doesn't, it will need upmerging. So yet another case of "wait and see". Grutness...wha? 00:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully any articles relating to medal wnners under USSR would get a USSR-Olympic-medalist-stub. I think this one needs upmerging (to Estonia sportspeople and european Olympic medalists) and delete the cat. Waacstats (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Waacstats: all medalists 1908-1912 should be marked with Russia- and all 19552-1988 USSR-. 34 articles: delete category and upmerge. SeveroTC 11:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Arab-cuisine-stub}}

Along with three categories which I sent directly to SFD. Probably worth keeping as an upmerged template since someone bothered to create it. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly in keeping with the "by nationality" scheme, though things like cuisine do extend across entire cultural groups irrespective of national boundaries, so this is vaguely plausible, to say the least. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American jourrnalist stubs (years by decade)

We seem to have acquired a whole range of new stub categories of the formCategory:American journalist, 1950s birth stubs, for decades from the 1900s to the 1990s. Given the number of American journalist stubs currently about 770), it sems extremely unlikely that all - or even most - iof these will reach target, especially when you take into consideration how many of those journalists either were born in the 19th century or have an unlisted date of birth. These categories were never proposed, and certainly don't seem viable - all should be upmerged into the respective century categories for now, excluding any which can be shown to pass threshold. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the by birth date scheme is our last gasp and there exists the axis of Category:Journalists by type to break things down by e.g. {{US-tv-journalist-stub}} and {{US-sportswriter-stub}} that can be expanded, I'd much rather we exhausted that axis first. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that these were proposed by alai back in october with no complaints. Waacstats (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No comments of any kind, by the looks of it - that one really slipped under the radar (and because of the way the proposal was done, it didn't show up in "whatlinkshere", hence my thinking they hadn't been proposed). I still doubt more than a handful of these will reach threshold; upmerging looks like a sensible option for most of them. Grutness...wha? 12:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Poland-company-stub}}

It's listed at Category:European company stubs as a subcat, but the page at Category:Polish company stubs doesn't have the project banner or any header text (eg how to add the stubtype - to stubsort a Polish company I had to look at one of the articles to find the format). I see, looking more carefully, that it's noted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types/Commerce with a couple of others as "... all feed into this category" under "European company stubs". It has 49 members now. PamD (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template's legit - and has been around a couple of years. seems that someone acuired a category for it a couple of onths ago. It should still be upmerged. And whoever added the category decided to also add piping to ensure that all the stubs were jumbled haphazardly in the category. Unless a dozen more polish company stubs can be found, upmerging agin looks like a good option (I've fixed the piping, BTW). Grutness...wha? 09:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh - I hope my typing when fixing templates is better than my typing here! :/ Grutness...wha? 09:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ireland-railstation-stub}}

Unproposed, but seems to be reasonably ok, though it doesn't make it clear that it's for the Republic only - upmerged, but could have used better parent cats (which I've now given it). Grutness...wha? 01:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC) I created this as an Ireland railstation stub. Mainly used for Republic of Ireland, it can be used for Northern Ireland too, as i'm using "Ireland" as a term for the railways of the geographic island, rather than the political entities. This is because the Great Northern Railway of Ireland, the Sligo, Leitrim and Northern Counties Railway, the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway, the County Donegal Railways, the Clogher Valley Railway and the Clogher Valley Tramway, all existed as railways that crossed the UK/ROI border, i wanted to keep simplicity here, so i thought it silly to have some stations from a small tramway on one system, and another on the other system. It's a counterpart to the UK version, I'm perfectly happy to discuss anything, and would love to here back any good or bad criticism or feedback.I was also unaware of the method of creating stubs, but i know now.Halowithhorns89 (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Russia-politics-stub}}

Unproposed, but seems reasonable and (thankfully) upmerged, and conforms to stub naming and scope, as far as I can tell. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from {{Belarus-politics-stub}}, with appropriate changes for the name of the country, the links, and the map icon. Didn't know it had to be proposed first. Jwray (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, February 2008

Kosovo

As predicted, there's been a heap of movement on Kosovo in the last few days, with changes to {{Kosovo-geo-stub}} and {{Kosovo-bio-stub}}, plus the creation of {{Kosovo-stub}} and {{Kosovo-footy-bio-stub}} (as a redirect). These were all mooted in the last few days over at the proposal page, so no problem (although it was suggested that we hold off on the footy-bio- type for now. Ah well. )

What wasn't mooted was separate categories for them, and all of them are substantially undersized. Two of these were given separate categories (Kosovo stubs and Kosovo geography stubs), and a third was redlinked ready for "Kosovoar (sic) people stubs". I've repointed/upmerged the bio stubs and geo-stubs (sopeedying the geo category, since it was a recreation), but I've left the basic Category:Kosovo stubs. it's still undersized (only about 40 stubs), but in this instance we can probably turn a blind eye to that, since this one should grow pretty rapidly. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Baghdad-stub}} / Category:Baghdad stubs

Unproposed, and the only stub using it at the moment is one relating to the whole of Iraq. Category:Iraq stubs is well below the splitting level, and very few of the stubs in it relate solely to Baghdad (and Category:Iraq geography stubs is smaller yet, so there's no need for a Baghdad-geo-stub either). At a quick glance, an Iraq-stadium-stub, Iraq-history-stub or Iraq-party-stub would get to threshoild faster than this one. On the other hand, there is a WikiProject - but even then, this doesn't look likely to reach the required lowered threshold any time soon. Upmerging may be the best solution. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stub was created only yesterday, and I have not had a chance to tag articles with it. If you think I should have proposed it first, go ahead and do what you have to do. I will run it through proper channels in the future first. Thanks!

Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 14:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are now more than 70 articles that have been identified as Baghdad stubs by the WikiProject Iraq members, and they have been consequently tagged. Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 11:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks keepable now, then. BTW, bio-stubs aren't normally stubbed with anything smaller than a national-level stub type (people move around too much to easily get one specific city or subregion stub type. But even taking the handful of bio-stubs out you'd still have 60-odd stubs. Good work. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Echinoderm-stub}} / Category:Echinoderm stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion 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 keep


Unproposed, but looks pretty useful and already half-way to threshold. May need upmerging if it doesn't grow any further, but looks reasonable as things stand. Grutness...wha? 11:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of echinoderm stubs is astounding. Most of them are still categorized under Category:Invertebrate stubs, and some were categorized under Category:Aquatic Invertebrate stubs, but I have already put the tag on many echinoderm stubs. The term "invertebrate" is far too broad without subcategories (such as arthropod stubs and mollusc stubs, which already exist). (From the creator of the stub). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this template, plus a large number of other animal phylum stub templates has been proposed, because the invertebrate stubs are getting too large and unwieldy. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - fair enough. I'd missed the original proposal. As I said in my original comment on this, it looked likely that it's be useful and reach threshold, so there's not likely to have been much of a problem anyway. Grutness...wha? 21:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Japan-baseball-stub}} / Category:Japanese baseball stubs

