Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CodeZeta (talk | contribs) at 01:53, 12 January 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcuts
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

On this WP:WSS subpage, you can propose new stub types (please read the procedures beforehand!), as well as the reorganization and subdivision of existing stub types. You can also discuss anything else related to stubs on the talk page.

Proposing new stub types – procedure

Important: If you wish to propose the creation of a stub ARTICLE you've come to the wrong place. If you don't have a username yourself, please go to WP:AFC for proposing a new article. If you already have a username, you can create the article yourself. If you don't know how, add {{Helpme}} to your user talk page to request help from other editors. This page only deals with stub TEMPLATES and CATEGORIES; we cannot help you with creating articles.

Proposing new stub types
If you wish to propose a new stub category and template, please follow these procedures:
  1. Check the List of stub types or under Category:Stub categories to make sure that your proposed new stub does not already exist.
  2. List it at the top of the current month's section, under a header, like the ones shown (if any). Sign it with a datestamp (~~~~).
    • Please bear in mind that a stub category isn't about the importance or notability of the topic!
  3. Find a good number[1] of stub articles, as many as you can, that will fit that template. You may use this tool to scan through categories; tagged stubs are always in Category:All stub articles and transclude {{asbox}}. Each of these articles can be:
    • currently marked with {{stub}};
    • currently marked with another type of stub tag (in which case you should justify why your tag is better for the article than the current one);
    • a stub whose categorisation is highly ambiguous or questionable;
    • not marked as a stub.
  4. If you use any category scan (from the tool mentioned above or from any other), please link to it so that other users can confirm that the results are still accurate.
  5. Others may do the same, if they so desire.
  6. 5 days after listing it here, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new category and/or template following the format on Wikipedia:Stub. List the new stub type on the stub types list in an appropriate section. If consensus is not clear, or discussion is still ongoing, the proposal will remain open until consensus can be reached.
  7. If you wish to propose a stub type which does not currently have 60 articles that could use it, you may propose an upmerged template in a similar way. An upmerged template would feed into currently existing stub categories until such time that there are enough stubs for a separate stub category. At that point a category for it may be separately proposed. Some times, it may be difficult to be sure how many stubs would get a tag - in which case you can also start with an upmerged stub tag until you're sure there are enough.

DO NOT place a proposal here for any stub type which has already been created and is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. The proposal page is only for stub types that have not yet been created, and it is better to keep any discussion of such stub types in one place rather than splitting it between different pages. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is the correct page for proposals to delete a stub type.

^ . Good number means about 60 articles or more, or 30 or more if it is the primary stub type of a WikiProject, though this figure may vary from case to case.

"Speedy creation"

A stub type may be proposed for "speedy creation" if it meets one of the following criteria:

  • S1 - the creation of a category for which an approved upmerged template already exists and is now in use on more than 60 articles.
  • S2 - the creation of an upmerged national-level template for a subject in which other such national-level templates currently exist (e.g., X-bio-stub, X-hist-stub, or X-geo-stub, where X is the name of an internationally widely recognised country) or other instances where a clearly established pattern of similar subtypes exists. The proposed topic may not be controversial in scope. Many templates qualifying for S2 are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/To do/To create.

List speedy creation proposals in the same proposal listings as normal stub proposals below.

‹ The template below (Archive) is being considered for merging with Annual archive. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›


Proposals, January 2018

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

Category:Andalusia stubs / {{Andalusia-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 created.

I created the category and template moments ago, before I remembered stub types are supposed to be proposed here first; mea culpa, and I'll gladly undo my edits (and delete the template and category) if others think it's not needed. The structure would be:

There are 1,800+ articles in Category:Andalusia (depth: 10) and Category:Stub-Class Spain articles, so I'm sure there will be more than 60 members once I've populated it (holding off currently pending others' feedback). -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As there isn't a category for Andalusian structure stubs, I'd leave the Cádiz structure stub category where it is, as a sub-cat of Spanish building and structure stubs. Pegship (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2018 (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.
‹ The template below (Archive) is being considered for merging with Annual archive. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›


Proposals, December 2017

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

2010s classical album 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 the creation of 2010s classical album stub template, since there is one for the first decade of the 21st century.

--Jax 0677 (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2017 (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:Grand Est geography stubs and others

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.
In 2016 several regions of France have been merged. Therefore I propose creating:

Markussep Talk 16:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And some additional region-related stub categories:

Markussep Talk 11:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and thanks for figuring that out! Pegship (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2017 (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:Columbia, South Carolina 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:

The full list can be found at User:Od Mishehu/ColumbiaSC. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Pegship (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2017 (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:Providence, Rhode Island 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:

A full list can be found at User:Od Mishehu/ProvidenceRI. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Pegship (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well known regional city that deserves own stub page.―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 18:59, 2 January 2018 (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.
‹ The template below (Archive) is being considered for merging with Annual archive. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›


Proposals, November 2017

Category:Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 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 Category:Harrisburg, Pennsylvania stubs/{{HarrisburgPA-stub}} - I have a list of 71 stubs for this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded! Her :Pegship 18:08, 27 November 2017 (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:Oklahoma City 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 Category:Oklahoma City stubs/{{OklahomaCity-stub}} - I have a list of 102 stubs for this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Her :Pegship 19:57, 8 November 2017 (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:Columbus, Ohio 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:

The full list can be seen at User:Od Mishehu/ColumbusOH. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support as described by nom. Her :Pegship 19:57, 8 November 2017 (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:Engineering 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 template.
I propose creating under:

Support upmerged template until threshold is reached. Happy hunting. Her :Pegship 18:57, 2 November 2017 (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.
‹ The template below (Archive) is being considered for merging with Annual archive. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›


Proposals, October 2017

Category:Raleigh, North Carolina 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:

The full list is at User:Od Mishehu/raleigh. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:25, 26 October 2017 (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:American bodybuilding 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.
Propose Category:American bodybuilding biography stubs / {{US-bodybuilding-bio-stub}}. Start with the template, and add the category if article counts allow. Dawynn (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2017 (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 oversized Category:Paralympics 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 amended.

