Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/April 2008

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of discussions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals for the month of April 2008. Please move completed April discussions to this page as they are closed, add discussion headers to each proposal showing the result, and leave incomplete discussions on the Proposals page. After April, the remainder of the discussions will be moved to this page, whether stub types have been created or not.

Those who create a stub template/cat should be responsible for moving the discussion here and listing the stub type in the archive summary.

Stub proposers please note: Items tagged as "nocreate" or "no consensus" are welcome for re-proposal if and when circumstances are auspicious.

Nothing special in the air

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

The result of the debate was never mind.
Suggest {{Aero-company-tub}} to cover aircraft makers, including (but not limited to) Standard Aircraft Corporation, Cox-Klemin, Huff-Daland Aero Corporation, Atlantic Aircraft, & Thomas-Morse Aircraft. Trekphiler (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignore. Found it... I'll learn to look more carefully one day.... Trekphiler (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

UK schools

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

The result of the debate was create.
There are currently a little over 600 pages categorised as {{UK-school-stub}}, I propose adding sub categories for the following regions: East England, East Midlands England and North East England, with new stub templates of the form County-school-stub to sort into them (In a similar manner to {{NorthEastLincolnshire-school-stub}} sorts into Category:Yorkshire and the Humber school stubs. By having the templates consistent across all categories would also make future splitting or amalgamation a lot simpler, as well as easier to know which template to apply. Any thoughts? -- Ratarsed (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the county templates are certainly speediable; the principle has been discussed a number of times, it's just that the implementation is less than complete. Create the remaining regional categories as and when they'd pass 60. Alai (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

American television actor, 1910s birth stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
There are currently 63 articles that use the template {{US-tv-actor-1910s-stub}}.

So, like {{US-tv-actor-1920s-stub}} & Category:American television actor, 1920s birth stubs, this template should get its own Category:American television actor, 1910s birth stubs. For An Angel (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Support, speedy Go for it! SeveroTC 17:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you did it right. :) Support speedying this, per nom. Alai (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Netball-stub

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

The result of the debate was create.
Template:Netball-stub,

Yeah yeah, I'm probably going about this all the wrong way, since I only proposed a WikiProject for Netball today, but I want to get some of the groundwork done. With the establishement of a fully professional Netball league spanning Australia and New Zealand, a large number of new stubs are being created, mostly player bios and team articles. I'm aware that this category was deleted three years ago, but there are now 3 editors actively increasing coverage of netball. The threshhold of 30 for a project category is probably achieved already has already beren achieved. dramatic (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Support and suggest a {{Netball-bio-stub}} as well. I have seen a number of biod while sorting through sports biographies and this would certainly see use (probably best to upmerge to Category:Netball stubs until the numbers are greater).Waacstats (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the template can certainly go ahead; technically the threshold of 30 doesn't apply here, since your WPJ isn't "netball people", but netball in general, which obviously already has a stub type. But this will be speedibly un-upmergable when it hits 60. Alai (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
When you say "obviously already has a stub type" do you mean {{Netball-stub}} (which I created yesterday then discovered this proposal page), or is there another one which I missed completely? dramatic (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, what's obvious here is that I'm half-asleep. :) I was conflating Waacstats suggestion and your proposal, without having paiod the requisite attention to either. So, what I should have said is, support the netball-stub type on the basis of the pending WPJ, and agree with Waacstats that an upmerged netball-bio-stub is a good plan. (BTW, could you find or recrop an image that would look OK at a size more like 40x30? That would be a better fit with the existing pattern.) Alai (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I can get it down as far as 40x35: - how's that? dramatic (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
5px too big. :) Alai (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like there's a bit of blank area to the left and right which could probably be trimmed, but personally I'd say that that icon's close enough. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a blank area because it has entirely the wrong aspect ratio, but please don't declare open season on stub images over 30px deep, otherwise I shall go weep quietly for some considerable time. They're quite jumbled and mismatched enough as it is. Alai (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hm. I thought the basic principle we were using was 40px for whichever was the longer axis - there are quite a number of 40x40 square icons. Grutness...wha? 14:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you did do this backwards, but frankly I'm surprised there wasn't a stub for netball already. An upmerged bio-stub (as Waacstats suggest) is also a good idea. Go the Southern Steel! Grutness...wha? 00:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I will take the above as consensus to create a bio stub - and will replace the image with a 30px high one and request deletion of the 35px version from commons (Netball is simply a vertical sport!). dramatic (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Point taken, and granted. There must be scope for some sort of moodily dramatic cropping, though. :) Thanks for your consideration. Alai (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States lacrosse biography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Didn't take long for {{US-lacrosse-bio-stub}} to pass 60. Propose speedy cat. SeveroTC 23:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I concur this is speediable (with the usual proviso that we could alternatively have a week-long discussion on US vs. American than would come to no particular consensus or definite conclusion). Alai (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I noticed that yesterday and thought I had propsed it but obviously not. Speedy support in any case. Waacstats (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