Unproposed, and by a "repeat offender". Mind you, Borgarde's other Baeeball-related stub types have reached threshold, even though this one looks pretty thin on the ground. If it stays that way, upmerger again seems possible. Grutness...wha? 11:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Grutness's comment on my talk page, I'm starting to think that it's a good idea to create {{taiwan-baseball-stub}}, and {{korea-baseball-stub}}, and have them (as long as {{japan-baseball-stub}} feed into an asian-baseball-stub category. And then, if the category gets too large, broadening the categories might be appropriate. Does this seem ok? This is mainly because baseball topics regarding Asia in general are not suitable for the mainstream baseball-stub categories, as they are dominated by Major League Baseball and baseball in North America. --Borgardetalk 07:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, a more general Asian category makes sense, since it's likely to get to threshold level (60 stubs) far more easily. Having several upmerged templates would normally be handled at the proposal page, but if you get enough positive feedback here, then it would make sense to keep all the discussion in one place (the same group of people hang around on both pages). Anyone else got any comments, positive or otherwise? Grutness...wha? 08:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with having an asian-baseball-stub, but the Japanese bio one needs to stay. The Japanese league has hundreds of uncreated articles and has a lot of room for expansion. Yet alone is already big enough for it's own. --Borgardetalk 08:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you entirely understand my suggestion, which would be to hav separate templates for Japan, Korea and Taiwan, but to have them all feeding into one Asia category for now, until it's clear there are enough existing stubs for separate categories. The current 14 Japanese stubs isn't nearly enough for that. Stub sorting never works on the basis of the number of possible uncreated articles, or any subject would instantly be over the required threshold number of stubs. Grutness...wha? 22:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I understood that before, I said that in my initial reply to this stub finding. Do we have an agreement? --Borgardetalk 15:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it - you just confused me a bit referring to "asian-baseball-stub", which is a template name, not a category name. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and created the templates after this discussion. The category can be found at Category:Asian baseball stubs. --Borgardetalk 12:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good - will look better once it fills up to the required 60 stub level (soon, I hope!) Grutness...wha? 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Lancashire-school-stub}} etc

The list at WP:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Education only lists {{UK-school-stub}} and subtypes Buckinghamshire and London. The page at Category:United Kingdom school stubs says that there are 9 geog subcats but doesn't show the templates for the stubtypes. The page at Category:North West England school stubs does not show the templates either. It turns out that there are subdivisions of this, but the only way I found {{Lancashire-school-stub}} was by looking for a school name in Lancaster in that category and finding the stubtype. It seems a bit of a mess ... but is probably a deep political minefield which I should avoid! But it meant that my attempt to stubsort Lancaster and Morecambe College took a l-o-n-g time. (Even after I'd renamed the badly-titled article!). PamD (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Goat-stub}} / Category:Goat stubs

Unproposed, but seems a logical addition to the template stub types (escpecially now it's been fixed up a bit), though there may not be enough stubs to warrant the separate category (there are currently 29). May need upmerging if more aren't forthcoming. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to propose it before creation because I am new to the process (i.e. had no idea I should). I created this as an accompaniment to the preexisting {{sheep-stub}}. For context on the size, the sheep stub/cat also had relatively few articles, until I went about making sure all right stubs were tagged and created appropriate new ones for the category. I haven't had the chance yet to complete the work on the goat stubs, and will most likely be creating more than a few new ones. VanTucky 00:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When sheep-stub was proposed, it was clear there were going to be 60 currently-existing stubs that could take it, so it was approved on that basis; if there are 60 currently-existing stubs on goats, then it's unlikely anyone will object to the category - same if you're fairly quick about making any new stubs to get it to that level. If it stays at this sort of population for too long, though, upmerging it remains a probability. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. Just as a portrait of how expansion might go, this state university animal science dept. list of goat breeds is accurate. VanTucky 20:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that although 60 is touted as the number most places at /Proposals it actually says 30 if the stub type has a WikiProject. Goat falls under WikiProject Agriculture, where both it's creation and the failure to propose it were discussed. Also, I agree with VanTucky that there is undertagging and several articles that need to be created in this area which will bring the numbers up. VanTucky has been doing a lot of great work in this area and can be counted on to find the untagged stubs and create the needed articles. I support the need for this tag to remain, including the cat, which helps the Project find species specific stubs to work on.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30 is the threshold for a WikiProject's basic stub template. In other words, the threshold for {{agriculture-stub}} is 30, since the wikiproject is WP:Agriculture. For {{goat-stub}} to have a threshold of 30 there would need to be a WikiProject Goats. As for remaining, what generally happens on the discussion page is that things are left here for a while, to see whether there is any apparent growth in the category size. If it gets to 60 in the next month or two, then it's very likely to be kept. If it shows no sign of getting close to that target, it is likely to be taken to WP:SFD for upmerging. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. The header on WP:WSS/P doesn't make this particularly clear - I've amended it to make it more explicit. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Feminist-stub}}

Unproposed, and currently useless, as it has no category or redlink. Also largely redundant with {{Fem-activist-stub}} - best case scenario might be to widen the scope of one to cover both, then delete/redirect the other. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my mistake. I didn't realize {{Fem-activist-stub}} existed. This was an error whilst helping to get the Feminism Task Force rolling. – Scartol • Tok 01:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Tamil-stub}} (redlink) and {{Dravidian-stub}} (redlink)

Both created unproposed by the same user yesterday. Only one of them seems to be in much use yet (Tamil-stub), but if that is anything to go by this is going to have severe scope problems, since it seems to have been used for templates, people, and also simply places with large Tamil populations. The latter in particular is a major concern, since these stubs have very little if anything to do with the Tamil religion per se (it would be akin to adding a Catholic-stub to any articles on places in Italy). No objection to the templates if they can be scoped sensibly and not used for any old thing tenuously linked to these religions, but as they stand they are a mess and likely to become more so. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tamil-stub has now acquired a category, which makes it clear just how much off a mix-n-match assortment of items this category contains. Deletion is looking more andmoreprobablee as the beest solution here. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon my intrusion, I am not an expert on this subject, but I noticed you refer to "the Tamil religion" and seem to be assuming that is the purpose of the tag. I believe Tamil and Dravidian are East Indian langauage dialects in which case there could be many articles which would not have anything to do with a particular religion. -- Low Sea (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Languages are already comprehensively split by language family, and many of the articles that were given these stub templates were clearly aimed at religious rather than linguistic subjects, hence the comment. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{color-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 list on WP:STUBS

Listed at Category:Optics stubs, but not at WP:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types/Science#Physical_sciences - is that OK, or should it be explicit on the stubtype list? PamD (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this one's been around a long time, so there's no reason it isn't on the big list. It may have been put into another section somewhere (like art stubs or miscellaneous), but it should also be under optics. Grutness...wha?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Anarchist-stub}} / Category:Anarchist stubs

Unproposed, though of a reasonably sensible scope, perhaps (many "anarchists" are actually part of political movements which already have stub types; others are better covered by yet further stub types). Coding on the template has been fixed. Main problem is likely number of articles - this may not reach threshold, especially given the fact that Category:Anarchism stubs is nowhere near the level we'd normally consider splitting it (only about 230 stubs). Having said, that, quite a number of the articles in Category:Anarchism stubs are about activists, so this may be worthwhile, even if only as an upmerged template. Grutness...wha? 02:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unfamiliar with this forum's attitudes toward !voting, but as the stub's creator, I would like to address a few points.
  1. "Many anarchists are..." etc is an assertion that would need a lot of citation in order to be taken seriously.
  2. Per WP:STUB, the guideline threshold for a new stub category is 60 articles. Category:Anarchist stubs currently has 13, while the no-doubt-incomplete Category:Anarchism stubs has at a quick glance 80+ articles on anarchists which have yet to be added. Category:Stub-Class Anarchism articles contains articles on anarchists not included in either group. So this new stub category obviously meets Wikipedia's guideline threshold for number of articles, its alleged "main problem". Furthermore, the remaining non-biographical articles of Category:Anarchism stubs would also number more than 60, and the category is the main stub category of the Anarchism task force (more active and with a larger scope than many WikiProjects), so it is not the case that the new stub category renders the old one trivial or of little use
  3. The implied argument that this category is redundant with other categories of say, activists, theorists, political movementarians is plausible enough for those unfamiliar with anarchism. Take a random sample of 30 anarchist biographies from the above categories and you will see very quickly that anarchists do not at all fit neatly into the other categories. Anarchists are among the most divergent and splittist out there; some deride activism, others vaunt direct action, others still would rather just rent it for a small fee. The point is, the only thing these individuals, and thus their biographies, share is a commitment to anarchism. Attempting to divide them otherwise would be an unfortunate folly.
  4. As far as I can see, this stub category meets all 6 criteria of WP:STUB: novel, well-defined, non-redundant, sufficiently populated, non-overlapping and significantly reducing the number of stubs in the overcategory. Yet these arguments are all secondary to the main question, which is does this improve the encyclopedia? The whole point of this Wikiproject is to draw attention to stub articles so that they may be improved. Creating an Anarchists stub category brings biographies to the attention of the Anarchism task force, a plurality of whose new articles are biographies. The point of creating this was so that we could easily navigate between anarchist biography stubs, something neither Category:Anarchists nor Category:Stub-Class Anarchism articles allow us to do. Deleting this template/category, aside from breaching the WikiProject's own guidelines, would make it more difficult to improve anarchist stubs and thus undermine the very purpose of the project's existence. скоморохъ 13:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on a better toolbox for editing basis Lord Metroid (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Keep per Skomorokh. Murderbike (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Some of you seem to be under the impression that this is a listing for deletion. It is not.

