Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/December 2006

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

The result of the debate was create.
I propose two new stubs:

• {{Vojvodina-geo-stub}} (to be part of Category:Serbia geography stubs)
• {{Vojvodina-stub}} (Category:Serbia stubs)

There are many articles and stub-articles related to this region, and it would be easier to have then in a separate category. --Göran Smith 07:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmm. This one faces the problem we often have of regions which may/may not be disputed. What exactly is the legal political status of Vojvodina? Is it regarded internationally and within Serbia as a distinct division of the country (such as, say a US state or German Lander)? The problem lies not so much with Vojvodina itself as with the fact that, if it does get separate stubs, there will be editors who see it as a precedent for having Kosovo stubs - and that region's status is much more iffy (we had a Kosovo stub for a while, and before it was deleted it was subject to some fairly sizeable edit wars between editors who did or did not want its stubs as a subcategory of Serbia stubs). Personally, I'd like to see separate Vojvidina stubs, but I'm just worried that it will open us up to problems further south again. Also, what do you mean by "many"? Are there likely to be close to 60 (out usual stub-splitting threshold)? Grutness...wha? 08:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Both Vojvodina and Kosovo are officially autonomous provinces of Serbia with the rest of Serbia not part of any province. The next level of organization are the districts. (17 + Beograd in Central Serbia, 7 in Vojvodina) Unlike Kosovo, I don't see any likelihood of edit wars, so the only question is whether the number of stubs is sufficient. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My point isn't that I expect any edit wars over the Vojvodina-stub, more that it will be used as a precedent for the re-creation of a Kosovo stub, with the inevitable edit-warring that that would entail. Grutness...wha? 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Caerwine. As for the criterion of avoiding controversy, Vojvodina has remained at peace throughout the Yugoslav mess. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Support if there's at least 60, in each case. I don't see this causing any obviously foreseeable controversy, and if the situation goes that way at some later point, the absence of a stub type seems unlikely to help, and the presence might possibly slightly help. (After all, even with Kosovo it at least moves the problem from "tagging" to supcatting.) Alai 00:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Support, I don't see the problem in unless there are a dearth of articles on Vojvodina. Just H 03:54, 27 December 2006 (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.

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 count about 131 possibilities for this, just from the distinctly-oversized CA-bios... to say nothing about the rapidly-growing CA-writers. Alai 19:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, most of the former seem to be false-positives (our ever-wacky category system), but this will probably make sense for the latter, sooner or later. Alai 02:28, 18 December 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was create upmerged templates; create categories for those over 60.
Category:Olympics_stubs - how come some years have their own stubs and not others - I am willing to create one for each year! -- Flutefluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 09:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment only those years that have enough (60+) articles, should have own stub. Monni 09:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• For those that don't, feel free to create templates for all, for the sake of symmetry, but don't create a separate stub category until there's 60 candidates for it, please, as Monni says. Alai 15:32, 17 December 2006 (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.

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.
The arch-stubs are now oversized, and of the several top-level subcats (and subtrees thereof) that appear to pass threshold, this looks the most potentially coherent (and has 90 candidates). (Probably would need to be squinted at by hand, all the same.) Alai 01:22, 14 December 2006 (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.

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 by continent/upmerge.
OK, seems I've jumped the gun on this one already. I wasn't even aware that this needed a discussion, as believed stubs were the same as categories. Apologies for this... Anyway, I've already added some new stub categories in the record labels stubs [1] category.
Originally this had 3 stubs - UK, USA and Canada. Everything else went into the big melting pot of just being a record-label-stub, regardless of country. I started to create new stub cats. for other countries, as and when I found a record label stub from that country. Some are more populated that others (compare France, Germany and Australia with Cuba, Iceland and Poland, for example).
I think having the stubs broken down for this category at country level will help to improve and expand the articles within each category. For example, a keen Wikipedian from Iceland would be more likely to stumble across an Iceland specific record label stub, than finding the article buried in the general record-label-stub.
Obviously as time goes on, some of the underpopulated stub categories will gain entries too. Again, apologies for not knowing about something I didn't know about in the first place! Lugnuts 20:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• oppose any that don't currently have 50 stubs, support any that do. There are already plans underway for continent-wide splits, which would keep the size of the categories to far more reasonable levels. See also WP:SFD. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• upmerge to continent level unless viable on own... Monni 13:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Looks like Category:Oceania record label stubs will reach fairly sensible levels (mainly Australian, admittedly), and Category:Asian record label stubs will be getting there (mainly Japanese, with a few thrown in from China and the extreme other end of the landmass). All the upmerged templates would look it look fuller, of course... The Americas look a bit thin, depending on how much weighting one gives to the two existing NorthAm types, which would become subcats. Alai 19:04, 15 December 2006 (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.

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 online-game-stub.
I am proposing a stub for massively multiplayer online games (a video game genre). This stub would include articles with sub-genres such as MMORPGs, MMOFPSs, etc. There is a WikiProject for it also at WP:MMO. An appropriate picture should be coming soon as the WikiProject is developing a logo. Greeves 20:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that Category:Massively multiplayer online games has 74 articles in it; its parent, Category:Multiplayer online games, has 155 (and several other sub-cats). How many of these are currently stub-size? If mmo-stub would be too small, may I suggest mog-stub (multiplayer online game stubs) as an alternative? Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If this stub is approved it will need a far better name. Firstly, it's abbreviated to MMO, not mmo, and secondly, ave you seen MMO? it's hardly unambiguous. {{MMO-cvg-stub}} might be better, and similarly - if Peg's version is seen as better, {{MOG-cvg-stub}} for the same reason. Grutness...wha? 22:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As not all online games are really "video games" as such, I think that an {{online-game-stub}} might be better, not to say a darn sight clearer. However, I can't claim this is an original thought, because seemingly I [suggested this 1.5 years ago] (tempus fugit). Alai 01:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - much clearer. Grutness...wha? 04:22, 5 January 2007 (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.

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 {{Laos-bio-stub}} (this is just a redirect). We have at least 30-40 articles about Laotian people, but it is a bit of a mess template-wise. Originally, a Laos-bio-stub existed, but it was later deleted and changed to a redirect to {{Asia-bio-stub}}. For obvious reasons, this means that the material is now split between Category:Laos stubs and Category:Asian people stubs but nothing is located in both categories. Let's create an upmerged template feeding into both categories. The category can follow when we reach 60 articles.
• {{Vietnam-bio-stub}} / Category:Vietnamese people stubs. The parent category is almost 150. Looks pretty viable.
• {{Myanmar-bio-stub}} / Category:Burmese people stubs (named consistently with the permcat). Parent is 200+.
• {{Cambodia-bio-stub}}. Upmerged -bio template for Cambodia.

It might also be worth the while to think about an upmerged {{EastTimor-stub}}. This is the last country missing in Asia (unless you count the British Indian Ocean Territory, Christmas Island, and Cocos and Keeling Islands). Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't :) BIOT is counted under East Africa, and the others under Australia. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

A far away country of which we know nothing (unquote) Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I forgot one before:

• {{Nepal-bio-stub}} (upmerged). This material looks like it could need a resorting, but the parent category is 200+. If/when we reach 60 articles, then create the corresponding Category:Nepalese people stubs. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. Aelfthrytha 03:00, 26 December 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was create as revised.
Many, many (well over 60) in Category:Currency stubs ({{money-stub}}) are monetary units. Some articles are also about a specific coin or coin series that is of the denomination of one of those units, so some articles could be marked as {{coin-stub}} also until someone decides to expand them and/or split the article into two. This split will leave Category:Currency stubs holding anything related to paper money or to the concept of money in general, but not coins or monetary units. A2Kafir 17:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• There doesn't seem to be a directly corresponding permcat (such as Category:Monetary units), so let me check if I understand the intended scope. Is this for "actual currencies", i.e. what's in Category:Circulating currencies, Category:Ancient currencies and Category:Modern obsolete currencies? (And would be in Category:Currencies (rather than Category:Currency) if that existed.) At least in the longer run, wouldn't it be preferable to have {{money-stub}} feeding into Category:Money stubs and {{currency-stub}} feeding into Category:Currency stubs? Alai 18:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Category:Currency workes for {{money-stub}}, because both are for specific currencies and the general concept of money. {{money-unit-stub}} would be for "actual currencies," as you put it. Maybe we need a new category, either Category:Currencies or Category:Specific currencies, that would have no articles within it, only the categories Category:Circulating currencies, Category:Ancient currencies, Category:Modern obsolete currencies, and Category:Currency unit stubs. How's that? A2Kafir 17:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • But Category:Money and Category:Currency are different categories, and hence, different scopes, with the latter being the more inclusive. If {{money-stub}} is being used with the scope of Category:Money, the stub category has the wrong name, and the wrong permanent parent. If the scope is just Category:Currency, the template name should be different. If it's something else... then it's even more confusing. Alai 01:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I see your point clearly, now. Perhaps this would be best: rescope {{money-stub}} to be any money or currency stub other than those that would fit better in {{coin-stub}} and the new {{money-unit-stub}}, and rename Category:Currency stubs to Category:Money stubs and have it be a subcategory of Category:Money. Then, a new category would be created as a subcategory of Category:Currency, called either Category:Currencies or Category:Specific currencies (which do you prefer?), that would have no articles within it, only the categories Category:Circulating currencies, Category:Ancient currencies, Category:Modern obsolete currencies, and the new Category:Currency unit stubs. Does that work better? A2Kafir 22:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - More discussion is needed as to exactly what will fit in where --- Skapur 18:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If they were stubs, "US dollar" would be {{money-unit-stub}}, "Silver dollar (US)" would be {{coin-stub}}, "Dollar (paper, US)" would be {{money-stub}}, since there is no {{paper-money-stub}} yet. Other articles, like "United States monetary policy" or whatever, that are about money as a concept would be in {{money-stub}}. I would add a new category (Category:Specific currencies) as I suggested above, as well. Does that make sense? A2Kafir 21:42, 26 December 2006 (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.

