Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2010/November

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting | Proposals | Archive | 2010
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dawynn (talk | contribs) at 16:16, 28 January 2011 (→{{Guinea-writer-stub}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposals, November 2010

Please check how many articles qualify for a stub type before proposing it.

If (after approval) you create a stub type, please be sure to add it to the list of stub types. This page will be archived in its entirety once all discussions have been closed; there is no need to move them to another page.

NEW PROPOSALS

Category:Parornix stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
{{Parornix-stub}}. Will include most the articles in main category Category:Parornix. When built, the category will be under parent Category:Gracillariinae stubs. 70+ articles. Based on the other genera I've been building lately, I'd like to speedy this one. Dawynn (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Canadian hospital stubs Speedy creation: S1 and S2

Okay so I goofed a little bit a created the category before reading the instructions. However, there are 58 Canadian hospital stub articles that I just counted. There is a Canadian hospital stub template already and I would like to edit it to transpose to this new category.Ng.j (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just tagged a bunch of pages, bringing the total number around 126 CatScan. Ng.j (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Guinea-writer-stub}}

I think this can be used well..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, naturally. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Anglican church stubs

Upmerged template {{US-anglican-church-stub}} has 122 transclusions. I think it's time to give them their own category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polish railway station stubs

Support, in case it was not clear. Ng.j (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust stubs

Both Category:World War II stubs and Category:Jewish history stubs are moving towards the oversized area (both have over 600 stubs). A specific {{Holocaust-stub}} would, IMO, be a good move, as it would almost certainly be used on enough stubs for a subcategory. As such, I'd like to propose the template, plus Category:Holocaust stubs iff it reaches the 60-stub mark. BTW, I've left a heads-up about this proposal at WP:JH and WP:WWII. Grutness...wha? 08:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gracillariidae stubs split

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Proposing subfamily splits of the Gracillariidae moths.

Dawynn (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have filled in non-stub Category:Phyllocnistinae and Category:Lithocolletinae (except for the rest of Category:Phyllonorycter). Category:Gracillariinae is in process. Expect it to take up the majority of what is left in Category:Gracillariidae. Dawynn (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Espionage-stub}}

  • Certainly looks viable and would probably be an idea to have an {{Espionage-bio-stub}} as well as I have seen quite a few spies. (Hint for future when using catscan to find stubs set the links to 0 otherwise you can end up with some quite large articles that just have no links deep politics shows up on both lists despite being over 5000 bytes in size.) Waacstats (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks, I'll keep that in mind for the future. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed

Category:Ancient Roman politician stubs

{{AncientRome-politician-stub}} is used on 143 articles any objections? Waacstats (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - none from this quarter. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poland stubs

Some viable templates/cats I found on established lines:

