Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposals, March 2006[edit]

{{Mozambique-stub}}[edit]

I've found 49 stubs related to Mozambique (see User:Carabinieri/Africa - not quite over the 60-threshhold. But: I only searched the categories directly related to Mozambique and Category:Africa stubs and I bet that if Category:African people stubs and the politicians were to be looked through we could find at least another 5 articles or so. Anyway, I think Africa is grossly underrepresented as far as stub categories go, so creating this cat to counter systematic bias would also make sense; although that technically isn't a reason, I guess.--Carabinieri 17:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support--I would imagine that most nations will have their own category eventually, unless they're the size of Nauru or something. A2Kafir 17:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's indeed not a good reason: creating overly small categories of underrepresented areas is if anything more likely to assist them in languishing in obscurity. But 49 on a non-exhaustive search seems pretty close, so I support anyway. Alai 23:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the politicians, I counted seven of those on 11 March. I think it is pretty likey we'll be able to reach 60 stubs, so support. On a more general note, I agree with Alai: we should only add new templates, if they are actually viable. The list of templates is already pretty long. Valentinian (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support - itll make a parent for Mozambique-geo-stub too. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{offensive-lineman-stub}} and {{defensive-lineman-stub}}[edit]

American football bios are still oversized. These seem like two of the larger categories. Crystallina 00:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bit POV calling them offensive isn't it? :) (Support) Grutness...wha? 05:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Logical and seems highly likely to be viable. Suggest looking at the feasibility of {{wide-receiver-stub}} and {{runningback-stub}} (or bundling them together as {{offensive-back-stub}} if those are too small), and {{amfoot-secondary-stub}}. In that last case might be best to create separate templates for {{cornerback-stub}}, {{free-safety-stub}}, and {{strong-safety-stub}}, for the sake of better names, even if they all go into the one category. {{linebacker-stub}} I see is already a done deal, so that'd only leave the specialists (got to be a fair number of kickers and punters, though). Alai 05:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are {{quarterback-stub}} and {{widereceiver-stub}}. Support linemen. Conscious 05:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I knew I was missing another existing one. My bad for not checking the category. Alai 06:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Defensive backs could all be gathered in a new {{dback-stub}} or something (simpler than {{amfoot-secondary-stub}}). And, as a former lineman, I support the creation of the two lineman stub categories. A2Kafir 17:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Alloy-stub}} / Category:Alloy stubs[edit]

Alloys are presently in chemistry, industry, and material stubs, amongst others. Below are some candidates. Many alloys important to industry and history would be anticipated as future articles. I would make it a child of both {{inorganic-compound-stub}} and {{material-stub}}.

A2Kafir 21:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - support if you can find a couple of dozen more - 35 is still a bit light, but I suspect there are quite a few more. Grutness...wha? 05:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CuSil, Silumin, Birmabright, ZAMAK, Britannium, Anthracite iron, Gray iron, Malleable iron, Spiegeleisen, Niobium-titanium, Niobium-tin, Balco alloy, Alpaca silver, Auricupride, Marine grade stainless, Alloy 20, MKM steel, Tamahagane, Staballoy, AgInSbTe, GeSbTe, Superloy, ISO 428, Alacrite, Zalium, Didymium, Beryllide, Uranium rhodium germanium.
That's without trying very hard. Also, articles like amalgam about whole classes of alloys could easily spawn many stubs as the subject is fleshed out. A2Kafir 17:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support this one. Conscious 08:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Africa-hist-stub}} / Category:African history stubs[edit]

CatScan finds at least 500 African history stubs in Category:History of Africa and Category:Historical African monarchies. I'm pretty surprised no one has created this yet. Schzmo 15:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About time. I keep on adding this stub to things only to discover it doesn't exist. There are hundreds of articles, as you point out, that could take this template. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As no objections have been voiced for more than one week, it'll be created in a few minutes. Aelfthrytha 04:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Connecticut-stub}} / Category:Connecticut stubs[edit]

There are scores of Connecticut-related stubs, but as yet no stub template for Connecticut. CatScan finds 88 stubs under the Category:Connecticut alone. --Hyphen5 13:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've generally been shying away from state-stubs unless there is a specific wikiproject for the state - many of the stubs are probably classifiable in other ways. 88 is a lot, though... it may be worth having a separate template here. I'm not entirely convinced, but willing to be swayed. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're using CatScan in the obvious way, searching Category:Connecticut to depth three or so, this is probably a sign there's not anything like enough for a new stub type, as it'll be counting geo-stubs (which already have a separate stub type), people, who we're trying hard not to create state-specific stubs for, and other article with non-primary associations with CT which would be unsuitable for being stubbed that way. (Equally CatScan will be missing uncategorised stubs, of course.) Merits a longer look at the list of candidates. Alai 05:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-reli-bio-stub}} / Category:United States Religious biography stubs[edit]

CatScan seems to find about 150 candidates for this, not already sorted into more specific stub types. Probably something of an overestimate, as it's using the ever-flakey permanent category hierarchy, so probably over-inclusive (though equally, possibly also an undercount due to cut-off of the category search, and uncategorised stubs). If someone wants to do a more exact count... Also useful to have this as a parent for some of the more specific US religion stub-types. Alai 05:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{compu-feature-stub}}/Category:Computer features[edit]

A place for the processes of a computer: what it does or offers. Examples include: boot-up period, autofill and autotype, clickable image, and data acquisition (and that's just skimming the beginning of the bloated Category:Computer stubs). A rename may be in order, but this category is for all the gritty things of how a computer appears to work to the average user, without delving into code or anything.--HereToHelp 23:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little open-ended: perilously close to compu-misc-stub. There's also no directly corresponding permanent category, which isn't a good sign. What about something like {{HCI-stub}} (or compu-interface-stub, perhaps), for which there is an existing permie, and would be a bit more tightly and clearly scoped, while still covering much of the above territory. Alai 23:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay: {{compu-inter-stub}} (computer interface stub).--HereToHelp 20:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{nuclear-stub}} / Category:Nuclear physics stubs[edit]

I think this one would reduce the physics stub list for another 50-60 articles. While sorting condensed matter stubs I found plenty of articles for this category. At first, I considered putting them into particle-stub but it's not really the same thing. --Tone 22:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

50-60's a little marginal to be "plenty". If this were created, then following the permanent categories, this would be a subtype of {{particle-stub}}, which is only (exactly) one page long. I think sorting them there would be better, until such time as this is more clearly splittable. I'd have no objection to creating a separate template to facilitate pre-sorting and counting. Alai 22:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After reconsideration, it might also be called atom physics, atom-stub or something like that... The idea is to cover the topics an the atomic scale, so called small and medium energy physics. --Tone 22:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would expand it to cover nuclear physics and nuclear technology, something like {{nuclear-stub}} / Category:Nuclear physics and technology stubs. That would add at least 50-60 more articles. Schzmo 22:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that'd lead to cross-categorisation, as those would not be properly included in the physics hierarchy, which is what we're trying to slim down here. I'd be strongly against that. Alai 23:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I intended to put the technology articles in it also. But I think it is not ok to merge it with particles. --Tone 23:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I already started this, there could be one template for thermodynamics and statistical physics (one wold do since they are close related), maybe tdy-stub and one for astrophysics like astrophysics-stub and I think we have them all there so that only the very general articles keep the physics-stub template. --Tone 00:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, seems I can go ahead and create a template? In fact, there are more than 60 stubs for it but I have to go through and mark them all once I have the template. --Tone 20:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has raised objection to a template, and if there's more than 60, might as well go ahead and make it a full-fledged type. I'd still prefer you kept the nuke-tech stuff (that's not primarily about physics) separate, though. Alai 21:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I prefer it naming nuclear-stub for sake of simplicity. And I will let technology out, I will include just experimental methods connected. --Tone 16:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-comics-creator-stub}} / Category:United States comics creator stubs[edit]

Two oversized parents, and at least 145 candidate articles according to CatScan (before it conks out). This will probably be more helpful in splitting the comics parent than the US one, but every little helps. Alai 21:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{lit-char-stub}} / Category:Fictional literary character stubs[edit]

fict-char-stub is 6 pages and getting larger. A preliminary count shows that this will probably hit threshold easily. The only problem is what to call it. Book-char-stub leaves out non-novel written material; literary character runs into a whole set of quibbles about what is considered literature or not... Crystallina 17:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If all else fails, duplicate/redirected templates in the same category, to give unabiguous coverage, are an option. The proposed template name seems fine to me, though. Alai 20:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about {{scifi-char-stub}}, {{crime-char-stub}}, etc.? A2Kafir 21:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If needed for a further split, perhaps. That runs the risk of falling into the same problem with book and film stubs of fuzzy genres. Crystallina 03:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-compu-bio-stub}} / Category:United States computer specialist stubs[edit]

CatScan finds 143 Americans with the compu-bio-stub, likely a vast undercount. Real agenda is to get such of these as dwell in US-bio- out of there, of course. Alai 06:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Valentinian (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musician stubs reorganizing[edit]

I really think Category:Musician stubs is a mess and needs some serious rework. A new wikiproject, Musical Artists WikiProject has been started for dealing with Musical artists, and I would propose that the managing of Category:Musician stubs and the related stub templates be at least partially delegated to that project.

If that's too extreme, I still think this category needs work. I'd propose the following structure, reminiscient of how Category:Albums is organized and, to a lesser extent, Category:Musicians itself:

    • Mixed feelings about the above. Firstly, "delegation" means... what, exactly? Stub-sorting isn't exactly an exclusive activity at present, so if this means "more people to do the sorting", then that's all well and good. But if it means that stub types not be proposed here, that they be created without regard to the stub naming conventions and other guidelines, such as the size criteria -- which is what it's often meant in the past, when stub types have been created "locally" -- then I'm entirely opposed.
    • The proposed category structure I'm in favour of; it's a logical extension of what's being done already, and the extra layer just makes things a bit tidier. Though it shouldn't be over-populated with a sudden rash of under-sized categories just for completeness, either.
    • The Big Template scheme I'm very leary of. We've had nothing but bad experiences in the past with parameterised stub templates, and this would be on an even larger scale than anything else. Editing the template might be a real server-crippler if it's used on thousands of musicians. Using it would be non-standard for stub-sorters, would required special instructions, and be highly error prone. And furthermore, it'd only "work" if for a given article, all three categories are available, and all pieces of data known, by no means always the case for nano-stubs. That's going to create an incentive to create a number of categories, as I mentioned above, "for completeness", even if they don't meet the normal stub-sorting criteria for creation, for size in particular. There's also problems where someone has more than one nationality, genre, or instrument, which I can testify is pretty common. And lastly, it also breaks down where a category has been split by both country and instrument, which has already occured, and will have to be done again if the categories aren't to remain oversized.
    • I strongly suggest that all new stub types be created with "normal" templates, in the first instance, and ordinarily sorted as such. If afterwards, people want to create additional templates, which I'd prefer use some clearly differentiated naming scheme (such as -stub-box, or something) to "consolidate" multiple stub templates into one were possible and appropriate, that'd be OK. Though equally, this could be done with unparametrised templates too, and probably less problematically. See also the scheme suggested earlier for "hidden" templates, to reduce multiple template clutter in a similar way. Alai 18:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great feedback, I really appreciate it, so let me address your points:
As far as "delegation" goes, I guess the idea is a little vauge. Basically I'm hoping that the new project will be made an active participant in related stub-sorting activites. The discussions/proposals will still happen here, so I guess when all's said and done, nothing really changes as far as that is concerned, we'll just put a note on our project page telling people to add this to their watch list so they can participate in relevant disucssions.
I see your point about under populated categories, though I'm not sure what exactly you consider under populated. However, what I take away from this is the following: If Category:Punk rock musician stubs, for instance, only has a handful of articles in it, then there's no need to start making sub-cats for New-wave punk rock musician stubs and Oi! Punk Rock musicians stubs and the like. However, if, for instance, Category:American musician stubs starts getting overpopulated, it could be further broken down by state, for instance.
On the subject of Categories, I've had mixed feelings in the past about inter mixing the three high level cats I listed above into a single category; e.g., Category:American blues guitarist stubs. But I can see the validity in it as long as the categories are consistently named, organized and used (except in the case of underpopulated categories, of course). I also don't think articles should be in Category:American blues guitarist stubs and also be in Category:American musician stubs, Category:Blues musician stubs, and Category:Guitarist stubs, for instance, which has been done in the past, because I think that defeats the purpose of having the sub cats.
I also see your point about the template, and that's fine by me, I just started having visions of stub-pages with 3 or more stub templates that end up taking up more space than the actual article. I was unable to find any discussion about "hidden" templates, but I'd be interested in hearing more about that. B.Mearns*, KSC 15:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In light of this discussion, I've created a new proposal which I hope will make sense and that I think incorporates the ideas here:
Category:Musician stubs remains the top level for stubs with no additional information about the artist that can help categorize it more specifically. It has three subcategories:
  • Category:Musician stubs by nationality
  • Category:Musician stubs by genre
  • Category:Musician stubs by instrument
Each of these will have appropriate sub categories, for instance Category:American musician stubs under Musician stubs by nationality and Category:Blues musician stubs under Musician stubs by genre. Each of these sub-cats we'll call a first-order sub category, because they're based on one piece of information, either the nationality, the genre, or the instrument. Each such first-order cat will have a template, e.g., {{Australia-musician-stub}} for Category:Australian musician stubs.
Each first-order cat will be further subdivided by the other two first order information bits, so for example, each first-order category in Category:Musician stubs by nationality will be divided into Category:<nationality> musicians by genre and Category:<nationality> musicians by instrument. Inside these cats will be the second-order sub categories because they're based on two bits of information, for instance Category:American blues musicians is based on American (nationality) and blues (genre). This category would be a sub category of Category:American musicians by genre and of Category:Blues musicians by nationality.
Each of these will have their own second-order template which covers both pieces of information. I'm not usre if there's a defined naming convention for this yet, but if not, I would suggest keeping with the category name, i.e., {{<nationality>-<genre>-musician stub}}, {{<nationality>-<instrument>-musician stub}}, and {{<genre>-<instrument>-musician stub}}.
Finally, each second-order has a sub-cat which houses third order cats, so for instance Category:American blues musician stubs has a sub category called Category:American blues musician stubs by instrument, which houses all the third order sub cats. An example of a third order sub cat would be Category:American blues guitarist stubs which would have the following parent categories:
  • Category:American blues musician stubs by instrument
  • Category:American guitarist stubs by genre
  • Category:Blues guitarist stubs by nationality
And of course, each third-order cat has it's own template.
All articles should be placed as specifically as possible, and should NOT be repeated in parent categories of categories it's already in, so for instance if it's already in Category:American blues musician stubs, it should not be directly placed in either Category:American musician stubs or Category:Blues musician stubs.
B.Mearns*, KSC 15:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It obviously makes sense for some local discussion of stub types within the scope of the wikiproject, and if WPJ participants do some/all of the actual sorting, no-one here is going to complain in the least. But I imagine we'd like to be kept "in the loop", for the reasons I mention. On which topic: size criteria is discussed on this page, and on WP:STUB. The short version would be, "should be at least 60 articles per stub type".
Can I suggest we start with specific instances? There must be many stub types that can be be created in the near term, analogously with those already split out (let's bear in mind that re-sorting of this category has already occurred, and the wisdom of the "one bite at a time" model), without the need to determine a grand overarching scheme in every respect in advance. Alai 16:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, if you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization you can see the project's scheme for sorting Category:Musicians and it's multitude of subcats. I'd sugges that the stubs follow the same structure. Generally speaking, the plan for our part of the project isn't to create the stubs, only to sort the ones already there. B.Mearns*, KSC 21:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