This is a listing page for new stub discoveries which have not gone through Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting's pre-creation vetting process. if this was proposed for deletion it would be at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. Please do not consider his a place for voting keep or delete, since such matters are not handled here. Please read the details at the head of this page for information about what this page is for. Skomorokh, please read my initial notification to you. At no point did I say this was to be deleted, or was even nominated for deletion, and in fact all of my comments have indicated reasons why keeping it is a preferable option. The only concern I have mentioned is that of size - a valid reason why the template might need to be upmerged.

If it was very likely that not all of the criteria could be met, then this would have been nominated for deletion. It has not been - this page is primarily to inform stub sorters of another unproposed stub type which now has to be assessed to see if it will work within the stub-sorting hierarchy. As my initial comments indicate, i think that this is likely, though some doubt remains as to the size, mainly because it will either not have enough stubs for a stand-alone category or will reduce its parent to the point where it will not have enough to be a stand alone category. this is the reason why stub categories are usually not split until there are 600-800 stubs in them (not, as in this case, when they reach about 230). If this is the case then it does not improve the encyclopedia, instead making the task for both editors and stub-sorters harder. This is a primary rule of WP:WSS, and therefore if this stub type were to be deleted, it would be because of, not in spite of, its guidelines. In any case, were this situation to arrive, the template would likely be retained, upscoped into the parent, until such time that both categories were viable. Grutness...wha? 21:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are overreacting slightly - the "current priorities" subsection of WP:ATF is just where we notify interested editors of articles whose status has been, or may changed (new, good, deleted, discussed); I didn't mention deletion here, you did. I simply offered some counterpoints to yours, and justifications for keeping the template/category in their current form. The parent category would still be larger than the subcategory, although both would likely have 100-200 entries until we successfully tagged all stubs in Category:Anarchism. Regards, скоморохъ 11:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your response to my notification that the stub was listed here was to talk (on your user talk page) of "your pet pseudo-authoritative court" and a "kangaroo court", so perhaps I'm not the one overreacting. As for me being the first to mention deletion, that would be when you added Note: This article has been listed as an Anarchism Task Force template for deletion. - after which there seem to be a lot of people making !votes for "Keep", something not appropriate to this discussion. It was for that reason that I needed to clarify things, since those !voting "keep" clearly don't know what this page is for. Other than that, I simply clarified the points in my original listing, since if those other commenters didn't know what this page was for, they probably also didn't know why the stub type would be listed here in the first place. Hardly an overreaction. Grutness...wha? 22:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{water-sports-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 list on WP:STUBS

This stub cat exists, with 179 entries, but I can't find it on the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Sports. I found it eventually while trying to stubsort Painter (rope). (If there's anywhere more appropriate for stuff about a part of a boat, I couldn't find it!) I'm new to stubsorting, but am enjoying the intriguing puzzles. PamD (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was proposed and accepted properly back in 2006, but apparently was never added to the list, which does happen sometimes. I'll get it and the other two added to the list shortly. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Cuttlefish-stub}} / Category:Cuttlefish stubs

Yet another new type created without proposal by User:Jourdy288 - his third in the last two months :(. This one's a potentially useful template, but there's no indication that a category would get close to threshold. There are currently fewer than 250 otherwise unsubcategorised cephalopod stubs, so it's hardly in need of splitting. Furthermore, the category has no parents, permcat or stubcat. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, January 2008

Category:Drogheda Stub

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

No template, malformed, uncategorized, created yesterday. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Tampa-stub}}

Template is tagged as uncategorized. No category "Tampa stubs". —Leo Laursen ( T ¦ C ) 16:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly, it's been around for over a year. In that time, it's got roughly half-way to threshold, and contains anout 30 geo-stubs and 5 struct-stubs. If this was a county-geo-stub, then I'd suggest upmerging it. it isn't, and there are existing county-geo-stubs/struct-stubs which could do all of the work done by this stub type. So there doesn't seem much point in keeping this one. Grutness...wha? 22:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Granada-geo-stub}} / Category:Granada province geography stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 list on WP:STUBS

Unpropoised, though possibly useful - Category:Andalusia geography stubs is getting pretty full, and there seems to be a Grenada WikiProject. Currently used by 25 stubs. However... the category name (and, for that matter, its permcat parent's name) are a bit of a problem. The parent article is at Granada (province), and both the permcat and stubcat should really follow the same pattern. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is very useful. I have copied of other provinces, as {{Albacete-geo-stub}}, {{Burgos-geo-stub}}, {{León-geo-stub}}, {{Soria-geo-stub}}, {{Valladolid-geo-stub}}, etc. I'm sorry, I do not speak very well English. Satesclop 19:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Zimbabwe-hist-stub}}, {{Nigeria-hist-stub}} / Category:Zimbabwe history stubs, Category:Nigeria history stubs

Unproposed and the categories are improperly named. I sincerely doubt these categories can be filled, though I'd guess Zimbabwe is much more likely. I suggest upmerge --Thomas.macmillan (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did mess up with the naming - is there any way to move them to the correct title? I believe the categories can be filled. Jose João (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As is normal in these sorts of cases, yes, renaming is possible, and if you can get them to 60 stubs all well and good. If they don't get to 60, though, upmerging (keeing the tempates but moving the articles to a more general category) is the likely outcome. BTW, although you haven't mader this mistake yet, it's worth remembering while trying to get to 60 stubs that biographical stubs are not normally considered as history stubs (everyone notable has made some kind of mark on history, and it makes more sense to categorise them as bio-stubs). Sincer enaming can be done at any time, it's probably worth trying to populate these categories first. I've started movingg a few more Nigerian ones across to the new category, BTW. Grutness...wha? 05:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe is now up to 63, so a simply renaming is in order. I still doubt Nigeria.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found only 25 stubs that qualify as Nigeria-related, so I guess up-merging is in order. However, I oppose renaming either the categories or these stubs. The parent stub, Africa-hist-stub, refers to the place, not the people. "Burkina Faso", for example, is much easier to remember and is better known than Burkinabé. Jose João (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While that is no doubt true (and there are worse than Burkinabé), the standard form (and that used for almost all history by current nation splits) is to use the adjectival form. I say almost all, since for some reason we have Belarus history stubs (which should also be renamed, surely). Grutness...wha? 07:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change my recommendation for Zimbabwe-hist-stub to an upmerging, as the articles previously tagged have been redirected to larger articles on the decades.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Africa-road-stub}} / Category:Africa road stubs