SeveroTC 19:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support all, to the point where I thought we already had the first 2. Waacstats (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support all. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support all Even with only 43, it creates manageable stub categories, rather than pots of miscellany. --Kleopatra (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cameraria stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
{{Cameraria-stub}}. Speedy, as another genus breakout from Category:Gracillarioidea stubs to be placed in Category:Gracillariidae stubs. About 70 articles. Main article: Cameraria (moth). Dawynn (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The family is too large. Category:Gracillariidae stubs, when it finally gets fully loaded, really takes up the majority of Category:Gracillarioidea stubs. And that amounts to well over 1000 articles already. Grouping by subfamily would be possible, but again, the Gracillariinae stubs would take up a sizeable amount, although possibly not an oversized category. Where the genera meet the minimum stub category requirements, its relatively easy to identify and group the species into a specific genus category. And should genera ever pass to a different subfamily, its very easy to move the genus categories around to the new subfamily as needed. For these large genus categories, I don't see an issue with splitting out the larger genera whether all are contained in the family, or whether they get split into separate subfamilies. That all being said, I can vouch for creating the new subfamily categories, as well as the genus categories. Look for an upcoming proposal. Dawynn (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the important issues with stubs is to create categories that invite editing, by, for example, putting organism together that are likely to meet a single editor with expertise in the group of organism. The families might be particularly useful subcategories, and they should not be done away with, simply because they are too large; the genera stubs and cats can be put in the families. For example, families are a working group in plants, to split out genera from orders creates categories (plant orders) with subgroups (genera) that have no relation to how the organism is studied, making it difficult for interested editors (botanists specializing in a family) to find stubs to work on. --Kleopatra (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a communication error here. And maybe it's because this process is in the middle of a number of steps. After seeing that the Category:Gracillariidae stubs will adopt the majority of what was in Category:Gracillarioidea stubs, I realized that if we choose to place all the Gracillariidae articles in one big family category, we'll just be moving from one oversized category (superfamily Gracillarioidea) to another (family Gracillariidae). I determined that several of the individual genera are large enough for their own category. As I have requested these, I have indicated that the genera will be placed in the family category (See above -- "to be placed in category:Gracillariidae stubs"). I have not abandoned the family category. But it would be too large for its own category. So, in the process of building the family category, I am also splitting out the larger genera into subcategories under the family category. The family Category:Phyllonorycter stubs is the only one of the associated genus categories that I have requested but not fully filled (started, but have not moved all 300 articles). Feel free to review how these are currently placed. Dawynn (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Sport-documentary-film-stub}}

While starting to sort the recent split of Documentary film stubs, I'm noticing quite a few sports documentaries - probably enough for a separate category, and certainly enough for a template. I'd like to propose a template, and a category as well if it looks like there's going to be 60 of them. Grutness...wha? 22:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South African military personnel stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
{{SouthAfrica-mil-bio-stub}} has over 60 articles, speedy? Waacstats (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{WashingtonDC-politician-stub}}

Having looked at the proposal for splits of state politicians below I noticed we didn't even have a template for Washington DC politicians, I know this is politically different to the States but catscan seems to suggest that a template at least worth while and maybe with a good sort we can get Category:Washington DC politician stubs created at 60+ articles. Waacstats (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split of Category:Chinese people stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Category:Chinese artist stubs would contain 49 articles from {{China-artist-stub}}, 4 articles from {{China-architect-stub}} and 1 category Category:Chinese painter stubs, so is now viable. I would also propose Category:Chinese religious biography stubs fed by {{China-reli-bio-stub}} catscan seems to suggest this would be viable. Waacstats (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split of Category:Russian football midfielder, 1980s births stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
900+, split by year of birth, cats where possible, otherwise templates.

~Gosox(55)(55) 19:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this split that much but can't see any other way of getting this off the oversized list so Support. Waacstats (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Splits of Category:Gracillarioidea stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
This category has added over 500 articles just in the last 10 days. Trying to get some kind of grasp on this. Going to try to capture a few of the larger genus groups. worth noting that all of these will go in the previously approved Category:Gracillariidae stubs.

Sorry I don't have exact counts. And the way things are going, by the time these get created, the sizes may have increased. Dawynn (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Many splits of Category:American politician stubs

Here is a stab at a number of splits of American politician stubs. All are viable unless noted, I have included a catscan link for your convenience. If approved, I will probably start on these on Thanksgiving weekend, and assistance will be greatly appreciated. ~Gosox(55)(55) 17:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split of Category:California politician stubs

~Gosox(55)(55) 17:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split of Category:Virginia politician stubs

~Gosox(55)(55) 16:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split of Category:New York politician stubs

~Gosox(55)(55) 16:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split of Category:Massachusetts politician stubs

~Gosox(55)(55) 17:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: A full category for California state senator stubs should be viable, as I've just tagged a handful of articles in the main category as stubs. (They fit - they just weren't tagged as such.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed MARep to MARepresentative per PARepresentative