geometry-stub split[edit]

There are about 400 geometry stubs, I suggest to create a subcategory, e.g.

  • affine-geometry-stub (call it affgeom-stub or so if you want)
  • elementary-geometry-stub
  • plane-geometry-stub

Each of these could take a good part of the geom-stubs.— MFH:Talk 14:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

330, actually, so quite a way off from being an urgent split by any means. I'd want to be very sure these were both the most natural splits, and that they were over threshold. Alai 17:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian locations split[edit]

These are nearly at 1000, and several of the "natural" splits, such as {{Lombardy-stub}} {{Lombardy-geo-stub}}, will certainly be viable immediately. as there's 20 such regions, they won't all be, though. For the remainder, there's the option of using the "NUTS 1" Groups of Italian Regions, though these are (even!) less meaningful than the English NUTS 1 regions (discussed below), and the need doesn't seem great in this instance. So I'd suggest we create templates for all 20 regions on spec, and separate categories as they hit threshold (pick your favourite number). Alai 07:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, go for - but someone else can tally them :) That would be {{Lombardy-geo-stub}}, BTW! Grutness...wha? 05:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what I said? :) Alai 05:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{Sardinia-geo-stub}} and {{Sicily-geo-stub}} are easy-enough divisions, I would think. A2Kafir 21:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note proposed sicily-stub above - there is a WP Sicily, so a Sicily-geo-stub - if it reaches threshold - would be a useful addition to the list. Grutness...wha? 03:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further to Grutness' note, I've only just realised that this proposal was here, having just started up WikiProject Sicily. Given the above discussion and seeing that there are over 600 Sicilian municipalities (comuni) it makes a lot of sense to create {{Sicily-geo-stub}} for all the municipalities, and to use the one I proposed above {{Sicily-stub}} for all other project related stubs - I see no problem getting to 30 such stubs very quickly. Salutamu! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're actually supposed to wait a week before making the stub template and category (sigh)... I've tidied the category up. Grutness...wha? 12:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've created several of these, and sorted enough to dip the category back under 800. Of the remaining italy-geo-stubs that are already categorised by region, Campania, Piedmont and Emilia-Romagna all have 20+ each, but what this needs most is a manual slog through the uncategorised articles... (If anyone's interested I can put up a list of such articles, possibly immediate after the next db dump for added accuracy.) Alai 01:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-film-bio-stub}} / Category:United States film biographical stubs[edit]

I think I nearly broke catscan with this one, as Category:American people is not exactly a small hierarchy... There's 302 article stub-tagged as {{film-bio-stub}}, and categorised as USians by some means or another. Both parents are oversized (one very, obviously). Would also itself serve as an additional parent for more specific types already split out (actors, directors). Almost feels old before its time, doesn't it? Alai 06:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support wholeheartedly. Her Pegship 04:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and done. Fill 'er up. Her Pegship 17:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{romance-film-stub}} / Category:Romance film stubs[edit]

I'm baaaaack.... This time requesting Romance film stubs as a sub-cat to Film stubs. Currently there are 179 articles that would fall into this category. As a side note, I know we'd rather be writing articles than sorting them, but until we get time, sorting into easily digestible groups is less likely to scare off stub-expander types. Her Pegship 23:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I'm a little less than keen on this one. "Romance film" is a bit of a vague concept overlapping a number of other genres. We also seem to have been mainly splitting by nationality IIRC. Grutness...wha? 08:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, yer right. Most of 'em can go into comedy or drama film stubs. Why am I making more work for myself?! I withdraw the nomination. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. Her Pegship 06:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{tv-episode-stub}}[edit]

Over 80 of these in oversized {{tv-stub}}. Crystallina 04:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{playwright-stub}}[edit]

There are plenty of playwright articles scattered in the various (nation)-bio-stub, (nationality)-writer-stub, theatre-stub categories (all of which tend to accumulate excess articles). I have no doubts it'll meet threshold; a rough search for "playwright" and "stub" turned up hundreds of articles. If there are enough articles, it might even merit further subcategories by nationality. Crystallina 01:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. It seems to redirect to {{writer-stub}}. I don't think that's quite optimal. Crystallina 01:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been noticing a lot of these while trying to do some residual sorting in the US-bios. Didn't know about the redirect, I've indeed been putting them into (US-)writer-stub (which I think is fairly logical; they are in the Category:Writers hierarchy, after all. Sounds very likely to be well-sized, and yes, I'd guess that {{US-playwright}} would be too. Alai 07:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history it apparently was deleted 6 months ago, but I think it's needed now. Crystallina 12:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

istr that it was combined with writer-stub partly becuase most writers write in more than one genre so seperate stubs for playwrights, novelists, poets, essayists, short story writers etc were going to lead to lots of double stubbing. also it made more sense to divide writers by nationality than what sort of thing they wrote. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but those by-nationality categories are getting large. US writers is at 12 pages. UK writers is at 5 and getting larger. The main writers category is at about 7 pages. Something is needed. Crystallina 04:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several somethings, even. Serious consideration should probably be given to something along the lines of {{novelist-stubs}}, {{screenwriter-stub}}, {{fact-writer-stub}}, and US- and UK- counterparts thereof. I've also happened across a number of editors, encyclopaedicists and the like, and hesitated to tag them with this (though they're in the Category:Writers category hierarchy. I'm assuming we're not using this for journalists, though these get marginal in places too (columnists rather than journos per se). And then there's bloggers. Alai 06:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think playwright-stub, novelist-stub, and poet-stub are all viable as separate stub types. Would take a bit of hunting down though, since they're in several different categories. And I'm sure a lot of them will have US or UK counterparts. Crystallina 00:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{relig-book-stub}} or {{relig-studies-book-stub}} / Category:Religious studies book stubs[edit]

I would like to propose a Religious studies book stubs category, as a sub-cat of Category:Non-fiction book stubs, which is getting full. There are currently at least 85 titles that would fall into this category. Her Pegship

Publishers Weekly magazine refers to the category of "religion" publishing (featured in the Feb. 13, 2006 issue). Religion book stub is succinct and simpler to remember. Also, not all of the books analyze or compare religions (some are one-sided), which "religious studies" seems to imply. GUllman 03:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
to keep it consistant with the other names id suggest {{reli-book-stub}} too. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{reli-book-stub}} works for me. Would that include religious texts as well, such as the Qur'an or the Bible? Her Pegship 04:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with {{reli-book-stub}}, as per BL's comment, and Category:Religious book stubs or Category:Book on religion stubs, in line with GUllman's thought, but trying to avoid the "Religion book" juxtaposition. (Though granted bookshops do have a "religion section", rather than a "religious section", in idiomatic usage. Alai 04:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sound great, either of the options...The wikiproject is slowly comming alive!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 04:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I to would go with {{reli-book-stub}}, as per BL's comment, and Category:Religious book stubs the other category is rather combersome and not in keeping with the others. I agree we have plenty of stubs and also a few more to be found amongst the "book-stub"s however I think more should work on the article content itself. Most appear to run the risk of being advertising stubs. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 09:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised proposal for {{reli-book-stub}} and Category:Religion book stubs. Her Pegship 19:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support the revised proposal as per BL. Valentinian (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We may have hit a snag: there is no corresponding Category:Religion books for the articles to go into once they're no longer stubs. The closest thing in the religion categories is Category:Spiritual books, but I don't think that's what I'm talking about here. Any suggestions? Her Pegship 18:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious studies books and Category:Religious texts both exist - the latter is a parent of the former and has a slightly wider scope. So we have two possibilities - {{Reli-text-stub}} / Category:Religious text stubs and {{Reli-book-stub}} / Category:Religious studies book stubs. Given the arguments abovve, I'd say the "text" one is the better one to use. Note also that {{HeBible-stub}} is a natural child of the that one, but not the other one. Grutness...wha? 05:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhh, hmmm, but what if it's No god but God (about Islam) or The Dance of the Dissident Daughter (about getting in touch with your sacred feminine)? It's not a religious text in the "holy-book" sense, like the Bible, but it's about a religious subject. Her Pegship 20:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Academic now :/, but FWIW the main categories have Religious studies books as a subcategory of Religious texts. That is, texts includes both religious studies books AND holy scripture - which is why it would have been a far more useful category to work from. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to BE BOLD! on this one and create {{reli-book-stub}} and Category:Religious studies book stubs, and start sorting. Wish me luck. Her Pegship 00:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{pol-book-stub}} / Category:Political book stubs[edit]

I would like to propose a Political book stubs category, as a sub-cat of Category:Non-fiction book stubs, which is getting full. There are currently at least 140 titles that would fall into this category. Her Pegship

May I suggest Politics book stubs to match the grammar of the four existing nonfiction book stub categories: Biography book stubs, Crime-book stubs, History book stubs and Science-book stubs. (The book itself is not "political" -- it can't even vote; it's about politics.) GUllman 03:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
to keep it consistant with the other names id suggest {{poli-book-stub}} too. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{poli-book-stub}} sounds great...(yes, I came from the wiki-project...Discount me if you must)Eagle (talk) (desk) 04:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with template name as BL, and category name as nomination. GUllman, I don't think those are good comparisons; I don't think anyone would suggest Category:Crime-books, for example. Alai 07:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more urgent plea to use the popularly used and grammatically correct form (i.e. Biography, Crime, History, Science ... Politics, Religion) that is already being used by other nonfiction book stubs, as well as the system of Categories and Portals. It says "Politics Portal" at the top of the latter page, so why not "politics book"?. GUllman 01:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're not especially grammatical: "politics book" is using a noun attributively in a way that's rather unidiomatic. It's emphatically not used in the category system: Category:Category:Politics books was renamed a year ago to Category:Political books. We should follow the actual permanent category here. Alai 01:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've thought about future category names, I'm afraid there is not one part of speech that fits all subjects. I agree that "medical book" is preferred to "medicine book", but surely you must agree that "economics book" is preferred to "economical book" (unless you bought the book on sale). GUllman 19:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with any name mentioned above but NOT "pol-book-stub", too cryptic. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 09:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support {{poli-book-stub}} as clearer. feydey 12:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised proposal for {{poli-book-stub}} and Category:Politics book stubs. Her Pegship 19:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support revised proposal. Consistency is good. Valentinian (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just consulted a dictionary, and even though it grates on my American ear, Alai is right; "religious book", "political book" and even "economic book" are grammatically correct. "Religious book" and "political book" win against the alternatives in a Google race as well (although "economics book" is more popular than "economic book"). I concede. GUllman 01:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have guessed that latter one too, though if compelled to explain the rationale (much less "rule") for why one is more idiomatic than the other... I think one can only wave one's hands vaguely and say "custom and practice". Alai 07:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not just waving my hands at the reason. Valentinian, Pegship and I seem to like putting the academic disipline before the word "book", especially to preserve a familiar longer phrase like "library and information science", and words without an adjectival form like "physics". We reserve the adjective to describe people and ideas who are religious or political; placing it before "book" sounds like you're anthropomorphising an insentient object. Also, according to the dictionary, "religious book" is sometimes synonymous with "holy book" such as the Bible or Koran, and a strange description for books about atheism. But if Categories use the adjectival form, then the writers of the articles must be comfortable with it. GUllman 01:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In keeping with the permanent category name, I created {{poli-book-stub}} and Category:Political book stubs. Cheers, Her Pegship 06:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Belgium-band-stub}} / Category:Belgium musical group stubs[edit]

