Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2020/August

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting | Proposals | Archive | 2020
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pegship (talk | contribs) at 18:24, 3 September 2020 (→Split of Bangladeshi politician stubs: support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposals, August 2020

speedy African footy bio stubs

Waacstats (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy split of Tenebrionoidea stubs

oversized cateory, the following upmerged templates that have passed 60 are eligible for the relevant categories

Waacstats (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Vologda Oblast stubs

Our largest stub category, Vologda Oblast has 26 districts and 4 towns of obast significance, for now I have just taken the districts. Where districts share there name with a district in another oblast I have added VLG (the ISO-3166 code) and these are the only category names where I have added the Oblast's name.

Vologda Oblast by district split

Waacstats (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Split of Bashkortostan geos

Another oversized Russian geography stub subcat. Propose the following split by district. Bashkortostan has 54 districts. Where districts share there name with a district in another oblast I have added BA (the ISO-3166 code) and these are the only category names where I have added the Republic's name.

Baskortostan

Waacstats (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

split of Vladimir geos

Another oversized Russian geography stub subcat. Propose the following split by district. Vladimir has 16 districts. Where districts share there name with a district in another oblast I have added BA (the ISO-3166 code) and these are the only category names where I have added the Republic's name.

Vladimir Oblast

Waacstats (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Split of Perm Krai geos

Yet another oversized Russian geography stub subcat. Propose the following split by district. Perm Krai has 33 districts (per the article, I count 34!). Where districts share there name with a district in another oblast I have added PER (the ISO-3166 code) and these are the only category names where I have added Perm Krai onto.

Perm Krai

Waacstats (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Split of Volgograd geos

Yet another oversized Russian geography stub subcat. Propose the following split by district. Volgograd Oblast has 33 districts. Where districts share there name with a district in another oblast I have added VGG (the ISO-3166 code) and these are the only category names where I have added Volgograd Oblast.

Volgograd Oblast

Waacstats (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

split of Vorenezh Oblast

The smallest of the currently oversized Russian geography stub subcats. Propose the following split by district. Vorenezh Oblast has 32 districts. Where districts share there name with a district in another oblast I have added VOR (the ISO-3166 code) and these are the only category names where I have added Vorenezh Oblast.

Vorenezh Oblast

Waacstats (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy split of Siberia geography stubs

Oveersized and we have the following categories possible from existing upmerged templates.

This will serious reduce the size to around 230 articles. --Waacstats (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Split of American track and field athletics biography stubs

Speedy proposal for the following categories as the upmerged templates that would feed these have reached 60.

Also if some one can let me know the best way to rename most of the templates in the hierarchy following the discussion earlier this month on splitting the French and German categories. --Waacstats (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Split of Parliament of England (pre-1707) MP stubs‎

Currently the third largest stub category, Category:Parliament of England (pre-1707) MP stubs one that I am sure was around before my wiki break. There is already a split of MPs for Welsh constituencies but looking at the articles the vast number of them do not give the constituency that the person represented. If we split by dob then we would still have an oversize category just from those with no birth category. No organized parties as such back then for us to use either. Initially I propose splitting by century of parliament so we would have something along the lines of the following

Category names match the perm cats but the templates are a bit of a mess when it comes to 18th Century, does this say weill eneogh that it is for pre 1707 MPs and does not include MPs from the parliament of Great Britain who were English?Waacstats (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

This approach makes sense to me. Records going back that far will vary considerably, so difficult to have consistent approach based on constituency or age; century is an objective measure. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Split of Pakistani politician stubs

Another exceptionally large category, Category:Pakistani politician stubs it looks like there are enough stubs for the following categories:

These national legislators do not seem to be split by state in terms of the perm cats so I think splitting these national politicians out first would be a good start. While some state parliaments could also do with categories