Category:Ancient Dacia stubs create

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
I propose the creation of a category/template Category:Ancient Dacia stubs/{{Ancient-Dacia-stub}} under History by era or under Category:European history stubs/{{Euro-hist-stub}}. There are many Dacia articles which are not fitting under the related Category:Romanian history stubs/{{Romania-hist-stub}} or Category:Ancient Thrace stubs/{{Ancient-Thrace-stub}} categories due to location or lack of connection, and would benefit from this stub/category. I am new to this and not sure how to count the amount of articles but as a contributor to Dacia-related pages, I can say I have seen more than 60, most of them poorly written or with limited content. The idea is to have them marked as a Dacia stub and distribute them to interested historians focused on Dacia/Dacology for contribution. I personally plan to work on many of them and know other people interested. Codrinb (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about naming Category:Dacia stubs/{{Dacia-stub}} instead? for stub articles relating to Category:Dacia? The "Ancient" is not used for main cat. Totaly 99 articles in Dacia cat. A quick check indicates that about 50% are stubs. --Kslotte (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. --Codrinb (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Synapsid stubs split

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
I propose the following split for Category:Synapsid stubs:

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Spanish religious biography stubs/{{Spain-reli-bio-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
catscan suggests this should be viable from double stubbing alone. here.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Prehistoric rodent stubs/template:paleo-rodent-stub

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Intersection between Category:Rodent stubs and the oversized Category:Prehistoric mammal stubs. Scan shows at least 71 stubs for this one. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Prehistoric marsupial stubs/Template:paleo-marsupial-stub

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
This category, as an intersection of Category:Prehistoric mammal stubs and Category:Marsupial stubs has 61 stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:British magazine stubs split

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
I propose the following sub-categories here:

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support all. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Gosox(55)(55) 21:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kslotte (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

further split of Category:American novelist, 20th century birth stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
{{US-novelist-1970s-stub}} now qualifies to form Category:American novelist, 1970s birth stubs. ~Gosox(55)(55) 22:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support speedy. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Moth stubs split

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.

child Category:Gracillariidae stubs / {{Gracillariidae-stub}}. Main category: Category:Gracillariidae. Cat scan shows 505 articles.
{{Opostegidae-stub}}. Main Category:Opostegidae. To be built as upmerge -- 44 articles.

Dawynn (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Asian diplomat stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
upmerged {{Asia-diplomat-stub}} has passed 60. Speedy? Waacstats (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

split of Category:European nobility stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
the following appears viable from the almost oversized above cat based purely on double stubbing.

Waacstats (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split of Category:United States Virgin Islands geography stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
A split of this category by the three main islands (St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix) should be viable, and there are enough potential stubs for a separate St. Croix subcat. How would the stub tag titles be handled? I'm thinking {{StThomas-USVI-geo-stub}}, {{StJohn-USVI-geo-stub}}, and {{StCroix-USVI-geo-stub}}, with the first two feeding into the parent category for now. That work? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The St Croix subcat would be useful. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Mycobacteria stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
There are 119 Mycobacteria species in over 500 bacteria stubs. {{mycobacterium-stub}}. --Kleopatra (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

split of Category:Polish people stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
looks lik the following are both viable

Waacstats (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split of Category:Documentary film stubs

This needs doing - it contains 1312 stubs. And, following on from the oddly-named "Category:Documentary films about music stubs" (whose idea was that? These aren't films about music stubs, they're about music!), splitting by subject seems the most logical way. I'd like to propose the following templates, with categories for any which pass 60:

If those figures are accurate, it should lower the parent considerably - probably still too big, but 900's better than 1300. I'd be willing to bet that the numbers in brackets (the catscan counts for possible numbers) are low, as well. I don't believe the 32 value for nature to start with - on a quick glance at the stub cat I'd say there are considerably more than that. Grutness...wha? 04:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where that category namecame from it used to be "music documentary film stubs" or something similar. any way Support the split. Waacstats (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it up for renaming... but Waacstats, your memory seems to be slipping! Grutness...wha? 09:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support all. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support all. A ridiculously large and unusable stub category. I might be able to expand some when the stubs templates are done and put on the categories. I'll watch list.
On a side note, I hate the abbreviated stub templates "Poli-documentary-film-stub" because I can never remember them. I would prefer "Political-documentary-film-stub," "History-documentary-film-stub." --Kleopatra (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects from those names would be possible, but all other politics- and history-related stub templates use those abbreviations, so they make sense for the primary names. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. If it's already established, it would be easier that way. I still like to be able to just guess the stub category. Thanks for the info. --Kleopatra (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would a better solution be breaking them down by decade, as per the French, Japanese, Italian, British, etc film stubs and also the different genres (drama, comedy, horror, etc)? Lugnuts (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly in addition, but not instead of. Categories should have utility for readers and editors. Breaking down documentaries by decade does not provide significant utility for either editors or readers in the way that categorizing by genre does. Documentaries on are or history may have broad groups of followers, for example--potential editors in that category. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm probably one of the more active editors in documentaries by topic. I just became aware of this discussion and I think it's all great. Except that, from what I can see, "Art" documentary stubs should probably be renamed to "Arts," to match the parent Category:Documentary films about the arts. Art may be understood as visual arts only, and for what you're using it for here, the more inclusive arts would seem to be the way to go. (I do seem to be recall this point being briefly raised at the time the Docs by topic category underwent an expansion, but I can't find the diff). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:College football coaches first appointed in the 2010s stubs

Asking for a "retroactive speedy" on this one. I did not know the procedure and created the category. There are multiple articles already covered by "Category:College football coaches first appointed in the XXXXs stubs" categories, by decade from 1890 to 2000. Will follow procedure in the future now that I know it (which should be in about 10 years).--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caroline County, Virginia geography stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Asking for speedy on this one. {{CarolineVA-geo-stub}} already exists with 132 articles. There are several similarly named categories under Category:Virginia geography stubs. Pulling this category out would reduce the oversized Category:Virginia geography stubs back under the 800 article mark. Dawynn (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Odd-toed ungulate stubs and Category:Prehistoric odd-toed ungulate stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
To help sort out the mammal stubs, I propose:

I know that the sizew of the first category here would be 12 stubs+2 subcats (the already existing Category:Horse stubs also fits there), but I still think it should be created, along with the subcat. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split of Category:Primate stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Propose the following split (it follows the current permcat tree):

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support to all, good humor Mr. di Nicalao..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:European magazine stubs split

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
I propose the following subcategories for Category:European magazine stubs:

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Italy-bishop-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
There are many articles and zillions of potential ones on Italian bishops. We have Italy-reli-bio-stub but I think this topic is worthy of having this. Also I've noticed many many existing bishop stubs for Italy are not stub tagged..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we already have over 60 people marked with both I think this and the category can be speedied catscan. Waacstats (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:British magazine stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
For the new upmerged template {{UK-mag-stub}}, which was approved per Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2010/May#{{Poland-magazine-stub}} and {{Sweden-magazine-stub}} (it says "any other European country"), AWB gave me a list of 512 511 stubs which fit this category (511 of these they can be found at this list), together with Category:British literary magazine stubs. I do intend to later see about deviding this category further. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support and given the title is "British" shouldn't be affected by the discussion at Wss/D. Waacstats (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Plasmodium stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Category:Protist stubs includes over 100 Plasmodium species stubs that should be in their own catgory with their own template {{plasmodium-stub}}. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Japanese academic biography stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
between them {{Japan-academic-bio-stub}} and {{Japan-economist-stub}} have over 60 articles. Speedy? Waacstats (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Norwegian diplomat stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
{{Norway-diplomat-stub}} should be able to take 60 articles catscan. Waacstats (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Norwegian religious biography stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
{{Norway-reli-bio-stub}} should be able to take 60 articles catscan. Waacstats (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:French bishop stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Looks like there are more than 60 french bishops on here with stub articles [catscan] that could use {{France-bishop-stub}}. Waacstats (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/2010/November&oldid=410582050"