Looking at splitting the Paralympics in a couple different ways. There may very well be enough individual competitors to allow for a biography category.

But it also looks likely, especially with the later years, that we could separate the various articles by the various Paralympic years. Requesting exploratory templates, with categories to follow where article counts allow:

Dawynn (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Olympics stubs subcats don't iclude the "summer" component for the summer Olympics; I think that the Paralympics stubs should follow the same rule until/unless the Olympics stub types are changed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Categories do, but the templates don't. I've amended the proposal. Dawynn (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that each stub type is a child of the most local sport stub category existing - e.g Category:Catalan sport stubs for 1992 summer (Barcelona), Category:London sport stubs for 2012, Category:Utah sport stubs for 2002 winter (Salt Lake City), etc. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:30, 14 October 2017 (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.

Missing sports templates

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 building all of the following templates for potential future categories:

Dawynn (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2017 (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:Mauritanian sport 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 creating Category:Mauritanian sport stubs. Will fill with these templates:

Dawynn (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2017 (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:Grenadian sport 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 building the following:

Dawynn (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2017 (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 Polynesian sport 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 building Category:French Polynesian sport stubs along with {{FrenchPolynesia-sport-stub}} and {{FrenchPolynesia-sport-bio-stub}}. Template {{FrenchPolynesia-footy-bio-stub}} is already tagged on 55 articles, and I see several National Team and World Championship articles in Category:French Polynesia stubs. Dawynn (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2017 (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:Aruban sport 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.

Dawynn (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2017 (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.

New national people categories

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.
New people categories at national levels. A handful look to be ready. Will also create the missing sport bio templates:

Dawynn (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2017 (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.

Other sportspeople

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.
Found a few others outside of Africa:

Dawynn (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2017 (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.

African sportspeople

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 new sportspeople categories for the following countries:

Dawynn (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2017 (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:Military unit and formation 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.
Propose creating

This will drain the parent category enough to bring it back out of the oversized realm. Dawynn (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have meant categories? If so, I went ahead and corrected that in your post. Have you also considered creating:
  1. Category:Indian military unit and formation stubs / {{India-mil-unit-stub}} - 240 stubs
  2. {{Hungary-mil-unit-stub}} - 18 stubs
-Furicorn (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the proposal to use the country name in the template. We save the demonyms for the category name. Dawynn (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2017 (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:Juneau, Alaska 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 Category:Juneau, Alaska stubs/{{JuneauAK-stub}} - this can pick up the well-populated Category:Juneau, Alaska geography stubs, as well as 27 other stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:45, 2 October 2017 (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:Catalan sport 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 Category:Catalan sport stubs/{{Catalonia-sport-stub}} - this should pick up the well-populated Category:1992 Summer Olympics stubs (Barcelona), as well as {{Catalonia-basketball-team-stub}}, {{Catalonia-sport-bio-stub}} and {{Catalonia-sports-venue-stub}} (a total of 44 more stubs), and undoubtedly several other stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - but bear in mind that any changes relating to Spanish and Catalan categories at the moment might generate negative feedback from editors. Grutness...wha? 02:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For now, Catalonia is a subcat of Spain; creating this category makes sense even if Catalonia never becomes independant, and will be helpful if it ever does. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please also keep in mind (and I will mention this to anyone who accuses me of supporting Catalonia's claim of independence) that Wales and California have not made any claim of independence, yet they both have sport stub categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doing so - simply pointing out that any new category connected with Catalonia may become the subject of an edit war outside the Stub sorting community. I think the idea of a template and category is an excellent one. Grutness...wha? 00:38, 3 October 2017 (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.
‹ The template below (Archive) is being considered for merging with Annual archive. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›


Proposals, September 2017

{{Fiordland-geo-stub}} and {{Fiordland-river-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.

Though not strictly necessary yet, stub templates for Fiordland in New Zealand would be useful and worth partially splitting. There are (over two categories) some 210 stubs for the parent Category:Southland, New Zealand geography stubs, and at least 95 of them relate to Fiordland. I'm proposing templates and a Category:Fiordland geography stubs. There aren't *quite* enough for a separate Fiordland river stubs subcat, but it's close, so they'd double upload to Fiordland geo and Southland river cats. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 29 September 2017 (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:Trenton, New Jersey 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 Category:Trenton, New Jersey stubs/{{TrentonNJ-stub}} - I have a list of 75 stubs for this city. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:21, 27 September 2017 (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 large actor categories

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 revised by Furicorn.

There are three actor categories currently in the oversized list. Propose splitting these by stage / screen / voice. I'm asking to create all of these templates, and as many of the categories as the article counts will allow (60+).

Dawynn (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawynn: I've edited your proposal to include PetScan stub counts, and have added a few categories - I hope you don't mind. I thought they were pretty logical additions, but feel free to revert if you feel otherwise. After counting, looks like it doesn't make sense to make Category:Indian voice actor stubs or Category:Japanese stage actor stubs -Furicorn (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2017 (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:Saint Paul, Minnesota 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 Category:Saint Paul, Minnesota stubs/{{SaintPaulMN-stub}} - I have a list of 74 stubs for this city already. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with the list, and have 85 stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:04, 26 September 2017 (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:African athletics 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.
Propose splitting the overlarge African athletics biography stubs category according to regions. Propose following the regions established by the Confederation of African Athletics. The new categories will all be parent-only.

