Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2009/September

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting | Proposals | Archive | 2009
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grutness (talk | contribs) at 01:58, 22 June 2011 (→{{tl|Quebec-film-stub}} and {{cl|Quebec film stubs}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposals, September 2009

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.

Create new stub templates for Greek prefectures

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.
Massive amount of stubs for Greece means that it would be wise to create new templates by Prefectures of Greece. Many are currently viable (not 100% certain) like Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Arcadia Prefecture for {{Arcadia-geo-stub}} and Category:Arcadia geography stubs. I would strongly recommend creating these templates and resorting them from regional where viable, Greece gets pretty much a headache organizationally. The thing is a lot of them a borderline start class articles so I'm uncertain as to whether or not they should be stub tagged. Either way I still think we should create prefecture templates. Himalayan 22:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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:Horticulture 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.

Viable per Catscan. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I misread the proposal. I support the templates although garden-stub would be simpler but I don't think there is a need to split a stub category which only as 275 stubs. We normally consider around 800-850 + to be oversized. 275 stubs in one category is perfectly manageable... Himalayan 10:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are better ways these could be split, and in any case, with only 200 stubs Category:Horticulture stubs is probably better not split. If it was to be split, a plain {{garden-stub}} covering both would make more sense. Rosiestep, these weren't speediable and there's a delay period before creating these things for a reason. Please don't make more work for everyone by ignoring it! Grutness...wha? 23:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • By explanation, very few stub class botanical gardens and arboretum articles are tagged with a stub template of any sort. A few had the horticulture-stub template on them which is why I proposed Split of Category:Horticulture stubs, though I could just as well have proposed Split of Category:Botany stubs as a few (much fewer, actually) of these articles had the Botany-stub template. A few only had a geo-stub template. However, most of the stubs didn't have any stub template at all. I did viability research by running Catscan on Category:Botanical gardens and Category:Arboreta. The reasons I created the Australia-botanical-garden-stub template is that there are were several stub articles already created, and about 60 redlinks for additional articles; it had been my intention to create those redlinked articles this week. I thought that US-botanical-garden-stub would be appropriate, too So having explained the reasons for my actions, let's move on to your suggestion: {{garden-stub}}; I'm fine with that. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Sorry to have seemed hasty with this and the SFD for the Aussie one - but it did seem pretty premature based on current numbrs (which is what we always go by here - not future numbers), especially since the Aussie one hadn't been proposed. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It seemed like double-work to go through all the Category:Botanical gardens and Category:Arboreta articles, tag the stub-class ones with {{horticulture-stub}} and then propose the split. But if I had done this to begin with, I could have given an accurate count, so maybe the double-work would have been worth it. I just went through Category:Arboreta and added {{horticulture-stub}} to the stub class ones. I did not count how many already had {{horticulture-stub}} but it was easy to account for the ones that I added the template to: 247. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
You wouldn't have needed to do that - all you needed to do to get a rough idea of numbers was run one of the tools that shows you how many articles in Category:Arboreta were short. It wouldn't have given you an exact number of stubs, but it would have given a very clear indication of approximate numbers. Grutness...wha? 22:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
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.

{{Uganda-school-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.
A recent list List of schools in Uganda has brought to my attention a good number of articles not tagged as Uganda-school-stub and the high likelihood these articles will be created shortly in the future. I'd say this template would be appropriate... Himalayan 21:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Support; it's appropriate. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
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:Ontario MP 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.
Oversized, we can either split by decade of birth or by party. If we split by party the following are all vaible (happy to change names if anyone can think of something better)

If done by decade of birth I propose templates for each decade needed and the following categories would be viable

Anyone any prefernces? Waacstats (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC) That many Ontarian politicians? Support by party, looks fine. Himalayan 21:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Himalayan which split do you support? Waacstats (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Support by party'. Himalayan 21:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

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:Japanese railway station 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.
slightly oversized (1029) currently have by prefecture split and upmerged templates, the following are now viable from these upmerged templates