UnitedArabEmirates-struct-stub

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

The result of the debate was create.
Out of the 273 stubs at Category:United Arab Emirates stubs, there are many (more than the 70 that I counted) stubs that relate to towers, buildings, bridges, stadiums and other structures. I am proposing the creation of {{UnitedArabEmirates-struct-stub}} and Category:United Arab Emirates structure stubs. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Support, and essentially speediable. Alai (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Water sports biography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Upmerged template has passed the 60 mark. Speedy? Waacstats (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Support speedy. SeveroTC 10:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Album stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
I am attempting to make some headway in the Category:2000s album stubs and I think that the following will be useful (for this or other splits)

The figures are from stubsense based on genre based stub parent and by year perm cats. Waacstats (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong support. These are IMO speedible, by pattern and precedent, though you might want to give WPJ albums a heads-up, and pause briefly before doing so. I should be able to help populate a chunk of these by db dump and 'bot, if you need any help, and tip me off when the types are created. Alai (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Bryozoan stub Category

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

The result of the debate was create.
I've been adding a lot of taxonomic and morphological pages relating to the zoological group Bryozoa. Most can benefit from some expansion, so I've added the {{bryozoan-stub}}. But there is no Bryozoan Category listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types#Zoology. It would be useful to add a Bryozoan Stub Category to track these (I may be misunderstanding the whole thing, but I've only really just started). Rolf Schmidt (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So far, so good! Usual practice is to wait until there's 60 articles using the new ("upmerged", in the jargon) stub template, before giving it a separate category. In the meantime, you can pick those out from the rest of the invertebrates by using "what links here" on the template. Alai (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Looking via 'what links here' works quite well; and I noticed that there was some discussion about Invertebrate Stubs in February 08. I'll just keep adding pages. Should I post another request once it's hit the critical limit? Rolf Schmidt (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but since this follows the established patterns for stub naming, and is not ambiguous, you can speedy create the Category once there are 60 stubs. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
A clarification: yes, you should post a request, but since it's a speediable type, it's more of a procedural thing to double-check category naming and let everyone know it's happening, since it's pretty much been agreed to in principle already. Grutness...wha? 14:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Double quick speedy

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

The result of the debate was create.
I assume Nepal must have had some elections recently as someone has created 60+ articles and put them in Category:Politician stubs. Given the 20 or so that were already in the asian subcat and the small matter of nearly every other country having one I propose

be double quick speedy created. Waacstats (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Support speedy. While we're in this category, how about Category:North American politician stubs to tidy up the parent cat to continental level sub cats only. SeveroTC 16:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure exactly how fast a double-quick speedy is, but what the heck, go for it! But don't come crying to me if you break your neck. :) Alai (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I know there is no need but I normally wait a day or two after proposing a speedy creation. I waited 6 hours this time and my neck is thankfully still in one piece. Waacstats (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I was largely being facetious, but I suppose there is a possible distinction to make between things speediable to the extent of "if there's no objection within 24/48h", and "this is blitheringly obvious, and I'm going right ahead with it, and letting y'all know". I'd put quite a range of things in the latter category, but it's not like there's not plenty of things on the to-do list... Alai (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{inferior-article-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was do not create.
How about an inferior article stub? The stub would need to have a way to tell what source contains the superior article for effectiveness. Samples of the text entered might look like these:

{{inferior-article-stub|[[Encyclopedia of Life]]}}

{{inferior-article-stub|[[Encyclopedia Brittanica]]}}

{{inferior-article-stub|[[Microsoft Encarta 1994]]}}

It might look something like this:

This title has a more superior article in Encyclopedia of Life, yet only has a stub in Wikipedia. Please help expand it!

The category for the stub would be something like "Articles Inferior to Other Encyclopedias"