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 one's a little fuzzy, depending on how one reads the term "noble" in Japan, but between emperors, princes, princesses and the imperial nobility per se, and the posher end of the samurai fraternity (shoguns and daimyo) that it seems misleading just to tag with {{Samurai-stub}} and nothing else, this looks to be more than viable, and rather needed, given the number of them in the oversized parent. Distinct templates are probably a good plan. Alai 03:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support with caution. There was a bit of a situation involving mass amounts of samurai/daimyo/etc articles being either copyvios or based on works of fiction. Many have been deleted but there are probably more. (The same situation, incidentally, applies to Chinese biographical stubs, more specifically the fictional basis.) Crystallina 21:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I did notice a very sudden fluctuation in the size of the samurai-stub type. Well, we can always re-upmerge if these shrink dramatically... Alai 01:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support. Only if the number is actually over 60. --- Skapur

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.

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.
After those last two damp squibs, I'm happy to report this one seems super-viable at 109. (There's almost as many under-sorted French.) Parent is oversized. Alai 00:05, 14 December 2006 (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.

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.
The "Mainland China" geos are bang on 800, and about to be slightly oversized when they become the PRC-geos. Largest first-level division remaining seems to be this, at 46, but there's also some undercategorisation. Alai 23:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - China's probably close to being looked at for a serious by-province split (which will also entail tidying up what is meant by Tibet, BTW). Support. Grutness...wha? 04:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Serious, as opposed to...? Alai 04:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is, considering making all provincial templates and upmerging whatever needs to be, rather than doing this one region at a time. Grutness...wha? 05:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So far as I'm aware, that latter'd be "all the ones I haven't proposed" -- never mind how borderline this one is. (Much as I slack off on actual creations, I try to report all viable splits when making proposals of this sort.) Templatising would certainly be fine by me, or if anyone wants to tackle the uncatting, I can furnish a list of those lacking a provincial-level permcat, which might put some others "over the top". Alai 05:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - just this one will do for now then, though I suspect we should keep a close eye on it for further splits. Does province sound the most sensible method of doing that as and when? And if so how many are we looking at? Grutness...wha? 06:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect we'll know about it soon enough, as it'll doubtless be oversized again presently. There's 33 first-level entities total, and 22 provinces qua provinces. If there's any more broadly-defined "regions" (aside from purely historical or very hand-wavey ones), I don't know about them (to be fair, provinces are already pretty big places in the scheme of things.) I suppose one could look at lumping the SARs into one category, the first-order municipalities into another, and the autonomous regions into a third, but that seems a little weak. Alai 16:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've found one means of grouping the provinces: the PRC is divided up into seven (huge) "military districts". This would solve the the size issue for the foreseeable future by coup de main, but seems rather artificial, unless it also sees some significant civil use. Alai 00:38, 16 December 2006 (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.

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 change parent cat; propose transport stub.
I'd like to propose removing Category:Airport stubs from Category:Building and structure stubs, and making similar changes to other airport-related categories. Airports are areas of land that may contain zero or more buildings — similar to towns, parks, or army bases — but are not buildings themselves. David 19:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point - I'm not entirely sure why it's there anyway. Grutness...wha? 22:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the airport terminals are buildings, and once upon a time Building and structure stubs was far less cluttered than the next suitable parent on that fork Geography stubs. Perhaps its time to create a Category:Transport infrastructure stubs to hold the airports, rail stations, bus terminals, seaports, etc. However I have no idea what would be a good template for those portions of transport infrastructure that don't have dedicated stubs like the airports and rail stations. Caerwine Caer’s whines 08:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Your point about terminal buildings is well taken, but it's worth noting that the vast majority of airports in the world do not have scheduled passenger service or terminal buildings, and that most airports big enough to have terminal buildings have dozens of other, unrelated structures as well (control towers, FBOs, maintenance shops, hangars, fire halls, offices, storage buildings, etc., not to mention multiple terminal buildings for the very largest airports). To pick up on my earlier analogy, think of the airport like a city park, and the terminal building like a gazebo or bandstand. It is true that many of the best-known city parks have bandstands, and that people often remember those when they think of the park, but it turns out that most parks do not have bandstands, and that those that do generally have many other buildings besides. The fact that some famous parks have bandstands does not make a park a structure. Railroad stations are different, because they almost always consist of a single principal building, so the association with structures makes much more sense; airports, on the other hand, are mostly empty space, sometimes with a few buildings around the edges. David 13:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The point about the terminal buildings is also less accurate since airport stub is used for both airports and airstrips. Grutness...wha? 08:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The answer to this depends on whether landing strip a man made structure. Even grass strips have to be levelled. --- Skapur 18:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A levelled strip of land is neither a building nor a structure. We regard them as geo-stubs rathet than struct-stubs in exactly the same way we regard parks - as land areas which have been modified rather than as buildings. Grutness...wha? 00:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I've recategorized Category:Airport stubs to Category:Geography stubs for now. I think that creating a new category for transportation infrastructure is a good idea, though. David 12:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps a Category:Transport stubs to act as a parent for the roads, rails, airports, etc.? —CComMack (t–c) 00:15, 31 December 2006 (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.

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.
I'm currently populating the {{Haiti-writer-stub}}. This and similar templates state that it is used on articles about writers, playwrights and poets. However, we also have {{Poet-stub}} hanging around. It seems a bit foolish to use both on the same articles. Suggestions are welcome. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 20:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, here's the proposal for poet-stub. I had voiced my concerns then too. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 21:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• I think it's pretty much inevitable given the "twin track" approach to tagging by occupation and by nationality: writers are likewise split both by 'type', and by nationality. Categories in each hierarchy are going to become viably splittable and/or over-full at different rates, so are going to often get "out of step". Alai 06:08, 14 December 2006 (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.

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 not a wpss issue..
In the Korea university stubs , under the listing I , kindly add this entry Information and Communications University.

That article isn't a stub. It needs a lot of work, but stub-sorting isn't part of that. Grutness...wha? 08:00, 25 December 2006 (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.

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 rename proposed.
Category:Ceramics stubs lists 127 pages of mixed articles which refer to ceramic styles, techniques, and makers from around the world. I feel this listing is too general and inadequate, and would be clearer if discrete categories were created (eg: Ceramic Techniques, Ceramic Styles, Ceramic Makers by Country, etc). I would be happy to take this on as an ongoing project. Does this proposal meet with approval? Rhodian 21:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Rhodian

• comment It's not enough big for splitting yet. Monni 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support Only for that particular subcategory of ceramics stubs has more than sixty articles. If none do than Oppose --- Skapur 16:55, 6 January 2007 (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.

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.
Fairly recently the {{California-geo-stub}} and {{California-south-geo-stub}} had all of the California counties added as daughter stubs (e.g. {{LosAngelesCountyCA-geo-stub}}), but currently the county stubs still point to the two main California-geo-stub categories (e.g. Category:California geography stubs and Category:Southern California geography stubs). There are now over 80 LA County geo stubs, and I've probably only found half of them to convert from SoCal geo stubs to LA County geo stubs. I would like to get approval for the creation of Category:Los Angeles County, California geography stubs, as well as the modification of {{LosAngelesCountyCA-geo-stub}} to add that category.

Also: I haven't yet gone through and started changing the San Diego County stub articles from SoCal geo stubs to {{SanDiegoCountyCA-geo-stub}}, but it is very likely that that county will also have greater than 80 stubs. If possible, I'd like to get approval now for the creation of the SD County geo category once there are over 60 SD County geo stubs. Orange County will also probably reach that threshold, although I am not sure about any of the other California Counties (possibly San Francisco, Sacramento, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and/or Riverside Counties). ^BlankVerse 07:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, as indicated on WSS/P's talk page. Unless there are any naming problems, this seems straightforward. Grutness...wha? 08:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support; there was also discussion of re-pointing the upmerged templates to somewhat-less-merged regional categories, IIRC. Is the ", California" and "CA" qualification really necessary, though? Alai 01:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  The regional breakdown has already been done, with category:California geography stubs being broken down into six different regions.

• As for the question: There are a few of the counties that have names shared with other states, including eight different Orange Counties. There are two Nevada Counties and two Sierra Counties. There is also one Irish, three US and three Canadian Kings Counties. Instead of having an If-then-else naming scheme, it's best to be wordy, completely unambiguous, and with no special rules for the naming scheme (IMHO). ^BlankVerse 09:47, 5 January 2007 (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.

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.
It's awkward finding a home for the album stubs for groups such as Uncle Tupelo - not alt-rock. not country - I propose an alt-country-album-stub category. Candidates include:No Depression,Still Feel Gone,March 16-20, 1992,Anodyne (album),A.M. (album),Trace,Straightaways,Wide Swing Tremolo,Blue Mountain,Dog Days (Blue Mountain album),Home Grown (album),Tales of a Traveler (album),Roots (Blue Mountain album),Tonight It's Now or Never (album),Soft Spot,Sound of Lies,Bitter Honey,Waltz Across America,Fear and Whiskey,The Ghost of Fashion,You Were a Diamond - search alt country album stub for more candidates (I'd est. about 100)Daddylight 06:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds potentionally sensible, but as far as I can see there's no corresponding permcat. But as there's other alt-country sorts of categories, I don't see any particular reason for not creating one... Alai 02:03, 11 December 2006 (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.

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 take to sfd.
There appear to be two stub types that serve the same purpose: HK-geo-stub and Hong-Kong-geo-stub.

I propose that they should be merged into one and the redundant stub type deleted.

Rodparkes 01:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

These are both simply redirects to the correctly named {{HongKong-geo-stub}}. neither of them is a stand-alone template. I don't see any problem with HK-geo-stub, but you're right that Hong-Kong-geo-stub should probably be deleted, since it conflicts with the naming guidelines. Same with the badly-named {{Hong Kong-geo-stub}} redirect. Grutness...wha? 05:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well.... I guess this should be transfered to WP:SFD too. Monni 12:35, 30 December 2006 (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.