Dawynn (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2017 (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:Annapolis, Maryland 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:

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:20, 24 September 2017 (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:Finnish 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.
Currently there are 19 articles 73 stubs falling under this category that I can find through PetScan. More than 100 articles created by Mannerheimo in the month of September, are also falling under this category. Hitro talk 16:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, creation of the category as well as creation of {{Finland-diplomat-stub}}. I edited your comment to reflect the 73 stubs that fall under Category:Finnish diplomats - seems like a lot of them are currently tagged with {{Europe-diplomat-stub}} -Furicorn (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2017 (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:Baton Rouge, Louisiana 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:

A full list can be found at User:Od Mishehu/BR. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:53, 20 September 2017 (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:Clothing retailers of the United Kingdom, Luke 1977 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 do not create.
I propose to create a stub on Luke 1977 - a popular clothing retailer in the UK. This would sit as a stub sub-category page beneath the main category: Clothing retailers of the United Kingdom - which has 146 stubs. User talk:Fewey1 09;57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

As to creating a stub on Luke, that's not here; we don't handle the creation of stubs, only sorting them. As to vreating a stub category for Category:Clothing retailers of the United Kingdom, there are 146 articles in this category, but not all are stubs; a scan finds only 36. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:58, 20 September 2017 (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:Des Moines, Iowa 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 Category:Des Moines, Iowa stubs/{{DesMoinesIA-stub}} - I have a list of 67 stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious, why do you prefer to make city stub groupings vs county stub groupings? For instance, why not create Category:Polk County, Iowa stubs? Or is that just the standard for the types of stubs your working on? -Furicorn (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of geography and NRHP stub categories, county-level stub types are rare. Please note, for example, that in Category:California stubs, we have 4 city top-level stub categories, but no county top-level stub categories other than San Francisco (which is both a city and a county). The major exceptions are cities which are also counties (such as San Francisco), and the boroughs of New York City. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:25, 18 September 2017 (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.

Wisconsin Regional Stub groupings

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 with lowercase g.
I'd like to propose the following five regional categories for Wisconsin based on the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources regions.

  1. Category:Northern Wisconsin geography stubs - 465 stubs
  2. Category:Northeast Wisconsin geography stubs - 497 stubs
  3. Category:South Central Wisconsin geography stubs - 376 stubs
  4. Category:Southeast Wisconsin geography stubs - 201 stubs
  5. Category:West Central Wisconsin geography stubs - 463 stubs

In the following collapsed table, I've included two possible versions of the proposed structure of the groupings. Some metropolitan areas have already been created as stub sub-categories, and I would mildly propose dismantling these smaller groupings to reduce confusion for people doing stub catting, as reflected in the first proposal. The second proposal retains the smaller groupings and moves them to the appropriate region. Although I think the first option is probably better from an administrative standpoint, I will reiterate that I would ultimately fine with either version of the categorization.

1. Wisconsin Regions stub category groupings (existing metro regions dismantled):

Category:Northern Wisconsin geography stubs

Category:Northeast Wisconsin geography stubs

Category:South Central Wisconsin geography stubs

Category:Southeast Wisconsin geography stubs

Category:West Central Wisconsin geography stubs

2. Wisconsin Regions stub category groupings (existing metro regions retained):

Category:Northern Wisconsin geography stubs

Category:Northeast Wisconsin geography stubs

Category:South Central Wisconsin geography stubs

Category:Southeast Wisconsin geography stubs

Category:West Central Wisconsin geography stubs

I guess I overlooked signing this initially, but I posted it on 2017.09.16. -Furicorn (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

support second proposal (keeping urban areas), tentatively (I know little of how you'd divide up Wisconsin. BTW, the category names should have lower-case "g"s in geography! Grutness...wha? 06:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(proposed categories edited to suit :) Grutness...wha? 03:34, 30 September 2017 (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:Honolulu 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 Category:Honolulu stubs/{{Honolulu-stub}} - I have a list of 105 stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -Furicorn (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2017 (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:Tallahassee, Florida 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 Category:Tallahassee, Florida stubs/{{TallahasseeFL-stub}} - I have a list of 128 stubs for this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -Furicorn (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2017 (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:Phoenix, Arizona 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:

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Grutness...wha? 01:39, 10 September 2017 (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:United Kingdom geology 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 now over sixty stubs marked with {{UK-geology-stub}}, and many other articles that could take that template - plus the existing Category:United Kingdom geologic formation stubs forms a natural subcat. Speedy? Grutness...wha? 00:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and additionally it might make sense to consider a similar treatment for Category:Australian geology stubs since it has 76 stubs -Furicorn (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what you mean - Australia already has its own category. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I initially misunderstood the proposal, so ignore my comment about Australia (although I still support this proposal). -Furicorn (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this, it would allow categorization of quite a few of what I generally call 'landforms', like Tors. A Guy into Books (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2017 (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.