Thanks, Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If left blank, the superior reference name would be something like "an alternate source" Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Stubs are sorted by topic, and this would cut right across that. You can use {{MEA-expand}} for this purpose. Note that said template was created as "mea-stub", but renamed for exactly the above reason. Alai (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this would work better as a talk page boiler plate message. Stubs are good for navigating your way around a topic. A talk page message for this would furnish editors of the article to find more sources. SeveroTC 13:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there a boilerplate creation standard? Such as getting them approved prior to creation? Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the stub has been created, not by myself, but by a vandal. The stub's only contents are the name of the person who created it, and it has no other revisions to which I can revert it. Can someone please delete it? Thanks, Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. AFAIK there's no such proposal process, but very often they're associated with a Wikiproject. In this case, coordinating with the MEA people would seem appropriate. Alai (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I looked up MEA in Wikipedia, and it appears someone needs to add a new abbreviation to the disambiguation page. Do mind explaining what you mean by MEA? Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Figured it out. I've copied this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles, where I hope to get help on creating a template.
Well, I did link to their template, above (which as I say, I think this would essentially duplicate), which I rather thought was context enough... Alai (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Whichever we end up with, may we reword as This title has a more superior article? Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I'd strongly oppose the name. These aren't stub templates and shouldn't be called stub templates. Pretty much by definition stubs are inferior to sources somewhere. A template with a name like {{Inferior}} would make far more sense, and also - as mentioned above - they'd probably be far better on talk pages tan on article pages. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In theory, that's the case. In practice, many of them would be about marginally notable concepts and entities there's not much more to say on. Or else they're small aspects of larger topics, that should probably really end up merged, or tagged as being more for navigational purposes than "core article". But there are so many of the "true stub" type you describe that the distinction is pretty moot as regards the practicality of the idea. If you stick with comparable (tertiary) sources, then as I've said, this is the MEA concept warmed over, as far as I can see. (And Bob seems to have dragged over there, without any flicker of recognition that this might be the case.) Alai (talk)

01:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Greek deity stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Category:Greek mythology stubs is oversized; this looks to be the most coherent subtype that one could carve out. Alai (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Cruise-ship-stub}} / Category:Cruise ship stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Category:Individual ship or boat stubs is (close to) overisized. This would have over 70 articles. Waacstats (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States protected area stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
I could have sworn that this had already been proposed: in fact, I was just about to create it on that basis. At any rate, the PAs are oversized, no other nation or US state seems to quite by viable, so this seems the way to go. Would parent several existing types, and we should probably have upmerged templates for the remaining states. Alai (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Were you perhaps thinking of the existing Category:United States National Park Service stubs and Category:National Register of Historic Places stubs? And would they cut the number of protected area stubs down at all? If not, then it would make sense, though as you know I've had a long aversion to splitting geo-stubs by type rather than location. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I'm aware of those: I'm almost certain we discussed country-level splits of the PAs as such, at some point. It's possible re-sorting to those would help in the short term, but it's a) not something I plan to do, myself, and b) not really a reason not to go ahead with this. As far as I'm concerned, this is entirely about splitting PAs by location, not geos by type. As no-one is yelling "speedy", I can stand to wait a while, though... Alai (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

more Category:Japanese railway station stubs prefectural splits

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

The result of the debate was create.

Parent is oversized. Speediable on the basis of existing such splits. Alai (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy support Waacstats (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Australian actor stubs, by medium

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

The result of the debate was create.
Oversized; the following are viable now:

Film-only is close, stage-only is nowhere near. Upmerged templates for those would seem like a plan. Alai (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

seems like a plan indeed Support. Waacstats (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Madagascar geography stubs, by province

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

The result of the debate was create.

Oversized. Alai (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the article the 6 provinces are being fazed out and 22 regions being used instead. May be an idea to find out how far along this fazing out has actually got on the ground so to speak and if any of the regions would be viable. If the Provinces are still used then I support and suggest we add a template for the missing province as well. Waacstats (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
If I'm reading this right, the regions aren't currently in effect, and would presently be too small for our purpose anyway, so we'd probably end up with regional templates upmerged to provincial categories. Doubtless we'll have to revisit this in due course, as both of the above change. Alai (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
And for the sixth province, I'm invoking the "close enough" clause, and have created Category:Fianarantsoa Province geography stubs. Alai (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Apparently we've been here before... So, speediable, methinks. Alai (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:museum stubs, by country

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

The result of the debate was create.
Oversized; the following are populable on the basis of double-stubbing:

Others may be also be viable. Alai (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Support based on the fact that we already have US and UK versions speedy by precedent. Waacstats (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Nepali Congress stub}}