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 take to sfd.
I propose changing wikipedia-stub to wiki-stub, rewording it to refer to wikis in general, and migrating over the pages that are there now. Some pages in the category, like Document mode and Thread mode are about wikis in general, rather than Wikipedia specifically. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 23:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A redirect from {{wiki-stub}} and an edit of the {{wikipedia-stub}} template to reflect the broader scope would do most of this for you, although the category would still have the narrower name. A2Kafir 23:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh - I've just commented about exactly the same thing at WP:SFD. I'm against Wiki-stub, since it would include articles about all wiki-based software and websites. I am, however, in favour of redirecting Wikipedia-stub to the recently discovered and up-for-deletion {{Wikimedia-stub}}, to cover things like Wiktionary and Wikinews as well. The two articles mentioned by Swpb still wouldn't be covered, but they are adequately covered by other computing-related stub types anyway. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment This isn't right place to "propose" renaming stubs, it really belongs to WP:SFD. Monni 23:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If you look, I said that I was basically repeating here what I have already said at SFD. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Whoops - re-reading this it looks like the comments were addressed more to Swpb than to me - apologies. Grutness...wha? 08:18, 30 December 2006 (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.

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.

• {{Somalia-bio-stub}} and -politician template (both upmerged). This material is growing rapidly due to the war and much of this material relates to (would be) officeholders. Parent is 150+. Categories if / when we reach 60.
• {{Coted'Ivoire-bio-stub}} and -politician template (both upmerged). Parent is almost 140. Categories when 60.
• {{DRCongo-bio-stub}} Parent is c. 170 and already includes an upmerged politician template. Category when 60. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember the redirects from CotedIvoire-bio-stub and IvoryCoast-bio-stub, which Coted'Ivoire-stub also has.--Carabinieri 13:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment I think Coted'Ivoire and DRCongo would be better with category also, see above proposal... Monni 17:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• • support templates but I can't coted'ivoire with 140 stubs having 2 new catagories (-bio-stub and -footy-bio-stub) both having more than 60 articles, so i think this needs to be left as a template only for now. With the DRcongo-footy-bio-stub not upto a cat itself I agree with monni that this would be viable with -bio-stub, -politian-stub and -footy-bio-stub all feeding into 1 category. Waacstats 17:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • 60 stubs is limit only for new categories... When we count stubs for existing ones, we only take account number of sub-stubs... AFAIK before two sub-stubs (-politician and -footy-bio in this case) have been enough. Monni 17:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

An additional template for Ivorian footballers should be no problem at all. The categories can follow thenever we reach 60 articles for a potential s(t)ub category. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• oppose {{Coted'Ivoire-politician-stub}} template as there isn't 60 -bio-stubs left, so splitting to two only makes it harder to track counts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monni1995 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Three comments: 1) This solution is used for many African countries already. Try taking a look at Category:East African politician stubs, 2) Checking the number of articles is easy as well: select the template and click "what links here" to get a list. When we reach a total of 60 biographical articles (including the politicians) the template will be upmerged to this category, and sorting the same African material again and again is a waste of time. 3) The African politician categories are still a mess, and double-stubing only makes this worse. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 16:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Btw, with you argument, I believe you shot down your own suggestion for a Ivorian footballer template. The situation is exactly the same here except the profession. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 16:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. The category doesn't contain the same amount of articles I remembered. I must have mixed up Côte d'Ivore with either Burkina Faso or Ghana. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 16:16, 5 January 2007 (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.

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

The result of the debate was create.
I propose one new stub and one new category:

• {{UMinnesota-stub}} (to be part of Category:University of Minnesota stubs)

I am unsure of the exact number of stub-articles related to the University of Minnesota, but there are at least more than 60. This covers a range of topics including athletics, academics, and alumni. I am using the Category:University of Texas at Austin stubs and its accompanying stub as a model.

• Per the usual concerns about creating bio-stub types at right angles to primary notability, strongly oppose any -uni-stub type with scope including "any old alumnus, regardless of what they're notable for". If this is viable on the basis of topics and people notable in relation to UoM, then fair enough. If not, a split by the whole state might be more sensible. Alai 01:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that alumni with little notable relation to the university should not be included.Gopherbone 01:30, 5 January 2007 (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.

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 DnB-stub only.
I porpose four new stubs:

• {{dnb-stub}} (to be part of Category:Electronic music stubs)
• {{dnb-musician-stub}} (to be part of Category:Electronic musician stubs)
• {{dnb-release-stub}} (to be part of Category:Electronic music stubs)
• {{dnb-label-stub}} (to be part of Category:Electronic music record labels)

There are many stub-articles related to this type of music, it would be easier to find and expand these articles if they had a more descriptive stub tag. --OriginalJunglist 16:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment I think -album-stub sounds better than -release-stub, as singles are usually tagged as -song-stub. Also would be nice to get estimated counts. Monni 17:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Certainly they sound useful as upmerged templates, with categories added if they reach a reasonable number of stubs. I wonder though whether {{DnB-...}} would be a better name though (usually if its abbreviated, it would be to DnB, not dnb). I agree with Monni about release/album/song, too. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• If we have to abbreviate this at all, I'd prefer the CamelCase, too. I also strong agree about the album/single/song thing, and oppose any merged "release", especially a single such template. Musician, label, album, song, and parent all seem OK, if viable. Alai 00:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment I prefer DnB- too. Monni 14:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment If this has to be be abbreviated I would also prefer CamelCase. I also agree about having album and song vs release.--OriginalJunglist 15:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment StubSense only finds 69 DnB stubs, so unless there is some serious undersorting, there should be only one stub category.
  • {{DnB-stub}} -> Category:Drum and bass stubs (parent category doesn't upper case "bass")
  • {{DnB-musician-stub}} -> Category:Drum and bass stubs & Category:Electronic musician stubs
  • {{DnB-album-stub}} -> Category:Drum and bass stubs & Category:Electronic album stubs
  • {{DnB-song-stub}} -> Category:Drum and bass stubs & Category:Electronic song stubs
  • {{DnB-record-label-stub}} -> Category:Drum and bass stubs & Category:Record label stubs
• Personally I think we should only create first and defer others (double tag them instead for now). Last one could be potentially viable if rescoped to all electronic music genres (128 stubs before eliminating false positives and possible undersorting), but still it would be first sub-stub divided by genre instead of origin. Monni 20:50, 3 January 2007 (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.

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 ammunition-stub.
Category:Firearms stubs has several hundred entries, and at least a hundred of them are specific cartridge types. A subcategory for cartridges would be useful and keep both to manageable size. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Checking with the main categories suggests that {{ammo-stub}} and/or {{ammunition-stub}} feeding into a Category:Ammunition stubs would be better. There is no corresponding Category:Cartridges and all three of Category:Large calibre cartridges, Category:Pistol and rifle cartridges, and Category:Shotgun shells have Category:Ammunition as their direct parent. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ammunition stub is vaguer than I want to be, because it can get generalized to all sorts of things, and I'm trying to keep this tightly defined. I'm going for stubs about specific designs, rather than more general articles like Percussion cap or lead shot which cover parts and are basically a different type of article. Between Category:Large calibre cartridges, Category:Pistol and rifle cartridges, and Category:Shotgun shells, there are hundreds of articles on pistol and rifle cartridges and less than a dozen in each of the others, because we don't have articles about specific calibers of shotgun shell, and large caliber ammunition isn't classified in the same way. We have articles for .223 and .30-06 and 7.62x39 and hundreds of others because there's much more history and design information about each one of those. The first column of Category:Firearms stubs is pretty much entirely what I want to include. Keeping this category tightly focused will make it much easier to wade through to identify pages to be merged or expanded without filling it up with concepts. I'm thinking of this as a companion to the {{pistol-stub}}, to separate out a series of pages about designs from more general pages. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment cartridge as a word is ambiguous... It can mean other things too. Monni 08:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment ammunition-stub is better and if it includes a few extra non-cartridge topics that is a good thing. --- Skapur 18:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Eh, {{ammo-stub}} would be fine, I just wrote the last piece on too little sleep. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:13, 26 December 2006 (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.

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.
This would feed into the non stub category State governments of the United States and serve as a place for the various U.S. State government stub templates that are starting to be created to feed into until they have enough stubs to warrant a category of their own. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Support (conditionally). I can see this as useful for those states which as yet do not have active government or government & politics workgroups. For those of us with active subgroups, it provides insufficient segregation for project tracking, prioritization, and implementation purposes. If it is intended to set the bar higher than the 30 as rule of thumb for a "good number" for project-related topics, on which we have relied in good faith, then I would have to withdraw support. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 03:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Changed to Oppose, because together with the hard-and-fast "no less than sixty" rule (despite its mischaracterization as a flexible standard), this provides too much disincentive for comprehensive development of the government of a given state. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 21:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

60 is fairly hard-and-fast for a type of split that has not been done before, but tends to vary if a precedent has been set. If there were already proposed and accepted NewYork-gov-stub, Texas-gov-stub and illinois-gov-stub, then the threshold for the creation of a Newmexico-gov-stub would be almost certainly lower than 60. Also if a parent category has 2000 stubs and the only logical splits would remove groups of 50 stubs, then several of them would probably be broken off irrespective of the fact that none of them reach 60 stubs. Perhaps the wording should be "60 except in specific circumstances" followed by a list of likely circumstances - but that would cause further clutter to an already full pagetop. Grutness...wha? 23:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Technically, the bar is already at 60 for an independent {{Oregon-gov-stub}} as the lower threshold of 30 only applies to the first stub type associated with a WikiProject. However, this wouldn't stand in the way of creating the template, which could be used to check what links to it with "What links here" even if it doesn't have a dedicated stub category. In that way it would be similar {{Oregon-sports-venue-stub}} which doesn't have enough stubs of its own so it feeds into Category:Oregon building and structure stubs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I missed the part that the 30 only applies to the first stub category in a project, and the logic still escapes me since it is obvious that a working group is always going to be involved in a subset of the articles of the project in which it is a part. This also gives incentive for working groups to "spin off" and become autonomous Wikigroups in order to obtain the necessary tools to do their work, not a precedent I think is a good one to set (although suddenly some of the smaller WikiProjects whose scope seems to naturally fall entirely within that of another existing group is starting to make more sense). A quick glance at List of Oregon State Government Agencies, which doesn't include political parties, organizations, or a host of other subjects we are tackling makes the comparison to the handful of notable sports stadiums in the state somewhat less than apt -- more like peas to watermelons than apples to oranges. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 09:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The stubs should feed into the specfic state's stub. Also the name of the template/category is slightly confusing. Is it just for the state government or is it for the departments or agencies of the state government? However unlikely, some people may even confuse it with the US Department of State. --- Skapur 19:01, 25 December 2006 (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.