Waacstats (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Support, these have been steadily creeping up.. Himalayan 21:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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:German Christian Democratic Union politician stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
propose splitting ths by dob with templates at {{Germany-CDU-politician-1960s-stub}} and categories for those that reach 60 at Category:German Christian Democratic Union politician, 1960s birth stubs should cut down this 2000+ behemoth. Waacstats (talk) 09:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, cat is definately oversized. I'm not sure though that will prompt more editors to fill them out. Note also a lot of them as yet don't have birthdates inserted in the articles so stub sorting will be difficult in this way. I may actually request that we delete some of them because it is too much work to fill them all out. I've actually requested to delete the "sub stubs" see User talk:Xeno. The task needed to fill them all with birth dates and some basic info out is too huge. When they have been deleted the cat will be manageable. . Himalayan 10:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the DoB, I checkef the first 15 articles and only 1 didn't have the DoB in the article but catscan shows less than 400 have a dob category so maybe we need to look at something else if this category remains at this size and I would expect politicians to be notable so they may not be deleted. Waacstats (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh they are all notable, undoubtedly, just lack even the basics that would make them valid. I think the best thing would be to delete them and start them a bit more adequately at a later date. I ca't see too many people willing to go through 2100 articles adding birth dates and some eferenced info. Actually I got as far as B adding birth dates. If you actually check any from C -Z at random you'll see what I mean. Try selecting 15 articles at ramdon from C-Z. It is likely to be only 1 in 10 actually has birth dates, not vice versa....Random article Wolfgang Dehnel. Himalayan 14:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As this is down to 33 articles (I assume through deletions) we can scrap this suggestion. Waacstats (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite a drastic reduction eh? Himalayan 21:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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:Conservative MP (UK) 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.
As with the German CDU so with the UK Conservatives propose splitting ths by dob with templates at {{Conservative-UK-MP-1960s-stub}} and categories for those that reach 60 at Category:Conservative MP (UK), 1960s birth stubs should cut down this 1000+ behemoth. Waacstats (talk) 09:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Support here, as we actually have the birth dates! Himalayan 10:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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:Psychology stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
I propose creating {{psych-test-stub}}, categorised under Category:Psychological testing stubs or something similar. According to CatScan, there are 55 articles tagged as psych stubs and under Category:Psychological testing. However, there's a LOT that are improperly categorised, like Abbreviated mental test score, Chitling Intelligence Test, Addiction Research Center Inventory, Eating Attitudes Test, Multnomah Community Ability Scale, reading span task and Rosenberg self esteem scale. That gets us up to over 60. — Skittleys (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Looks sensible - though someone else can sort it (I've conducted a few too many mental rotation and stroop tests in my time - aversion to the subject has set in :) Grutness...wha? 21:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
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:Pharmacology stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
I propose {{antineoplastic-stub}} and Category:Antineoplastic drugs. According to CatScan, of the articles tagged with (the overpopulated) {{pharm-stub}}, 61 are in Category:Antineoplastic drugs, and 70 are in Category:Chemotherapeutic agents (which is SUPPOSED to be obsolete and replaced with the former category...). — Skittleys (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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:Canadian military stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

I have nothing against this but I only count 52 articles. Waacstats (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry; plus these: {{CEF-stub}} (>40 entries; none doublestubbed with {{Canada-mil-hist-stub}}). --Rosiestep (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
CEF-stub needs to be either deleted (and combined with the Canada-mil-hist-stub) or renamed. CEF is, among other things, a major Brazilian bank, an Indian military unit from the 19th century, and the air force of the Czech Republic (see CEF). I don't recall it ever having been proposed - if it had been it would surely have been pointed out at the time that its name went against stub naming conventions due to its ambiguity. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I combined the CEF-stub articles into Canada-mil-hist-stub and then deleted CEF-stub. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks good support category. Waacstats (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
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:Algeria 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.
750 stubs, if you take into account the remaining communes should be well over 1500 soon enough. Propose to create templates by province and upmerge those which ar enot viable yet and split the others Himalayan 14:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