A further nationality split of {{band-stub}} – currently there are 62 Belgium band stubs. --Bruce1ee 11:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Seems to be enough material. Valentinian (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've created the template and category. --Bruce1ee 07:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cnidarian-stub}}[edit]

Wikiproject Cnidarians would like a separate section of {{invertebrate-stub}} for cnidarians. A cnidarian stub section would be helpful to organize our efforts. The Category:Invertebrate stubs has already been broken into many other subcategories. There is a list of Cnidarian-related stubs at Wikiproject Cnidarians. Cryoboy 19:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At just over 200 stubs, I don't see the pressing need to split out Invertebrate stubs yet. All the other subcategories have at least 50 stubs, so splitting off 30-odd stubs won't really make much of an impact. --TheParanoidOne 20:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is somewhat marginal (one person wikiproject, and barely stubs), but technically OK. Given that we seem to be flagging considerably in any systematic attempt to clean up types that are much smaller, and much less legit, I don't see any real harm. Alai 21:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit marginal, but you asked nicely and you run a wikiproject, so precedence is established. I see no reason not to encourage your initiative. Support and happy editing. Valentinian (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
go for. My partner is jellyfish mad and she wouldn't forgive me if I nixed this one :) Grutness...wha? 03:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-mil-stub}}[edit]

This stub has gotten huge. Currently has a few hundred articles in it. Proposing to break some of these out by service. Individuals and units could easily be broken out. Very easy way to further refine the category. To keep things simple I propose using initials for each service except the US Army becasue their acronym is USA and that could get a bit confusing. WOuld look as follows: Army {{US-mil-usarmy-stub}}, Navy {{US-mil-usn-stub}}, Air Force {{US-mil-usaf-stub}} and Marines {{US-mil-usmc-stub}} --Looper5920 03:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, cue wave of nostalgia: "I remember when..." :) It's not quite technically huge by our (somewhat desensitised?) standards, but certainly it's big enough to make sense to split now, as assuredly we'll have to do it before much longer. I agree, your scheme seems like the logical one -- in fact, I have a feeling this may already have been proposed. If the acronyms are clear enough, can't we drop the US-mil- prefix, and just have US-Army-stub, USN-stub, USAF-stub, and USMC-stub? Or perhaps, US-airforce-stub, US-navy-stub, US-marine-stub, if we wan to be less abbreviated, but not over-long. Can you also double-check they're all over 60? A lot of the USNs and USAFs will be in other categories I think, specific to navies and military aviation, and it'd be preferable not to increase double-stubbing too much. Alai 03:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed that the naming convention could improve. I like the proposals you put forth of US-Army-stub, USN-stub, USAF-stub, and USMC-stub and since I'm feelin generous we might as well throw the Coast Guard one as well. USCG-stub. ALso, I am not sure what you mean by over 60? This is my first time on this page. Is there a criteria I don't know about?--Looper5920 03:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notice WP:WSS/P#Proposing new stubs - procedure, below, and WP:STUB, the gist of which is that new stub types are supposed to have 60 articles already in existence (to avoid a proliferation of sub-optimally small stub types). I imagine most of the above will be "viable", but it'd be good to do a check they're in the ballpark. (I think we can take it as read for Army.) Alai 04:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Went back and did a pretty rough count. The Army and the Air Force I did not even bother counting because they are both way over 60. However the Marine Corps came in at about 55 and the Navy at about 45. I still think the stubs are worth it since both of these subjects have a lot of room to grow.--Looper5920 11:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and I agree with both of y'all's proposals for briefer names (US-Army-stub, USN-stub, USAF-stub, and USMC-stub). Cheers, Her Pegship 00:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Star-stub}}[edit]

This stub is huge and needs to be culled and reorganized badly. I propose that it be split up by constellation which will make the sub-categories more manageable. e.g. Star-stub-And (Andromeda), Star-stub-Ant (Antlia), etc. A master page can be used to navigate between them.

  • In the first instance, yes, these do need to be split, good plan: well volunteered that person! But now the quibbles (sorry). Firstly, note that stub template names should end in stub, so rather than the above, that'd be {{and-star-stub}}, etc, (or perhaps simply {{andromeda-stub, even?}}). Secondly, I have concerns with regard to size: given that there's 88 constellations, if they're split at all evenly many will be well below threshold, and in the extreme case, perhaps none above the threshold. And lastly, is constellation the most natural or convenient split? I'd have thought that either spectral type, or perhaps more likely, luminosity class (or otherwise by "type" of star, rather than position in the sky) would be preferable, and would largely avoid the above concerns on size.
  • Incidentally, the permanent categories seem to be rather a jumble: Category:Stars by constellation is completely empty, and just holds some canned text, for example. Alai 16:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
dont think constellations is the best split. if you did that youd have some very big cats like taurus and some very small ones like circinus and (ahem) lacerta. i think that grutty's idea is prob better - do it by spectral tyupe. O-star-stub, B-star-stub, A-star-stub, F-star-stub etc etc. but it would be good to get more input from astronomers on wp. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects. I suggested that luminosity class might be best as spectral type would equate a number of stars that were physically very different. So if editors have "special interests" according to the different astrophysics... But I'm somewhat guessing on that score. Alai 02:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, excuse my ignorance, but don't constellations differ depending on your location on Earth? Her Pegship 00:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they don't, just like a place's latitude and longitude doesn't change. What constellation a star is in doesn't change (on a short time scale, anyway). --Etacar11 00:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What differs is the constellations you can see and where in the sky you see them. Conscious 08:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several ideas: {{star-cluster-stub}} would get rid of the clusters, which are presently in {{star-stub}}. {{neutron-star-stub}} makes sense, and a subsidiary {{pulsar-stub}} might (I haven't looked at the numbers there presently, but the potential is certainly there). I propose making those three to start with. A2Kafir 21:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then it gets more esoteric. We could go northern vs. southern hemisphere, but that's not a good division. We could have {{zodiac-star-stub}} for those 12 constellations, {{NCPstar-stub}} for those stars in a defined set of northern circumpolar constellations (Ursa Major etc.), and {{SCPstar-stub}} for those stars in a defined set of circumpolar constellations (Octans, etc.). We'd leave the rest in {{star-stub}}. OR, we could sort them by spectral class: {{OBstar-stub}}, {{AFstar-stub}}, {{Gstar-stub}}, {{KMstar-stub}}. Or by size: {{dwarf-star-stub}}, {{giant-star-stub}}. I'll think more about this before I recomend more. A2Kafir 21:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{OB-Associations-stub}}[edit]

I haven't seen stubs that quite fit this topic. OB Associations are clusters of giant and super-giant Class O and B stars. They are quite important from a research standpoint because star formation is actively taking place. These regions are quite important as massive O and B stars are relatively short lived and when they die, they enrich the interstellar medium with heavier elements. jamessavik

  • At the moment I think star-stub is the best we have. it's getting full and we could probably do with splitting them up, but I can think of some more obvious splits that this (a red-giant-stub, for instance, would probably be a lot more useful). I doubt you'd find enough OB association stubs to really make this one worthwhile, but a {{star-cluster-stub}} might be worthwhile. Grutness...wha? 06:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea because there are a number of types of star clusters which would make for good subdivisions of the topic.


{{US-photographer-stub}}[edit]

Same drill. Over 60 articles, around 30 in {{US-bio-stub}}. Crystallina 04:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good plan. Alai 06:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-tennisbio-stub}}[edit]

Over 60 articles, around 30 in {{US-bio-stub}}. Crystallina 04:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Out of deference to this proposal (of which I naturally approve), I've refrained from sorting these into the newly-created {{US-sportbio-stub}}... Alai 06:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Europe-rail-stub}}[edit]

{{rail-stub}} is still pretty huge (>400), but there are no obvious candidates for separation, which has mainly been done by nationality so far. I would propose, however, that there are enough to populate a blanket Europe category, even with the exception of the already broken out UK, France and Poland. My extremely rough sampling data would put the total number of stubs between 75-150. This would have the benefit of sorting stubs from nations which probably can't get to 60 on their own, like Belgium or Bulgaria, while making it easier to sort countries which will eventually reach threshold but don't yet have the coverage, like Germany. --CComMack 23:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Three pages isn't huge, though this seems like not a bad plan to me. Precedent would be to call this {{Euro-rail-stub}}. Alai 00:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alai's suggestion sounds good to me. Valentinian (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I bow to precedent; {{Euro-rail-stub}} is shall be. Oh, should the Category be Category:Europe rail stubs or Category:European rail stubs? Both forms seem to be used (in the contexts of both Europe and Rail stubs.  :-/) --CComMack 01:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latter, I think. Can't think of any reason for the former, and ideally they'd be renamed to an adjectival form. Which categories had you in mind? Alai 02:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There doesn't seem to be any consistency - a lot of the geography categories have a noun form. It's probably something we should tackle some time... European sounds better overall, but for many individual forms the adjectival forms are more than a little tricky: the adjectival forms of Niger/Nigeria, Dominica/Dominican Republic, DR Congo/Corngo Republic all cause problems, and places like Monaco, Burkina Faso, and let's face it, even Denmark, Wales, and the Netherlands don't have obvious adjectival forms if you don't know them. Grutness...wha? 02:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I meant specifically in the Europe/European case; I wasn't volunteering to fix quite everything at once. I agree, it's inobvious in some cases, and arguably undesirable or ambiguous in others (United States vs. American). Alai 03:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, there's no problem with Europe/European... but if we wanted to make it consistent throughout the adjective problem is something we'd need to think about. Grutness...wha? 05:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Meanwhile, with 130+ identified stubs (thanks, Slambo!), and without objection, I'm going to go ahead and create; but the original question of which form is preferred has been left unanswered. Anybody? --CComMack 21:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was originally planning to propose {{Germany-rail-stub}} right away, but this one sounds good to me for the time being. --Doco 13:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Euro-rail-stub}} feeding Category:Europe rail stubs created 4 April 2006. --CComMack 02:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about the Kurdish topics?[edit]

Perhaps we can discuss this here without getting quite the same rash of POV-inspired keeps and deletes. I wonder if we shouldn't have a single, all-embracing stub type for topics related to ethnic Kurd/the general Kurdistan region. That'd stand a better chance of being viable on size than any of the more narrowly scoped types we're currently bun-fighting over. There would remain the "where does it go in the hierarchy?" issue, but that shouldn't be the sole determinant, certainly not beyond consideration of the grouping most likely to get the articles expanded. If there were a "WikiProject Kurd(istan)" we'd likely have no objections, and there's been at least talk of such (hint, hint). Alai 17:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objections do exist. Let me list a few reasons:
  • I object to the usage of the word "Kurdistan" on any article explaining anything about kurds outside the region administered by the "Kurdish administration" in charge of significant portions of northern iraq. I also object the treating of an ethnic minority as a nationality
  1. Kurdistan is a proposed country treating it as an independent country is a breach of NPOV.
  2. Kurdistan is also an undefined region. The borders are determined by whoever is drawing them. The definition of Kurdistan is roughly "where kurds happen to live" and with that definition it includes Berlin and Nashville, Tennessee as kurds happen to live there.
  3. Also note the word 'Kurd' in Kurdistan. No other "geographic region" has the name of an enthinic minority in it.
  4. The Iraqi sub-govermental body in northern iraq has no juristiction elsewhere and they are dependent to the Iraqi goverment as much as San Fransisco is to California. Basicaly they are not an independent state and not even they are claiming being one unlike some defacto countries such as Nagorno-Karabakh, KKTC, Sealand. None of the defacto counties are treated as an independent nation. I do not see why we have been debating the stub categories about the non existant Kurdistan for days.
  5. If we unite politicians or people in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Germany, United States under one "kurdish roof" we are imlying these people work for a common political body or are somehow related. I do not know of a state that extends from Iraq to Germany and even to the United States. The propoer syntax is State-politician-stub or State-bio-stub. This syntax applies to the more significan african american minorities. Africans in the US and Canda are not united under one roof nor under one African roof
The wikproject proposal will need to be filed on Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List of proposed projects, owever the question we need to ask ourselves do we really need a wikiproject exmapding articles based on ethnicity. Do we have anything like it on Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects even for ethnic minorities much much more significant in numbers such as african americans. Any article about "kurd related stuff" in Turkey can be expanded under a section on a wikiproject in Turkey.
Stuff related to Kurds will have to be treated just like how rest of the world is treated. Kurds are nothing more special than anyone else. A kurdish person with turkish citizenship can be marked under {{Turkey-bio-stub}}. It is not like there is an overwheliming number of kurd related articles. They would not overwhelm respective stub categories.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 18:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or of course, my initial hope might be quite wrong. CC, most of these comments are frankly not material as to whether a stub type would be useful or not, so please excuse me if I don't address the majority of them. "Proper syntax": I think you mean the stub naming conventions. These are there to provide consistency to the naming of stub types, not to be proscriptive as to which can exist in the first place. That stub names form a predictable pattern is indeed desirable, but that's a secondary consideration to actual relatedness: if something really is more related to Kurdish culture, ethnicity, etc than to Iran, Iraq, etc, then insisting they be sorted as the latter, exclusively, and not the former, is going to be counterproductive to facilitating expansion. The overriding purpose of stub-sorting is to put articles into reasonably-sized, related groups, in such a way as to maximise the chances of interested editors completing them. Much as I spend a lot of time here arguing against ignoring the "reasonably sized" part and/or the naming conventions, the "related" is (also) key.
Wikiproject approval: this is not in any way necessary, that page is a resource for gauging interest, and no more. Alai 20:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'm strongly against having these as stub types. I've got nothing against Kurdistan, or the Kurds, or any claims for their independence. What I am against is any stub types which could easily lead to edit wars, and which set precedents for other contentious stub types. Kurdistan - by whatever definition you wish to describe it - falls within the jurisdiction of internationally recognised sovereign nations - which is how Wikipedia's articles are organised and how its stubs are split. To have a separate set of stubs for an area with ambiguous boundaries which overlaps these sovereign nations not only causes problems with the way the stubs are split but also risks having the template mercilessly swapped backwards and forwards between various wordings for different definitions of Kurdistan, as well as having the template repeatedly removed and readded to individual articles. Both of these are Bad Things - the former of them is a Very bad Thing, since template edits aren't server-frindly, as we've found in the past. Not only that, but - as I said - it's precedent-setting. Do we really want to see further templates for other similar non-sovereign entities? Do we want a reinterpretation of Macedonia-stub, or a new Ossetia-stub? If we don't, then we shouldn't set the precedent with Kurdistan. Grutness...wha? 02:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly the "Kurdistan" type would be a red rag too far, certainly if it led to -geo- type articles being double-stubbed or edit-warred over. Though we have that and more as permanent categories already. OTOH, when it comes to peeple and culture, I'd rather have one stub type that's merely contentious, than half a dozen that're each just as contentious, and undersized to boot. Alai 03:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grutness has outlined the problem very well. The problem is that this stub can set a precedence. If we go down this road, where do we draw the line? A Chechnya-stub?, a Tibet-politician-stub?, a TRNC-stub? Or what about "Ethnic-XYZ-in-Germany-stub"? Should we draw the line when it comes to stubs about an individual's religion? Or his/her skin colour? There'll be no obvious way to draw the line, so we should simply stay clear of this road. Valentinian (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Hindu-myth-stub}}[edit]