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 keep template, create category.
Needed for tracking and prioritizing the work of the Government & Politics workgroup of WikiProject Oregon. Over 30 47 52 known current stub articles, with more being systematically created: Oregon Department of Administrative Services Oregon Blue Book Oregon Citizens Alliance Democratic Party of Oregon Direct Legislation League Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Department of Revenue Oregon Department of State Lands Oregon Defense of Marriage Coalition Oregon Republican Party Oregon School for the Deaf Oregon State Archives Oregon State Fair Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization Oregon Student Assistance Commission Oregon Sustainability Board Oregon Department of Corrections Oregon Department of Education Oregon Department of Veterans' Affairs Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Oregon Department of Education Oregon Department of Forestry Oregon Department of Human Services Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services Oregon Public Employees Retirement System Libertarian Party of Oregon Constitution Party of Oregon Working Families Party of Oregon Oregon State Elections Division PolitiCorps -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 04:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Socialist Party of Oregon Freedom Socialist Party (Oregon) -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 19:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Ancer L. Haggerty Garr M. King Oregon State Capitol Foundation Oregon National Guard --"J-M" (Jgilhousen) 21:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Oregon Economic and Community Development Department Oregon Military Department Oregon Department of Aviation Oregon Department of Agriculture Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training --"J-M" (Jgilhousen) 04:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Energy Oregon Housing and Community Services Department Oregon Water Resources Department Oregon Land Conservation Department --"J-M" (Jgilhousen) 19:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Oregon University System Oregon State Board of Higher Education Oregon Wine Board Oregon Public Utility Commission Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development

This ties in with a discussion at WP:WSS/D - we recently discovered the first state-specific gov-stub. I think that in the long run they're probably a good idea, though - WikiProject or not - 30 is a little thin. But if more are being created as you say, I've no real objection... Grutness...wha? 05:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The workgroup has only been active for less than a month, and so has just scratched the surface of the maze of departments, agencies and bureaus in the executive branch. I am sure the category will grow rapidly as we proceed (it's more than doubled in the past week), and all of the existing stubs have probably not yet been identified. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 06:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support As a member of WikiProject Oregon, which has a small but very active membership, and a person with a working familiarity with the Byzantine divisions of Oregon state government, I think this stub category is going to be very useful for identifying articles needing expansion by the workgroup. Katr67 19:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Partially support. I assume they are tagged with oregon-stub now. Can a stub templated be created and they be upmerged to oregon-stubs till there are more than sixty at which time a stub category can be created? --- Skapur 18:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely what I've done (per discussion under "State-gov-stub" above)), although at current rate of creation, the sixty mark will be met in four or five days. --"J-M" (Jgilhousen) 19:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Then there is no harm in waiting a week to create the actual categories. --- Skapur 02:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

None except for completely reordering our priorities to meet numerical rather than quality goals. On the bright side, I'm learning that busy work can be fun, too (although I miss in-depth writing). -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 04:28, 26 December 2006 (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.

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 keep; count is now at 93 articles..

• I discovered this today when an overeager user chided me to use it. It was never officially proposed, but it does have almost 80 stubs. I'd like to propose it officially now on his behalf. Aelfthrytha 16:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support and counter-chide. Alai 19:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Many of these entries are not stubs, e.g. NUST Institute of Information Technology. Do we have any idea about how many of these articles are actually short? Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, no idea. I didn't check any of them because this isn't my project; it's just an attempt to bring it into compliance. Might want to check it out and see how many of them are really stubs. If it doesn't meet 65, I propose redirecting it to {{Asia-university-stub}} until it does. Aelfthrytha 04:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I separted existing stubs in the {{Asia-university-stub}} category from Pakistan and Phillipines. They were already marked stubs.
-- Asfandyar 00:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that the same user has also created several other Country-university-stubs (such as Indonesia and Iran) and also Pakistan-School (sic) -stub. Several of these are listed at WP:WSS/D, and the School one is up for renaming at SFD. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 19 December 2006 (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.

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 a lot of article stubs about Saint Petersburg which are categorized with {{Northwest-Russia-geo-stub}}, {{Russia-stub}} and some other. You can find a lot of them in Category:Saint Petersburg. I think, these stub categories are too common, and special template for Saint Petersburg-related articles will be useful. Saint Petersburg is large enough and important enough to have special stub category, isn't it? Geevee (talk|contribs) 21:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Tentative support, with a proviso on the number of stubs there are (are there 60?), though the name should be {{SaintPetersburg-stub}}, since it's not a subtype of other "Petersburg stubs". Note that if created, geo-stubs should be double-stubbed with both the new stub type and the Northwest-Russia-geo-stub. Grutness...wha? 23:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think of the city in Florida, not the one in Russia, even though the former is often distinguished as St. Petersburg as opposed to Saint Petersburg. Of the first 10 hits for St. Petersburg on Google, 4 are for the city in Florida and for Saint Petersburg, 3 of the top 10 are. Because of the ambiguity for English users it should be {{SaintPetersburg-Russia-stub}} with perhaps a redirect from {{Leningrad-stub}} unless we want to reserve that for the unrenamed Leningrad Oblast. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

reply It would be disingenuous of me to say I've never heard of the one in Florida, but I had forgotten about it. Is it really widely enough known to be confused with the one in Russia? Population-wise, the Florida one is only 6% of the size of the Russian one. St. Petersburg is a redirect to Saint Petersburg - the Floridian one is at St. Petersburg, Florida. If it is going to be a problem though, naming precedent would suggest SaintPetersburgRU-stub would be the name to use. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

response For us provincial Americans it could be. Considering that the Google evidence shows only a 2-1 advantage in hits for the Russian city and largely results that are only indirectly related if Tampa Florida and Russia are all filtered out (For example a Russian cuisine restaurant in Britain) I'd say it meets the threshold of ambiguity by itself, even though I seriously doubt if we'd ever need a {{StPetersburgFL-stub}} and if we ever do, I'm not certain I'd want to be stub sorting. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I believe that it won't be difficult to find 60 stubs about Saint Petersburg, because I have edited related articles for times. If it is really needed, I can explore Category:Saint Petersburg for them.Geevee (talk|contribs)

{{SaintPetersburg-stub}} was successfully added. Geevee (talk|contribs) 13:44, 2 January 2007 (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.

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 category has over 700 stubs and though I have yet to do a full count it appears that a number of countries will break 60 or get very close, I propose the following templates with categories to follow when needed. The number in brackets is based on a hand count currently at about 500 of these stubs)

• {{Nigeria-footy-bio-stub}} (56)
• {{Coted'Ivoire-footy-bio-stub}} (50)
• {{DRCongo-footy-bio-stub}} (44)
• {{SouthAfrica-footy-bio-stub}} (42)
• {{Ghana-footy-bio-stub}} (40)

I know some of these may clash with -bio-stub proposals below but this category does need trimming soon. Any comments especially on whether we need cotediviore and ivorycoast redirects as for existing country stubs. Waacstats 16:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment I don't think clashing is such a bad thing even if we have to upmerge those considerably below 60 articles... if count together goes over 60 then we can just create -bio category and feed to that. Monni 16:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Final count shows that Nigeria (70), Cote d'Ivoire (67) and Ghana (61) should have categories so I would like to add these to the proposal. other three are still below 50 so leave these as upmerged templates —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Waacstats (talk • contribs) 17:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't see any problem with also having both a -bio template and a -footy-bio template for the Ivory Coast. Support all templates. Categories when 60. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Support templates, defer categories. Monni 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, two of these (potential) categories are a bit tricky. The Ivorian category (if / when we reach 60 articles) should probably be named Category:Côte d'Ivoire football biography stubs since the potential "standard" -bio category, will be Category:Côte d'Ivoire people stubs to be consistent with the permcat and similar material.

By the same logic, the potential DRC category will be Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo football biography stubs since the potential "standard" -bio category, will be Category:People of the Democratic Republic of the Congo stubs to be consistent with the permcat. (It would be so much easier if there was only one "Congo".)

The last three potential categories are no-brainers: Category:Ghanaian football biography stubs, Category:Nigerian football biography stubs and Category:South African football biography stubs. In all cases, the categories should wait till we reach 60. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 13:37, 29 December 2006 (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.

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.
There are around 800 stubs in Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs. There are also a number of articles in Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia topics that are marked as stubs. Would it be a good idea to create a Catholic Encyclopedia stub for articles created from the Catholic Encyclopedia (with the Catholic Encyclopedia article linked)?

JASpencer 18:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. We normally don't sort by source, and the material I have seen from that work needed more of a "warning this information is outdated and / or inaccurate" rather than a stub. An article space template does exist for this purpose, btw: {{Catholic-cleanup}}. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I agree about the oppose - there are better ways of doing this than to create a stub type. Have a look at the templates used with the 1911 Britannica articles, something similar could be done for the Catholic Encyclopedia. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 28 December 2006 (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.