Brunei government 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 template.
Proposal for speedy creation S2 for {{Brunei-gov-stub}}. There are currently three members under Category:Brunei government stubs (should be four but somehow this category in one of the pages was deleted by some user)) but there should be more since articles on the Brunei Government are currently underrepresented. Based on my local knowledge there are at least a dozen cabinet-level 'ministries' in the government, but only four of them have Wikipedia articles. Similarly, there are also many more departments under them but only a few of them have related pages. At present, I plan to create as many stubs on the related matter as possible, with introductory information, so that it is easier for me and other users to add more information on them whenever relevant sources are obtained.Zulfadli51 (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a template certainly seems speediable - but linked to Category:Brunei stubs and Category:Asian government stubs for now - if it rises to 60 or more stubs, then a separate category will also be speediable. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, if there are only 3 stubs, then {{Brunei-gov-stub}} should be upmerged to Category:Brunei stubs and Category:Asian government stubs until enough stubs exist to breakout the stand-alone category. -Furicorn (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2017 (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.

Japanese Regions groupings for regions (per backlog)

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 do not create.

I'm hoping to help clear out the backlog on this page, so I hope I'm doing it right. Category:Wikipedia stub sorting backlog lists Category:Japan geography stubs as part of the backlog. List of regions of Japan lists eight traditional regions, which seem like they might be good fits for regional stub categories. Here is how I propose we regroup the prefecture geography stubs.

Japan Regional stub category groupings:

Almost all the categories have at least 60 stubs catted directly and those few that don't have 60 direct stubs have at least one subcategory. -Furicorn (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update - to be clear, the purpose of this proposal is in order to resolve the {{stub-sorting-backlog|75}} template currently applied to the category -Furicorn (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first region is Category:Hokkaidō geography stubs. No need for a parent region-level category here - just like we don't have a county-level stub category for Category:San Francisco geography stubs like we do for the rest of the state of California. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's what I was trying to say with my comment next to the Hokkaido category, but I guess it wasn't clear enough. Glad you agree tho. -Furicorn (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see it, uses the 'ō' character, no 'o'. I've edited to reflect. -Furicorn (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - given that all but a handful of Japanese geo-stubs are now in one of the prefecture categories, do we have any need for regional parents? It seems like it would simply add an extra, unnecessary layer in the hierarchy. Category:Japan geography stubs looks fine as it is - you (or you and others) have done a great job of tidying it! Grutness...wha? 01:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Grutness: It was not me, I was just trying to cleanup Category:Wikipedia stub sorting backlog. This sounds like a counter-proposal to remove {{stub-sorting-backlog}} from Category:Japan geography stubs? -Furicorn (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Furicorn: Not really. The template is often used on categories which fill up rapidly with undersorted stubs. It doesn't necessarily mean new categories are needed, just that some of the stubs in there need further sorting - which often happens with country-level geo-stubs. Given the number of subcategories that are in Category:Japan geography stubs, the threshold for reporting a backlog's probably a bit low. I'll re-set it to 100, which should ease the problems. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Grutness: ok, I think we can close this request then. -Furicorn (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2017 (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.

Montgomery, Alabama 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 Category:Montgomery, Alabama stubs/{{MontgomeryAL-stub}} - I have 61 stubs for this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the parent of this? Category:Alabama stubs? -Furicorn (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just like the parent of Category:Sacramento, California stubs is Category:California stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this seems to make a lot of sense -Furicorn (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2017 (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.

English church 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:

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we have these then they would clash with struct-stubs, not to mention the generic size, as there are masses of churches (pun n/i). A Guy into Books (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a subtype of the struct-stub, side-by-side with the regional subtypes, and each stub can have both. We may also end up deciding that we can do other regional church stub cateogries, as well as denominational church stubs on the England level. We do have multiple stub tags on a single page, see St Mary of the Angels, Liverpool, England an an example for a church in England. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So quick question, if an article was in {{Cornwall-struct-stub}} and was a heritage listed church still in use (like this one: Church of St James, Antony), then how would this new {{England-church-stub}} category affect it? A Guy into Books (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The same stub could have both, as neither is an ancestor (parent, grandparent, etc.) of the other. At some point in the future we may have {{Cornwall-church-stub}}, which would replace both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems quite reasonable, I Support this idea. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - "double-stubbing" is standard in cases like that. Grutness...wha? 01:51, 5 September 2017 (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.
‹ The template below (Archive) is being considered for merging with Annual archive. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›


Proposals, August 2017

Cornwall Stubs

{{Cornwall-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.
currently 181 stubs I propose that Category:Cornwall biography stubs is created. It will be a sub-category of Category:Cornwall stubs, which already has two sub-categories, Category:Cornwall building and structure stubs and Category:Cornwall geography stubs. It will have 80/90 stubs to begin with from its parent category, and (hopefully not too many) new stub creations.

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.

{{Cornwall-org-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 created.

I also propose that Category:Cornwall organisation stubs is created as a sub-category of Category:Cornwall stubs.

Roughly how many will there be? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That I'm not entirely sure about, I believe it will be around 70-80, but it could be less (or more). None of the parish councils in Cornwall have articles yet, but probably will at some point that would make another 210. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed and Support. Cornwall is a distinct region and this will help users navigate Cornwall stubs that are organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:MattLongCT (talk • contribs)
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.

{{Cornwall-village-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 do not create.
currently 947 stubs I also propose that Category:Cornwall village stubs is created as a sub-category of Category:Cornwall geography stubs, which has some 1,100 items in it, many of which are villages. After consideration this has been changed to being a proposal for 3 categories:

Oppose - see below. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See the revised less specific

A Guy into Books (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2017 (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.

{{Cornwall-area-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 do not create.
245 stubs, but looks like it could use a lot of category cleanup I also propose that Category:Cornwall area stubs is created as a sub-category of Category:Cornwall geography stubs, which has some 1,100 items in it, mostly to promote the improvement of the remaining articles on areas. (edited from districts which was too confusing).