Unproposed, but well-formed and with a natuiral subcat. There were minor probleems with the category, but they were easily fixed. The number of stubs seems pretty sparse. Unfortunately, if kept (rather than upmerged) the articles included will need some work - the creator of it has added the new stub type but not removed the former {{Road-stub}} for the articles! Grutness...wha? 00:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't, in fact, create this — the category already existed; the only thing that wasn't already in place was the actual template. Since the normal practice here is that a template can be created without an accompanying category, but a category cannot be created without an accompanying template, all I did was fill in the missing gap on something that already existed. Just $0.02 for the pot. Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for accusing you of making the category. FWIW, what you mention is not actually normal practice - there are quite a few stub castegories designed as "parent only" categories, without templates (e.g., Category:Americas geography stubs). Where this has been done, if a template is created later it's still usually proposed first. In any case, this does seem like a useful template to have, it's the numbers that are a worry. It actually looks like in this particular case someone decided to create an unproposed category separately about two months ago, and it was never noticed here (a daily scan is done of new templates, but not of new categories). Given the method of creation, it may well be that whoever made the category has hand-added the category to the articles, which will be a pain if true. Given the size of the category, it may well still need upmerging. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of the articles being added to the category by hand rather than template. Am now sorting Category:Road stubs to see how many more Africa road stubs might be there. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just gone through Category:Algeria stubs and the equivalent top level stub cats for Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, and Benin. If ther're anything to go by, there are few if any road stubs hiding in the individual nation stub categirues. Grutness...wha? 05:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The existing South African stub subcategory seems to account for the majority, yes. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finished sorting and it is now up to 21 stubs plus the South Africa cat. I'd say keep an on it for now, although South America is far closer to meeting the standard for a category of its own (a little over 50 stubs) than Africa is. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Trilobite-stub}} / Category:Trilobite stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, but well-formed and well populated. Could do with better parent cats, though. Grutness...wha? 20:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Yamaguchi-rail-station-stub}} (upmerged)

Well-formed, but unproposed. At least it's upmerged. Grutness...wha? 20:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This stub was created for Yamaguchi Prefecture following what was already done for Hiroshima and Hyogo Prefectures (the Japan-rail-station-stub category has more than 10 stubs of this type for other prefectures). Yamaguchi Prefecture has about 150 rail stations operated by JR West, and more by others, so a separate stub for Yamaguchi should be palatable. --Apiquinamir 10:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of stations is irrelevvant - the number of existing stubs is far more relevant. Given that this is upmerged, however, it does seem reasonable. It'd be interesting to know how you expected stub sorters to use it without letting them know that such a template was planned, however. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Pakistan-history-stub}} / Category:Pakistani history stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 take to sfr

Unproposed, but looks well formed in all regards. Problem is whether it will reach threshold. If not, upmerging mat be necessary. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Algeria-company-stub}} / Category:Algerian company stubs

Unproposed, well-formed, but likely to remain woefully-far below threshold - the permcat parent and all its subcategories only have 21 companies between them, and even if they were all stubs and all the redlinks at List of Algerian companies had stubs written for them, the category still wouldn't get to 60. Unless there's a sudden burst of activity on the Algerian stub front, upmerging seems the most reasonable option. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{SriLanka-hist-stub}} / Category:Sri Lankan history stubs

Appeared ever so briefly on the Proposals page, vanished, and was then created by the same user. Correctly formed (I think), but not sure if it's necessary -- too soon to tell. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentatively, I'd keep it - for now at least. It's already garnered 30-odd stubs. If it doesn't get to threshold it can always be upmerged, though the category doesn't indicate what to yet (only one stubcat parent, no permcat parents...) Grutness...wha? 05:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Motorcycle-racing-stub}} and {{Motorcycle-racing-bio-stub}}

Two new unproposed creations, both seem at first to be reasonably scoped and eminently populable, though neither of them currently has a category (something which would need to be fixed if these are kept. Both are currently redlinked, though one of those links is to a highly inappropriate name). Major problem is, though, that we already had categories for these: Category:Motorcycle sport stubs and Category:Motorcycle sport biography stubs, with appropriate templates, both of which are now virtually empty. We clearly don't need both, and the longstanding one was designed to have the wider scope. As such, there's really no need for the new ones. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created both the new stubs to move the articles from the scope of the general Motorcycling WikiProject to the scope of it's newly formed Motorcycle Racing WikiProject child project that is dedicated to motorcycle racing. Also Motorcycle racing is a more appropriate name since that is the name of both the Motorcycle Racing WikiProject and the Motorcycle racing Portal. Chris Ssk talk 11:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also regarding the scope of each stub. Googling "Motorcycle sport" returned me about 108,000 results, googling "Motorcycle racing" returned about 2,860,000 results. Even though "motorcycle sport" may sound like covering a wider scope in reality its not a very widely used term. Chris Ssk talk 15:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The usage of the term is largely irrelevant - the fact is that motorcycle sport (however widely the term is used) covers a slightly greater topic area than simply motorcycle racing, but only slightly wider. By taking motorcycle racing stubs out of that category, you have basically rendered the motorcycle sport category useless for the purposes of stub sorting (there is a standard threshold for stub categories that it no longer meets, by a fairly substantial margin. If it is removed, however, there becomes a problem with the handful of remaining stubs which aren't covered by the new stub type. That is the reason why at present it is highly unlikely that a proposal for this new stub type would have been approved. There was no reason to split motorcycle sport stubs by dint of that category's size, and any downscoping of the category would have been detrimental to stub sorting. As to creating the new stub type because of your new WikiProject, that doesn't negate going through the proposal process - as is pointed out in the WikiProject creation template {{WikiProject}}. Grutness...wha? 22:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles under the sport-bio category appear to be racers. I see no reason not to move these over to racing-bio and delete the sport versions (which I created) as they would probably be unused. Waacstats (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, September 2007

{{San Francisco-stub}} (no category)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 list on WP:STUBS

Only used on less than 20 articles, no category and the name doesn't conform with the naming system. Valentinian T / C 16:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dollars to doughnuts its mixing geo-stubs, bio-stubs and general stubs, too. Doesn't look at all helpful. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm - no geos, but yes, there are bios in there. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category actually does exist now: Category:San Francisco stubs, and it's got 45 articles in it. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Herefordshire-school-stub}} / Category:West Midlands school stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 cat renamed

Unproposed, newly created stub template and category. While the template appears in line with other similar types made, there are major problems with the category, since it is for West Midlands region, whereas most stub categories starting "West Midlands" are for the county. At the very least, this category will need a rename to something that will not cause later confusion - possibly to Category:West Midlands Region school stubs. Grutness...wha? 22:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realise that stubs needed to be agreed before being created. It looked like an obvious omission to me and was in line with the set up for other counties and regions. ~ Scribble Monkey 08:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you're not the only one - there are now new templates for Warwickshire schools and West Midlands schools. The latter just emphasises the problem with the category name though (which would have been pointed out if there had been the proposal - that's why there's a proposal process, to stop problems like that developing. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just following on from the Herefordshire template to attempt to get the Coventry & Warwickshire schools in the correct category. Did not know there was a process for these templates to go through. It seem sensible for all of the areas to have templates putting the schools in their regions category rather than the top level UK School stubs category. Keith D 08:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, although you could argue that the each county should have its own category and then they should all be included in the regional one. ~ Scribble Monkey 11:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably we should create templates for Shropshire, Staffordshire and Worcestershire too? I take your point about the West Midlands category being ambiguous, although you could equally argue that all the county ones should be renamed "West Midlands (county)" to be in line with the article. ~ Scribble Monkey
Templates would make some sense (as long as they follow standard naming - comparing the equivalent geo-stubs will sort out the odd ones), but definitely not separate categories yet - most counties wouldn't pass the standard stub-sorting threshold at present. Once they do, proposing separate categories should go without hassle, but for now the regional categories are good enough. As for renaming the county categories, that's something that could be proposed at WP:SFD, but we tend to follow the permanent categories, and Category:West Midlands is for the county. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes sense. What's the process for proposing the creation of the new templates? ~ Scribble Monkey 08:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Head to this page's partner page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, and follow the instructions at the top of the page. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the regional splits are pretty well-established by now, and we could cry "speedy" to all remaining upmerged templates. (I've just been creating them piecemeal as size demands.) Alai 03:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Moldova-singer-stub}} / Category:Moldovan singer stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 upmerge