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

The result of the debate was addressed at sfd.
Nepali Congress is the largest political party of Nepal with a long history. The party has led all the three successful people's movements. There are many uncategorized stubs already present about the party. Also, there is a high potential of more stubs being added as there isn't any stub about hundreds of senators, martyrs and major events of the party. If the name isnt according to the convention followed here, please feel free to change it to the conventional nomenclature style. Thank you.--Eukesh (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Alas, no matter how worthy or how much potential a stub type has, it's not feasible to create it until it has enough existing articles that cannot be sorted under an already existing stub type. Please re-propose after those 60 articles are made. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Peg, especially given the current small size of Category:Nepalese politician stubs. And we really need a notice on this page saying that if a stub type has been nominated for deletion (as in this case), it's too late to propose it. "Propose" by definition means before creation. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Alternative proposal; renaming {{Nepali-Congress-stub}} to {{Nepali-Congress-politician-stub}}, and the creation similar stubs for Maoist and UML politicians. There is a process of creating individual articles on all 601 Constituent Assembly members, and all of these parties have 100+ members in the Assembly. --Soman (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1980s compilation album stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Upmerged template with more than 60 aticles. Speedy? Waacstats (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

nb this will also mean that Category:pre-1990 compilation album stubs will need renaming to Category:pre-1980 compilation album stubs.Waacstats (talk)
Maybe we should consider renaming (and rescoping) the latter to Category:20th century compilation album stubs, to cut down on the (subsequent) renamings? Or would the extra level be too much of an annoyance? Alai (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with that but feel that if we do use that we should be consistent on other similar categories. Waacstats (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it would mean changing quite a few others. Just thinking out loud... Alai (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Europe-baseball-stub}} and Category:European baseball stubs

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

The result of the debate was create upmerged template.
There is already one for {{Asia-baseball-stub}} and works well, and there is currently nearly 30 stubs on national baseball teams from Europe, and the European Baseball Championship has a few stub articles with a possibility for another 30, the leagues of Europe, including Netherlands, Italy, Israel, Germany and Sweden add the possiblity for more because there team articles are either non-existant or short. In short, European baseball articles are probably not settle for the main Category:Baseball stubs category, and this will help sort that. --Borgardetalk 05:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Support the template - would like to be sure of the 60 stubs before the category is made though. No opposition to a category once 60 articles are tagged. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll create the template linked to the baseball stubs category until it reaches threshold. --Borgardetalk 07:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{philo-book-stub}} needs fixing to sort by non-'The' first word

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

The result of the debate was done.
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy illustrates that the above stub, unlike other {{book-stub}}s, does not sort by the first non-article (that is, non-'The' or non-'A') in the title. To make such standard sorting work, a DEFAULTSORT specification , for example, {{DEFAULTSORT:Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The}} can be used. But the philo-book-stub still does not properly sort, as The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy of Category:Philosophy book stubs under "The" (rather than under 'Cambridge') indicates. My thanks if anyone can help. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. This was working fine until someone decided to "customise" it with their own non-standard notion stub template coding (hiding the category on the template, and forcing the page name into the sort key). Honestly, sometimes I hate Wikis... Alai (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfair final comment. You're one (thank goodness). Impressive. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Prague-geo-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create upmerged template.
Capital city of the Czech Republic needs its own stub, same as other big cities of the world have, e.g. {{Chicago-stub}} or {{London-stub}}. I've easily counted about 60 articles who will need it and my estimate is some 75 articles can be marked with this stub for now. New stub articles will surely appear in the future as majority of city districts do not have own articles yet. - Darwinek (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Seems reasonable, though I should add that the reason those other cities have templates is largely because they have their own WikiProjects. The usual caveat about double stubbing with things like the relevant region-geo and national-struct stubs applies. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It appears (from our article on the topic, whatever that's worth...) that Prague is a region, albeit a small one, forming the centre of the Central Bohemia donut. I think it might be better to start with a {{Prague-geo-stub}}, upmerged if not numerically viable. Otherwise we'll end up with anomalous double-stubbing caused by this being the only region with a 'general' type, and the only one without a 'geo' tag. Alai (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Czech Republic is administratively divided into 13 regions (kraje) and Capital city Prague (Hlavní město Praha). All regions have own stub, so it would be good to create the last remaining one for Prague. So, can "Prague-geo-stub" be created? - Darwinek (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'd certainly favour that, with just the caveat that if it's undersized, the template be upmerged, pro temps. Which I'm sure as you say, won't be necessary for long. Alai (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
        • About 40 articles can be stubbed with this new one. OK, I'll create that one today or tomorrow. - Darwinek (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Then I'd suggest upmerging said template, either to the parent cat, or maybe to the Central Bohemian one (if that's not stretching the point too far), then once it reaches 60, creating the category after dropping us another line, just by way of dotting the "i"s. Alai (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Sounds reasonable - that would be analogous to having stubs for all 50 US states plus Washington DC, but upmerging DC to Virginia if it didn't reach threshold, with an appropriate note in the category. Grutness...wha? 07:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Transportation stubs or Category:Transport stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
As mentioned on the talk page and in this previous discussion, there is no category for stub relating generally to transport. I propose we create either a container category, which would parent Category:Water transport stubs, Category:Road stubs, etc., or a real live template and category. Numbers to come... Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs a template of its own, due to articles covering multiple modes of transport. Powers T 17:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved from archive page