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 just done my fortnightly count of geo-stubs... no more countries have reached the 60 mark, but four more are over half that, so as per normal I'm proposing upmerged templates for them:

• {{Swaziland-geo-stub}} (to feed into Category:Southern Africa geography stubs)
• {{GuineaBissau-geo-stub}} (to feed into Category:West Africa geography stubs)
• {{EquatorialGuinea-geo-stub}} (to feed into Category:Central Africa geography stubs)
• {{Kiribati-geo-stub}} (to feed into Category:Oceania geography stubs)

Grutness...wha? 05:42, 26 December 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was create as revised by Grutness.
There are rapidly closing on 500 stubs in Category:Star Trek stubs. At one time, a separate stub type for episodes existed (it's long since been deleted), but some form of split is now a good idea. Rather than going back to an episode/other split, I'd like to suggest splitting by series/era as follows:

• {{StarTrek-classic-stub}} (ot {{StarTrek-TOS-stub}})
• {{StarTrek-TNG-stub}}
• {{StarTrek-DS9-stub}}
• {{StarTrek-Voyager-stub}}
• {{StarTrek-Enterprise-stub}}

The abbreviations are not ambiguous in the context of the series, and - while not quite covering all the stubs, should provide a good split into five fairly even groups. The films could be covered by whichever era/cast they are included with. Any which don't reach threshold (I'm unsure whether "Enterprise" would) can stay upmerged. it would also give us a chance to finally get rid of that damn ST-stub redirect which was deemed deletable via SFD but never deleted! Grutness...wha? 00:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Make it so. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Ahead Warp Factor 2. A2Kafir 04:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• As an editor on the Trek articles, I'd rather see a split oriented at StarTrek-episode-stub, StarTrek-character-stub, StarTrek-book-stub and the like. Don't know how the numbers work for that. Morwen - Talk 09:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Not nearly as well, which is why I suggested the split I did. About 230 of the stubs (almost 50%) are listed as "...(episode)", and over 100 of the remainder seem to be characters - no other subject would come close enough by itself to be a viable stub split. If it was worked on a series by series basis, even if there was some overlap, there's more chance of a split of nearly everything into five similar-sized packages. And - although you'd know better than me on this one - I'd suspect that someone who knows enough to edit an article on an episode is also more likely to be able to edit articles on any characters involved in that episode, making a split by theme a little less ideal than one by era. A split into episodes/characters/everything else would be a viable alternative three-way split, mind you. Grutness...wha? 12:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, there are hundreds of Star Trek novels which remain to be stubbed, so there is the the potential for a third, at least. I'm slightly worried we would end up with a lot of articles with two or more StarTrek stub tags and should like to avoid that, and splitting it by nature of thing, would stop that outright. Morwen - Talk 15:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What I would want to know is that how much there is overlap with these two proposals. So is there even remote possibility of mix-matching some of these. Monni 16:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • 500 stubs isn't enough to really think about a cross-referencing double-split. If it makes more sense to split by episodes/characters/whatever, then I'd suggest that instead of the series by series split. If the number of stubs in any of those subcategories gets to be that big again, then a split by series would make sense as the second option, but at the moment splitting both ways would produce some pretty small stub types. Grutness...wha? 21:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Well... I didn't say I would support all of them, but creating some stub and deleting it two weeks after, because people decide to do it the other way around, isn't something I would want either... Monni 13:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Full reverse! Wooooop woooooop woooooop! (Um, I mean support episodes/characters/whatever, per Morwen & Monni.) Starting with {{StarTrek-novel-stub}}. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Oppose untill the numbers are clearer. Maybe upmerged templates would be a start for now? --- Skapur 18:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that that is exactly what I proposed. And if - as seems to be the case - a split into ep[isodes/characters/novels seems better, I've already mentioned that there are 230+ episodes, which nudges slightly past threshold :) Grutness...wha? 00:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support split by type-of-thing if that's what the 'Trek editors prefer, and perhaps further split (or at least upmerged-templated) the episodes by series. (I'm guessing at least one of the five must be viable, unless they split preternaturally evenly.) Alai 00:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable - that would make the following a logical scheme:

• {{StarTrek-stub}} - Category:Star Trek stubs
  • {{StarTrek-character-stub}} (or {{StarTrek-char-stub}}, since we use "char" elsewhere) - Category:Star Trek character stubs
  • {{StarTrek-episode-stub}} / Category:Star Trek episode stubs
    • {{StarTrek-TOS-episode-stub}} - possibly upmerged into Category:Star Trek episode stubs
    • {{StarTrek-TNG-episode-stub}} - possibly upmerged into Category:Star Trek episode stubs
    • {{StarTrek-DS9-episode-stub}} - possibly upmerged into Category:Star Trek episode stubs
    • {{StarTrek-Voyager-episode-stub}} - possibly upmerged into Category:Star Trek episode stubs
    • {{StarTrek-Enterprise-episode-stub}} - possibly upmerged into Category:Star Trek episode stubs
  • {{StarTrek-novel-stub}} - Category:Star Trek novel stubs

It makes some sense not to split the characters, since several have appeared in more than one series. If that all sounds fine to everyone, then it makes a reasonable scheme. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 27 December 2006 (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.

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.
On WP:NPP patrol I ran across Action City. In Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types#Leisure could only find {{Ride-stub}}. Oddly and unexpectedly, this stub generates " This article about an amusement park, amusement ride, or roller coaster is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." The stub should programmed for rides and parks should be separate. Several unstubbed articles exist in Category:Amusement parks. TonyTheTiger 23:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem all that odd or unexpected to me, but a split seems plausible, and probably of benefit as the "merged" type is getting to be about 2 1/2 listings pages. In the (I'm betting not unlikely) event that this gets approved, and not populated, worth an upmerged {{amusement-park-stub}} template at the least. Alai 01:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - as long as the usual caveat about double-stubbing with the local geo-stub applies. Grutness...wha? 04:08, 14 December 2006 (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.

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.
StubSense (which is back! only slightly lagged! huzzah!) reports 52 airport stubs in Texas; not enough for a category, but enough for an upmerged template. --CComMack (t–c) 20:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. Although I am surprised to see that they are that many stubs and not full blown articles. --- Skapur 18:13, 25 December 2006 (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.

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 would be a subcategory to Category:Malaysia stubs, which contains nearly 530 articles/entries. There is also over 60 articles relating to rail in Malaysia, mostly about the railway/LRT/Monorail stations in Malaysia. Acs4b 06:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

How many of those articles are stubs? Aelfthrytha 03:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

72 articles are stubs (The number only includes all the railway stations in Malaysia that are stubs) Acs4b 04:47, 26 December 2006 (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.

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 mech-engineering-stub.
This would be a subcategory to Category:Engineering stubs, which presently contains almost 400 entries. Well over 60 of these would move to this category. Also, the {{Auto-tech-stub}} presently under discussion here (which inspired this proposal) would be a sub-category of this. --Athol Mullen 22:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment The parent stub is {{engineering-stub}} but two current topical sub types are {{comp-eng-stub}} and {{soft-eng-stub}}. {{eng-stub}} would be ambiguous, but do we want to eradicate the abrreviated forms for the subfields where they aren't ambiguous in and of themselves? I.e., should the template be {{mech-engineering-stub}} or {{mechanical-engineering-stub}} in place of the proposed {{mech-eng-stub}}? Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd definitely go with mech-engineering-stub. "Mech" isn't that ambiguous in this context, but mechanised engraving and mechanical engines make "eng" more ambiguous - and that's without even thinking about it as an abbreviation of England. I didn't know about soft-eng-stub or I would have objected to that at the time (I've used soft-engraving techniques in art before now). Grutness...wha? 08:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I vote for mechanical-engineering-stub. This way it will be consistent when people writing articles on election engineering want their own stub :-) --- Skapur 19:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have preferred the abbreviation for convenience sake (less typing, etc.) but obviously that's not liked. Now it's a choice between {{mech-engineering-stub}} or {{mechanical-engineering-stub}}. I'm leaning strongly towards {{mech-engineering-stub}}. Opinions? --Athol Mullen 05:06, 27 December 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was do not create.
I propose to create a new stub, called {{Singapore-law-stub}}, for articles dealing with Singapore law. Any views? Cheers.

How many known stubs do you expect to use this. If you know of 60 or more, support, otherwise, oppose. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose until numbers are clearer. --- Skapur 18:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for same. Aelfthrytha 03:02, 26 December 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was create as revised.
Two more divisions of {{insect-stub}}, which will become laborious to clear if it gets too clogged with hundreds of stubs at a time. These are both large orders of insects: the Hemiptera, the "true bugs," and Diptera, or "true flies." Each has more than 60 available:

• for Diptera: Acalyptratae Acroceridae Aedes Agromyzidae Anisopodidae Anopheles gambiae Archidiptera Aschiza Asiloidea Asilomorpha Axymyiidae Bactrocera tryoni Bibionomorpha Blephariceridae Blephariceromorpha Bombylius Braulidae Calyptratae Canacidae Carnoidea Ceratopogonidae Chamaemyiidae Chaoboridae Chironomoidea Chloropidae Chrysomia putoria Cobboldia Culex jenseni Culex rajah Culicinae Culicoides imicola Culicomorpha Cuterebrinae Cyclorrhapha Deer botfly Deer fly Delia (genus) Deuterophlebiidae Deuterophlebiomorpha Diopsoidea Drosophila simulans Empidoidea Ephydroidea Eristalis Eudiptera Eurychoromyiidae Fungus gnat Gasterophilinae Gasterophilus Gasterophilus haemorrhoidalis Gymnocheta viridis Gyrostigma Heleomyzidae Hessian fly Highland midge Hippoboscidae Hippoboscoidea Holoptic Hypodermatinae Larger Brachycera Dolichopodidae.
• for Hemiptera: Acanthosomatidae Anoeciidae Anthocoridae Aonidiella aurantii Aradidae Aradoidea Aradus Asopinae Asterolecanium coffeae Blissus leucopterus Brochymena Brood X Brown planthopper Cavernicola Cimicomorpha Cixiidae Cooloola monster Coreidae Coreoidea Cornicle Cosmopepla conspicillaris Cydnidae Delphacidae Dipetalogaster Dipsocoromorpha Dogday harvestfly Dziwneono Enicocephalidae Enicocephalomorpha Eratyrus Eriosomatidae Firebug Florida leaf-footed bug Froth fly Gelastocoridae Gelonus (genus) Geocoris Gerromorpha Green shieldbug Green stink bug Honeydew (secretion) Horehound bug Jumping plant louse Kermes (insect) Kermes vermilio Kermesidae Lantern fly Nirvana (leafhopper) Lesser water boatman Lerp (biology) Machaca (insect) Masked hunter Pomponia (cicada) Orius (bug) Russian wheat aphid Parent bug Pentatomomorpha Pyrrhocoridae Pyrrhocoroidea.