Well-formed, but never proposed and seemingly unlikely to reach threshold any time soon (Category:Moldovan people stubs has fewer than 75 stubs in total, many of which are about footballers). Upmerging seems the best option, unless this is populated to threshold somehow. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of Moldovan singers not generally known; for example former O-Zone band members. Therefore, stub will be needed sooner or later. Petramis 06:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sooner or later, sure... but for all we know it may not be until much later. That's the reason stub categories are only made when there are sixty existing stubs that can use it - as mentioned at WP:STUB and at the top of WP:WSS/P. If there aren't, it becomes simply added clutter and actually impedes editing. also, since the basic Moldovan people stubs category has only about 75 stubs, there is no need to fragment it with subcategories - if by some chance 60 of them were singers, and therefore the singer category could reach threshold, the base category would then be far too small. Grutness...wha? 06:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Colombia-writer-stub}} / Category:Colombian writer stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 upmerge

Well-formed, but never proposed and seemingly unlikely to reach threshold (it currently has one stub. The unsubcategorised Category:South American writer stubs has only about 85 articles, and Category:Colombian writers and all its subcats have even fewer than that). The {{Colombia-bio-stubs are hardly in need of splitting, either (about 250 articles). Upmerging seems the best option, unless this is populated to threshold somehow. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Touringcar-stub}}

Non-proposed template for touring car racing with no category (not even a redlink). Possibly a keeper (with some obvious quick work needed to fix a category), upmerged at least. The name strikes me as less than perfect, but I can't think of a better alternative. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Squid-stub}} / Category:Squid stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 keep

Looks well-formed and well-populated, but it would have been nice if the creator of this had let us know (not the first time with this editor, either, so it's not like s/he's unaware of WP:WSS/P...) Grutness...wha? 00:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S/he/it did use WP:WSS/P; see here. A bit precipitate, perhaps, but apparently useful. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - fair enough, I must've missed that discussion. Looks like a keeper anyway. Grutness...wha? 03:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Turkey-musician-stub}} / Category:Turkish musician stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 keep

Well-formed, logical split - in terms of scope, if not size. Currently has only a couple of stubs. Needs either populating or upmerging. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

70+ now. Keep Valentinian T / C 20:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Amphibian stub discoveries

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 keep

The following were not listed, but exist:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by EncycloPetey (talk • contribs)

They were approved here; they are all listed properly in the "science" portion of the stubs list. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Reptile stub discoveries

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 keep

The following were not listed, but exist:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by EncycloPetey (talk • contribs)

They are listed properly in the "science" portion of the stubs list. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

By-county Romanian geo-stub split

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 list on WP:STUBS

Templates have been created for a load of Romanian counties, all upmerged. Can't find any sign of debate on it, but it seems like a good move - the Romania geography stubs category is pretty full (8 pages). "Plaintext" (non-0diacvritical) redirects may be useful for some of these. Grutness...wha? 03:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Australia-radio-station-stub}} / Category:Australian radio station stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 keep

Unproposed creation, with potential for being seriously undersized. Possibly a case of wait and see, and if it doesn't get to a viable threshold, upmerging. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies on the lack of proposal. This stub is already up to 30 articles and that will grow significantly as I continue cleaning out the generic radio-station-stub category. Again, sorry about the presumption. I'll be sure to go through the process next time. - Dravecky 03:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to follow up, after a sweep of radio-station-stub and Australia-bcast-stub there are now 88 unique article stubs properly using this stub. That number may go up a bit as I continue to comb through categories as part of the Radio Stations project. - Dravecky 06:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
88 is well above the usual threshold for a separate stub category (60), and it does look to be a reasonable way to split these (paralleling similar nation-station types (hm... nice rhyme), so this looks like a likely keeper. Grutness...wha? 09:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{HongKong-band-stub}} / Category:Hong Kong musical group stubs

Continuing the trend of Hong Kong having more undersized and unproposed stub types per square foot than anywhere else on the planet, we have this one. I'd recommend upmerging on size, or since we don't normally sort bands by location, outright deletion. Alai 00:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Irish maritime-stub}} / Category:Irish maritime stubs

Badly-named template, very small population. There's a wikiproject. Closest permcat would be Category:Water transport in Ireland. Alai 23:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It certainly can't surivive with that name, and the scope seems a little vague, to say the least. Perhaps a differently scoped Ireland-water-stub would be useful (and shouldn't water-stub be renamed to sometyhing a little clearer like ship-stub?) Grutness...wha? 01:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, July 2007

Category:Massachusetts government stubs

Very small; upmerger to the proposed state government stubs would seem logical. Alai 04:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same one listed on this page waaay back in December? If it is, it's had well and truly long enough to get to threshold... Grutness...wha? 09:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same one (didn't notice that because I only checked whatlinks to the cat, not the template...). Alai 18:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Omed-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 renamed and kept

Probably a fairly useful upmerged template, but oh the name! If - like me - you haven't a clue what an omed is, this is for osteopathic medicine. Probably a keeper, but with a new name (Osteopathy-stub would be good). Grutness...wha? 01:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for educating me a bit on how this process works. One thing to initiate the discussion, osteopathy does not equal osteopathic medicine.OsteopathicFreak 01:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about {{Osteo-med-stub}}, then? Would that cover it better? As I said, as an upmerged stub type it sounds quite a reasonable split, so the main thing (at least IMHO) is changing the current unintuitive name. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{Osteo-med-stub}} sounds great to me! Can I go ahead and edit the template and start using that? Or is there a process I should wait for first? OsteopathicFreak 02:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd wait a couple of days - just in case someone objects or comes up with a better idea. I must admit I don't know the hierarchy of med stubs that well, it could be that osteopathic medicine is better covered by an existing stub. if no-one objects, though, go ahead and move it (note also that WP:WSS practice is that the older, non-convention-compliant name will be deleted rather than used as a redirect once it's been orphaned). Grutness...wha? 13:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Various R&B/Soul stub types

Seems that User:Eduemoni has been busy in the last 24 hours, unfortunately. We have a crop of new stubs for R&B and soul music, and there seem to be some inexplicable changes to some long-standing stub types, too. The new types are:

There also seem to have been some changes at {cl|R&B song stubs}} and {cl|R&B album stubs}} which need attention.

The problems? Well, all of these categories are recursive, feeding into themselves. Two of the new stub types concatenate two completely different styles of music, styles which have started to be split separately (hence the earlier R&B song and album stub types). One of the categories goes against convention by using the term "group" rather than b"band", another has questionable capitalisation. In the case of Category:Rhythm and blues stubs, I've no objection to the category, but as a parent only - the template seems redundant, since the vast majority (if not all) of stubs relating to this form of music will be in one of the subcategories. Oh, and on a related topic, I note that the song stub type uses the older form of name ("RnB", and probably needs changing. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those various R&B/Soul stub templates

Were made to fit the scoupe of the by-then revived Wikiproject R&B and Soul Music, I didn't changed other templates that already pointed to Soul music, like the {{RnB-song-stub}}. And, why didn't the cat Hip hop group stubs took this convention? Eduemoni↑talk↓ 03:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sorry, I got the convention the wrong way round. But the problems remain with these templates and categories - the double scope of two associated but distinct musical styles is impractical, the reason for having a parent template at R&B-stub is still a mystery, and the capitalisation of the bio-stub category is incorrect. And also, having a WikiProject doesn't automatically mean that it is useful to have a stub type for use across Wikipedia. having a WikiProject-specific banner template is far more practical in most cases. Grutness...wha? 05:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These musical styles aren't distinct at all, they have such a connection, even harder to detect than the one between hip hop and R&B. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 17:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting thought, but not one supported by Rhythm and blues, Contemporary R&B or Soul music, each of which gives a quite clear distinction. Soul music could best be described as a subgenre of R&B - as clearly noted in the permanent category hierarchy, which puts Category:Soul music as a subcat of Category:Rhythm and blues music genres. All of which suggests that having the word "soul" as part of these stub templates and categories is redundant, since soul is rgarded as a specific form of R&B. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems accurate to me. It would be harmless to include "soul" in the scoping text, if really necessary, but these names and scopes are a mess. I suggest renaming to RnB/R&B (finessing distinction with redirects), upmerging where there's a lack of population, and deleting where this duplicates an existing type. Alai 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{HongKong-album-stub}} / Category:Hong Kong album stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 list on WP:STUBS