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

The result of the debate was do not create.
Being obsessive, I feel duty bound to move this here although I can easily predict your responses. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Elections and Politics

Activists Against Forced displacement {{Activists Against Forced displacement-stub}} (07.04.2008) Rajendra Sadangi

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{child-picture-book-stub}} & Category:Children's picture book stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
334 items under Category:Children's book stubs (617 total) are also categorized as Category:Children's picture books. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Waacstats (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Fractured glass

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

The result of the debate was create.
Per discussion at WP:SFD, the following was seen as a reasonable solution to the seemingly ambiguous nature of {{glass-stub}} - splitting it into four types:

It'll also make it easier if there's any future need for splitting the categories up. Any last thoughts, or is this a go-er? Grutness...wha? 00:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Given the discussion at SFD, should probably speedy this. I wouldn't be 100% about {{glass-material-stub}}, though: the others would have corresponding permcats, but does this have one? Alai (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Nearest I can see is Category:Glass types, but we don't have (and shouldn't have, IMO) a type-stub related to types of material. It may be necessary to bend the naming a little to get round that one. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
      • That probably makes sense for the template names, since we have an existing {{material-stub}} type, but not a {{type-stub}} type -- as it were. Alai (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

UK schools (again)

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

The result of the debate was create.
This might just be another speedy, but I was just about to set upon finishing the county splits, and I've spotted a couple of things that necessitate going down to LEA level -- namely that Cleveland is regarded as part of North Yorkshire (ceremonially), but not part of the Yorkshire and Humber region. In addition, this would allow the Metropolitan counties to be broke down and give a more focused set of stubs, for example splitting {{WestMidlands-school-stub}} into Birmingham/Dudley/etc. and leaving upmerged until there are 60+ transclusions I should add that I don't currently see a need for LEA specific stubs for the Unitary authorities normally associated with a county (So no need for Leicester-school-stub or Thurrock-school-stub just yet) -- Ratarsed (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this technically might not indeed be speediable, but I'll certainly support it. My understanding is the "LEAs" are nowadays exactly coterminous and indeed basically synonymous with the UAs and districts, which is how we've split the one or two cases where ceremonial county has ended up too large (probably only for the geos, so far?), and realistically the only way we'd seriously consider doing it in the first instance, so you could argue "on existing pattern" to some degree. If you speedy it anyway, I'll try my best to stop you being clubbed to death on your talk page, at SFD, or otherwise. :) I'd noticed a couple of the "awkward" cases, and shamelessly dodged them, I must admit -- there might be some discussion in the archives, or I may just have silently strolled on. Alai (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify something: are you proposing re-splitting to LA level in the cases where there's a ceremonial county/region mismatch, or more widely? And if the latter, just how much more widely? Alai (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking only where either (a) there is a ceremonial county/region mismatch (Middlesbrough, for example) or (b) where there is sufficient volume of existing stubs to warrant the effort (I'd say more than 30 stubs could warrant a split to LEA, upmerging if there are less than 60).
I really don't see the need to split Leicester into it's own stub from Leicestershire just yet (or Nottingham from Nottinghamshire, etc.). In reality, I expect this to only affect Yorkshire (for it spreading over several regions) and the West Midlands region (for being so dense that there are in excess of 100 transclusions of {{WestMidlands-school-stub}})
-- Ratarsed (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree with the first case. The second seems much more marginal: even the WM isn't at all a viable split at present. I'll grant you that when they hit 800, we'll be wishing we did it earlier, though. And it would in part offset the county/region confusion, perhaps, if the UA names (strictly speaking there aren't any LEAs any longer, as I understand it) are more familiar. (I think the main reason we didn't use county-level councils and UAs in the first place was partly "lumping", and partly perceived familiarity, but it's not ideally neat in some of these cases.) Alai (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd add Croydon to that list too, part of Surrey, but part of Greater London (I imagine that there are a few round the capital with a similar problem) -- I've found some of the croydon stubs are {{london-school-stub}} whilst some were {{surrey-school-stub}}... -- Ratarsed (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, it's not part of Surrey for any present purpose, either administrative or ceremonial. Maybe the County Traditionalists have been at it again... I'm much less keen on templatising instances like this, since it looks like we'll end up with one for every metropolitan borough in all of England, on the basis that they were once in another historical county. Alai (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