I have taken the categories from the perm cats and used the geo-stubs as a basis for the state name and the permcat use of Legislative Assembly/Provincial Assembly for MLA/MPA. I am hoping someone with a bit more knowledge of this part of the world can tidy-up if necessary any potential problems. Obviously templates first, categories if they get over 60 uses, which given the fact that the AzadKashmir category only has 5 articles may prove difficult for some.Waacstats (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Split of Member of the Wisconsin State Assembly stubs‎

Anyone cottoned onto the fact that I am running through the oversized politician categories. The permcat has no splits at all other than for the 43 speakers. A split by party would lead to at least 1000 Republicans just based on categories. so I see two options, first split by party and then date of birth:

or just go straight to date of birth split:

Split of Bangladeshi politician stubs

Yet another oversized politician stub cat, this time by party looks the best option so here goes:

These three are the only by party categories over 60 and all three appear to have enough stubs to warrant a category, but as always templates first. Waacstats (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

tidy up of India 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.
Although this category is slightly below oversized, I would not be surprised to see it oversized again soon. We already have a number of by party splits and a number of by state splits. I propose we complete the by state split hich should then kill the 'oversizeness' of this category, at least for a couple of years.

we do however also have two of the by party splits that are currently oversized, namely Category:Bharatiya Janata Party politician stubs and Category:Indian National Congress politician stubs. I suggest that we also split these by state and any split can then go to the state politician stubs category as well

Long list of by state INC/BJP templates and categories

If people can double and triple check these names for me I would be grateful, I have taken the names form the Geography stub category so hopefully there is nothing too majorly wrong. I did however drop the “India” from the Punjab INC/BJP category as I feel that there is no INC/BJP in Pakistan to cause confusion. Waacstats (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Split of Ontario MPP 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 UpperCanada-MPP-stub and ProvinceofCanada-MPP-stub; categories to follow if used on 60+ articles.
The Category:Ontario MPP stubs|Ontario MPP stub covers biographies of Members of the Provincial Parliament of the province of Ontario, Canada. That legislature was created in 1867. However, the stub is being used for biographies of members of the two predecessor legislatures: the Parliament of Upper Canada (which existed from 1791 to 1841), and the Parliament of the Province of Canada (which existed from 1841 to 1867).

I propose the creation of two new stubs:

Note that there already are categories for members of the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada and the Legislative Council of Upper Canada, which would both be covered by the proposed Upper Canada stub: see Category:Parliaments of Upper Canada.

There are also categories for members of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada, and the Legislative Council. See: Category:Province of Canada people.

Skimming through the list of people with the "Ontario MPP" stub, there are several who were never members of the Legislature of Ontario, but rather the predecessor legislatures, and some of these were in fact dead before the Ontario legislature was created. Just in the "A" and "B" sections, for instance:

Individuals such as these should not be listed as Ontario MPP stubs; it's inaccurate and misleading

--Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I think that {{UpperCanada-MPP-stub}} and {{ProvinceofCanada-MPP-stub}} would be better names, would these templates then feed articles into an Ontario category/Canadian politician or are they likely to have 60+ articles? Waacstats (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the reply. For the name, is it more common to use hyphens and no space? I've never created a stub category before, so I don't know the normal style. As for number of articles, the Parliament of Upper Canada lasted for 50 years. The 1st Parliament had less than 20 members in the Legislative Assembly and less than 20 in the Legislative Council, but the last Parliament had about 50 members of the Legislative Assembly and an increased number in the Council, so I would think there would likely be more than 60 articles, with a high stub-rate. (Those politicians aren't written about extensively.) As for the Province of Canada, it lasted for eight parliaments over 26 years, with 84 members in the first Legislative Assembly and over 100 in the last one, so I would think likely a high stub rate. There are already categories for Upper Canada people and Province of Canada: see "Category:Province of Canada people" and "Category:Upper Canada people". I would think it best if the new stubs not feed into an Ontario or a Canada category directly, since those were both established after Upper Canada and then Province of Canada. (Sort of like having different stubs for MPs for the Parliament of England, the Parliament of Great Britain, and the Parliament of the United Kingdom; overlap in territory, but different bodies.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
      • So where would they upmerge to, if not into an Ontario or Canada category? (I know nothing of Canadian legislative history; this is fascinating.) Her Pegship (?) 04:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question (this is the first time I've tried to create a new stub.) What does "upmerge" mean? As mentioned in both of my earlier posts, there already are categories for Upper Canada and Province of Canada legislators. In "Category:Province of Canada", there is a sub-category: "Category:Province of Canada people", with two sub-categories: "Category:Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada‎" and "Category:Members of the Legislative Council of the Province of Canada‎. Woudl the stub for "ProvinceofCanada-MPP" link to those two categories? Is that what you mean by "upmerge"? Similarly, "Category:Upper Canada people" has two sub-categories, for members of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council. Would the stub "UpperCanada-MPP" point to those two categories? (Apologies if I seem dense here, but as mentioned, my first foray into the world of stubs. :) ) --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
        • If you don't mind a little history lesson, I can give you the context of why I don't think the "Ontario-MPP" stub applies to Upper Canada MPPs and Province of Canada MPPs. Although there was a substantial overlap in territory between the three, they were fundamentally different, with different constitutional sources. Upper Canada was created by the Constitutional Act, 1791, passed by the Parliament of Great Britain. Its territory stretched from what is now the Ontario-Quebec boundary in the east, to the tip of the Ontario Peninsula (Windsor-Detroit). It also ran north to some extent, but had a clear northern boundary, where it ran into Rupert's Land, which was a separate British possession. Then in 1840, following the 1837-38 Rebellions in Lower Canada and Upper Canada, the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed the Union Act, 1840 to unite Lower Canada and Upper Canada into the Province of Canada. The Upper Canada Parliament created by the Constitutional Act, 1791 was abolished. Instead, there was the Parliament of the Province of Canada, which had jurisdiction from the Atlantic coast to the tip of the Ontario Peninsula, and north to Rupert's Land. That was clearly a separate parliament from the Upper Canada Parliament, in no small part because the MPPs came from French-speaking Canada East and English-speaking Canada West. Then in 1867, the new Dominion of Canada was created by the British North America Act, 1867, passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It split the Province of Canada into two new provinces, Quebec and Ontario, each with their own parliament. The Parliament of the Province of Canada was abolished. In addition to having a new parliament, Ontario has different boundaries than Upper Canada had. The Ontario boundaries run past the Lakehead (western Lake Superior) and north to Hudson Bay (now including what used to be part of Rupert's Land). So, in summary, the constitutional and territorial extent of the three provinces of Upper Canada, Province of Canada, and Ontario were all from different sources and different boundaries, each with a different Parliament. That's why it's incorrect to use "Ontario-MPP Stub" to refer to the MPPs of Upper Canada and Province of Canada. Hope you find that helpful. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
        • In answer to your question about spaces, we very rarely use spaces in stub templates (Ideally never). Having had a quick look over your discussion above would it be agreeable to have the templates as {{UpperCanada-politician-stub}} and {{ProvinceofCanada-politician-stub}}. These categories could then feed articles into either Category:Canadian politician stubs not ideal I know but it is the modern nation covering this area and iff they have over 60 articles in them we can create Category:Upper Canada politician stubs and Category:Province of Canada politician stubs. This will give a slightly bigger remit for the categories and more chance of them being created. Waacstats (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