Any thoughts? A2Kafir 01:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Fly-stub, yes, but I'm not so happy with the name "bug-stub" - although I see the hemiptera article uses it. Colloquially "bug" can mean just about any insect, so I'm not entirely sure it's the best name. Not sure what would be better, though. Grutness...wha? 05:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Dirty and easy way is to just use the order name... Monni 10:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • How about {{truefly-stub}} and {{truebug-stub}}? A2Kafir 16:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • This is probably over-engineering, but what about {{hemiptera-stub}} and {{diptera-stub}} with redirects from {{bug-stub}} and {{fly-stub}}. Bug is a disambig, mostly leading to Hemiptera and Fly goes directly to the article, mentioning Diptera in the first sentence. Also, I'd recommend using the formal names in the stub description as well, something like this: This Diptera-related article... and This Hemiptera-related article...'. Also, images in the stub template would be beneficial. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
        • That would work. How about something like {{dragonfly-stub}}: This article about a member of the order Diptera (true flies)... A2Kafir 17:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Ooooooh.... I like that even better. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Partially oppose. Bug-stub is a bad idea. All the computer bugs will get inadvertently put in there. Even truebug-stub is not good. How about insect-hemiptera-stub ? This way even people who do not know what hemiptera means will instantly recognize it as relating to bugs. --- Skapur 18:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The stub would be {{hemiptera-stub}} with a redirect from {{truebug-stub}} for ease of use. The actual text would be something like "This article about the insect order Hemiptera ("true bugs" and close relatives) is a stub...". I don't see how that could cause confusion, especially if (as I plan to) a little picture of a representative insect is included. A2Kafir 22:44, 26 December 2006 (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.

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.
105 under Category:Children's novels and Category:Children's book stubs, which, like Topsy, has growed. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Would this be separate from the existing {{child-book-stub}}? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment To me it looks like child stub for the existing one... Monni 17:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It would indeed be a child of {{child-book-stub}}, which is currently for all types of children's books (novels, non-fiction, picture books, etc.). Her Pegship (tis herself) 07:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. Support. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think it is needed. However, is there a clear distinction between a children's book and a children's novel? --- Skapur 18:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A children's book is any book written for children. A children's novel is fiction, but not so short as a picture book or "easy reader", which runs under 100 pages or so. I can make that clear on the cat page. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC) (Ex-children's librarian...)

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.

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

The result of the debate was create.
In the category of "forgiveness rather than permission", I've created this to try to help with JP-bios. Now, my original plan -- and indeed part-implemented as such -- was just to sort these as "sports bios", but that's fuzzy in some cases (I noticed it being silently removed from a number of aikidoka), and outright wrong in others (feudal era sword masters). So better to deal with this sooner rather than later (plus I'm unlikely to be doing same in a week's time). Alai 02:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. Although I thought you knew better that to ask forgiveness rather than permission. --- Skapur 18:18, 25 December 2006 (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.

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.
Nicaragua-stub has 159 articles, the vast majority of which look to be biographies. It seems quite viable.--Thomas.macmillan 21:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. Costa Rica is even bigger, and many of the others are pretty close as well. How about we give all the Central American countries an upmerged -bio template, and create categories whenever we find a good number of articles (50-55 or so)? Bolivia looks viable as well. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great to me. Support Costa Rica, Bolivia templates and category and upmerged -bio templates for all Central American countries--Thomas.macmillan 23:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support this. And given that we're surely past the tipping point where there being a -bio-stub template for a given country is an expectation, rather than a hope, I see no harm in creating upmerged templates for all such. Alai 03:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

At a quick count-up, I'd say there are 60 potential ElSalvador-bio-stubs, too (so that one's viable by itself), along with 40-50 potential Guatemala-bio-stubs, too, and about the same number of potential Honduras-bio-stubs (about 25 from Belize as well). As far as South America, that would only leave Guyana (about 35), Suriname (about 15) and French Guiana (we don't even have a base stub category for that!). This sounds like a reasonable scheme. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And there's probably more material around somewhere. Support the South Americans as well per Grutness. But yes, we need to expand the material on French Guiana. :) This place must be known for something else than Kourou and the road that was never completed. (Hint: Never build a road in the middle of a malaria area.) Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 01:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there was always that Dreyfus business... Seriously though, there's a geo-stub category for it, so perhaps we could try to find enough non-geo-stubs that an upmerged general template at least is a reasonable idea. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that both Peru and Bolivia have c. 50 -politician articles each [2] so we might as well give them both upmerged -politician templates now that we're going through this material anyway. Same procedure as every year regarding the categories. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 15:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: Apparently the Guatemalan template / category had been created some time ago, and sorting through this material, the vast majority of -bios are in fact politicians. Let's follow the African example and create upmerged -politician templates for the countries in Central and South America as well. Might as well sort it all out in one go. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 10:10, 26 December 2006 (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.

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:Hungary geography stubs is at exactly 800 stubs. Is this perhaps a good time to split it? Hungary consists of 7 regions, divided in 20 counties. Several of the counties reach 60 stubs, and all of the rest have enough potential to reach that limit in the future (all of them except Budapest have a large number of towns and villages that do not have an article yet). The relevant stub counts are:

• Southern Great Plain
  • Bács-Kiskun - 118 stubs => Category:Bács-Kiskun geography stubs
  • Békés - 72 stubs => Category:Békés county geography stubs
  • Csongrád - 57 stubs => Category:Csongrád county geography stubs
• Northern Great Plain
  • Hajdú-Bihar - 75 stubs => Category:Hajdú-Bihar geography stubs
  • Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok - 74 stubs => Category:Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok geography stubs
  • Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg - 194 stubs => Category:Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg geography stubs
• Central Transdanubia - 58 stubs in total
  • Fejér - 21 stubs
  • Komárom-Esztergom - 5 stubs
  • Veszprém - 32 stubs

I propose creating stubcats for the first 6 counties, and possibly creating one for the Central Transdanubia region, Category:Central Transdanubia geography stubs. The other counties and regions have less than 40 stubs each.

I've already created the corresponding (county-level) stub templates, as they were useful in counting the stubs. They are named {{Bacs-geo-stub}}, {{Bekes-geo-stub}} etc. using the unaccented shortened names of the counties; I don't object to redirs at the full names {{BácsKiskun-geo-stub}} etc. -- Eugène van der Pijll 13:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't see that one coming... Nice job, strong support. Alai 15:15, 16 December 2006 (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.

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.
My assault on the European football bios continues:

• {{Hungary-footy-bio-stub}} / Category:Hungarian football biography stubs - 73
• {{Israel-footy-bio-stub}} / Category:Israeli football biography stubs - 62
• {{Austria-footy-bio-stub}} / Category:Austrian football biography stubs - 54

I realize the last is undersized, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's more hanging out untagged, and it's not like you'll hurt my feelings if you say no.  :-) --fuzzy510 21:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Support all Nomatter if we have 60 for the last or not, the growth potential is certainly there. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 12:55, 6 December 2006 (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.

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 United States Marine Corps personnel stubs.
The tempate already exists and has over 100 articles linked to it so this would be a viable split from the large US-mil-bio-stub. Waacstats 11:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, but as Category:United States Marine Corps personnel, please. Alai 15:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ...better still, at Category:United States Marine Corps personnel stubs! Grutness...wha? 05:30, 21 December 2006 (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.

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.

{{Canada-footy-bio-stub}}, Category:Canadian soccer biography stubs

Just subcat Category:Canadian sportspeople stubs. Matthew_hk tc 04:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sensible scope; any idea about likely size? Alai 04:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• about 80. Matthew_hk tc 08:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• • OK, thanks. Alai 14:39, 19 December 2006 (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.

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 & upmerge as noted.

{{1900s-novel-stub}}, Category:1900s novel stubs - assigned articles 34

{{1910s-novel-stub}}, Category:1910s novel stubs - assigned articles 39

{{1920s-novel-stub}}, Category:1920s novel stubs - assigned articles 60

{{1940s-novel-stub}}, Category:1940s novel stubs - assigned articles 67 (from and earlier create)

Having just gone through the recommended procedure mentioned in the "old business" below the counts assigned to the templates are as recorded above. Even I was a little surprise how many there were. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

'20s is fine (as is the existing 40s), others are better kept upmerged for now. (Also, any chance of making these look like standard stub templates, in the manner of the WP:STUB model?) Alai 15:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Added as suggested above - adjusted to bring a bit more in line. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Noticed you made some more changes - sorry - thought I had got it taped. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem -- I could have been clearer about what I meant. Just wanted to make sure we weren't rowing in opposite directions. In particular, I think it's useful for the template appear in the category -- especially for upmerged templates, where otherwise someone browsing the parent won't notice they exist. The Wikiproject links and the like are more usefully placed on the category page, I think -- for one thing, it reduces the "self-refs" in article-space templates, and if they're noincluded on the templates, they're less likely to be noticed than on the category page, anway. Alai 17:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and the assistance. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:21, 19 December 2006 (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.