1 {{AdrarDZ-geo-stub}}
2 {{Chlef-geo-stub}}
3 {{Laghouat-geo-stub}}
4 {{OumelBouaghi-geo-stub}}
5 {{Batna-geo-stub}}
6 {{Béjaïa-geo-stub}}
7 {{Biskra-geo-stub}}
8 {{Béchar-geo-stub}}
9 {{Blida-geo-stub}}
10{{Bouira-geo-stub}}
11 {{Tamanghasset-geo-stub}}
12 {{Tébessa-geo-stub}}


13{{Tlemcen-geo-stub}}
14{{Tiaret-geo-stub}}
15 {{TiziOuzou-geo-stub}}
16 {{Algiers-geo-stub}}
17{{Djelfa-geo-stub}}
18 {{Jijel-geo-stub}}
19{{Sétif-geo-stub}}
20 {{SaïdaDZ-geo-stub}}
21{{Skikda-geo-stub}}
22{{SidiBelAbbes-geo-stub}}
23 {{Annaba-geo-stub}}
24{{Guelma-geo-stub}}


25{{ConstantineDZ-geo-stub}}
26{{MédéaDZ-geo-stub}}
27{{Mostaganem-geo-stub}}
28{{M'Sila -geo-stub}}
29{{MascaraDZ-geo-stub}}
30{{Ouargla-geo-stub}}
31{{Oran-geo-stub}}
32{{ElBayadh-geo-stub}}
33{{Illizi-geo-stub}}
34{{BordjBouArréridj-geo-stub}}
35{{Boumerdès-geo-stub}}
36{{ElTarf-geo-stub}}


37{{Tindouf-geo-stub}}
38{{Tissemsilt-geo-stub}}
39{{ElOued-geo-stub}}
40{{Khenchela-geo-stub}}
41{{SoukAhras-geo-stub}}
42{{Tipasa-geo-stub}}
43{{MilaDZ-geo-stub}}
44{{AïnDefla-geo-stub}}
45{{NaamaDZ-geo-stub}}
46{{AïnTémouchent-geo-stub}}
47{{Ghardaïa-geo-stub}}
48{{Relizane-geo-stub}}

Support in principle with names of templates as above but with spaces removed, just a question do any of these need Province in the title or need disambiguating from regions of other countries. Waacstats (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Spaces and hyphens removed (e.g., OumelBouaghi-geo-stub). Redirects from the same without diacriticals would also be useful (e.g., AinTemouchent-geo-stub). Grutness...wha? 23:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmm I'd keep it e.g {{Ghardaïa-geo-stub}} and if that became viable make it Category:Ghardaïa Province geography stubs. I'd say looking at the names we could probably get away with leaving province out of the naming here...Category:Ghardaïa geography stubs would be OK too. Himalayan 21:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree as far as the categories are concerned. Also, all the equivalent permcats use "Province" (see Category:Provinces of Algeria). As to whether the templates need disambiguating, if they do we'd normally use the ISO two-character code as a dab (unless there's problems with both a province and city in the same country, say). The following might cause problems and may need dabbing:
It might be better to spell them out with "Province" though, given that almost all have capitals with the same name and some also have districts with the same name. Some of the listed names seem not quite right, though (Oum El Bouaghi and Tipaza for instance). Checking Category:Provinces of Algeria will be useful to get the exact names. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes that would be fine. The DZ though is not instantly recognisable though! Himalayan 10:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree - unfortunately that's the code, though. I suppose it comes from the local version of the country's name. Grutness...wha? 21:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
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:Protected area 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.
Currently 435 573 pages. Upmerges ready to split out.