          • In re spaces, I think I was confusing the name of the template with how it would display. I assume even if the template has no spaces, the stub would display with spaces when used? Question: why change to "politician" from "MPP" ("member of provincial parliament"), which is a more specific term, and is used in the existing Ontario MPP stub? That was the model I was familiar with. Have to say, seeing MPPs from say, 1800, listed in with contemporary politicians strikes me as odd, but maybe I just have to get used to that proposal. Query: how are pre-1776 American politicians dealt with? would a member of the colonial Massachusetts assembly elected in say 1760 be treated the same as a member elected for the first time this fall? The 1867 Act was a major change in our constitutional history, similar to the US revolution. There was political and social continuity in both cases (1776 and 1867), but a clear change in the constitutional structure. Does the treatment of American colonial politicians provide a useful analogy? I just skimmed the Massachusetts political stubs, and I didn't see any colonial politicians listed there. Do colonial politicians turn up in some other category? Oh, and one other reason why the Province of Canada stub shouldn't feed into Ontario, in answer to Her Pegship's question, is that the Province of Canada MPP/politician stub would include members of the Province of Canada Parliament from Canada East, ie the area that became Quebec in 1867. They should not feed into an Ontario category. Lots of questions, sorry. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the leasson! It seems to me that MPPs fall more accurately into Canadian government categories than into Canadian politician categories; I wonder if Category:Canadian government biography stubs would be a good place for an upmerge for these. "Upmerge" is a stub sorting process whereby a stub template doesn't have its own dedicated stub category; applying the template to an article places that article in a "parent" stub category (see Category:Canadian building and structure stubs for examples). This is usually done with stub types which don't have at least 60 articles that apply; we create the dedicated stub category once there are 60 articles or more. I hope that clarifies the process. Her Pegship (?) 16:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
              • Thanks for the explanation of "upmerge" - learn something new everyday! Now I understand the earlier question about whether there would be 60 articles; obviously, a new stub proposal has to fit into the established parameters of the stub system. However, I don't think that the Canadian government biography stub works for this proposal. When I click on some of those bios, the stub notice says that they are individuals "who held a non-elected position in the Government of Canada". That's not correct on two grounds. First, the purpose of the proposed new stubs is for individuals who were in fact elected. Second, they didn't hold a position in the "Government of Canada", which means the federal government, created on July 1, 1867. Hope you don't think I'm being nitpicky here, but it's important to get it right.  :) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
              • From what I have read here, I would agree that they are politicians rather than government bios. With regards to why I suggested politician rather than MPP, my understanding is that MPP is used in Ontario like MP is in the UK or Australia where as the permanent (non-stub) categories seem to suggest that these politicians were either Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or Members of the Legislative Council (MLC) rather than having two templates for each parliament I thought one template using politician and then any other politicians such as governors, prime ministers etc could also be included. Waacstats (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
                • That makes sense to me. So, they would then be sub-categories in "Category:Canadian politician stubs", coming alphabetically among the other sub-categories? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
                  • Assuming there are more than 60 articles, yes the categories would be listed alphabetically. Waacstats (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
                    • Great! I think we have a consensus now; would you be prepared to create the stub templates? I've read through the instrucitons on how to create it and I think I'd muck it up, especially the upmerging and linking to categories (I'm a techno-peasant). I would suggest using the Union Jack flag icon as the stub icon for both templates (the Red Ensign didn't start to be generally used in Canada until after 1867), and then I guess the text would be: "This article about an Upper Canada politician is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." and "This article about a Province of Canada politician is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." Is that right? Once it's up and running, I'll go through the Ontario MPP list and start using the new stubs for the appropriate ones.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2020 (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.