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 is to prove that you really can't keep a good stub type down, the euro-sports-venues are oversized again. Pending a fresh db dump, best I can come up with is this. OTOH, if said dump reveals some other country has leapt ahead, I shall in fickle fashion switch my attentions to that... Alai 03:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Was already proposed and aproved along with Greece-sports-venue-stub and is listed at WP:WSS/T.--Carabinieri 15:24, 14 December 2006 (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.

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 modified.
The NSW geos are oversized yet again, this is the best I can come up with, at a disgracefully small 38, and it's not clear that there's much in the way of undercatting. (Well, if I want to get a rise out of Grutness, I could propose Category:New South Wales river stubs, but that's hardly any larger at 40.) However, there's LM WPJ: I know, because they've left their category in the main category tree, rather untidily. That could conceivably give us the excuse, though their actual scope would be a little wider than this. Alai 23:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hrmph. Sure there isn't some undersorting of the Sydney ones? NSW's tricky - it seems to be divided into a couple of hundred shires, with nothing between that and the state level. Don't really like the idea of this split, but I can't think of any real alternative... Grutness...wha? 04:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If there's much unsorting (or uncatting) to that or any other existing type, it wasn't evident when I crunched the numbers. There's bound to be some, of course. Alai 07:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I did find this page on the official New South Wales website that divides NSW up into 14 regions. How much use they see, I don't know, but Lake Macquarie City would be in the Hunter region which also consists of Cessnock City, Dungog Shire, Gloucester Shire, Great Lakes, Maitland City, Muswellbrook Shire, Newcastle City, Port Stephens, Singleton Shire, and Upper Hunter Shire. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Works for me! Alai 07:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Me too. Question now is, though - what do we do with the alrwady made Wyong-geo-stub? Grutness...wha? 09:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Make it a subcat, or if it remains too itsy, upmerge it. Alai 16:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've created this as Category:Hunter region geography stubs, with:

• {{LakeMacquarie-geo-stub}}
• {{Cessnock-geo-stub}}
• {{Dungog-geo-stub}}
• {{GloucesterNSW-geo-stub}}
• {{GreatLakesNSW-geo-stub}}
• {{Maitland-geo-stub}}
• {{Muswellbrook-geo-stub}}
• {{NewcastleNSW-geo-stub}}
• {{PortStephens-geo-stub}}
• {{Singleton-geo-stub}}
• {{UpperHunter-geo-stub}}

Some redlinks to clean up... Alai 18:34, 16 December 2006 (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.

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.
Either of these would have over 600 stubs, with a tiny difference in membership (so one or the other, not both); the parent is, rather suddenly, over 1100. (Many of these are probably just undercategorised, so I'd personally favour the craters type, lest we end up simply moving almost all of these from this type to a new one.) Alai 23:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - I'd go for the geographical features (more technically selenographic, but I don't think many people really use that term these days). I think that beyond earth is one place we can split more readily by type of feature, so if this gets too big cuting the craters out as a separate subcat may be worthwhile. Grutness...wha? 04:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, the permcat doesn't use that term. My concern about the more inclusive type is that once categorisation is complete, they'd probably be almost all those. Come to that, it may not be far off being true for the craters, either, but one can at least hope... Alai 04:42, 14 December 2006 (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.

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 marsupial-stub.
In the first 50 mammal stubs, 14 are about marsupials. I think they should get their own stub template/category. Eli Falk 08:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You need 60 in total at least... Monni 13:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I only checked the first 50 stubs out of approx. 400. Even if that is relatively high, I think that there's got to be more than 60.

In addition, the mammal stubs category and its sub-categories keep getting fuller. In July, when I proposed Category:Carnivora stubs and Category:Even-toed Ungulate stubs, there were approx. 700 articles in the mammal stub category. Now there are 971 articles in the mammal stub category and it's newer sub-categories, so even if there's just under 60 now, there will probably be 60 soon. Eli Falk 14:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

May I ask what's wrong with {{marsupial-stub}}? It's not all that long and certainly much clearer than marsu (which, as you'll note, doesn't exist). ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Support, but strongly agree with Amalas's point about the template name. Clarity is worth the four extra characters... Alai 15:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but marsu is Finnish for guinea pig! Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Support template as per Amalas. Monni 18:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Whee - that was quick - whatever happened to waiting five days? Grutness...wha? 04:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not that I support such action, but now that it was done early there are 147 articles in that category, which proves me right about that there is enough. Eli Falk 10:31, 14 December 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was create upmerged templates.
I've been working on stub sorting {{Baseball-pitcher-stub}} into the 1980's , 1990's, and 2000's buckets, and it occurred to me that we probably should have a "1970 and before" stub as well. Otherwise, the stub sorters will be checking the same pitchers over and over and over to see if they belong in the three existing sub-stubs. Kathy A. 00:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not how we've done similar type splits in the past, and it will mean that when it's time to add {{1970s-baseball-pitcher-stub}}, we'll need to restub all of the semi-sorted stubs into the new 1970s stub and a 1960s and before stubs. I could see adding addition templates that would feed into Category:Baseball pitcher stubs until there are enough for their own separate category, but not a temporary semi-sorted category. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's the right axis, but if it's the "right now" axis, and will get it off the long-standing-oversized list... For the reasons CW mentions, ideally create per-decade templates, even if they feed into the same "bucket". Alai 04:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good points. My editing experience is intermediate, and I hadn't previously run across the idea of creating multiple templates that feed into the same stub. If someone could direct me to where I can learn how to do that, I'd be happy to work on the project. It would help me feel like I'm not spinning my wheels in the pitcher stubs, and make life much, much easier for when new stubs are created. Kathy A. 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, a "central resource" on this would be sensible, and doesn't really exist. I might try to do some off-line redrafting of parts of WP:STUB while I'm digesting my Christmas pud... But in this case, basically just make multiple copies of {{1980s-baseball-pitcher-stub}}, changing the occurrences of "1980s" as appropriate, but giving them all the same category; say, [[Category:Pre-1980 baseball pitcher stubs]] (or whatever there's a consensus for this to be called). (It's I think a good idea to top-sort the templates for upmerged types, so that it's immediately apparent from looking at the beginning of the category which exist, but this code already does that.) If you run into any difficulties, just contact me, I'll be happy to help, or likewise any of the "usual suspects" for stub template creation, for whom I'm sure the same is true. Alai 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, thanks! I think I've got it done now. (I'd welcome anyone to look it over and double check.)Kathy A. 16:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's it, though I think the lengthy list of templates on the category page is a bit redundant, given the aforementioned top-sorting of the templates themselves, and takes up a lot of space (leading to the dreaded "where did the articles go?" syndrome). Personally I'd remove that, and just make reference to their general form and range. Alai 16:56, 13 December 2006 (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.

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 would be in parallel to the existing {{UK-gov-bio-stub}}. It should easily reach 60 and should take about one third to one half of the stubs I'm having to leave in Category:American people stubs for now as I sort through them. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• This doesn't exist yet? Strong support. Crystallina 02:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• If you're sorting the US-bios, I'll just say strong support and have the good grace not to mention the delicate "category name" issue (oops!). Alai 04:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• I realize there's already a UK version of this but wouldn't this be the same thing as {{US-poli-bio-stub}} minus the political scientists.--Carabinieri 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a point, there's something of an asymmetry between the two. I don't think the scopes are the same, though; this would cover supposedly-non-political officials, while the other covers non-office-holders connected with politics. I suppose a difference between the UK and the US is that in the latter, a much larger number of officials are explicitly political... Alai 17:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, I've been using {{US-poli-bio-stub}} for spouses, siblings, parents, children, and other relatives of U.S. politicians who are notable primarily because of their relative. I suppose I could have sorted Billy Carter with {{US-business-bio-stub}} and {{beer-stub}} instead of {{US-poli-bio-stub}}, but it just didn't seem right. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:16, 13 December 2006 (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.

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 redirect nuclear-energy-stub to nuclear-power-stub.
in the energy stubs there is a group of 26 nuclear reactors which could be moved into a seperate category Inwind 19:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Too small for a stub type, but a {{nuclear-energy-stub}} → Category:Nuclear energy stubs → Category:Nuclear energy → (Category:Nuclear technology & Category:Energy) should be viable. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer using power instead of energy {{nuclear-power-stub}} → Category:Nuclear power stubs → Category:Nuclear power → (Category:Nuclear technology & Category:Energy) Inwind 21:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

I see we're db-authoring stuff before the discussion period's even finished. I've sped the first cat, and agree that the permcat-consistent alternative is preferable, but I suggest keeping the {{nuclear-energy-stub}} redirect for reasons of symmetry with the parent's template, and thus hopefully avoiding needless confusion and second-guessing. Alai 21:47, 13 December 2006 (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.

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 specified by Alai.
I'm in Wikipedia:WikiProjectAsianAmericans and would like some suggestions as to a stub template. I'm not sure that a stub template will do it all, but either way, it should be possible. Possibly {{Asian-American-stub}} or {{AsianAmerican-stub}}. Approval? Wait... that was a stub template. Never mind.

• But as you mention it... This has the same problems as previously-discussed types. If this is for "people and matters notable in connection with Asian American affairs", it's OK, as long as that's clear, and is stuck to. If it's for "sorting people by ethnicity who are notable for assorted things unrelated to their ethnicity", that's a problem. What you may ultimately want is a talk-page template, which you're free to scope as you wish (accordining to primary notability or otherwise). Alai 17:52, 9 December 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was created as Orders-medals-stub / Order, decoration, and medal stubs.
Wikipedia's coverage of national Orders, decorations, and medals is distinctly patchy. Apart from the most famous awards, most articles are stubs. Just to take two categories at random, Category:Canadian orders and decorations and Category:Orders and decorations of Australia contain few, if any, reasonably-sized articles. A Wikiproject is just about to be started to try and remedy this gap in coverage, so it would be a good idea for it to have its own stub category.