Oppose - see below. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 3 September 2017 (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.

{{Cornwall-historic-geo-stub}}{{Cornwall-archaeology-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 as revised.
(edited after suggestion by Grutness) I also propose that Category:Cornwall archaeology stubs is created as a sub-category of Category:Cornwall stubs, to contain articles on hill-forts, archaeological sites and historic places, and history in general. ~100 total articles expected to be in it.

Support - but note several things -
  1. this is for archaeology and archaeological sites - not for general historic items like Kiddlywink or Battle of Sourton Down
  2. it should replace not add to, any current stubbing with UK-archaeology-stub (it should have been, and now is, a subcategory of Category:United Kingdom archaeology stubs)
  3. as with all stubs, it goes below the categories, not above!
You should have waited before creating this, but I've cleaned it up to meet the usual stubbing standards. That's one of the reasons for delaying, so that any problems can be fixed BEFORE the stub is in use! Grutness...wha? 01:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, i will let you create the others!. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2017 (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.

{{Cornwall-landform-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 do not create.
currently 131 stubs I also propose that Category:Cornwall landform stubs is created as a sub-category of Category:Cornwall geography stubs, which has some 1,100 items in it, to contain articles related mainly to geological landforms such as cliffs, tors etc. put also articles about coastline sections and AONB areas.

Oppose - see below. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 3 September 2017 (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.

Overall comments

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 revised.
Comments greatly appreciated. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the bio and org stubs, as long as there are enough of them - but as far as the geography stubs are concerned, the standard way of doing it (apart from rivers, for unexplained reasons) is to divide by sub-region (see Category:North Yorkshire geography stubs's subtypes for an illustration), so I'd be against the landform stubs, village stubs, and district stubs. Instead, I'd suggest splitting by the former districts of Caradon, Carrick, Kerrier, North Cornwall, Penwith, and Restormel (there don't seem to be any current equivalents, unfortunately). The other reason I'd be against the sort of split you suggest is that you'd probably find that most of the articles are villages, so you'd just end up with another overpopulated category. There also seems to be a bit of undersorting in the Cornwall-geo category; quite a few of those 1100 geo-stubs should actually be marked with {{Cornwall-struct-stub}} (e.g., Carminow Cross, Church of St Adwen, Advent).

Historic geo stubs is one we don't really have any precedent for, but many of them (especially the hill forts etc) could easily be covered by a more standard {{Cornwall-archaeology-stub}}.

By the way, please note that I've changed the capitalisation of your proposals - they wouldn't fly at all in all caps!) Grutness...wha? 12:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to - @Grutness:. I agree with the gist of what you are saying here, I suppose a revised proposal for an updated set of geo-stubs is needed. Unofficially, Cornwall can be divided into West, Central and East. [[2]]. each including two former districts. This could be combined with a {{Cornwall-river-stub}}. Perhaps aiming to have about >200 stubs in each new stub category? Or use the former districts and have >100 stubs in each new stub category. A fair amount of stubs will remain in Cornwall-geo-stub's since this will hold the ones that cant be sorted easily.

{{Cornwall-archaeology-stub}} is an excellent idea, I wish I’d thought of it myself before conjuring up {{Cornwall-historic-geo-stub}} A Guy into Books (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about {{Cornwall-river-stub}} since I have noticed Category:Rivers of Cornwall only has 38 pages, and there are only ~70 rivers total (not counting streams) in Cornwall altogether. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my best guess at stub counts for references to each of the proposed categories. Please note there is double counting in some of the district and people categories, as I couldn't manage to eliminate people stubs from my district queries. -Furicorn (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your estimates do somewhat backup what Grutness was saying about Cornwall-village-stubs being too big, however I like the Cornwall-landform-stubs category so:

These could help break village stubs into manageable sections. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall doesn't have districts any more; it did at one time, but all of these vanished when it became unitary on 1 April 2009. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm leaning more towards the West/Central/East divide because of this, at least that's still current. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat - I am strongly against having village stubs and landform stubs, even split by region, for the reasons specified above. And I was not suggesting a cornwall-river-stub, only mentioning that it is the only case (a far as I know) where any type of landform is split by type. The following would be far more in line with our standard stub-sorting methods:

either
or
If the current usage is three unofficial regions, but each of those reasons is simply two former districts, then either would be appropriate.

A {{Cornwall-archaeology-stub}} (but NOT "cornwall-arc-stub"!) would be a good idea, and I'm in favour of it - but should not have been created until discussion was complete, in case there were dissenting views! Grutness...wha? 01:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The category of Category:Landforms of Cornwall was the inspiration for landform stubs but i can understand that it doesn't really fit this project, I still cant see what is wrong with 'arc' as its used in {{arc-stub}}, but my bad. {{EastCornwall-geo-stub}} {{CentralCornwall-geo-stub}} {{WestCornwall-geo-stub}} is my preferred option over using the former districts directly, mainly because they are more recognizable for a non-local person. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know about arc-stub - it appears to have been created and never used by someone unconnected with the project and was never reported here! Basically, we try to avoid shortcuts that would be ambiguous, and it'd be far too easy to assume it was a shortcut for {{architecture-stub}}. It's the same reason we usually use full names for countries and US states rather than using their standard ISO abbreviations. It's probably not too much of a biggie, but any way we can reduce confusion with the hundreds of stub names and keep them consistent is worthwhile :) Grutness...wha? 02:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Just out of interest, at what point is this discussion considered closed? Other places have a 7 day/15 day timeframe but im not sure about here. Now that August is over. A Guy into Books (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The official line is: 5 days after listing it here, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new category and/or template following the format on Wikipedia:Stub. List the new stub type on the stub types list in an appropriate section. If consensus is not clear, or discussion is still ongoing, the proposal will remain open until consensus can be reached.
I'd say we're pretty close to consensus now, but it might be worth waiting a day or so to see if there's any new discussion. If not, then it's probably safe to go ahead. Grutness...wha? 01:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That looks right, yes. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Grutness: . Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  07:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes? Grutness...wha? 12:04, 12 September 2017 (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:Buffalo, New York 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 the following structure:

I'm working on the list at (sorry for the pun) User:Od Mishehu/Bison. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with the list, and there are 80 NRHPs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:11, 3 September 2017 (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.