The stub would be for Hindu Mythology articles. Creation of these stubs will significantly help eliminating the load of the over-sized Hinduism and Asia-mtyh stubs category. There are many Hinduism stubs which focus on a board array of topics. Creating such a stub would lighten the load. There is already a wikiproject Hindu mythology dedicated to such topics. --Dangerous-Boy 06:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I completely agree for the need of such a cat. Rama's Arrow 12:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds in theory good to me. Is there a "reasonable" number of articles to go in it? Alai 17:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More than you know.--Dangerous-Boy 17:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I knew, I wouldn't ask. More than 59, more to the point? Alai 02:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes--Dangerous-Boy 18:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{India-gov-stub}}, {{India-ethno-stub}}, {{India-media-stub}}, {{India-sports-stub}} and {{India-culture-stub}}[edit]

There are over 70 articles regarding public offices, offices and agencies, Indian military and government installations and institutions that can and should be classified under {{India-govt-stub}}. Also, over 100 articles about Indian music, art, tribes, castes, ethnic communities can be stocked in {{India-culture-stub}}. Please see Category:India stubs for a verification of these assertions. Creation of these stubs will significantly help eliminating the load of the over-sized India stubs category. Rama's Arrow 02:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sound like good ideas. However, I think the existing pattern of template names would be more suggestive of {{India-gov-stub}}. Alai 02:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is, the first two sounded like good ideas. Alai 18:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • India-gov-stub, yes. I'm a bit worried that india-culture-stub would overlap lots of other categories. culture is usually split by type of culture, not location. Willing to be swayed, though. Grutness...wha? 05:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply lemme list what I'm targeting for "Indian culture": articles on music, art, linguistic patterns. I understand your point about "type" and not location, but for stubs to be properly grouped and developed, I think its ok to just classify them from nation of origin. Rama's Arrow 16:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • India-people there are a lot many articles on tribes, ethnic groups, linguistic groups, lineages that can be better classified here. "India-bio" can be a sub-cat of this, while a "people" subjects can be easily put into this one. Rama's Arrow 16:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object to this name and proposed structure. Rather, I'd be in favour of India-ethno-stub, under India- and {{ethno-stub}}, iff there's the articles for it. (i.e., please quantity "a lot"). Alai 18:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aite then I withdraw "India-people" for now. I reckon more than 50 articles presently in India-stubs can fit into such a cat. Rama's Arrow 19:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you suggest, I propose a India-ethno-stub. There are definitely a lot of articles, close to 100 to be found in the general India stub cat.
India-sports-stub in the India stub category, I guesstimate that there are approximately 50-70 articles related to sports in India, mainly cricket. Rama's Arrow 03:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
India-media-stub to cover mass media articles on newspapers, tv stations, news stations, radio networks. I guesstimate about 50 articles in India-stub, India-econ stub and India-company stub categories as of present. Rama's Arrow 19:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please wait seven days (assuming some sort of consensus) before creating these, as per the guidance at the top of this page. Alai 01:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the early creation of these stubs, I mean absolutely no disrespect to the wikiproject. I apologize to members of this wikiproject for pre-empting this, but it is imperative for me to finish work as soon as possible. I did think for a long while before doing this. The redeeming point will be the proper organization of an huge and over-flowing category - ultimately the purpose of this wikiproject and Wikipedia are fulfilled. Rama's Arrow 03:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My pre-emptive work is purely constructive in nature and effect. If there are future concerns and problems, they can be easily addressed. I will help repair any questionable action, but I believe I've done the right thing, and the right move for Wikipedia. Sorry to make a meal out of this. Rama's Arrow 03:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why this would be "imperative"; I'll give you good odds on Wikipedia still being here to edit in a week's time. It's indeed not ultimately "constructive" if other people have reasoned objections to the size, naming, scope, etc, of these stub types, and the work has to be redone. Alai 03:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm sorry for moving ahead before the process. I'm not trying to override anybody else's opinions or suggest that Wikipedia will cease to exist tomorrow. I wouldn't have for one-sec thought of doing this if I wasn't damn sure that that the stubs were general and routine. For example, "culture" is justifiable by the simple fact that categories for articles on cuisine, music, art and popular culture are sub-cats of "Indian culture." Give this a chance to work out - I'm damn positive that it will be a good thing. I'll definitely help correct any possible error, for which naturally I will be directly responsible. Rama's Arrow 04:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not for a moment questioning your good faith, commitment, etc; I'd just like you to refrain from creating any further stub types, within the normal discussion period. Our guidelines say "One week after listing it here", and do not go on to say "unless you're damn sure it's a damn good idea". Alai 04:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I perfectly understand and agree. I respect the wikiproject entirely. I'm sure that my pre-emption will only benefit Wikpipedia. Rama's Arrow 04:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't see the tension between the first two statements you've just made, and the third, we may be destined to continue to talk past each other for some time to come. Alai 05:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only wished to assure you that I understand your rationale, and that I don't intend to create stubs this way again, but I do believe that what I did was only to improve the organization of the India stubs - helping Wikipedia. Dat's all. Rama's Arrow 05:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I'm largely satisfied by the lack of said future intent. Alai 05:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If most sports articles are about cricket, why not create {{India-cricket-stub}} (and not {{India-sports-stub}})? Generally we don't create country-sport-stubs. Conscious 06:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A cricket-stub would leave a lot of the football articles in the cold. All together they make enough for a separate stub, but not separately Actually, an India-sports stub is pretty cool becoz it reflects the sports culture of India (including articles on Indian sports like kabbadi, akhada wrestling), plus accommodates articles on India's record at international sports and events. Rama's Arrow 07:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Thailand-film-stub}} and {{Thailand-film-bio-stub}}[edit]

{{Thailand-stub}} is a manageable size, yet looking to the future, I think it will help to have more sub-categories, since I'm very interested in creating new articles for Thai film people and films. Have a look at List of Thai films, List of Thai film directors, List of Thai actors and List of Thai actresses to see the many articles that could possibly be started. Instead of the film-bio-stub, I might be convinced to simply go for a generic {{Thailand-bio-stub}} (or it could be done in addition to the film-bio-stub) Wisekwai 16:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, Category:Thailand stubs contains enough bio-stubs, so I support {{Thailand-bio-stub}} (btw, there may be more in Category:Asian people stubs). As for the film stubs, we generally create stub templates/categories only after the stubs have been created. Conscious 18:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i agree with conscious. Thailand-bio-stub looks good, and the film one can always be split off later - once there are enough stubs for it. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support {{Thailand-bio-stub}}. Having just created new film stubs, I regret to report that there aren't enough Thai film stubs at present to justify a cat, but there may be in the future. Cheers, Her Pegship 22:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{baseball-pitcher-stub}}[edit]

{{baseballbio-stub}} is very oversized (9 pages) with no subcategories yet. I haven't done a full count but judging by the fact that I went through about 10 articles and hit 6-8 pitchers, I'm fairly confident it'll meet threshold. Crystallina 19:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds like a plan to me. Do we want to extend this and sort by other fielding positions? Alai 02:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That'd work as well. Crystallina 03:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a first step, perhaps infielders and outfields, if not every position is going to hit threshold (as may be likely, if the pitchers are overrepresented). Alai 05:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • would there be enough for a baseball-coach-stub? Grutness...wha? 05:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with a baseball-pitcher-stub, the baseballbio stub is packed currently, willing to help out with the stub sorting --Jaranda wat's sup 01:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't know th first thing about baseball ("only four bases?") but I'll support organizing the stubs by all positions, not just pitchers.--HereToHelp 23:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed Crystallina sorting pitchers and thought it was an excellent idea. baseballbio-stub is well-populated and every position could benefit from the same process. I would like to go ahead and create {{baseball-catcher-stub}} to continue Crystallina's work. Thoughts, anyone ? No Guru 20:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{SouthAfrica-bio-stub}}[edit]

I've counted ~60 of them beginning with A-G in Category:South Africa stubs. There is a template {{SA-bio-stub}} which seems to be a duplicate of {{SouthAfrica-stub}}, I think it should be moved to {{SouthAfrica-bio-stub}} (and the wording corrected accordingly). There may be more bios in Category:African people stubs, but I haven't checked. Conscious 09:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support but.... I'm trying to cut down the large {{Africa-politician-stub}}. I did a count yesterday, and I've found 68 South African politicans (double stubbed with {{Africa-politician-stub}} and {{SouthAfrica-stub}}), so I'm about to propose a {{SouthAfrica-politician-stub}}. Since the entire category holds 473 stubs, I think it is pretty safe to make both splits. {{SA-bio-stub}} should be moved to {{SouthAfrica-bio-stub}} for consistency. --Valentinian (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed the -politician-stub elsewhere on this page. I don't think it will create any problems making both splits. --Valentinian (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if most of the people in Category:South Africa stubs are politicians, {{SouthAfrica-bio-stub}} could still be useful as a container for Category:South African politician stubs and Category:South African cricket biography stubs. Conscious 15:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The standard "order" would be SouthAfrica-stub -> SouthAfrica-bio-stub -> SouthAfrica-politician-stub etc. I think there's room for all three levels. --Valentinian (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support both the bio and the politician stub types. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've created and populated both of them (not sure what to do with buildings, though, so I've left them for now.) It was no problem finding enough material for both categories. Valentinian (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian geography[edit]

Category:Russia geography stubs has finally hit the 800 mark. The natural way to split it is by federal district. There are just seven of them, and six have enough stubs:

(I have to confess that I've removed the stub tag from several articles, bringing the total number down to 781.)

Each federal district, in turn, consists of several federal subjects. However, not a single one of them is ready to be split: the largest number of stubs (no surprise, about Moscow Oblast) is 54.

