Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2010/April
Proposals, April 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.
split of Category:Astronomer stubs
various splits of Category:Scientist stubs
Split of Category:American voice actor stubs
Split of Category:Kenya geography stubs
{{Iran-dam-stub}}
Politician stubs
Couple more Sports video game categories
More video game stubs
Further split of Category:Conidae stubs
split of Category:Fencing biography stubs
Currently, the Category:Electronics stubs is a top-level stub category and is oversized. A good part of its contents can be up-merged to the parent Category:Electricity stubs, which does not exist yet, but would be a fine top-level category (or a subcat of Category:Physics stubs). I have already re-stubbed several of the misplaced electronics stubs: please take a look at {{Electric-stub}} and Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Electric-stub. Note that Electronics is just a subset of Electrical engineering, and that marking some articles with "electronics stub" template is rather illogical.
In the end of the day, the scheme should look like:
(Electronics stubs could be further catagorized by {{Consumer-electronics-stub}} but let's do it one step at at time). No such user (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- This seems a reasonable way to go about tidying up this area. Waacstats (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- IMHO, creating a category at this level is already justified. If we declare "Electronics" as a sub-category of "Electricity", then we already have the needed 60 articles by virtue of the subcategory. Dawynn (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Massivley oversized, mainly due to large numbers of main belt asteroids that need moving but could also be cut down slightly by the following
won't cut it down on it's own but I am sorting large numbers out of it. Waacstats (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Oversized, already have by county upmerged templates and the following tempalte has past 70 so propose it has it's own category.
and if anyone knows of any useful regions for the other 60+ counties. Waacstats (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
oversized, uses upmerged templates by county but suggest using 'regions' to breakthisdown a bit
- Category:Virginia Peninsula geography stubs from [here]
- Category:Southwest Virginia geography stubs from [here]
for starters. Waacstats (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
this one is only' slightly oversized. I propose the following splits
should easily cut it down. Waacstats (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support. 'Specially as it's partially my fault it's become oversized. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Yet another oversized stub cat I propose teh following subcats
- {{Agaricomycotina-stub}} / Category:Agaricomycotina stubs
- {{Teliomycotina-stub}} / Category:Teliomycotina stubs
- {{Ustilaginomycotina-stub}} / Category:Ustilaginomycotina stubs
that should keep everything below 800 easily. Waacstats (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support all. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
another oversized categroy I propose the following
should get close to 70 articles. Waacstats (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Another overized cat I propose the following splits
- {{Cymbidieae-stub}} / Category:Cymbidieae stubs
- {{Epidendreae-stub}} / Category:Epidendreae stubs
- {{Maxillarieae-stub}} / Category:Maxillarieae stubs
- {{Vandeae-stub}} / Category:Vandeae stubs
should de oversize this one. Waacstats (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support all. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
over 1100 articles, propose the following
should be a good start. Waacstats (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
another slightly oversized (5000+) the following should be viable
- {{Aganainae-stub}} / Category:Aganainae stubs
- {{Herminiinae-stub}} / Category:Herminiinae stubs
- {{Xyleninae-stub}} / Category:Xyleninae stubs
Woin't cut it down much but it's a start. Waacstats (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support all. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
slightly oversized I propose the following splits
- {{Muricidae-stub}} / Category:Muricidae stubs
- {{Tritoniidae-stub}} / Category:Tritoniidae stubs
- {{Trochidae-stub}} / Category:Trochidae stubs
- {{Discodorididae-stub}} / Category:Discodorididae stubs
- {{Cyclostrematidae-stub}} / Category:Cyclostrematidae stubs
- {{Chromodorididae-stub}} / Category:Chromodorididae stubs
Don't think this will get it down to below 800 but would be a good start. Waacstats (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support all. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- There would be a good start to verify its existence firstly next time. Cyclostrematidae is a synonym. Others are OK. --Snek01 (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
to Waacstats: Also it is quite useless and misleading categorize such articles without knowledge about the theme. Taxonomy of them can, and in some cases often is changing quite often. Then recategorizing became necessary and categorizing of stubs make additional work. Next time categorize only those ones, that you are familiar with (if there are such gastropods). --Snek01 (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)