Support, I wonder if Brazil is viable for its own... Himalayan 09:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
If not, it's really close... I'll get it sorted out today. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Support all categories, with the usual caveats that stubs should be double-stubbed with appropriate geo-stubs. Not so sure on the templates, tyhough. Firstly,, we\'ve been suing "Europe-", not "Euro-" in recent times, and secondly we tend to prefer by-county upmerged templates rather than continent-wide ones where possible. BTW, the europe category would also have Category:United Kingdom Site of Special Scientific Interest stubs as a subtype. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Support all, the Bald One is guilty for a lot of these... Himalayan 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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 Kingdom 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.
Split out Category:United Kingdom theologian stubs. Category:United Kingdom academic biography stubs is oversized, this is the closest I can get to 60 using catscan (57 double stubbed), sure there must be 1 or 2 hiding in just one. Waacstats (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree it makes sense to create {{UK-theologian-stub}} if you think there's ~60. Also, I'm going to be bold and change the header from "Split out Category:United Kingdom theologian stubs" to "Split of Category:United Kingdom academic biography stubs" as there are now 3 split suggestions from the main cat. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
nb I have just found out that the newly created (off the to do list) {{UK-economist-stub}} has gone over 60 so porpose Category:United Kingdom economist stubs while I am at it. No rush for the UK theologian cat but might as well create the template and if it goes pass 60 may as well have the category, should keep the UK academics off the oversized list for a bit longer. Waacstats (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Support the UK economist stubs cat. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
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:Canadian school 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.
Currently at 424 entries being fed by 11 province and territory upmerges. These 4 are ready to split off.

Note, that these 2 split off previously: Category:British Columbia school stubs and Category:Ontario school stubs. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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.

{{Commerce-stub}}, {{Market-stub}}, {{Retailing-stub}}

I have not correctly measured how many stub articles are on Wiki, but when I created Seongdong Market, it was a bit surprising to know that there has no such stub, so I inserted {{trade-stub}} instead. Here are rough research.

--Caspian blue 15:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is a {{Retail-stub}} which vcovers this at the moment. I'd support the templates util it is clear there become viable, dunno about the categories yet... Himalayan 16:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. However, the stubs are under Category:Retail company stubs which does not look consistent with the template name...--Caspian blue 17:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So it is. Support seperate cats too then if viable. Himalayan 17:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


We have some confusion here, since market-stub is currently used with Category:Commerce stubs. I can see problems with Category:Market stubs - in fact, I'm amazed that Category:Markets exists because of it - it's a very ambiguous term. Does it refer to bazaars and street markets, stock markets, or international trade markets? Whichever it - and the permcat - should probably say. The permcat actually seems to be a mix-up of all three... But if this can be resolved, then certainly splitting things the way you suggest makes sense. As to retail-stub, I'd suggest renaming the stub type for retail companies to retail-company-stub (via SFD) and using the current name (and Category:Retailing stubs) as a parent type for retailing in general. Grutness...wha? 01:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the article we have on market is about retail markets. The template says about a market or bazaar to avoid that confusion. Besides which stubs about stock markets would be best marked as stockmarket-stub. Himalayan 13:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Split of Category:African football 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.
Damn biology stubs distracting me, 2 upmerged templates have passed 60 so propose

Waacstats (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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 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.
Even worse than not noticing upmerged template passing 60, 2 of the subcats (Defender and Midfielder) have passed 800 and 1000 articles respectivley, I propose splitting these two and the striker category by date of birth with upmerged by decade templates as has been done in England and Brazil. (I really thought Germany or Spain would have beaten Russia to being the third country to do this). Waacstats (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope I have noticed stubs on young Russian footballers slowly clogging up.... Support. Himalayan 20:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant me missing them as I usually spend most of my time in the sports stubs. Waacstats (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
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.