I'm not quite sure how to name the new templates and categories, here's my suggestion:

I've boldly dumped the lists of stubs to Grutness's page. Conscious 16:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds like a plan to me. For symmetry, I'd also create {{Urals-geo-stub}}, feeding for now back into the main category, to avoid the mental overhead of "which Russia regions was it we created?" in future stub-sorting. Alai 16:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd name it {{Ural-geo-stub}} after Ural. Conscious 17:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As in Ural (region)? But if the English usage for the federal district -- I'm confused as to the difference, btw -- is "Urals"... Alai 17:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, conscious, I see what you mean. I misinterpreted this bit. My intentions were good though, and no harm done, anyway, right? Besides, what's the sense of leaving Rus-geo-stub containing 95% Urals articles, even if it's below 65? - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 22:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • BTW, with my knowledge of Russian, I was able to identify which fed. district each of the unspecifically-tagged articles belonged to, and sorted all of them accordingly. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 22:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No harm, and I think it'll stay as it is. Thank you for the sorting. Btw, why was knowledge of Russian needed for it? Conscious 09:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boldly is right. First thing I know about it is a complaint from a Russian editor that an article he's been expanding was on my listpanding was on "my list of Siberian stubs". It would have been nice to have known first, Conscious! Sounds like a good split though, and yes, Urals would make more sense than Ural, IMHO. And why not just Volga rather than Privolzhye (which is no problem to those who govoritye po-Russkiy, but for everyone else might be a problem). Grutness...wha? 18:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beg thy pardon, Grutness. I was under impression that anyone can add lists of stubs to your page.
As for the naming, I have no idea why it's "Urals". Is this plural, adjective or what? If "Urals"=="Ural mountains", like Alpes, Andes and all, then it sounds very unnatural for a Russian (the Russian word doesn't even have a plural form). But we're writing English Wikipedia, so I accept it if it sounds better to you. And yes, I meant Ural (region).
"Volga geography stubs", doesn't sound good to me, because it seems to refer to the Volga river. "Volga Federal District geography stubs" is better. "Privolzhye" was the only one-word definition I could think of that describes that area. Conscious 18:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
S'alright - yes, anyone can use that page, though a bit of warning would have been nice :) (I'll be filling it up with various geo-stubs myself shortly, too). As to the names, I'd go with "Volga Federal District geography stubs", if only for the sake of the template (Volga-geo-stub is a lot easier on the fingeers than Privolzhye-geo-stub!). Ural-geo-stub or Urals-geo-stub would work, though it would probably be useful to have a redirect from the other of the two as well. Grutness...wha? 23:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility is to make it Category:Privolzhye geography stubs/{{Volga-geo-stub}}. Conscious 09:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm - I'm a little wary of making the category and template names that different, but it might work. What about Category:Privolzhye-Volga geography stubs, or similar? Grutness...wha? 23:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's settle at "Volga Federal District", looks like it makes sense to everyone. Conscious 06:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-artist-stub}} / Category:British artist stubs[edit]

27 articles are currently double-stubbed thusly, 136 including lower down the hierarchy. Alai 05:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-singer-stub}} / Category:British singer stubs[edit]

Continuing a number of themes: both parents are oversized, 42 are directly in both, 106 candidates total. Alai 01:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Methinks there's some sorting to do! Alai 01:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-academic-bio-stub}} / Category:British academic biography stubs[edit]

163 found, 47 directly in both oversized categories. Alai 01:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-journalist-stub}} / Category:British journalist stubs[edit]

Both parents are oversized; 65 articles found. Alai 01:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Scotland-MP-stub}} / Category:Scottish MP stubs[edit]

There's 68 of these according to double-stub-counts, 51 of them in the (somewhat oversized) Scottish bios. Alai 00:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support --Valentinian (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but... is this talking about Scottish MPs (i.e., sitting in Westminster) or MSPs, or both? Grutness...wha? 01:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For proper inclusion in the two types I'm counting on the basis of ({{UK-MP-stub}}, and {{Scotland-bio-stub}}), only the former. And indeed, there's already a type for the second, {{MSP-stub}}. (Don't ask me how Scots who have sat for English constituencies are tagged currently...) A {{Scotland-politician-stub}} would be a possiblity, but that won't reduce double-stubbing (and may increase it). Alai 01:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. "MP" and "MSP" are both widely understood to be referring to different legislatures. I suspect that there are an awful lot more than 68 of these stubs: a lot of the dead people bios in Category:Scottish politicians have not been stub sorted yet (most were MPs), and that cat is growing all the time as more and more historical bios are added.

{{USA-edu-stub}} / {{Visitation school stub}}[edit]

I added a page before realizing stubs would be a better option. Look here at the page. As I'm pretty well clueless as how stubs work, I'd appreciate some instruction (or maybe someone could revise the intro to stubs as it's really confusing).Pvt Mahoney 23:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added {{Minnesota-school-stub}} to the article, which is what I think you were looking for. Don't think a new stub type is indicated, which is what this page is for. Sorry about the lack of clarity. I'm sure there is a comprehensible intro someplace -- finding it might be an issue, all right... Alai 00:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, USA-edu doesn't shout out "Visitation school" to me. We have US-edu-stub anyway (currently a redirect to US-university-stub, IIRC) which if needed could be rescoped to general education related matters. But in any case what you've got here is either a US-school-stub or one of its subcategories. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-tv-bio-stub}} / Category:British television biography stubs[edit]

I count 92 in total, including 54 double-stubbed directly into the two parents -- both of which are oversized. Alai 21:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Swiss-federal-councillor-stub}}[edit]

For the circa 110 past and present Category:Members of the Swiss Federal Council, virtually all of which are currently tagged as (and make up the vast majority of) Category:Swiss politician stubs. Granted, this category will grow at roughly 0.1 entry per year, but it's still useful for us fans of the enthralling saga of ambition, despair and ballot-counting that is Swiss politics - of which, yes, there are some on the English Wikipedia. Sandstein 17:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, have to object to this; the present category has 118 articles, so it's mathematically certain that the two types are not independently over the usual threshold. Alai 20:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Alai. --Valentinian (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-architect-stub}}[edit]

Over 60 of these; at least 30 or 40-ish are in US-bio-stub. Crystallina 05:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{PA-SR-stub}} / {{Pennsylvania-State-Road-stub}}[edit]

Use for Pennsylvania State Road articles which are stubs. --myselfalso 01:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if made it should be the second name - PA-SR is ver ambiguous. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)There's an existing, undersized category Category:Pennsylvania Highway stubs with exactly this scope. Oppose on duplication, size, cryptic abbreviation of template, capitalisation... (Admittedly it's a slight improvement on the existing cat, but...) We should revisit this when firstly, there's many more of them, and secondly, when WP:NC/NH has come to a conclusion on the naming conventions for these. In the meantime, I suggest this he sorted as a US-NorthEast-road-stub, as per my proposal below. Alai 02:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - it's not really needed since there's another so similar, but it would be very good to get the nomenclature firmed up. Whatever is decided it shouldn't have such an abbreviated name, though. BTW - 28 proposals in the first 10 days of March? What's with the avalanche? Grutness...wha? 07:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given we have over 100,000 stubs in oversized categories, I'd call it "a start". Personally I'd favour {{X-road-stub}}, so as to be as inclusive as possible, and to punt whole terminological nuances for the perms to worry about. Though in this case, we don't have enough stubs for one stub type, much less two. Alai 07:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with {{Pennsylvania-State-Highway-stub}}? (what we have now) Also WP:NC/NH is on hold as there is mass edit warring in CA and NY, we'll return sometime within the next few weeks. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-model-stub}} / Category:United States model stubs[edit]

There's at least 67 of these out there, including 25 in US-bio-. Alai 23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-hip-hop-bio-stub}} {{US-hiphop-bio-stub}} / Category:United States hip hop biography stubs[edit]

There's at least 93 of these, 30 of them in US-bio-. Alai 23:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dont we use hiphop-stub not hip-hop-stub? if we do that would be US-hiphop-bio-stub. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you're right. Alai 06:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What would its parent be? {{US-bio-stub}} or one of the music hiphop stubs ({{hiphop-stub}} and {{US-hiphop-band-stub}})? --Bruce1ee 06:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the former two. Alai 06:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bruce1ee 06:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, more likely {{US-musician-stub}} than {{US-bio-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 07:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes, that's a lot more logical. Freudian elision, as the objective is to get them out of US-bio- (though getting them out of US-mus- is also Good Work). Alai 12:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then shouldn't it be {{US-hiphop-stub}} / Category:United States hip hop stubs? None of the other musician stubs have "-bio-". --Bruce1ee 13:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, {{US-hiphop-stub}} can relate to bands and any other aspect of hip-hop culture. Conscious 13:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-rail-bio-stub}} / Category:United States rail biography stubs[edit]

I count 84 candidates, about half of them clogging up US-bio-. Make room, make room! Alai 22:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this going to go forward? (Support, by the way, if it's needed.) --CComMack 21:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{condensed-matter-stub}} {{condensedmatter-stub}} {{CMP-stub}}/ Category:Condensed matter stubs[edit]

I can see many physics stubs that fit into this one (more than 20 in the first 200, therefore a lot). --Tone 22:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, at least on size. But the perm-cat is at Category:Condensed matter physics, so I have reservations about the name. There was discussion earlier about splitting up the physics stubs, does anyone recall if there was a conclusion? Good idea to drop the wikiproject physicists a line about this, anyhow. Alai 22:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I changed to condensed. Indeed, it's more general. I also mentioned on the physics project's page. --Tone 23:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found earlier discussion of this, here. Seemed vaguely positive, if somewhat inconclusive. Alai 23:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Since then, some templates were already created, namely optics, classical, quantum, particle and relativity stubs. I wonder how condensed matter slipped through. Anyway, I will wait a little for more comments and proceed then. --Tone 23:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
cant we have a better name? "condensed-stub" could mean anything. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. {{Condensed-matter-stub}} is better - Condensed-stub simply sounds like one tha5t needs expanding. Or maybe one about Readers' Digest novels... or condensed milk...or... Grutness...wha? 07:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, condensed-matter-stub it is. --Tone 18:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, {{classicalmechanics-stub}} and {{fluiddynamics-stub}} use one less hyphen, so I'd suggest {{condensedmatter-stub}}. But you've created it anyway... Conscious 18:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And I think it is ready now. Can I start using it or do I have to wait another 6 days even if it has general consensus? --Tone 18:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can go ahead since the temlpate is already here. Conscious 20:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, particularly as this was first mooted five months ago, and no-one has objected to the principle. (And the naming seems to have iterated to a conclusion, too.) Alai 20:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-film-director-stub}} / Category:United States film director stubs[edit]

Once again parents are variously "fairly large" and "vast". At least 67 of these, probably many, many more. Alai 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Now I can stop counting them. Crystallina 03:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Makes sense. --Tone 18:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me. Her Pegship 06:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-med-bio-stub}} / Category:United States medical biographical stubs[edit]

Not only are the US-bios massively oversized, the med-bios in Category:Medical biographical stubs are pushing along too, and will shortly be north of 4 pages. Existing double-stubbing indicates 91 articles would fit in here. Alai 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-tv-bio-stub}} / Category:United States television biography stubs[edit]

While we have a stub type for US tv actors (heavily double-stubbed as both tv and as film actors, naturally), the parent is for tv-bios in general, and there are 52 tv bios in US-bio- -- just about the last place we want 'em -- and 147 in total lower down the hierarchy, but not in a US-TV-specific category. Probably underestimates in both cases. Alai 21:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a few more geo-stubs[edit]

Three more countries have reached the 65 threshold for having their own geo-stubs (in the third case long overdue IMHO). I'd like to propose:

Grutness...wha? 11:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, plus a struct-stub[edit]

Another one which I've got up to 65 from 63:

Also, there are 65 Norwegian struct-stubs marked euro-struct-stub - and probably another 50 marked bridge-struct-stub. Therefore, I'd also like to propose {{Norway-struct-stub}}.

BTW - Cuba is very close to reaching the 65 geo-stub threshold. If anyone feels like making a couple of new stubs...? Grutness...wha? 09:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support all of them. --Tone 19:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support all of them. (I'm glad Moldova made it.) --Valentinian (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-songwriter-stub}} / Category:United States songwriter stubs[edit]

CatScan finds 168 candidates, and then pegs out, so there's probably even more. But that'd be a good start... Alai 06:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... though there's 145 that would fit into Category:United States singer-songwriter stubs, which would deplete the above below viability. (Though I wouldn't be surprised if there were more lurking in the woodwork, that'd put both over the threshold separately.) Alai 06:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-composer-stub}} / Category:United States composer stubs[edit]

There are 69 articles double-stubbed in the two obvious parents, more if you consider various other permutations to the same general effect. Alai 06:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{operating-system-stub}} or {{OS-stub}}[edit]

I propose adding this stub category---Category:Operating system stubs---as a subcat under Category:Software stubs, since I have observed that a lot of articles in the latter is about OSes, and I think a separate stub type for those articles would contribute in encouraging OS-interested people to do some editing (not having to eyeball search for OS articles in that huge pile of general SW stubs). I suggest we have the Unix, Linux, and MS Windows stub cats be subcats under this proposed OS stub cat as well keeping them as subcats under the general SW stub cat. --Wernher 04:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Operating-system-stub}} or {{comp-OS-stub}}, maybe, but OS is a little ambiguous. If a stub is OS, simply remove the template :) Grutness...wha? 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently trawling through the 13 pages of Software stubs. Of the 199 I have gone through so far, I have classified 10 as an Operating System (or related). They are:
Simplistic extrapolation of this result indicates that there are a potential 130 OS stubs out there, so I'd definitely support this. Although {{OS-stub}} would mean Operating system to me, {{operating-system-stub}} would be the better option. --TheParanoidOne 06:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support stub, agree with G & TPO on template naming. I think sub-types might be premature, though, let's just do this one for the time being. Alai 06:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking twice, I too agree on the naming. As for the sub-types I mentioned, I didn't actually propose those---they were already there. :-) --Wernher 08:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll create the new stub type. Thanks for commenting. --Wernher 17:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-guitarist-stub}} / Category:United States guitarist stubs[edit]

Can't believe I didn't think of this one earlier; they must be spread over a number of different sub-types, so that they didn't show up earlier, but according to CatScan, there's 120 of these. Alai 04:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ancient-Egypt-stub}}[edit]