After regions, the first standard split is into ceremonial counties, and certainly there are some which could stand having their own categories and possibly being split further. I wouldn't rush the split, though. I didn't realise the region boundaries were drastically different from the counties (though it makes sense - not all of Lincs is in Y&H, either). As Alai points out, a handful of geo-stub types are further split by unitary authority - but it is only a handful (I can think of about three in total). Are we really going to get enormous numbers (are there more than a few hundred school stubs for the whole of the West Midlands met. county? There are only about 100 currently listed) Grutness...wha? 02:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{evt-stub}} and {{conference-evt-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.
For the innumerable stub-class articles under Category:Events and Category:Conferences. I think that conference should be specified as a subcategory of events to distinguish from organizations with "Conference" in the name such as American sport conferences. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Firstly, if we end up creating these, let's go with plain ol' {{event-stub}} and {{conference-stub}}, for pity's sake. Abbreviating a five-letter word to three, not to say adding it into a template name where it's not required, is not a good payoff. Observe the lack of any such "disambiguation" in the category names, for one thing. But more importantly: while I don't doubt these are technically populable, they don't seem likely to be much use at all to expanding editors. How many editors are interested in "conferences", regardless of whether they're on physics, or business? Better to sort those under those topics. Now, if there's enough for topical conference (or event) types, that makes more sense. Alai (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • event rather than evt, definitely. I forsee some problems, with this, though, since "event" is a pretty wide-ranging thing (wide-ranging enough that it wouldn't help with the conference ambiguity already mentioned - the western conference NBA playoffs are events, no?). We generally get around this with the festival-stub types, though we've stretched the term "festival" considerably in some of those applications. It's possible some form of conference-stub is a good idea, but the name needs quite a bit of work. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Peru geography stubs, by region

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

The result of the debate was create.

Peru's oversized, the above regions are doable. Alai (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Support and if any one is feeling brave I would have no problem with the rest of the regions having upmerged templates aswell. Waacstats (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Quebec geography stubs, by administrative region

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

The result of the debate was create.

Oversized. Alai (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy support per the odd precedant here and there. Waacstats (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Me too. Do these already have templates, because if not, some of those names look pretty difficult. Grutness...wha? 01:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Not that I've come across. Beyond acute-free redirects, I'm not sure what to suggest: possibly additional redirects from {{Abitibi-geo-stub}}, {{Témiscamingue-geo-stub}}, and(/or) the like. At the risk of increasing the risk of possible confusion between Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Abitibi-Témiscamingue... Alai (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:play stubs -- by year?