Speedy split of Italian actors

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

The result of the debate was create.
Another oversized category is Category:Italian actor stubs we already have upmerged templates and the following are all over 60 and therefore speedyble

Waacstats (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Split of Baronet 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 am sure Category:Baronet stubs was on the oversized list before my wikibreak. I propose a split by the Baronetage. I am not 100% happy with the names here, as I don't know if people may use the England template for an English person who has received a UK Baronetage so any help on these would be gratefully recieved.

Waacstats (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Split of Italian Roman Catholic bishop stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Category contains 1361 articles,splitting by date of birth would leave approximately 700 articles. Splitting by diocese looks a non starter as none of the permcats have over 60. Another split of bishops that the parent perm cats use is by century so I propose we use this as most articles are also categorised this way and of the 100 or so articles that are not a quick look suggests most could be.

Waacstats (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

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

split of Anglican bishop stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Category:Anglican bishop stubs is oversized. Request speedy for Category:African Anglican bishop stubs as {{Africa-Anglican-bishop-stub}} has passed 60, should get the parent category below 800 i haven't yet sorted the following nations as I believe they can at least support a template by themselves and I would not be surprised if they also could support a category so I propose the following, categories only if the templates pass 60 uses.

Waacstats (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Split of British Christian clergy stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Category:British Christian clergy stubs is way oversized. I suggest an initial split by denomination, so

although not technically a split of the above, it appears to have been used on the British bishop stubs. Given a quick scan of the articles and a play on petscan it looks like the following are viable.

We also have bishop subcats of RC, Anglican and ChurchofEngland.Waacstats (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2020 (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.

More sculpture-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.
Slowly working my way through Category:Sculpture stubs with the new templates, and it looks like the following will be useful:

and, believe it or not,

Technically, these are probably speediable S2, but the earlier by-country templates were only agreed a few days back, so does this count? Grutness...wha? 10:16, 17 August 2020 (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.

S1 speedy split of French 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.
existing upmerged template {{France-politician-FN-stub}} has passed 60 stubs per the perm cat I propose Category:National Rally (France) politician stubs and a rewording of the template itself to take into account the change in name of the party in 2018. Waacstats (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2020 (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.

1990s country song stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Split Category:1990s country song stubs by year. Petscan results show that each year has enough for its own stub template and category

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support follows pattern of other categories. Waacstats (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose this feels like splitting for the sake of splitting. If someone has the sources and/or subject knowledge to expand stubs about 1991 country songs, they very likely also have the sources or subject knowledge to expand articles on 1995 country songs too. I don't see what's the benefit out of this. Year-wise splitting seems to be a recent phenomenon, most of which is started by DannyS712. I don't recall seeing these until a few years ago (though I could be mistaken)? SD0001 (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    @SD0001: I don't think it was started by me - the category has over 1,000 members and each of the sub categories has enough to warrant an individual tag DannyS712 (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    My take on per-year stubs is that they present a smaller number of articles for potential editors to expand than taking on a 600+-article category. Her Pegship (?) 23:47, 22 August 2020 (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.

Diplomat stubs

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

The result of the debate was create upmerged templates.

{{Ukraine-diplomat-stub}}

{{Malaysia-diplomat-stub}}

{{SouthKorea-diplomat-stub}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by BostonMensa (talk • contribs) 23:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

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

split of Category:Central Russia geography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Oversized category with a possible speedy categories as upmerged templates already have sufficient articles:

Waacstats (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2020 (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:Indiana 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.
Another oversized category, four templates are used on 60+ articles each leading to possible speedy categories

These will not reduce below 800 but itould be a start. Waacstats (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Split of Category:Australian rugby league 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.
Oversized category, permission to finish creating the by decade stub templates and where these are used on over 60 articles creation of the relevant sub-categories as shown below.

As well as any older ones that prove useful Waacstats (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Support per nom. Her Pegship (?) 17:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split of Category:French athletics biography stubs and Category:German 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 as revised.
Two oversized categories, unlike the British categogry no easy by subnation split, I suggest following the example used in the US category and by event so we would have the following templates and where these are used on over 60 articles the necessary category.