New and unproposed. Currently has 24 stubs, but the size of the permcat parent (78 articles in total) makes it look as if it's unlikely to get to the required 60-stub threshold any time soon. Looks like a text-book upmerge candidate... Grutness...wha? 09:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With a little time to populate the stub category, it'll have at least 60 stubs. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub category has now been populated with 92 articles at the time of this comment. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it's almost certainly OK. I've given it the other required parent categories. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we generally split by genre and release decade, rather than by country of origin, the main exception being Japan. Is Hong Kong a sufficiently distinct market to be another such exceptional case? Alai 15:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. The music produced there is consumed all over the Greater China Area, as well as by Overseas Chinese all over the world. One thing that makes the HK music industry unique is that it is (to the best of my knowledge) the only industry that produces Cantonese-language music. One of the motivations for me tagging these articles specifically as "Hong Kong album stubs" is for us over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Hong Kong to find which articles need development, and most of the articles on albums produced in Hong Kong so far seem to be either stubs or otherwise need expansion. Also there is talk over at WikiProject China about possibly starting a new taskforce specifically for Chinese music[1], so I think this stub template and the associated category are definitely helpful. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the rationale is largely WPJ-driven, a talk page "stub class article" category might be the better solution. If the marketplace is "Greater China", wouldn't something along the lines of "Chinese albums stubs" (scoped either geographically or linguistically) be a more generally useful type? It's not terrible, but it's cross-cat enough that prior discussion would have been a sensible step (which it is in general, come to that). Alai 15:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I didn't mean to convey that it was some WikiProject-based initiative to create stub these articles, but I mentioned the Hong Kong WikiProject because it's a group of editors interested in editing HK-related topics. What I should have said was that my motivation was for editors interested in editing Hong Kong-related topics to know that they are HK-album stubs - it wasn't just for the benefit of those who specifically joined the Hong Kong WikiProject. The Hong Kong stubs category is badly in need of sub-categorising as it is, and I didn't want to just throw a whole bunch of articles into that category when they clearly form their own subset. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{biotech-stub}} / Category:Biotechnology stubs

Created in April 2006, 47 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Whisky-stub}} / Category:Whisky stubs

Created with the edit summary "Well, we have wine stubs and beer stubs, so why not?". The main reason is, of course, size - there are hundreds of beer and wine stubs, but I can find little evidence looking through Category:Drink stubs of the required 60 stubs on whisky - even if you include whiskey (another problem, sinc this category presumably is intended to cover Irish and Bourbon as well as Scotch). An upmerged template is probably a reasonable idea, but unless its populatable from existing stubs, I don't see any call for a separate category. Perhaps it would be worth splitting out the spirits in general, though... Grutness...wha? 01:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{CBC-stub}} / Category:Canadian Broadcasting Corporation stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed discovery today. It has 50 stubs, which is almost up to the threshold, but we rarely split mass media stubs by company (and have deleted several similar ones in the past, such as ABC-stub and NBC-stub), since it crosses the hierarchy, including TV and radio stations and programmes. May need watching, at the evry leasy, but it's likely to be less than helpful overall. Grutness...wha? 03:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Mexico-university-stub }} / Category:Mexican university stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 upmerged to university stubs & Mexico stubs

Unproposed, and no real sign of it reaching threshold any time soon. No objection to an upmerged template, but it's fill or delete as far as the category goes. And if it stays, it will need to be formatted! Grutness...wha? 02:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! It didn't even occur to me when I was going through the WP:UNI page today that my edit was creating a new stub (though I suppose it should have, duh). It was redlinked in a list of other stubs, so I just opened it up, copied and pasted from another stub, and saved it. You guys do whatever you need to with it. I don't have any feelings one way or the other. :) Esrever 03:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a related topic: Category:Mexico education stubs seems to be very small and shouldn't it have been "Mexican ..." ? Valentinian T / C 16:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Vojvodina-politician-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 redirected to Serbia-politician-stub

Unproposed, and hardly necessary since there are only 75 stubs on Serbian politicians overall. Mostly harmless, I suppose, since it's upmerged - although if it sets a precedent for splitting Serbian politicians by region it may prove messy further south... Grutness...wha? 01:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting by national subdivision is not my favourite cup of tea, although the U.K. material is indeed split this way. I'm moderately negative towards this one, but I don't think it'll cause any actual harm. We should avoid templates for Kosovo until the situation there clears up. Leaving the political / NPOV issue aside, the Kosovo material is far below the size threshold. Valentinian T / C 15:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody! Sorry but I didn't know that I should propose the creation of a new stub. I have made this stub to avoid ambiguity. In Eastern Europe national identity is usualy equal to ethnical identity. Because of that if someone said that someone is a Serbian-Hungarian person people in Serbia would think that his or her father is an ethnic Serb and his or her mother is an ethnic Hungarian person. And to say that someone is a Serbian-Croatian or a Croatian-Serbian is more risky than to say Vojvodina-Serbian or Vojvodina-Croatian. So I thought that would be a good idea to put these people into two stub-cathegories. One should refer to the region where they live and another should refer to the ethnicity (or nationality) of the person. About Kosovo: Don't you find ridiculous that all politicians from Kosovo is categegorised as European politicians? This is I think the total political paralysis. Most of them are ethnic Albanians from Serbia. The best solution of this problem would be a Kosovo politician stub. AND MY FINAL PRO ARGUMENT: IF THERE ARE NON-STUB VOJVODINA AND KOSOVO POLITICIAN CATHEGORIES WHY DO YOU FIND MAKING STUB ONES A BAD IDEA?--HunTheGoaT 17:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to take your three points separately - first, as far as stub categories are concerned, national and regional boundaries is all: we don't divide people by ethnicity. A "Serbian politician" is one who is a politician within Serbia or who was born in Serbia. The same thing applies to other biography stub subtypes, too. As such - to answer your second comment - Kosovan politicians, since they are politicians within part of Serbia - should be marked with Serbia-politician-stub. That they are not is due to edit-warring on those articles - the only solution which all sides could afgree on was that these politicians were European. technically, they should be marked with Serbia-politician-stub, but if anyone was to change the template on the articles, I would guarantee that other editors would change it straight back. This brings use to the third point. Permanent categories are added to articles by literally adding the category. Stubs are added by template. As we have found in the past, some stub templates are susceptible to edit wars, and edit wars on templates have far wider ramifications than edit wars on articles, as they can affect large numbers of articles at any one time. We used to have a simple Kosovo-stub, and it caused an immense amount of problems due to edit wars. For that reason, we don't have stub templates relating to either countries that are not internationally recognised or regions of countries where those regions are undergoing likely constitutional change. If and when a permanent agreement is reached on the future of Kosovo, either as part of Serbia or independent from it, Kosovo stub types will be a reasonable idea. Until then, though, they would be edit-war targets. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Icehockey-league-stub}} / Category:Ice hockey league stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, newly created... currently has one stub. There might be another 59 to reach threshold, but if not an upmerge is probably in order. Grutness...wha? 01:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as a bit of a newbie, I was unaware that there was a procedure for proposing one. It seems a bit 'unanarchistic' to have one. Nevertheless, excuse the mistake. There is a stub for every other kind of ice hockey related topic, except for league, so I assumed it was a bit of an oversight and added one. I would never expect it to be a stub with a lot in it, but it would be useful for catching the new league artices. Alaney2k 00:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alaney2k - there are good reasons why there is a specific proposal process for stubs - it's a bit long-winded to go into here (though a search of the site should find them). To cut a long story short, having an upper and lower limit on the size of stub categories makes it easier for stub sorters to sort stubs easily and also helps editors to find articles on specific topics without being swamped with thousands of articles or having to pick through dozens of nearly empty categories. In the case of this stub type, though, it's possible that there are enough stubs to warrant a separate stub category (60 is the standard threshold in these sorts of cases, hence my comments earlier). Grutness...wha? 01:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Some concerns on the recent video game upsurge