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

The result of the debate was create.
These are oversized. If we split by year, 20th and 21st century subtypes are immediately viable. Alai (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Support I assume by year you mean by decade, the same as with films. Waacstats (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, categorywise, by century, initially. Templates at decade granularity might be the forward-looking thing, though. Alai (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sex occupation stubs / {{Sex-job-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create as sex-industry-stub &c.
Sub cat of both Category:Occupation stubs ({{Job-stub}}) and Category:Sex stubs ({{Sex-stub}}), currently 165 articles assessed as stubs per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/Sex_work_work_group#Recognized_content all of which fall completely into both categories, new active project is working on creating and assessing more. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Category name should probably be Category:sex worker stubs, to correspond to the permcat, assuming I have the right one. (Template name seems fine as proposed.) Alai (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Support, with category name as suggested by Alai. 165 different articles on different sex occupations? My upbringing has been more sheltered than I thought... Grutness...wha? 02:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Whoooah... back up there. the majority of those 165 articles are bio-stubs! These aren't about sex occupations at all - they are about people working in sex-related industries. Perhaps a {{sex-bio-stub}} is needed instead, with somee carefully worded caqtegory name to follow suit. Grutness...wha? 02:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The same category name might be the most appropriate, anyway; that's probably a more appropriate template name, though. This is going to be a "sensitivity required" area in application, though: as far as glamour models, porn actors and strippers are concerned, "sex worker" would probably be seen as something of a euphemism-downgrade... Alai (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the proposed category name is that it does sound like it's about the occupations themselves. But as to what a good title for it would be, I haven't a clue. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It's admittedly a "feature" of our convention to avoid double plurals that it eliminates any distinction in the permcat space between cat:X and cat:Xs. (Which I suppose is why we ended up with such a tortured alternative to {{cl|ship stubs.) But the contents of Category:sex workers is what we're talking about here, so I think we should stick with it. (In this case, Category:sex worker is just a redirect to the same thing, so there no manifest ambiguity, just a possible lack of optimal clarity.) Alai (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The above points are valid. I've asked some of the project members to stop by here. We need to get straight what we're dealing with. The project rejected the name "sex worker" as being too restrictive and too focused on bios; but you're correct that is where the current perm-cat structure would take you and where most of the stubs are. On the other hand, it is limiting/awkward for the project to have to place stubs in either a bio focused cat or continue to dual list in Category:sex stubs and Category:occupation stubs; which was kind of the point to this proposal - avoiding dual listing in the generic cats that is. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As the individual responsible for most of the tagging to date, I acknowledge that most of the existing stubs are bios, because the bios are what have been in the first listed categories of the groups' parent category. But I think I count 77 stubs which are variations on "Prostitution in (X)" articles. If you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Sex work work group/to do, you'll see several more which haven't yet been created. I think we can probably agree to tagging only those which are not bios with the main stub. The others could be tagged with a "sex-industry-bio" stub, instead. I think there are enough of them as well. And, for what it's worth, there is still a lot of tagging to be done, so there should be several more articles appearing in the next few days as well. I'll work on the tagging kinda concertedly over the next few days to help people get a better idea of what we're dealing with here. John Carter (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
What about the name (and scope) Category:sex industry stubs? That also corresponds to a permcat (Category:sex industry -- surprise!), would be inclusive of bios and job-stubs (and more besides). Still would require "sensitivity of application", however. If we just want bios, but don't want to restrict it to "workers", Category:sex industry biography stubs would be within the normal bounds of such generalisation (after the pattern of the sport-bios, etc). `Alai (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable suggestion and I'd support it as a name, though again we have to be careful with "sensitivity of application", as Alai puts it. For example, if the article on Alfred Kinsey were a stub (no double-entendre intended), then it would make sense to categorise it in here, though I doubt anyone would describe him as working "in the sex industry". Grutness...wha? 00:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
He'd be more in the way of a "sex-bio-stub", if we were to make things as general as that. I'm not sure how great either Category:sex biography stubs or Category:sexuality biography stubs would be as names.... Alai (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Category:Sex industry stubs is the way to go. I missed that permcat when I started this, though I had known once upon a time that it was out there. As for sex industry biographies, if there are enough writers maybe it would be a good idea to create a template {{erotica-writer-stub}} to feed into Category:Sex industy stubs and Category:erotica writers via a stub cat - that might solve at least part of the "sensitivity" concerns. I agree with Alai though that a Kinsey-type stub should probably be something more general - sex research isn't really part of the "sex industry" as one would likely normally conceive it, even if the researchers get paid for their work. Since our task force isn't really handling those, I don't really know whether they need stub cats and templates or not. Probably should leave that Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Also bear in mind that while we do try to follow permcats when they're systematic (and one hopes, sane), they're not by any means set in stone (and in some cases, are considerably more ad hoc and unsystematic than stub types), so if there's a clear need for a slightly different scope, that works sensibly with other article-space categories... Alai (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I could agree to the "sex industry" type for both the biographical and general articles. My one major application qualm would be to the articles about notable people's mistresses, as many people would not find them to be particularly involved in any sort of "sex industry". Don't know at this point if a {{courtesan stub}} would have enough to justify it, but it might be one of the least objectionable phrasings for such subjects. Would also possibly agree to other templates, depending on how many stubs we actually find. Still working on that, though. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Category:royal mistresses are under Category:courtesans and prostitutes, which is under Category:sex industry, which is I think slightly misleading -- but that's the category system for you. As far as living people are concerned, definite BLP concerns area. Alai (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
...and if such a stub were created, it would of course be {{Courtesan-stub}} (with a hyphen :) Grutness...wha? 01:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:classical composition stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Oversized; only feasible split seems to be by type of composition:

Due to overlap issues, we may not want to create all of these, however. One might have thought that by-era was a way to go, but categorisation by date seems to be near-nonexistant. Alai (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Support symphony, concerto, and sonata as the most well-defined forms, plus easy to sort since the piece usually includes the word "symphony", etc. in the title. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{years-stub}}

or something like that. For most pages on historical years, decades and centuries which are currently in stub form. Unless there's a good template already in existence. --Kotniski (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

ISTR we currently just use {{history-stub}}, but {{year-stub}} would seem to be a good idea. "Year-" rather than "Years-" be a better name - we don't use plurals in template names. I suspect most of them would need double stubbing (1844 in Foo would need both {{year-stub}} and {{Foo-stub}}, for instance). Grutness...wha? 23:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Archaeology stubs, by continent

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

The result of the debate was create.
We've had a separate category and template for European archaeology stubs for some time now, and the main Category:Archaeology stubs is climbing past 500 - it might be time to consider making equivalent templates, at least, for Asia, Africa, Oceania, South America, and North America, and possibly also for the major sub-regions that stubs tend to be split into. I suspect that the Asian ones in particular will be well over the category threshold, too.