Sorting of these stubs was proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt. I suggest the following sub-stubs for starters:

Igiffin 00:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm more than a little skeptical. Existing category has <400 stubs, and there's already an undersized stub type, Category:Egyptian mythology stubs. These won't all pass the normal theshold of 60+, and I'm reluctant to extend the "wikiproject licence" to any number of separate stub types. I'd be surprised if they all even hit 30, come to that. Is this is necessary at all, rather than simply using permanent categories, which are more suitable for this level of detailed classification? Even if a split is indicated, can't we smoosh some of these together somewhat? (Mythology+gods and monuments+tombs look like a good start.) BTW, it'd probably be a good idea to rename to AncientEgypt-<whatever>, if we have our story straight about the naming convention yet. Alai 00:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ancient-Egypt actually is in keeping with Ancient-Rome, Ancient-Greece and similar, so I'd favour keeping the hyphen. I definitely think the size of the categories could be a problem, though, and Ancient-Egypt-god-stub would surely fill the almost-empty {{Egyptian-myth-stub}}. Let's face it Egypt-struct-stub is currently undegoing the deletion process because it's underused and was never proposed. It has only ten stubs, so where are you going to find fifty or so each for tombs, libraries, museums...? Grutness...wha? 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{China-politician-stub}}[edit]

There are 193 articles in Category:Asian politician stubs, and whilst I am not sure how many of these are Chinese it seems reasonable to assume that China is big enough to warrant splitting. Darcyj 00:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really especially large. If there's 60 of them, weak support, if there's not, strong oppose. OTOH, Category:Chinese people stubs is getting largish, so if it'd help there, that'd be useful. Alai 00:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same reservation as Alai. Are we talking about Mainland China or both the Mainland and Taiwan, btw? --Valentinian (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We consistently use China-xxx-stub for Mainland China (i.e., PRC excluding HK and Macau). We use Taiwan-xxx-stub for RoC. Grutness...wha? 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that takes care of that problem. Regarding the number of stubs, Asia-politician-stub has rather few Chinese, but China-bio-stub must contain more politicians. I've never made a count of them, though. --Valentinian (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Said use seems a little dubious, though: Category:China includes HK and M, and our alleged practice is to follow the scope of the corresponding permie... Alai 16:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We ran into strong resistance for putting the Hong Kong and Macau items in with the PRC ones (harrumph...nstantnoo...cough, cough :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's only consistent for things related to the defined territory in modern times, e.g. geography, buildings. For history, people, painter, writer, military, we don't have that distinction, and such distinction is not quite possible at the time being, for we've to take pre-1912/1949 history into consideration. Since the stub categories normally keep growing as anything on Wikipedia, it'd be possible to create {{MainlandChina-xxx-stub}} for post-1949 articles (and leave {{China-xxx-stub}} and category:China xxx stubs for pre-1912, and as a parent of mainland China's ones). {{ROC-xxx-stub}}, as template redirects, are used for things related to the ROC but are not or not only related to Taiwan. — Instantnood 18:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've done a count of the Asian politicians and my number for Mainland China is around 42. This number includes a few (around 5-8) politicians from the 1911-1949 period, so I don't know if they should belong here or under Taiwan (ROC). I have not checked the Category:Asian people stubs but so far, there's not enough politicians. Btw, I also have four politicians from Imperial China, which I don't know what to do with. Valentinian (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that seems to be too few for a separate category for now, but it might be something to watch. Darcyj 03:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I need to get my head examined. The relevant category is of couse Category:Chinese people stubs. I haven't checked it, but others are very welcome to do so. In any case, I'm watching China. Valentinian (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps poli-bio-stub could be an option. Imperial mandarins and technocrats under communist rule are not quite like politicians in the modern and western sense. — Instantnood 18:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been a great fan of grouping imperial officials with politicians in the modern sense of the word (might be a slightly Euro-centric POV on my behalf). I had the same gut feeling about cabinet ministers from pre-democracy Denmark (just to name my own country). I didn't consider this possiblity, but I'll examine the articles again, next time I go over the material. I hope I'll make it within the coming week. Valentinian (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much Jesper. — Instantnood 22:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not real big on following stub sorting discussions but in general there shouldn't be any reason to make all these sub-divisions because of the whining of Instantnood. Alai is absolutely correct that one term "China" does fine to include HK and MO, it is after all, one country. This would include pre-1949 ROC and dynastic people too. There's no reason to declare these people are from a different "place" because of the changing of governments. SchmuckyTheCat 18:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Politicians are related to governments. The word China does fine to include Hong Kong and Macao, if and only if it's not used synonomously with mainland China, as in the case in many real-life situations and many articles and categories across Wikipedia. — Instantnood 18:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then organize the stubs by politics if that's what you're going on about. China could mean mainland, or it could not. If we say it's ok to include HK and MO politicians in this stub category, then that's what meaning we use. Your level of POV pushing pedantism is disruptive. SchmuckyTheCat 18:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing pedantic, considering Wikipedia is an encyclopædia. We've gotta be serious with details and accuracy. And no, I did not say it's (or it isn't) okay to extend this category to cover Hong Kong and Macao politicians. — Instantnood 19:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stub categories aren't content, so no, we don't have to be über-accurate and pedantic. And I think a lot of people have stopped caring whether you say something is ok or not. You don't understand consensus, you don't respect it, and you're recognized as a POV-pushing revert warrior under arbcom sanction.
From the discussion above: 1. There aren't enough "mainland only" politicians (even including pre-1949 ROC and dynastic) to justify a mainland only stub cat - BUT the proposal is to create a generic China category, which including HK and MO, might make sense numerically. That makes it obvious that your proposal/opposition isn't based on what's been presented and what is useful to the stub-sorting project but instead they are based on your personal biases on the definition of China. That's a problem. SchmuckyTheCat 19:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where and when did the ArbCom declare I am a " POV-pushing warrior "? And where and when did I not respect consensus? In what way is my definition of China " personal biases ", when it's basically true fact? Did the proposer suggest to cover Hong Kong and Macao? If she/he did, why there were people seeking clarification? Please kindly justify before you made bold claims and accusations.

" ...which including HK and MO, might make sense numerically. " I did not count myself, but from the figure presented above, not even a generic category got enough stubs to be qualified. What I talked about was that what could be useful in the long run. — Instantnood 20:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, gentlemen. Please assume good faith. It seems people simply draw the line different places, so let's stick to debating the issues. According to the category description pages, both the {{China-stub}} and {{Taiwan-stub}} are used regarding the 1911-1949 situation. In any case, this seems a bit inconsistent, so perhaps we should start there? So far, we've sorted politicians according to current administrative division, not by ethnicity. I suggest we should stick to that definition.
To me it makes the most sense to see Imperial China and the pre-1949 situation as a continuum. As I see it, we basically have three options: Option 1) Imperial China + pre-1949 republic in one category ({{China-stub}}), the PRC ({{MainlandChina-stub}} or {{PRC-stub}}) in a second, {{Taiwan-stub}} in a third (both children of the first?), Hong Kong and Macau as distinct stubs (children of either the PRC or the first category?) (= 5 templates); Option 2) Imperial China + pre-1949 republic + PRC in one category ({{China-stub}}), Taiwan in a second, HK and Macau as distinct stubs (children of the first category?) (= 4 templates); Option 3) Imperial China + pre-1949 republic + PRC including HK and Macau in one cat., post-1949 Taiwan in a distinct category. Basically, this means reserving "Taiwan" to the post-1949 island. (= 2 templates) Did I miss anything? Valentinian (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wish the matter can be easily generalised in this way, but I'm afraid that's not the case. After the relocation of its government from Nanking to Canton and Chungking, finally to Taipei in 1949, the Republic of China still controls until present day a few islands along the coast of the continent, opposite the strait, as well as a few islands in the South China Sea. These islands are not, unlike Taiwan and the Pescadores, colonised by Japan between 1895 and 1945, and therefore had a different path of history. A different language is spoken on the Matsu Islands.

For the time being, I'd suggest 5 stub templates and 6 categories. The stub templates are template:China-stub, MainlandChina-stub, HK-stub, Macao-stub and ROC-stub/Taiwan-stub, and the categories are category:China stubs, People's Republic of China stubs, Hong Kong stubs, Macao stubs, Republic of China stubs. China-stub would be for generic matters (culture, festivals, mythology), and pre-1912 matters. Category:PRC stubs and category:ROC stubs would be children of category:China stubs, and category:mainland China stubs, category:Hong Kong stubs and category:Macao stubs would be children of category:PRC stubs.

Category:Republic of China stubs would serve as the stub category for both the ROC and Taiwan for the time being. Template:ROC-stub is used by pre-1949 mainland matters and matters not or not only related to Taiwan (e.g. Suiyuan, list of finance ministers of the Republic of China, Matsu Daily), but it is a redirect to template:Taiwan-stub for the time being. A list of such articles is available through special:whatlinkshere/template:ROC-stub. — Instantnood 15:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three comments: 1) It seems a slight mishap has occurred. Some of us didn't realize this discussion was still active, so a new proposal has been listed further up this page (to simply create a category (no flag or insignia) and use the material in it to populate a politician stub. 2) Please bear in mind that the material on China is still very limited (given the size of the thing). We simply don't have enough material to populate 5 or 6 politician categories (that's including officials). We barely have enough for one decent category (yes, that's excluding HK, and MO but including Taiwan / ROC. HK politicians are still stubbed using a different -gov + -bio system, so that'll need fixing one day, but for now, we don't have enough material for a real HK cat, so I suggest we do nothing about them for the moment.). Besides, the more I look at the material, the more I feel it will be virtually impossible making sensible splits between the Empire, the first republic, TW, and the PRC. Besides, the other Chinese categories seems to operate by a generic system, and so does Korea. Had Germany or Vietnam not been reunited, it would have made sense to use it there as well. The HK and MO categories are different and operate by themselves so they can stay put for now. When we have more material, we can debate splitting the PRC, Empire, and whatever later, but for now we should simply make do with what we have. Otherwise we'll never be able to split off the Chinese. It's a bit ironic, that we can split off countries with 5 million people, but not one with 1.3 billion. 3) I suggest any new discussion takes place at the section further up this page. (currently section 2.22) And I'll suggest we soon close this thing. We've been debating this one topic since early March ! That's one and a half months. We still barely have material for 1 (one) category. Valentinian (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other Chinese categories are not always operated by a generic system. For the stub types, it actually depends on each situation, as explained above. For categories in general, however, many categories titled "something of/in China" or "Chinese something" are mainland China-specific. I agree there are too few stubs for politicians to have the stub type split, but still we've to handle the complicated situation properly. — Instantnood 06:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Belarus-bio-stub}} and {{Oceania-politician-stub}}[edit]

Two more stubs now seem splittable:

  • {{Belarus-bio-stub}} 67 (The blue link is only a redirect. This stub must have been deleted previously.)
  • {{Oceania-politician-stub}} 71 (to avoid triple-stubbing of e.g. {{PNG-stub}}, {{Oceania-bio-stub}} and {{politician-stub}}. I've not done a complete count of Fiji, so the actual number is a bit higher.) This is the last continent without a separate politician-stub (except North America which is already covered otherwise). --Valentinian (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supportismo. Alai 23:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Note that we already have Australia-politician-stub and NZ-politician-stub, which are natural child categories of the Oceania one. Grutness...wha? 05:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum {{Greece-politician-stub}} and {{SouthAfrica-politician-stub}}[edit]

I missed this one these two before:


(the South Africa proposal should be seen in context with Conscious' proposal for a {{SouthAfrica-bio-stub}} listed elsewhere on this page. Given the large size of {{SouthAfrica-stub}} I think it is pretty safe to make both splits.) --Valentinian (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{spain-geo-stub}}[edit]

At over 6 pages in Category:spain geography stubs, further subdivision would appear warranted. The obvious approach would be by autonomous community, of which there are seventeen. At least the larger of the autonomous communities could be commenced with, if not in fact all of them. So am proposing something like:

--cjllw | TALK 08:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea how many articles would be in each of these? --Stemonitis 09:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's only 6-7 pages, I doubt all 17 of these would reach a splittable threshold. The average size would be around 75, so some of them will definitely be splittable (for most subnational regions we use 65 or thereabouts as the splitting size). I haven't done a count of Spain - for the most part, the only geo-stub tallies I do are for regions not yet split into countries - but if other country splits are anything to go by, I'd expect Madrid to definitely be splittable. Since we already have Catalonia-stub and Valencia-stub, it might make sense to do geo-stubs for them too. Other than that, a count might be in order. Grutness...wha? 12:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This certainly looks like the right level to do the split at. (Provinces would clearly be too small.) I'd suggest creating all the above templates, for the sake of consistency, but feeding any that prove to be undersized back into the parent category, pro temps. I think I can make a wild guess as to which are likely to be undersized, based on this; it's not unlikely perhaps only half a dozen will hit threshold. Alai 16:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • btw wed normally use {{Canaries-geo-stub}} not {{CanaryIslands-geo-stub}} like with azores and maldives. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you take a look at the articles in Category:lists of municipalities in Spain, you will see that without including natural geographical features (most of which are stubs) there are potentially hundreds of candidates per (most) autonomous communities. Note that quite a few of the items in these lists are redlinked not because they don't exist, but because they exist under a variant title; in the past couple of days I've been going through an exercise in recategorising and correcting links to articles on Spanish municipalities, and even in the early stages of that process have come across at least 40 or so stubs not marked as such- which in fact prompted me to make this proposal, rather than carry on adding them to Category:Spain geography stubs. Although I've not yet made a formal count, my experience thus far indicates that the threshhold of around 65 would be met easily by the larger communities (that's if I don't expand 'em as I go!). Perhaps the island autonomous communities won't make it, but I'd at least like to make a start on the others (btw, point taken re naming standard wrt Canaries, have modified it above).--cjllw | TALK 04:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

update: after some delay, I've commenced creating these geo stubs and categories per the above proposal, starting with some of those most likely to be well-populated. Have also begun the reassignment out of spain-geo. It will probably take a few days more, maybe longer; will add the tpls to wp:wss/st & other appropriate places in due course.--cjllw | TALK 01:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States science fiction writer stubs[edit]