Plantation stub templates

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 templates; cats if sufficiently populated.
Hi, if it is the case that I need approval to create upmerged templates, I'd like to create plantation stub templates. There are 642 members of Category:Plantations in North America with {{asbox}}, so I propose minimally created the following templates that upmerge into the state level building and structure stub categories like Category:South Carolina building and structure stubs. I've already created {{SouthCarolina-plantation-stub}} and added it to a couple dozen pages, and I'd like to additionally create the following upmerged templates:

-Furicorn (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're doing this, please start from the root category (Category:Plantation stubs/{{plantation-stub}}) (863 stubs), then work your way down to specific countries where a stub category may be appropriate (doesn't surprise me that the US is one of these), followed by subdivisions of countries with large numbers of them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll work on the following
-Furicorn (talk) 07:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The currect structure is:
עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about this structure?
I'm not sure I see the need for tags at the top two levels
-Furicorn (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when is it appropriate for a stub category to belong to more than one category? See for example {{SouthCarolina-museum-stub}}, which belongs to Category:Southern United States museum stubs and Category:South Carolina building and structure stubs, both of which ultimately rollup to Category:Southern United States building and structure stubs. -Furicorn (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is directly related to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#Stub template as children of multiple parent stub categories. I see that Category:Plantation stubs was created less than two hours ago, without waiting either five days or for agreement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: Hey, that was my bad, I've blanked out Category:Plantation stubs. -Furicorn (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re your proposed structure of 09:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC), the first two should definitely have stub templates, {{plantation-stub}} and {{US-plantation-stub}} respectively, since there will be plantations in the USA where there are insufficient examples to justify a state-specific template; similarly, there will be plantations outside the USA where there are insufficient examples to justify a country-specific template. I work mainly with railways: but there are parallels. A recent stub tagging exercise that I was involved in was the railway stations of India: there is Category:Indian railway station stubs which has 11 subcategories for those states where there are 60+ stub articles about stations, each with its own stub template; there are also 19 stub templates which upmerge to Category:Indian railway station stubs for those states with fewer than 60 stub articles about stations. There is also {{India-railstation-stub}} which has two uses: it covers those stations where we don't yet have a state-level template; and also those stations where the person tagging the page as a stub could work out that it was in India, but couldn't work out which state was relevant. So:
  1. Wait for approval here.
  2. Create {{plantation-stub}} and add it to some articles.
  3. When 60+ articles are tagged with {{plantation-stub}}, create Category:Plantation stubs (oh, you already did) and amend {{plantation-stub}} to populate that category.
  4. If you have found that most are in the USA, create {{US-plantation-stub}} and add it to some articles; in many cases, this will replace the {{plantation-stub}}.
  5. When 60+ articles are tagged with {{US-plantation-stub}}, create Category:United States plantation stubs and amend {{US-plantation-stub}} to populate that category.
  6. If you have found that most are in South Carolina, create {{SouthCarolina-plantation-stub}} and add it to some articles; in many cases, this will replace the {{US-plantation-stub}}.
  7. When 60+ articles are tagged with {{SouthCarolina-plantation-stub}}, create Category:South Carolina plantation stubs and amend {{SouthCarolina-plantation-stub}} to populate that category.
The principle should be that we create when needed, and not in anticipation of a need. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be totally fair: I have occasionally first creatd a stub category, and then populated it with at least 60 stubs. In these cases, I already knew (not just suspected, but actually knew) that I was able to populate it with at least 60 stubs before I created the category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: thank you for the detailed explanation. So in the India example, am I correct in inferring that there was often no information at all about these stations? It seems like that might be the case since there are stations that still can't be positively identified with a particular state in India. So, I definitely understand your approach, it makes a lot of sense if the articles are just a title and a sentence with no categories or clarifying information otherwise. That's generally not the case with these National Register of Historic Places stubs. They are typically already subcatted (with non-stub cats) down to the county. I've learned to use PetScan a little better, so I'll give some clearer references:
For any of those under 60 stubs, I think we should make a state-level template that upmerges to {{US-plantation-stub}}, and for any of them over 60 (NC, SC and Virginia), I think they should get a state-level template and a category (and maybe even some other division for SC and Virginia) Edit: I've added my proposed templates and their categories. -Furicorn (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stub tags for the US state of Georgia are GeorgiaUS-, not Georgia-, so it would be {{GeorgiaUS-plantation-stub}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the category names would be "Foo plantation stubs", not "Plantations in Foo stubs". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok how about this