Waacstats (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Support per nom. Her Pegship (?) 17:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support with tweaking - the shot-put ones should be {{France-shotput-athletics-bio-stub}} and {{Germany-shotput-athletics-bio-stub}} (single "t" in shot put). And do we need the word athletics in the templates? I think the only ones it's needed for are the middle-distance and long-distance athletes - all the others are self-explanatory without it. We could probably lose "throw" from the javelin and discus ones, too. {{Germany-javelin-bio-stub}} is perfectly understandable (if the more cumbersome name is used for the US templates, then perhaps they could be moved?) Grutness...wha? 10:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Noted on the Shot put template, that is one of the events I compete in and I have never seen it spelt with 1 t, but looking around wikipedia there seems to be consistency to spell it with 1 t, seems weird to me but if that is the way it has been decided to spell it then I can go with that. Whether we need athletics in the template I would say to be consistant either we have it in all or none and I agree we need it in some I would say e need it in all. Finally regarding dropping throw from javelin and discus I would prefer to have throw there as that is what the articles are called but I would not argue if they are dropped. Waacstats (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Scrub what I said above, thinking about it it does make sense to drop the athletics and throw. Waacstats (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split of Category:Australian rules biography, 1880s birth stubs and Category:Australian rules biography, 1890s birth stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Both of these categories are oversized, per a couple of other sub-categories of Category:Australian rules biography stubs I suggest splitting these by year of birth as follows with categories for those that are large enough:

Waacstats (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Support per nom. Her Pegship (?) 17:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2020 (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:Mexican sport shooting 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.
{{Mexico-sportshooting-bio-stub}} has 68 uses on articles, I assume no one will mind these articles leaving the 700+ Mexico sportspeople stubs category. Waacstats (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Support per nom. Her Pegship (?) 17:20, 13 August 2020 (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:New Zealand rugby union 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.
Looks like some one made a start splitting this by date of birth, some templates have already been created, I propose expanding this.

Categories where appropriate and potentially going back further depending on need.Waacstats (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Support per nom. Her Pegship (?) 17:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Comment - shouldn't the category names be Category:New Zealand rugby union biography, 2000s birth stubs, etc? Grutness...wha? 18:09, 17 August 2020 (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:Thai football biography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Another one that was oversized until someone made a start o the split, I presume adding the missing positions should cause no problem;

I presume these categories will fill up as the goalkeeper already has 70+ articles and that was always used to be the last category to be created. Waacstats (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Support per nom. Her Pegship (?) 17:20, 13 August 2020 (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:Czech ice hockey 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, and delete unused by-date types.
Looks like someone has already made a start of splitting this by date of birth, however the only other national categories I can see (US and Canada) that have been split have gone down the player and then by position route, for consistency would it not be better to do the same here with

and then delete the existing by date templates that are hardly used.Waacstats (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Support per nom, and kudos to Waacstats for tackling these! Her Pegship (?) 17:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split of Cat:Sculpture 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 currently some 1700 stubs in Category:Sculpture stubs, and it would be good to split them. I can think of several ways of doing that:

a) by type of sculpture (fountain, memorial, bust, etc)

b) by century of creation

c) by location (outdoor/indoor, and/or by country)

  • (a) might be a problem, simply because it's often difficult to work out whether a statue's a monument or a memorial, whether a bust or a fountain can be a memorial, etc.
  • (b) would be easier, and would work well, especially for indoor statues. It's also what we do for painting stubs.
  • (c) would also be easier, and work very well, especially for outdoor statues. It's also what we do for structure stubs.

I'd rather not have one split for indoor and one for outdoor, though... I'm leaning towards (b), but I could easily be swayed to (c)... so which would be the better option?

Thoughts? Grutness...wha? 16:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE. The US template is very clearly going to be used on several hundred stubs, so I'll create Category:American sculpture stubs Category:United States sculpture stubs too (it's for sculptures in the US rather than sculptures by Americans, so the latter name is more appropriate). Grutness...wha? 10:35, 16 August 2020 (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.

Church-architecture-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.
Hi all - I've been sorting through Category:Church stubs, and quite a few of the items marked with church-stub (which should be for individual churches) are actually related to church architecture (styles and features of buildings). There are about 25 stubs (probably more can be found, too) that could happily be marked with {{Church-architecture-stub}}, which would get around the problem (upmerged to both Church stubs and Architecture stubs). Grutness...wha? 11:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

(Update) since I've now found 60 of them, a Category:Church architecture stubs would not be amiss either. Grutness...wha? 12:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/2020/August&oldid=976572272"