Exactly 60 stubs included in both Category:Science fiction stubs and in Category:US writer stubs, one of which is oversized. Alai 02:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian battle stubs[edit]

While Category:Battle stubs is no longer oversized (though I say so myself), this has now hit 61 articles (counting just those that're also in Category:Russian history stubs), and is probably worth splitting off too. Alai 02:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Da! --Valentinian (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • mmm. ya nye znaiyu. The trouble with splitting battle-stub by country is that most battles involve two countries. You're likely to end up simply increasing the number of stub templates on each article. Grutness...wha? 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having just done about 800 battle stubs on that basis, I'm afraid I'm going to have to bar that objection on time! Note these are existing double-stubbings (or treble, quadruple, quintuple...), and this is pretty consistently reducing the total number of templates. See the discussion under the earlier battle sub-types. Alai 05:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American skating biography stubs[edit]

There's now 68 articles in both Category:American people stubs and in Category:Skating biography stubs, up significantly from the discussion, below, about US-sports-bio (still viable separately, of course...). Alai 02:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Melbourne rail stubs[edit]

Continuing the rail theme, Category:Australian rail stubs has just peeked over the five page mark, and 215 (!) articles are double-stubbed in here and in Category:Melbourne stubs, so this is a cheap and cheerful way of getting it back down to 3 pages. Alai 02:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good idea - probably worth telling WikiProject Melbourne about this before it goes ahead, too! Grutness...wha? 05:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody can create the category and the template, I would be happy to work on this. I was going to create it myself, but I don't fully understand what goes into one, and don't wanna mess up. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 16:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coming shortly... Slambo (Speak) 16:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created. Template at {{Melbourne-rail-stub}}, category as stated above. Sort away! Slambo (Speak) 16:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 250 stubs in that cat alone! - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 02:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

split of {{UK-railstation-stub}}[edit]

there are seven pages of these. i havent done a count but it may be worthwhile splitting them into England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and possibly London. anyone know how many would go in each or should i take a random sample? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok ive done a count from the first ten in each column in the catagory. its probably biased it a bit towards wales becuase one of the columns started with "Ll". i rounded the count a bit to make it exactly 15% of the articles.
  • England (exc london) - 107 articles (est 713 over all)
  • Scotland - 31 articles (est 207 over all)
  • Wales - 42 articles (est 280 over all)
  • London - 24 articles (est 160 over all)
  • N.I. - no articles!
spliting into England-railstation-stub, Scotland-railstation-stub, Wales-railstation-stub and London-railstation-stub looks good :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these seem likely to hit threshold on the basis of the above stats. Alai 04:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Mais oui! 09:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • ... and the purpose here is stub-sorting, not categorisation (esp. not for categorisation's sake). Sorting by county is unlikely to be viable on size for any at present, except perhaps the odd one or two, but the need for a (further) split is pretty much imminent. Maybe the unpopularity will spur people to "de-stub" the articles. (No, I didn't really think so either.) Alai 16:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you're splitting out England, Scotland and Wales station stubs, then {{UK-railstation-stub}} will be de facto {{NI-railstation-stub}}; why not just rename it while you're at it? Leave the category of UK railway station stubs, without a stub template filling it, to hold the four sub-categories. That said, I support the proposal, with the strong suspicion that England will have to be further split some time soon. --Stemonitis 09:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • seems a bit pointless f there arent any NI-railstation-stubs! better to leave it as a holding pen for now for people who still use UK-railstation-stub. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've made {{Scotland-railstation-stub}} and {{Wales-railstation-stub}}, and their relevant categories. I've also started to populate them, but I'd gladly accept some help. I wasn't sure what to do with England, so I've left it for the moment. --Stemonitis 12:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus seemed to be to split out London, and to live in denial about the rest for a little longer. :) Alai 16:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wales and Scotland are now finished. I'll leave the English to sort out their remaining mess. --Stemonitis 11:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well wrought, Stem. As there's still over 1000, and on the above estimates of the Londons, will still be oversized after those are split out, I'll re-float my suggestion of splitting by (the other) English regions (too). Alai 18:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im making a start on london. once this is all done perhaps the main catagory should be renamed to "United Kingdom..." too. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ps - ive found one NI one! Coleraine railway station. There may be more :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All 8 of the Northern Ireland railway station articles are of stub length, but only Coleraine, Londonderry and Larne Town are marked with {{UK-railstation-stub}}. Just for information. --Stemonitis 08:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished out London. I'd say, based on current categorisation and informal counting as I went, that Greater Manchester, Kent, Merseyside, and Tyne and Wear are at or near threshold. Someone may want to do a formal count. I would advocate splitting by county where it is called for, then evaluating where we are. --CComMack 03:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of existing categorisation, the first three are all "near" (50-56 articles). There may be the odd station that lacks a per-county cat, but it seems pretty thorough on the whole. For Tynes and Wear, it depends on whether one counts the Metro stations (they're not perm-catted that way). Alai 04:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some may not have obvious categories; Category:UK railway station stubs ∩ Category:Railway stations in Merseyside (and subcats) yields 50 articles, while Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom ∩ Category:Historic transport in Merseyside yields another 8. As to Tyne and Wear Metro stations, unless they're numerous enough to have their own category like {{LUL-stub}}, they should count towards the county-wide count. --CComMack 21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There indeed seem to be about 60-70 not under Category:Railway stations in England (though that would also include the handful of NIs, and is still <10%, a pretty good hit rate). Basically the choice is either do the above, (somewhat marginally viable) splits now, and be left with a residual of 3 1/2 pages; or to split by regions, and have a number of one-page sub-cats. It'd be interesting to determine if we're at or near "saturation coverage" of the current stations (though doubless there's many disused stations that might come along later). Alai 22:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, I suppose the questions I have are: 1) How saturated is our article coverage, and 2) Where else do we use regions as opposed to counties to subdivide England? --CComMack 22:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the first question, I was hoping someone else would have a handy answer to that. I found a statement that post-Beeching, there's been around 2000, but no more precise a figure. Judging by UK railway stations, and the fraction of redlinks, coverage is in the ballpark of 80-90%.
On the second: The number of times that England has been "stub-sorted" geographically at all is rather modest -- AFAIK, once, the -geo- stubs -- so there's no exactly a mountain of precedent here. In that case, the population did eventually grow to the point where by-county splits were feasible, though it was a long and lingering process. (How the permanent categories are arranged is another matter entirely.) I note that List of British towns with no railway station is arranged by region, and by the looks of it, for roughly analogous reasons: the list could be too "thin" if split by county. Alai 00:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, time for a Stupid American Question: are the counties strict subsets of regions? I look around, but I see lots of mentions of boundaries getting moved, and not so much about what goes into what. (Also, the difference between administrative and ceremonial counties with the same names but different boundaries... oy. My head hurts.) If the answer is "yes, these regions are simply counties stuck together and not something more complicated, then I formally withdraw any objection. --CComMack 21:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It takes very little empathic effort on my part to Feel Your Pain(TM), as I feel a good deal of it myself every time I wrestle with the detail of this. Doesn't help that I've been out of the UK for most of the last ten years, during which time the last iteration of changes took place. But the short answer is "yes"; the currently defined counties are each properly contained in a single region, and so it'd be possible to split into regions, and then re-split into counties (or indeed, to split into regions by category, but have a template per county), without any "sideways" movement.
The slightly longer answer is that "administrative county" as such is old terminology, dating back about 30 years (but three iterations of major local government reorganisation(!)). Actual "local goverment" now occurs at a) district level (districts being properly contained within counties), and/or b) county level, and in the single case of London, regional level -- but in no case at all three. There's either the region and (London) borough (effectively county-level, though not in name), or the county and the district, or just the county, or just the district. To further complicate matters, non-elective functions often use different boundaries again for administrative functions. Historic/traditional/former administrative counties will, as you say, often have the same names, but different borders, and are a whole different can of worms. It must be said there are indeed a number of traditionalist backwoodsmen that will argue about what the counties are (or should be), insist in writing old county names on their mail, etc, but unless they show up here and start edit-warring, hopefully that's not a concern here. Alai 01:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revisiting old news, nothing seems to be happening with this proposal; my objections were withdrawn, so it probably ought to go ahead. Except, of course, that now that I check, Merseyside has 74 railstation-stubs. Should we get the non-controversial ones knocked out so we can cut this category down to size *before* we bicker about threshold?  :-) --CComMack 15:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been executing this split (very slowly...), and can now certify that Merseyside and Greater Manchester are at threshold, and I can almost certainly take Kent over with a little trawling of the category for missing tags. If there's no objection in the next few days, I'll split those counties out. --CComMack 14:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ska album stub[edit]

I propose a new subcategory for Category:Album stubs for ska albums, and a template to go with it. I'm not sure where we're supposed to keep that list of articles we think is appropriate for the category, so I'll just start it here: bmearns.....(talk) 19:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'm hoping that's not the whole list; we're cutting our own throats if we agree to start any more new stub types for less than 60! (OK, I exaggerate a tad.) But this parent is so oversized I'm inclined to support on spec. Alai 04:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why ska? There are other genres mixed into album stubs that could probably come closer to threshold. Eight articles won't make much of a dent. Crystallina 17:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well ska because I happened to be creating two articles for ska albums and noticed that there was no such stub category. I honestly don't know if that's all the articles currently in or not, I will continue to look. But by all means, if this is too much of an inconvenience I'm not all that concerned with it. I'm not familiar with the logistics of creating a new sub cat for this project, so if it's a hassle, don't even worry about it. bmearns.....(talk) 21:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it's a hassle, it's that the ska category may not meet threshold. I just finished album stubs and didn't encounter many ska articles. Crystallina 15:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{cellphone-stub}}[edit]

There's a good need for cellphone or mobile phone-related stubs so I'll make that right now. I was told to post my stub ideas here before making them. --Shultz III 12:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well you were told that much but you didnt reads the instructions on this page! the whole point of proposing them here is so they can be debated for a week before they are created. that way we can tell if it will be useful before you make it. this template simply doubles up stuff already covered by other templates like telecom-company-stub and comm-stub. and you didnt make it propoerly either (i had to fix it so that the catagory could be seen and worked - its still a redling tho). please follow the instructions! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Duplicative of Category:Wireless stubs, which isn't in urgent need of being split. No harm to have the template as a redirect. Alai 04:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alai. --Valentinian (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged this with above category. This leaves Category:cellphone stubs empty, and a candidate for deletion in 4 days if everyone is agreeable. Alai 03:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template deleted via SFD. Logged discussion here. --TheParanoidOne 06:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Language stubs[edit]

We need an "Austro-Asiatic language" stub and template. Most of the current stubs that would take this template are currently marked as "Afro-Asiatic language stubs" which is grossly inaccurate. The few that aren't are simply marked with a plain "language stub" template.--WilliamThweatt 02:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have some width-of-scope concerns; the corresponding permanent categories are far from massive. The parent isn't oversized, so leaving the ones already there (correctly), and moving up any in Afro-asiatic (incorrectly) wouldn't be a disaster by any means. How many of these actually are there? Alai 04:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is that there are numerous stubs that are presently incorrect. Any solution that would remedy this would be acceptable for me. However, for the sake of consitancy, I would prefer that the new Stub be created. Otherwise we will have some labeled as "Afro-asiatic", and some simply labled as "Language". The Austro-Asiatic language family is an upper-level (parent) classification, analogous with "Indo-European", "Afro-Asiatic", "Austronesian", etc. I found at least 10 present stubs and literally scores of "red-links" that will one day need this catagory.--WilliamThweatt 06:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do see the concern that current mis-sorting may be an indication of possible future mis-sorting (perhaps due to the superficial similarity of the name -- we should probably rename Aa-lang-stub to be less ambiguous). The rule of thumb, though, is based on current size, to avoid creating titchy backwater stub types. Ten is too small for my personal tastes, though admittedly we do have worse... Shame that an Austric category would be entirely (minority) POV. Alai 07:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the best thing is to do what is done with other such situations - keep them simply as {{language-stub}} for now, but keep a close eye on their numbers, re-proposing once it's clear there are enough for a meaty category. Given that it is a basic language family and most of the others have been split the threshold can probably be bent a bit - I'd have no objection if there were 30 stubs, say - but ten is very thin. Grutness...wha? 07:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly at any rate it'd be no harm to create a template for them, though if there's really that few, keep it feeding into the main category for the time being. Alai 15:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with creating a template that simply feeds into the main "language" catagory, if that can be done. However, I am still counting articles and have now found 17 Austro-Asiatic stubs labeled as "language stubs" in addition to the original 10 that are mislabeled. This brings the total count (so far) to at least 27 stubs that would fit this new catagory. With such a large language family, I'm sure there are even more, but because of the way they're currently classified (or not classified), they're so spread out making it time-consuming to look for them all (which is one of the problems I'm trying to remedy).--WilliamThweatt 17:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I seem to have mislaid a reply to this I thought I'd made earlier... 27's better than some we have, at any rate, and is around what we consider the usual minimum for a new category where there's a wikiproject. Note there's an existing permanent category, which should serve for consolidation purposes. Distinct templates feeding into the same category are indeed possible: just create a redirect, or near-copy of the existing template. (I'll be glad to help if you have any trouble.) Alai 01:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged or retagged four, that were either untagged or mistagged. Don't know if these are additional to the above. Alai 20:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious: Which template did you retag them with?
Lang-stub. I'll be able to find 'em again from my edit history, from the summary, though. Alai 22:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pre-1930 aircraft stubs[edit]