-Furicorn (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that there is no need for a Category:Plantations by country stubs, and won't be for a long time. Given that there are currently only three articles (none of them stubs) for plantations outside the United States, simply going from a generic Category:Plantation stubs to a subcat Category:United States plantation stubs seems appropriate. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with OM's assessment of the names, both in terms of the Georgia stub and the categories. I don't see a need for a specific US-plantation stub, though, given that individual state templates seem natural. I doubt there are/were any US plantations which aren't/weren't in any of the states, so a parent-only category seems a sensible choice. Grutness...wha? 14:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Washington D.C. (which is technically not a state, nor within any state) had plantations, although currently Category:Plantations in Washington, D.C. contains 0 stubs. So that's a hypothetical problem, but something that could be addressed later if necessary. -Furicorn (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Creation of a WashingtonDC-plantation-stub if and when needed would fix that, and given that it would then be part of an accepted pattern of templates, it could be speedied. Grutness...wha? 12:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can someone please answer the question I originally posed over here at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#Stub_template_as_children_of_multiple_parent_stub_categories - how do people generally decide whether a stub should tag to multiple categories? For instance {{SouthCarolina-railstation-stub}} and {{SouthCarolina-museum-stub}} tag a page to multiple stub categories. And, should this stub go to multiple stub categories? -Furicorn (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The hyphens in the template name are the cue. If there's no specific Category:South Carolina museum stubs category, then you look to parents in each of those two hyphened parts - a museum stub category and a South Carolina stub category. Given that the most specific South Carolina type is Category:South Carolina building and structure stubs and the closest museum stub type is Category:Southern United States museum stubs, those would be the two usual parents. If there are more than sixty SC museum stubs, a separate category for them can be broken out, and that would have the same parent categories. If in doubt, have a look at similar stub types (what are the parent categories of Category:Florida museum stubs?, where does {{NorthCarolina-museum-stub}} feed?) Grutness...wha? 01:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To give a more practical example: Until recently, {{Arkansas-bridge-struct-stub}}, having fewer than 60 transclusions, was upmerged into its 3 natural parents; recently, having brought it up past 60 stubs, I created its category - Category:Arkansas bridge (structure) stubs - the stub parents of which being the same 3 parents. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:22, 3 September 2017 (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:South Carolina Registered Historic Place 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.
Sorry if this is the wrong place to add a new entry, last time I added a new entry, someone had already made an entry for the month. I'd like to propose 4 new stub categories for Category:South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - Category:Lowcountry South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs, Category:Upstate South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs, Category:Pee Dee South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs, and Category:Midlands South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs. I think these categories should be large enough as they each contain multiple counties, and there are >1,200 stubs currently in the top-level category. -Furicorn (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Furicorn: What's the list of counties for each? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Furicorn:I've made a list; there are 18 counties I'm not sure how to place - if you can find the way to do it, we have a viable split here.
The unsorted counties are: Aiken (38 stubs), Allendale (13 stubs), Bamberg (11 stubs), Barnwell (11 stubs), Berkeley (16 stubs), Charleston (98 stubs), Chester (18 stubs), Clarendon (8 stubs), Dorchester (stubs), Edgefield (9 stubs), Georgetown (28 stubs), Horry (29 stubs), Lancaster (25 stubs), Lee (18 stubs), McCormick (18 stubs), Newberry (31 stubs), Williamsburg (12 stubs), and York (51 stubs).
The 4 groupings would be:
Category:Lowcountry South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 95 stubs
Category:Upstate South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 248 stubs
Category:Pee Dee South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 119 stubs
Category:Midlands South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 334 stubs
How does this look? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Od Mishehu: I think your scheme looks fine, but I didn't respond earlier because I was looking at 3 schemes:
  1. This one is from some guy with a blog, and was what I was originally using as the basis for my proposal. Although I don't know what his basis for those regions is, the advantages are that it has an even number of counties per region, and not that many regions (and that you have basically done the work setting this up))
  2. The SC Councils of Governments have the advantage of being official and more evenly sized regions than the first example, but there are more regions
  3. SC Tourism regions has advantages similar to the COGS, slightly less official, but maybe more relevant from a NRHP perspective?
I would be interested your opinion on the other schemes. -Furicorn (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More regions isn't necessarily a bad thing; the question is the size of the categories. The Councils of Government split has one region (Santee-Lynches) with 62 stubs; this is borderline, especially since there may be 1 or 2 overlap, and may result in us needing to cancel this category too soon if some one starts to expand a few NRHP stubs. The Tourism regions is worse - with Anderson, Oconee and Pickens as a separate area, we would only have 42, which is definitely too few. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first one looks relatively good. the Pee Dee region has 214 stubs and no counties we could separate out into a subcat; the Midlands region has 453, including Richland (a subcat of 133) and 2 other potentially separateable counties, which would leave this region at 215; however, that would be much better than the other split options you presented, and would certainly be better than the 724-stub category we would be left with if we don't split it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's helpful to understand your thought process. If the first one is best for our purposes, then here is how I would propose we proceed
My revision of the 4 groupings would be:
Category:Lowcountry South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 305 stubs
Category:Upstate South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 197 stubs


Category:Midlands South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 498 stubs