{{Quebec-film-stub}} and Category:Quebec film 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 template, create category only if the threshold is reached - until then upmerge into Canadian category. If Quebec category is created, it should remain a subcategory of the Canadian category, not a separate entity..
All viable. Note that it seems a high number of Quebec films are not stub categorised at all. The Quebecois film industry is notable in its own right so stub template and category is necessary. Himalayan 17:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've got to say I'm not 100% happy about this one could set a nasty precedant, If nation film stubs gets large we should look at splitting by genre or date. Also how easy is it to tell a french language film made in say Nova Scotia from a film made in Quebec. (nb I'm not against this just not happy with it at the moment) Waacstats (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No, see Cinema of Quebec. It is very much one of the main Canadian film industries, as far as I'm aware the other regions don't have them, unless by location. Quebecois cinema is an industry in its own right in the French language and easily identifiable kind of in the way the Bollywood Hindi industry is in India based in Mumbai etc. Quebecois is normally produced in Montreal I think... I'll ask User:Bearcat. Himalayan 18:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Himalayan is correct about this. Canada essentially has two parallel film industries — Quebec film is a distinct film industry operating separately from the "main" film industry of The Rest of Canada. I don't think there's a single other province or state in all of North America that can genuinely claim to have such a thing — the only parallel situation I can think of is the distinct regional film industries of India.
This doesn't correspond strictly to shooting location; it's possible for an ROC film to be made in Quebec, and it's possible for a Quebec film to be made in Nova Scotia. What it does correspond to, by and large, is language: the Quebec industry is primarily French (although there have been a few English films as well), while as far as I know the ROC's film industry has never made a single French language film — unless you count Bon Cop, Bad Cop, and even that was a Quebec-ROC collab.
If a film production company from Quebec is making the film, it's a Quebec film even if it's shot in Mongolia, and if a production company from Toronto is making the film, it's a Rest of Canada film even if it's shot in the Citadelle of Quebec City — because it's not a question of shooting location, it's a question of which one of two parallel industries the film is being made by. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not 100% happy but I will not oppose it. Waacstats (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see why Waacs, but really the Quebec film industry is quite distinct, it would seem more feasible to link the Montreal based French language films into a stub category than mixing Quebecois French films in with general Canadian films in say a 1970s-Canada film stub for instance. If you really feel that strongly against it I have no qualms, just a suggestion given that Quebec films seems to be clearly distinct from general english Canadian films. After all, we have Hindi-film-stub, Malayalam-film stub etc rather than 1970s-India-film-stub etc.. Himalayan 20:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I work in the English-Quebec (aka English Montreal) film industry and while I think Bearcat is understating the number of English Quebec films when he terms them a "few," I support the creation of these stubs in principle. But I do wonder -- and have for some time -- where the Montreal-produced English-language films of the NFB would fit in all this. The NFB is an agency of the Canadian government -- but until its development of regional production centres in the late 70s, scores of English NFB films were produced out of Quebec. Not because they were in any way intrinsically Quebecois, but because this was where the NFB was based. The NFB retains two English studios in Quebec: Quebec Centre (for docs) and the Oscar-winning Animation Studio (which is unarguably the best known of all NFB studios in Canada). Are these Quebec films? They're made in Quebec, in many but not all cases by Quebec directors, and always by Quebec-based producers. NFB aside, Montreal boasts such indie doc production houses as Eyesteel film, Rezolution, Cineflix, that do work almost exclusively in English; not to mention mini-majors like Astral that remain based in Montreal, thanks to Harold Greenberg. Porky's was made thanks to Greenberg: would we be stubbing Porky's as a Quebec film, if it was a stub class article? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it matters if there are many english films as well, as long as they ar eproduced by the Quebec film industry. If is was say FrenchCanaddian-film-stub then it might be an issue but as it is I think its OK... Himalayan 16:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

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:Faboideae 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.
Oversized, the following are viable

Waacstats (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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:Poales 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.
Oversized, the following are viable

Waacstats (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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:Passeri 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.
Oversized, the following are viable

Waacstats (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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:Orchid 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.
Oversized, the following are viable

Waacstats (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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:Moth 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.
Another moth family has mor e than 60 articles, will bring the category down closer to 800. I propose

Waacstats (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Why or why o WHYYYYY didn't the creator think about this first.... The worrying thing is that some of the stubs like Gazoryctra have not been touched in 4 years.. Himalayan 18:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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:Kosovar 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.
Upmerge of approximately 10 templates, which is probably overkill. However, total of stubs adds up to over 60. As for the name, Kosovan seems to be commonly used on Wikipedia in some cases, while Kosovar in others. I much prefer Kosovar and believe it is the correct version. Thoughts?--TM 19:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If there's 60 stubs in all, then support as Kosovan. "Kosovan" is used on Wikipedia since "Kosovar" is a politically loaded term and is likely to lead to edit-warring problems. Grutness...wha? 23:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Category:Kosovan people stubs per Grutness Himalayan 18:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

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:Mantodea 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.
Another oversized insect category, propose the following

Waacstats (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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:Stylommatophora 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.
Another oversized gastropod category, the only large enough stub cat that I can find is

Waacstats (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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/2009/September&oldid=435567826"