Forgive me if I'm wrong (and apologies to JohnnyMrNinja if I am), but I'm getting a little concerned. There was recently a proposal for about a dozen new templates for different makes of video game, which was approved... but it looks like JohnnyMrNinja has been creating considerably more templates than that. As I said, I could be mistaken, but if not, there are quite a few new discoveries here... Grutness...wha? 01:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered, June 2007

{{PowerRangers-stub}} / Category:Power Rangers stubs

New unproposed stub type from User:Ryulong. Seems to be moderately well populated (about 40 stubs). Plausibly useful. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Youngstown-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

No cat, handful of stubs, wikiproject. Alai 00:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the concerns, Youngstown is a dab page. Let's face it, this is a city of 80,000 people - what would stub sorting be like if every city of that size had a separate stub type. How many stub types would that be for the US alone? Surely the Wikiproject would be better served with a talk-page banner, and this would be best sent to SFD. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Reggaeton-album-stub}} / Category:Reggaeton album stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, no stub or permcat parents, but plenty of stubs. Or, rather, plenty of articles - a few of these don't seem to be stubs. Wouldn't have been my choice for a split, but then again the term reggaeton is rarely used (and the style rarely heard) in this part of the world. A case of clearing out any non-stubs and seeing what we have left, by the looks of it. Grutness...wha? 02:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{UK-theatre-stub}} / Category:United Kingdom theatre stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, no stub or permcat parents, no stubs currently, but this is at least a logical split. Probably a case of sorting and if necessary upmerging. Grutness...wha? 02:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I created this stub tag because there are other ones such as {{Theatre-stub}}, {{US-theat-stub}} and others for individual countries/nations so I thinks its acceptable for the United Kingdom to have one, I apologise for creating this without consensus as I didnt realise they have to be discussed here. Regards --The Sunshine Man 14:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a logical split in terms of subject matter - the main concern is size. Unlike permanent categories, which can be of any size, there's a threshold level before a stub category is created of 60 current stubs (due to the different purposes of stub categoriues from main categories). I'm sure there won't be any problems with this one if it reaches 60 stubs - which it's likely to - but if it falls short of that it might not be worth having a separate category. The category also needs a bit of tidying up, as I noted earlier. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should have the template at least (though probably canonicalise it to {{UK-theat-stub}}, leaving the redirect). This might require some work to populate, since existing article are likely to be scattered hither and yon (theat-, euro-theat-, <county>-geo-, etc), but I'm sure it's in theory doable. If it's not happening in practice, upmerge. Alai 16:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're not likely to be among the geo-stubs, A. struct-stubs, maybe. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you'd be surprised... Alai 13:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As theatre stubs had creeped into the oversized bracket, I populated this from Category:Theatre in the United Kingdom. That's scoping on the basis of 'the theatre' though, as distinct from just 'theatres'. Alai 13:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Maxis-stub}} / Category:Maxis stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 redirected to ElectronicArts-stub

Never proposed, currently has three stubs. A whole host of parent categories to this cat, though surprisingly not Category:Maxis, which I would have thought was the obvious one. Looking in Category:Maxis reveals only 67 articles in total, so this would require 90% of those articles to be stubs before the stub category reached the required level. Looks like a clear case of upmerging to me... Grutness...wha? 01:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I am sorry I created this stub without proposing. I didn't know that was needed, and I saw other stub types like for instance the Doom Stub, so I figured a Maxis stub was possible to.

Again I am sorry for any inconvenience :-) --Jort227 15:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed to rename this and {{Doom-stub}} at Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2007/July/16, to {{ElectronicArts-stub}} and {{IdSoftware-stub}} (respectively) JohnnyMrNinja 08:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Category:Sailor Moon stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

We already tried and failed to delete some of the flakier templates associated with this, but so far as I know we've never considered this unproposed four article cat itself. (Someone explain to me why sensibly-sized anime sub-types are proposed, the WPJ locals poo-poo them en masse as being "too many stub types", and then we get stuff like this.) Alai 20:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and at the vey least get the ridiculous template name changed. Four stubs in over six months, though. It's clearly useless. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might have had quite a few more stubs not too long ago. The individual episodes used to have articles (one shared a title with a Joe McDoakes short which is why I noticed) but then they got either merged or deleted by a mass AfD. Still, that was then this is now and five stubs is way too few. Delete Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, that makes sense. Now, if someone would only do the same for about 1000 more anime stubs (and keep on doing it, as required). Alai 13:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's so, then it's not quite as useless as I though. No longer needed, though, by the looks... upmerge and corrct the template names? Grutness...wha? 10:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a "canonical" template, {{Sailor-Moon-stub}} (well, canonical give or take a hyphen, anyway), you just wouldn't think it to look at it. The template you're objecting to is one of those we previously considered, as noted above. Alai 13:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Malaysia-school-stub}}/Category:Malaysia school stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, but looks well-formed (it even has proper category parents, which makes a nice change!). Only 20 stubs though. Probably useful, but looks like a case of "populate or upmerge". Grutness...wha? 10:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm - seems I was wrong about the well-formed bit - Valentinian has pointed out to me that it should be Category:Malaysian school stubs. Yet again, this is something that actual proposal would have sorted out. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles about schools in Malaysia which are stubs. Not much proper information are provided in these articles. So I figure a new stub category would be really helpful to improve these articles.Horacenew 10:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Streets of Paris-stub}} / Category:Streets of Paris Stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

Rather small, obvious NG issues. Perhaps rename to {{Paris-street-stub}}, and upmerge to Category:Île-de-France geography stubs, or indeed split out the Paris département into its own geography cat. Alai 04:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard would be {{Paris-road-stub}}, since road is used for both urban roads and rural streets (or vice versa) due to different naming standards in different countries. And if we were going to upmerge it, I'd suggest a separate Category:France road stubs or Category:French road stubs (depending on standard naming) that it could go into, rather than mixing it in with geo-stubs (road stubs aren't really part of the geo-stub hierarchy). Grutness...wha? 01:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Herbalist-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#New_Stub for details, and for an example of how not to propose a stub :/ Grutness...wha? 01:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Fashion-company-stub}} / Category:Fashion Company stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, but seems a reasonable split - already has 80 stubs. Unfortunately, the category is badly named (note the capital C). If kept (which, as I said, seems reasonable) it will need a (probably speediable) renaming. The cat also has no non-stub parents, but that's easily fixable. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I created this stub. I didn't realise I should have proposed it first, sorry. There were (and still are, I haven't moved everyone yet) lots and lots of articles about companies in the regular Fashion stubs category, making it harder to distinguish between these and those that deal with some piece of clothing etc. Also, I wanted to be able to link a category like this to the Company stub category too. I fix the capital C. -*Ulla* 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Tarot-stub}} / redlinked