Category:Pee Dee South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 236 stubs
What do you think of this revision? Also, I can't always get petscan to reliably do a count. For instance I can't get Category:Plantations in South Carolina with {{asbox}} to return any values, no matter how high I set the depth value, even though its subcat Category:Plantation houses in South Carolina has 84 stubs. Do you know why that might be? Thanks. (Edit: I did some testing and it lookslike it has something to do with copying the text from a link vs copying text alone) -Furicorn (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like what you copied may have had a left-to-right mark (LRM) after it. This is a known problem with some browsers, and in the past I have fixed several instances where the LRM made it into the stub template itself (see for example these seven edits). I normally see them on stub templates set up by Od Mishehu (talk · contribs), as it happens. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no reasonably easy way to see them when creating/eidting a page. When they land in my PetScan requests, I can easily find them and remove them by using the links between the request and the list, and examining the URL. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A split of SC NRHP stubs sounds like a good idea. It also looks like a subcategory for Richland County (what would be the best format for the category name?) would be useful. Grutness...wha? 02:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the 3 counties with over 60 NRHP stubs already have stub cats, named in a similar way to other county-level NRHP stub cats. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at it briefly, it actually looks like most of the stubs tagged to the Richland county stub category should probably be subcatted to the city of Columbia within Richland county. National Register of Historic Places listings in Columbia, South Carolina has 129 entries, while National Register of Historic Places listings in Richland County, South Carolina only has 36 entries. It might therefor also make sense to make a subcat for Charleston County, South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs that is just for the city of Charleston which is within the county. I'll do another revision of the groupings. -Furicorn (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another revision of the groupings that includes the cities of Columbia and Charleston as subcats of their county.

2017/09/03 revision of the 4 groupings would be:
Category:Lowcountry South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 305 stubs
Category:Upstate South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 197 stubs


Category:Midlands South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 498 stubs


Category:Pee Dee South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 236 stubs

Ultimately, I think it makes sense to take a look at all the location categories of {{National Register of Historic Places in South Carolina}}, and see if we are missing any more locations that need templates. -Furicorn (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably no point in creating a subcat for Columbia NRHPs until/unless we create a base stub category for this city (I would have probably said otherwise if the stub count for its county was 200 or more); there is certainly no need to create an upmerged stub tag for the city of Charleston NRHPs until/unless we create a base stub category for it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is a base stub category? -Furicorn (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the base stub category would be Category:Columbia, South Carolina stubs or Category:Charleston, South Carolina stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC
This may be justified - there are [460 stubs that roll-up to Category:Columbia, South Carolina, and 351 stubs that rollup to Category:Charleston, South Carolina -Furicorn (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
City-level stub categories are more complicated than a simple scan; when deciding whether or not to propose one, iI always sort through them stub by stub. In general, for example, I exclude all articles on individual human beings other than the city's own mayors; and I tend to find many stubs which are actually about the city's suburbs and ot the city itself. Columbia, with your reported 98 NRHP stubs, would almost certainly pass; however, before I can be sure, I need to check each article. I'm currently working on state capitals, but South Carolina is near the end of the alphabet, so it will take me a while. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This revision removes the cities for now, as topics to be revisited later:

2017/09/07 revision of the 4 groupings:
Category:Lowcountry South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 305 stubs
Category:Upstate South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 197 stubs


Category:Midlands South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 498 stubs


Category:Pee Dee South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - 236 stubs

-Furicorn (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2017 (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.
‹ The template below (Archive) is being considered for merging with Annual archive. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›


Proposals, July 2017

Category:Arkansas Registered Historic Place stubs splits

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.
Since the Category:Arkansas_Registered_Historic_Place_stubs category has over 2,500 stubs, I would like to propose the creation of county-level stub tags similar to what exist for other states. The 75 Counties range from 8 to 239 possible stubs (based on the counts at National Register of Historic Places listings in Arkansas), so if we just want to keep it to the Categories that will include at least 50 stubs, I minimally propose the following stub categories:

I would propose upmerged templates for the remaining counties. Also, is it possible to mark these for S1 or S2 speedy creation? I'm not sure I understood very well if this request fits into those categories. --Furicorn (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2017 (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:Medieval history 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 do not create.
I'm surprised this doesn't already exist, I think we are using "England" but it would be preferable to have a historical period stub. WPMA currently shows 4,050 stubs.Seraphim System (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Ages stubs is a thing now. Seraphim System (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2017 (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.
‹ The template below (Archive) is being considered for merging with Annual archive. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›


Proposals, June 2017

Category:Hong Kong businessperson 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 revised.
Create {{HK biz bio stub}}. PetScan shows 83 stubs in Category:Hong Kong businesspeople. See all Hong Kong stub templates here. —A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 02:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Altercari: Why that name for the template? To fit in with established conventions, it would surely be {{HongKong-business-bio-stub}}, which already exists. Similarly, the category would be Category:Hong Kong business biography stubs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Wew. How did I miss that? I'll just quietly let myself out. —A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 07:53, 19 June 2017 (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:Nationalist Congress Party 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.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Skr15081997, I'd also like to know this. —A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 02:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both are different parties. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2017 (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:Samajwadi Party politicians 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 revised.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2017 (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 football club 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 there are over 20 different stub tags filling into this category, and it has ~900 pages in it. Some of these stub tags are clearly big enough to merit their own categories, while others could merit their own categories as they have a significant number of articles and it would reduce the number in the master category. I do not believe that having such a large category is helpful for anyone. My proposal is as follows:

I would also like to propose the creation of {{Gibraltar-footyclub-stub}} as currently there are 19 pages with the template {{Europe-footyclub-stub}}, all teams from Gibraltar. Currently there are many country football club stub tags which are on less than 19 pages and I believe it would make sense to specify from Europe. Stub tags exist with fewer pages for clubs from Andorra (11), Austria (16), Greenland (15), Ireland (8), Isle of Man (9), Kosovo (13), Liechtenstein (5), Luxembourg (16), Montenegro (15), San Marino (11) and Slovenia (17).

Thanks, JDWFC (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the Cyprus, Hungary, & Netherlands categories but would rather keep the rest of the templates upmerged until they actually reach 60+ articles. Also support formation of the Gibraltar template, upmerged to the Europe category, same reason. Her Pegship (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2017 (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&oldid=819923033"