There are about 60 of these, total, currently in three unproposed, undersized, and yet mysteriously undeletable stub categories. Smoosh 'em all together and make one good one (but keep existing templates, all feeding in here, for easing of future re-splitting, should the need arise). I'm ignoring the issue of whether a split by age is at all wise, due to "facts on the ground". Alai 17:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems we can't get rid of these horrible things, this may be the best solution. Go for. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other stub-related discussions[edit]

Please add new items to the bottom of this section

Rail stubs scratch pad[edit]

Just a quick note to other sorters that I've started a scratch pad for notes about sorting articles tagged with {{rail-stub}}. I've started by doing a country count to see how close we could be to the next split based on political borders (I thought there were more Ireland articles, but the count says otherwise). I plan to take a closer look at Category:US rail stubs next to see how it can be better handled. Slambo (Speak) 21:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Compu-X-stub}} messages[edit]

Several of the children of {{Compu-stub}} have the message "This X-related article is a stub. Help Wikipedia by expanding it." Every other stub template I've seen (well, with a couple of odd exceptions) say "You can help ...". The way it's worded here, apart from being inconsistent with other stub templates, sounds rather rude to me. I'd change them myself but I thought there might be a reason (I don't take editing templates lightly), so I'm being cautious and asking this WikiProject's folks about it. Hairy Dude 17:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for telling us. Valentinian (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuvola icons wherever possible?[edit]

Wikipedia:Browse, Portal:Browse, Portal:Society, Portal:Technology and a lot of other-language Wikipedias (such as ), use Nuvola icons to refer to topics. I think we should do the same in our stub templates, whenever possible. Besides consistency, these icons have the advantages of being:

  • LGPL;
  • culturally neutral and non-controversial, to my knowledge;
  • colourful and friendly;
  • available to suit many topics (the biggest gaps probably being religion and food); and
  • very legible at 32x32px, which many of our existing images (being photos) are not.

Many templates already do this, from Template:Metal-album-stub to Template:Golf-stub to Template:Chem-stub to Template:Electro-stub. Good, modified icons have been made for others such as Template:Musical-film-stub and Template:Furniture-stub. I believe we should commit to using (original or modified) Nuvola icons for stubs whenever possible.

We may not be ready to do this with flags yet. User:Valentinian tells me there are a large number of dual-country stub articles. Since only a handful of flags are available (original: Spain, France, Japan; modified: Peru) yet, this means that many articles will be decorated with both a straight and a waving flag. If this is an issue, we can hold off on changing the flags over until more Nuvola-esque flags are available.

However, I think in general, using Nuvola wherever possible would increase legibility and stylistic consistency and improve the aesthetics. Does everyone agree? Seahen 19:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all the double- and triple-stubbing going on, it'd look pretty bad if we start using two or more standards on the flags, and I'd really prefer if we postpone a change of them, for the time being. If a (more) complete set of flags becomes available, we can decide on a complete shift then. I've gone through a lot of the templates to preserve a consistent look (.svg version and 30px), so I'd hate to see that go. An update of other icons might be a good idea, but that should be considered on a case-to-case basis. There's no need for change if the template already uses a great free image (e.g. the portrait of Einstein for {{Physicist-stub}}.) Second, we should still strive for templates to use different icons as much as possible, enabling easy identification. Just my thoughts. Valentinian (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I definately agree with Valentinian. The nuvola icons might be useful for a lot of cases, but not for others, it should be decided depending on the stub you need an icon for.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 20:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I know a suitable Nuvola icon is not available for every template, consider the following. (Note that icon sizes have been normalized to 40px.)
Template Current
icon 		Nuvola
alternative
Compu-stub
Math-stub
Insect-stub
Geo-stub
TV-stub File:TV icon.png
Software-stub
Bcast-stub
Now, can we all agree that the Nuvola icons are (a) more colourful and visually appealing; (b) easier to read at first glance; and (c) more consistent in appearance, compared to the ones on their left? Seahen 21:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them look appealing, e.g. the tv-icon, but to be frank, I'm not a fan of the Apple-look, and I personally find it a bit too childish (sorry if this offends any Apple-user reading this, but hey, that's my view. The only thing important is the quality of the text.) The computer- and tv-icon are good, but the original maths and broadcasting icons are also very appealing. I don't like the new geo-icon, and I don't understand the square on the software-icon; I presume it's a monitor. In my book, stub images should be easily identifiable but not dominating. I *will* give you that the Nuvola icons are generally more colourful. Btw, who implemented a standard about 40 pix images for stub templates? Not WP:WSS, and I find most images large enough, particularly on double-stubbed pages. Regarding the flags, I'm currently going through all templates using flag icons, so *please* don't make changes to a standard that 95% of them actually follow. Valentinian (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for putting all icons at 40px was to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison. As for the globe, sit back from your monitor a bit, and tell me: which one can you recognize as a globe from two or three feet away? Or compare them at the smaller sizes we generally use: versus and versus This is the advantage of colourful, space-filling icons: they're more readable. Seahen 15:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find them too glossy, "loud" and dominating. The glossy look reminds me of the wrappings of candy, not something I should take seriously. Geo-stubs might not be the best of examples since the great majority of them are stubbed with an template using a national flag. I've reverted the edit to the {{academic-bio-stub}}, the added image was simply an icon of a white person wearing a tie, and the image reminds me of a salesman or businessperson, not a professor. Second, I don't see the point about standing away from the monitor, since the important part of Wikipedia is its text, not the layout. The layout of Britannica is pretty dull too, but that's because it is irrelevant to the page's main task; conveying information. Third, some editors hate the notion of stub templates in the first place, and have specifically objected to the use of images on them. I see no reason to further anger these editors. The stub images were retained but a key reason was that members of WP:WSS argued that we need the images for our stub sorting work. Fourth, double- and triple-stubbings is extremely common, and large glossy images on those will dominate way too much. Especially if the stub article also uses an infobox or something similar on the right side of the screen. My impression of the proposed examples: Computer: might be an idea, but should be 30px, Maths: old image is serious, new one is noicy, Insect: the first image is clearly more serious, Geo: new one is way too glossy, tv: no clear winner there, software: the original image is a lot better, since the combination of a package, cd, and disk clearly shows what it's all about. The new image could as well be perceived as a music disc or DVD. It's impossible to see if the square is a book, box, monitor or whatever, Broadcasting: the second image only reminds me of a piece from a ludo game. I don't see any reason to change the status quo unless a new image is vastly superior to an old one. And stub sorters keep an eye out for that. Its part of the job. Valentinian (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yuuk! some of those look awful compared to whats there now (and i am an apple user). were not five year olds so why use five year old book illustrations? fwiw i vote against this proposal! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I agree with BL - those nuvola icons look very childish. In any case, as to their "political neutrality", a great deal of thought goes into the creation of neutral stub icons, and they are often far better in this regard than the dinky little kid's book icons in the nuvola system. I'm also opposing this proposal. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've given the matter some more thought, and I basically find the outline too childish. I prefer a more serious / scientific look. I'd second Grutness' point about the neutrality. Stub sorters already strive very much to avoid offending anyone with the stub images, and I think they're doing a good job. I can't remember a single edit war over this issue. Oppose this suggestion. If an editor finds a stub image to be sub-standard, he/she will probably also look in the nuvola package, but editors shouldn't be restricted to using them. I don't see any need to change the standard size of stub images either. Valentinian (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with any of the example current icons. Not much to separate them. I doubt Nuvola has enough icons with appropriate separation and distinctions to be able to universally place a different one on each stub template - and I definitely vote against repeating the same icon on different stub templates. If Nuvola has enough depth to replace the photos with icons, I would be open to support that (for stub templates with either no picture or a scaled photo), but does it really have a suitable icon for (example) {{Australia-road-stub}} that is sufficiently distinct from every other substub of both {{Australia-stub}} and {{Road-stub}}? --Scott Davis Talk 11:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Nuvola does not have an icon for Australian roads. Instead, I'd suggest replacing the existing photo with an Australian highway sign (maybe ?), since it would be more readable. Seahen 15:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian road stub photo was discussed on the Australian noticeboard and selected as at that size it was clearly a road and had recognisable Australian colours in it. --Scott Davis Talk 02:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, someone changed the icon on flag-stub to a nuvola one - I've just reverted it, since replacing a deliberately non-political flag (a maritime signal flag) with two European national flags is a clear example of why the nuvola images are actually far less neutral than our own icons. Grutness...wha? 04:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose even though I love the Nuvolas (I used them for a lot of the film stubs). I appreciate the thought, but I think this is carrying uniformity a bit too far. Leave it up to the projects or to a random editor with a perfect icon, whether Nuvola or otherwise. Her Pegship 04:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biography stubs sorting[edit]

The following - verbatim - was a message from Instantnood to my user talk page - sounds like a good idea... are there any technical/other problems with it? Grutness...wha? 01:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be a good idea to sort biography stubs according to the "Family Name, Given Name" format? That line in the templates can be written as [[Category:Something people stubs|{{{1}}}]] or [[Category:Something people stubs|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]] (instead of [[Category:Something people stubs]]). — Instantnood 18:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for bringing the matter here. I've tested the proposal with the article on Cecilia Cheung (This article was chosen because the given name and the family name start with the same letter.). I used |{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}} instead of |{{{1}}} since it's impossible to modify all articles at a time – those not yet modified are kept sorted in the old way. — Instantnood 18:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Performing Arts Stub?[edit]

There is not currently a stub category for performing arts, defined in this instance as artistic performances performed before a live audience. As a result of this missing category, there are also no subcategories for drama, comedy, improvisational theater, musical comedy, melodrama, performance art, marching band, color guard, winter guard, drum corps, operetta, kabuki, and several other legitimate performing arts. There are also many "crossover" categories: dance, symphony, etc. There probably quite a hierarchy here, and I have not proposed a category because it is not clear to me if we can have categories that cross-list subcategories. Is someone more experience in category formation willing to to tackle this, or at least provide me with some pretty honkin' good guidance while I try it? Ray Trygstad 05:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well first don't try it yourself, because it will need debating here - what you're proposing is quite an organisational/hierarchical change. Currently the different things you mention are all dealt with in their separate categories - operetta and musical comedy use the same stub as opera, for instance, drama uses either play-stub or theat-stub or some subcategory of them depending on the particular type of drama. Improvisional theatre also uses theat-stub as does kabuki (probably double-stubbed with japan-stub). Performance art uses art-stub, and both marching bands and drum corps use one of the musical ensemble stubs (I have no idea what a winter guard or color guard are so I can't comment on them). In other words, all of these items are already categorised and subcategorised in places on the tree - creating a new branch specifically relating to performance is a huge and probably unnecessary extra tangle on the tree. (BTW I've moved this to the proposer place on the page!) Grutness...wha? 07:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castle stub[edit]

Either I'm blind or missing something obvious, but how do you label a stub which is about a castle? Heidelberg Castle came to mind. I came up with using "German structure stub" or something. There exists a template:castle-stub but it's a bit broken. Has there really never been a need for such a thing before? The trouble is, castles aren't necessarily military history, they aren't necessarily "structures" (they could be ruins),... anyway. Stevage 23:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the Castle stub and added it to the Heidelburg page. Burns flipper 11:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Castle-stub shouldn't exist - it wasn't proposed. Use germany-struct-stub, which is what is used for all other german castles. And what makes you think ruins aren't structures? Grutness...wha? 14:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I don't know the stub policy, but in the meantime, could castle-stub at least be a redirect or something? It's very useful to be able to just guess at the name of a stub, rather than having to actually look it up, and castle-stub is a pretty intuitive name :) Personally, I'm not sure that splitting everything by country is necessarily the best way - Heidelberg castle is probably more likely to attract castle fans that German building fans. But anyway, there's obviously a bit of "history" here...Stevage 14:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I rather agree about the "expansion likelihood" (speaking as a Scot who's visited said castle). Ideally all "structures" would be double-stubbed with both a location, and a "type"; the downside of having both is that people choose to use one or the other on an entirely ad hoc basis. Alai 18:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive23&oldid=1082501712"