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed stub type which is never likely to get more than 78 articles, even if every card is a stub (and they aren't - I extended a couple well beyond stub status myself). Also more than adequately covered by other stub types. At best, this should be upmerged but given that currently accepted stub types aren't exactly in need of splitting and this is hardly likely to stay close to split size for long or ever get there again, perhaps it's not needed at all. Grutness...wha? 02:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A lot of these stubs look marginal in and of themselves: put me in the post-AFD "merge" camp, at least for the ones that are very short, repeat information between themselves, etc. Since these articles seem to be largely about the divination aspect, upmerge the template to Category:Occult stubs. (Which technically we don't need to take to SFD, since the cat's a redlink.) Alai 03:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must admit I was surprised to see separate articles on each card - the pip cards at least could be merged per suit for now at least. But that's not really within the scope of us here. I realise that a lot of the articles could eventually be expanded considerably (as I said, i did so myself on a couple of the major arcana cards articles), but it would take some effort with some of the minor pips. Grutness...wha? 03:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not really for or against this particular stub category, but thought I'd mention a few things. It's not clear that this is "never likely to get more than 78 articles" as the "proposer" of this unproposed stub type (i.e. User:Smiloid) has already used it to tag other pages like Visconti-Sforza tarot deck, Bonifacio Bembo, and Pamela Colman Smith. I have in the past personally deleted the {{card-game-stub}} tags that appeared on the minor arcana card articles as I didn't think that tag was suitable for them. I didn't believe that there was much more to add to those articles that would further justify the removal of that tag. (It is already mentioned that tarot cards are used to play Tarot card games in each of those articles. I don't, for example, see what could possibly be inserted into the "Game Usage" section of Eight of Coins or many of the other cards. The only particular card with a special function seems to be The Fool). I don't wish to put words into Smiloid's mouth, but he seems to believe that tagging the tarot card articles with {{occult-stub}} somehow violates WP:NPOV, and I think this is why he wanted to create a new stub for use on tarot card related articles. Craw-daddy 09:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think to deny that tarot cards are playing cards is POV. If we put "occult" stubs on the minor card articles, we should also have "playing card" or some similar stub. It is user User:Ptdecker who started puting the "card game" stubs to address POV concerns. This tarot stub that I've created is designed to be suitable for any tarot related article whether it is occult or card game related. I've chosen the Marseilles Fool as the image as the Marseilles tarot pertains to both tarot as a divinatory practice as well as a type of card game. It should also be upmerged to card game or playing card categories because tarot is not the exclusive property of the occult.Smiloid 00:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm certainly not denying that tarot cards are playing cards. When have I said that? However, there's a perfectly valid category, namely [[Category:Playing cards]] that can be used to (help) classify these articles. Why not use that? As I've said, I can't see the justification for the {{card-game-stub}} tag as I don't think there's much to add to the articles that would later justify the removal of that particular stub tag. We shouldn't try to counteract (alleged or perceived) POV by using some other inappropriate stub tag that isn't fit for purpose in this case. It's the old "Two wrongs" argument that I'm stating here. Craw-daddy 23:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is there a playing card stub? I would agree this might be betterSmiloid 04:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I don't believe there is a playing card stub. My suggestion, assuming something like this tarot card stub is okayed, is to have something like in Five of Wands, i.e. the tarot card stub tag and the [[Category:Playing cards]] category marker. This is essentially what I meant in my previous remark above. Craw-daddy 10:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I noticed that too. Still, it seems a little small at present, unless there's a large number of in-scope but untagged articles out there, so I'd still favour upmerging now, without prejudice to consideration of a separate category at a later date. Hopefully an upmerged tag is less objectionable than actual retagging. Alai 17:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No it's a good template. I support keeping it. Previously the articles in question were marked as "magic-stubs" and I think it is POV to merge Tarot with Occult. Tarot is tarot, and not all divination is of an occult nature. I'm not an expert on the occult of course, but it seems to me that calling Tarot "occult" is like saying wicca is "witchcraft". Many people use tarot and other divinatory practices such as dowsing (for example) in day-to-day life, and I think if it needs a category it might be considered by some as witchcraft and some as something more akin to intuitive reading etc... I think merging it to a category is useless and potentially wasteful of discussion time. Tarot is certainly tarot, however you could have a big argument on whether it is occult practice or intuition. User:Pedant 22:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The articles should, if anything, have been marked kabbalah-stub, due the the very strong links between Tarot and other kabbalistic . Certainly Tarot should not be marked with card-game stub, and occult-stub is highly questionable. Still, unless there are plans to create stubs for different Tarot decks - something which hasn't happened yet (and remember that stub templates are for existing stubs) - there is no way that this stub type will get the required number of stubs for a separate template/category combination. As such, it needs to be upmerged somewhere. As such, it is not merging it which is a potential waste of discussion time (check the standards required for new stub types at the top of WP:WSS/P). Blessed be, Grutness...wha? 05:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Paint me pink and call me a hard-core naturalist, but I don't see how "divination" of any sort isn't necessarily "occult". But what Grutness and Maggie Thatcher said: the status quo isn't an option. Would either Category:Parapsychology stubs or Category:Paranormal stubs be acceptable as an upmerger target? (By "upmerger" let's be clear that we would be keeping the template, just giving it a category that's a) blue, and b) is over the size threshold.) Alai 19:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • However not all of tarot is connected with divination or the occult. This tarot stub was devised to cover any tarot article whether or not it involves the occult. I have plans to start three tarot related articles; French suited tarot cards, Grosstarock, and tarocchi appropriati all of which have little if anything to do with the occult.Smiloid 07:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links between tarot and Kabbalah are open to debate. A.E. Waite is quoted in Taropedia as expressing disbelief in the correspondence between the tarot trumps and the Hebrew letters.Smiloid 00:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Maxis-stub}} / Cat:Maxis stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 redirected to ElectronicArts-stub

Unproposed, created on 6 Jun 2007, has two articles. Pagrashtak 20:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and is already noted further up this page :) Grutness...wha? 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Euro-sport-bio-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 list on WP:STUBS

An odd one this - a templat has just been made for one of our "parent-only" stub categories. It could potentially be useful, but I think upmerged country-sport-bio-stubs might be more so. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ideally we'd get rid of all the templates which feed into "upmerger target" stub categories with no corresponding permcats, but it must be said there's quite a lot of existing ones on the same pattern. Perhaps we should try to systematically replace and deprecate them all as a first step. Alai 18:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per a lot of precedent at WP:CFD, there is no good rational for categorizing by continent instead of by nationality. It makes a lot more sense simply to have a stubs and probably bio stubs category/template for every country, and have country-specific sport-bio, politician, etc., ones when the number of stubs justifies them. A categorization of "European" is pretty useless. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Tajikistan-politician-stub}} / (redlinked)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 upmerged

Unproposed, and used on 17 articles. There is a Wikiproject Tajikistan, but this is far from their primary stub type (given that there are T-geo, T-bio, and T-standard), so 60 would be the threshold. The bio-stub categpory's nowhere near needing splitting, either (only 76 stubs). Probably useful double-upmerged, but not with a stand-alone category. Grutness...wha? 05:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've cleaned up the code and it links to the proper categories now. Valentinian T / C 19:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

no template / Category:Fatboy Slim stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

A bit small, but maybe there's a WPJ lurking someplace. Nonstandard scope. And nonstandard use of "naked category". Alai 17:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category talks about Start-class articles, so I suspect this is a misnamed Category:Stub-Class Fatboy Slim. Mind you, having categories simply named after an artist is frowned upon in general, and the only stub type connected to such articles is {{Beatles-song-stub}}, which is connected to a very busy WikiProject. Othe than that we divide songs by genre and decade. If this category is connected to a WikiProject, it needs to be regularised (preferably as a non-stub type talk page template); if not, I'm not keen on it existing. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Stub-Class articles categories are also template-populated, and are supposed to be used on talk pages, I can't say that it looks that way to me; but I've no idea what was in the creator's mind, and I'd have no objection if it were converted to a SCA cat (assuming there actually is a WPJ/TF of some kind). Alai 19:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Discoveries&oldid=348377690"