The only bugbear in this scheme is that we have considerably overlapping stubs for Pre-Columbian studies, which might have to be looked at with regard to North, Central, and South American archaeology types. Any overlap between Mesoamerica-stub and CentralAm-archaeology-stub in particular is likely to be significant. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm - looks like we already have the South American one. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
PS - I've posted a note at WP:Mesoamerica, so hopefully we'll get some input on this from there. Grutness...wha? 14:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't seem especially urgent to me -- at least in the have-you-seen-the-todo-list-lately grand scheme of things, but would be reasonable enough. What do WP:ARCHAEO (there's a mnemonic shortcut for ya) have to say about it? Alai (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Good question - I'll post a note there too. It doesn't seem too urgent but that's largely because there's massive undersorting - a lot of the articles in the struct-stub hierarchy would be better in the archaeology stubs category; splitting this up would allow that to happen and would be a preemptive measure for the almost certain eventual split. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair point. Alai (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the reason for this change. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
I am also puzzled as to why you wouldn't use the Mesoamerican stub designation instead of trying to force an arbitrary classification (Central vs. North America) on these articles. Madman (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think all that's being proposed is to break up the generic Category:archaeology stubs into more manageable subcats.
As far as any overlap in the Americas goes, I don't think there is necessarily a problem of Mesoamerica vs Central America. Most usually, cental american archaeology refers more to the study of what has been (inadequately) designated the Intermediate Area, ie the portion of lower Central America between the "classical" Mesoamerican cultures in the north and down to Panama and Colombia in the south. So a putative CentralAm-archaeology-stub could refer to this area, while {{mesoamerica-stub}} can retain its current focus.
From an archaeological point of view it might be appropriate to follow designated cultural/archaeological area divides (Mesoamerican, Macro-Chibchan, Andean, Amazonian, Arctic, Woodlands, etc) rather than purely continental ones, since as often as not these zones are studied separately. The same could go for Africa, Asia etc. But I s'pose given there aren't really any other groups besides WP:MESO organised to manage areas of pre-Columbian archaeological focus, it might be a moot point. If you do need to break out the overall stub category, for the Americas at least Nth, Sth, Caribbean, Mesoamerican, and Central (as above) wld do. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
CJLLW is right (no pun intended). Though the current system may not seem to be broke, the number of stubs is growing fairly rapidly, and unless there is a split of the current system, preferably by continent, we will soon have a main category that is too large to be confortably used by editors. Europe's archaeology stubs have already been split out for that reason. Creating separate templates for the other continents is simply a preemptive measure so that when the time comes it is easy to split out the other continents in the same way (and even then a case could possibly be made for making a halfway measure category for The Americas as a whole). As far as Mesoamerica/Central America is concerned, the main reason for suggesting this split on a per-continent/"standard region" basis is that that is the way other stub types are split, and it thus makes it easier to allocate parent categories (Central American archaeology stubs would, along with its equivalent geography and biography stubs etc, be a subcategory of Category:Central America stubs, for instance). As such, it's more ammeasure for uniformity than anything else, though i do realise that stub types relating to cultural history such as these may well overlap or form their own natural subclassifications. in the case of mesoamerica, given its scope, it might be a natural subcategory of Category:Central American archaeology stubs in any case, since its range is predominantly contained within the area usually thought of as Central America (Mexico being the main concern). Grutness...wha? 00:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Geopolitical-term-stub}} or similar

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

The result of the debate was create.
I've been having a look through Category:Geographical term stubs, which is rapidly rising again, and it looks like a lot of the strubs in there are for administrative land divisions and other geopolitical terms. There are plenty for a template, and possibly enough for a category ( a few of them would include: Administrative centre, Agency (country subdivision), Amalgamation (politics), Autonomous city, Autonomous district, Autonomous republic, Bairro, Baladiyah, Barony (country subdivision), and Census division). If a better name can be found for the template, that's fine, too, though the one listed above will do at a pinch. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

England-footy-midfielder-1990s

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

The result of the debate was create.
Doing some cleanup involving addition of categories and stubs where appropriate, I've found a requirement for this stub. WP currently has stubs covering midfielders born in previous decades, but would now seem to require one to cover 1990s births. Admittedly, this probably only currently covers those born in 1990, but it will be required sooner or later. CultureDrone (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Might as well speedy creation of the template, on the existing pattern. When you say "need", do you mean there's already 60 of these larval-form whippersnappers^W^Wfine sportspeople? If so, speedy the category as well, otherwise, wait and upmerge the template for now. Alai (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm a relative newcomer at templates so what does 'upmerging templates' actually mean ? :-) CultureDrone (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That's where you have a stub template, but not it's own category, feeding into pre-existing categories instead. We usually use them when stub types don't reach 60 articles, as they prevent double-tagging, while keeping the number of stub categories down. SeveroTC 22:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Sorry for being cryptic. Look, for example at {{England-footy-midfielder-1900s-stub}}, etc. Alai (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/April_2008&oldid=1138356632"