Xdamr^talk 14:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• We already have an {{award-stub}}. Were you thinking of splitting that? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, {{award-stub}} covers everything from academic prizes to sporting prizes, medals for humanitarianism to medals for broadcasting - with goodness knows what else in between! This stub would be solely for orders and medals, civil or military, which are part of national honours systems.

Xdamr^talk 15:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• I like the idea but not the names. the category should be Category:Order and decoration stubs to match the non-stub parent Category:Orders and decorations, and when I see {{medal-stub}}, the first thing that comes to mind for me is Olympic and other sporting medals, not national honors. Perhaps {{order-stub}} would do? Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see the difficulty with {{medal-stub}}. As far as a new name goes, {{order-stub}} sounds good. {{odm-stub}} is another alternative that springs to mind (ODM = Orders, decorations, and medals) but does it sound too cryptic? Perhaps call the stub category Category:Order, decoration, and medal stubs to match it up. For some reason, dropping the plurals from the category name doesn't quite sound right - but if it conforms to established practice then we can do it that way.

Xdamr^talk 22:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely cryptic. What about separate {{mil-medal-stub}}/{{order-stub}}/{{decoration-stub}} templates and/or redirects, all feeding into the same category? Alai 03:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. It doesn't really sound terribly more cryptic than something like {{Cvg-char-stub}} (computer and video game characters), surely?

Xdamr^talk 13:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think redirects would be best choice. I don't like initialisms much... Monni 14:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think three stubs is unnecessary duplication. As far as a single, unified name goes, I've tried to come up with a few new alternatives. The best I've been able to come up with is {{orders-medals-stub}}. How is this?

Xdamr^talk 17:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about three separate stub types, just covering all the obvious bases in terms of template names. But I'm OK with your latter suggestion, too. Alai 18:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

oppose new proposition Monni 21:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean?

Xdamr^talk 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer {{medal-stub}} as this would cover some of the exonumia that was dis-approved as a stub proposal last month. --JAYMEDINC 22:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't, what does non-legal tender transaction tokens have to do with orders and decorations? Absolutely nothing as far as I can see. But it does point out how medal by itself is just too ambiguous for medal-stub to be used as a template for this stub type. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the exonumia article, medals are exonumia. All I was saying is that some types of medals that I would've included in the ill-fated exonumia stub would do just fine in the proposed medal stub. A better fit than in the {{coin-stub}} that was approved instead. I also appologize because I didn't come in here to debate the definition of exonumia and what fits in there. I just came to give my support for the proposed medal stub.--JAYMEDINC 23:11, 10 December 2006 (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.

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 specified by Alai.
I'm in Wikipedia:WikiProjectAsianAmericans and would like some suggestions as to a stub template. I'm not sure that a stub template will do it all, but either way, it should be possible. Possibly {{Asian-American-stub}} or {{AsianAmerican-stub}}. Approval? Wait... that was a stub template. Never mind.

• But as you mention it... This has the same problems as previously-discussed types. If this is for "people and matters notable in connection with Asian American affairs", it's OK, as long as that's clear, and is stuck to. If it's for "sorting people by ethnicity who are notable for assorted things unrelated to their ethnicity", that's a problem. What you may ultimately want is a talk-page template, which you're free to scope as you wish (accordining to primary notability or otherwise). Alai 17:52, 9 December 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was created as Orders-medals-stub / Order, decoration, and medal stubs.
Wikipedia's coverage of national Orders, decorations, and medals is distinctly patchy. Apart from the most famous awards, most articles are stubs. Just to take two categories at random, Category:Canadian orders and decorations and Category:Orders and decorations of Australia contain few, if any, reasonably-sized articles. A Wikiproject is just about to be started to try and remedy this gap in coverage, so it would be a good idea for it to have its own stub category.

Xdamr^talk 14:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• We already have an {{award-stub}}. Were you thinking of splitting that? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, {{award-stub}} covers everything from academic prizes to sporting prizes, medals for humanitarianism to medals for broadcasting - with goodness knows what else in between! This stub would be solely for orders and medals, civil or military, which are part of national honours systems.

Xdamr^talk 15:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• I like the idea but not the names. the category should be Category:Order and decoration stubs to match the non-stub parent Category:Orders and decorations, and when I see {{medal-stub}}, the first thing that comes to mind for me is Olympic and other sporting medals, not national honors. Perhaps {{order-stub}} would do? Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see the difficulty with {{medal-stub}}. As far as a new name goes, {{order-stub}} sounds good. {{odm-stub}} is another alternative that springs to mind (ODM = Orders, decorations, and medals) but does it sound too cryptic? Perhaps call the stub category Category:Order, decoration, and medal stubs to match it up. For some reason, dropping the plurals from the category name doesn't quite sound right - but if it conforms to established practice then we can do it that way.

Xdamr^talk 22:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely cryptic. What about separate {{mil-medal-stub}}/{{order-stub}}/{{decoration-stub}} templates and/or redirects, all feeding into the same category? Alai 03:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. It doesn't really sound terribly more cryptic than something like {{Cvg-char-stub}} (computer and video game characters), surely?

Xdamr^talk 13:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think redirects would be best choice. I don't like initialisms much... Monni 14:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think three stubs is unnecessary duplication. As far as a single, unified name goes, I've tried to come up with a few new alternatives. The best I've been able to come up with is {{orders-medals-stub}}. How is this?

Xdamr^talk 17:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about three separate stub types, just covering all the obvious bases in terms of template names. But I'm OK with your latter suggestion, too. Alai 18:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

oppose new proposition Monni 21:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean?

Xdamr^talk 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer {{medal-stub}} as this would cover some of the exonumia that was dis-approved as a stub proposal last month. --JAYMEDINC 22:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't, what does non-legal tender transaction tokens have to do with orders and decorations? Absolutely nothing as far as I can see. But it does point out how medal by itself is just too ambiguous for medal-stub to be used as a template for this stub type. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the exonumia article, medals are exonumia. All I was saying is that some types of medals that I would've included in the ill-fated exonumia stub would do just fine in the proposed medal stub. A better fit than in the {{coin-stub}} that was approved instead. I also appologize because I didn't come in here to debate the definition of exonumia and what fits in there. I just came to give my support for the proposed medal stub.--JAYMEDINC 23:11, 10 December 2006 (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.

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 added at least sixty stub articles on African artists over the past week; combined with the stuff I've found looking through the "artists-by-country" category, I know there's more than enough to justify creating a new stub category for them. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 19:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If there are over 60, it sounds useful to me. Support. Grutness...wha? 05:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, this one is getting a bit thin to do by country, and this seems a lot more usefully specific than my rather feeble Euro- suggestion. Alai 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking a bit out of turn, perhaps, but the only country I can see gaining enough articles for a seperate stub category any time soon is Zimbabwe; if I push matters a bit, I can create enough stubs to fill that one out within a couple of days. I'm hesitent to suggest it because as yet there's neither a Zimbabwe-bio-stub (hey, I'm asleep at the switch - that one was created when I wasn't looking!) nor an African-artist-stub. From what I can tell, there isn't enough information available to fill any other country out for the forseeable future. (signed, putting my art history degree to some use at last) --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 08:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't mean just that there's no African country over 60, but there's no further countries at all, that I can find. OTOH, if you can write 6 Haitians, 14 Poles, 22 Spaniards, 25 Belgians, or 28 Dutch... (Bet the Netherlands are miffed to be trailing their neighbours...) Alai 02:02, 9 December 2006 (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.

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.
No sooner has Category:Wellington Region geography stubs been created than the Manawatu-Wanganui Region manages to scrape to 60 stubs. Therefoire, I propose that the {{ManawatuWanganui-geo-stub}} template be assigned its very own Category:Manawatu-Wanganui geography stubs. And before you ask, no the permcat doesn't have "Region" on the end - the only reason Wellington does is to differentiate it from the city. Grutness...wha? 11:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

PS - three other regions (Marlborough, Bay of Plenty, and Northland) have between 40 and 50 geo-stubs, so it may not be too long before they also reach a reasonable splitting level, especially since I'm still hunting through the NZ geo permcats. Grutness...wha? 11:54, 12 December 2006 (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.

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 Africa-film-stub.
Several feature films from South Africa needs a home. Faith Like Potatoes, Tsotsi, etc. Lohanj 08:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• That would be {{SouthAfrica-film-stub}}, not {{South-Africa-film-stub}}, if needed, which largely depends on what you mean by "several". How many films are we talking here? If there aren't enough, perhaps a continent-wide {{Africa-film-stub}} would be a reasonable interim measure. Grutness...wha? 09:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support {{Africa-film-stub}} for now. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Cool. Will use {{Africa-film-stub}} for now. Lohanj 13:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good - that will reduce some of the, um, constant gardening we have to do of the main film category! :) Grutness...wha? 04:19, 14 December 2006 (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.

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.
Feel free to criticize me, but I was a little bold today. The Tanzanian politicians were a mess, and during cleanup I suddenly realized that 80+ articles were using this template. Since it was simply upmerged due to size, I've taken the liberty of creating a proper category right away. The -bio category has 53 articles left in it and the material looks like it is growing. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 01:24, 10 December 2006 (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.

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.
Given the discussion at SFD, I think perhaps it might be a good idea to create this as a container, with upmerged -metro-stub templates on a per-country basis. I'd also not be against the idea of finer categories corresponding to UN sub-regions, if those manage to pass threshold, where the countries don't. Alai 21:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that there's much call for that fine sorting; not all countries, even in Europe, have even built a rapid transit system. —CComMack (t–c) 12:52, 15 December 2006 (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.

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.

• {{Netherlands-actor-stub}} conform actor stubs from other countries
• Category:Dutch actor stubs as a subcategory of both Category:Dutch people stubs and Category:European actor stubs
• This is a list of articles that will fit in the proposed stub category: Thomas Acda, Willeke van Ammelrooy, Cissy van Bennekom, Marjolein Beumer, Peter Blok, Jacob Derwig, Tijn Docter, Bracha van Doesburgh, Tygo Gernandt, Daniella van Graas, Frederik de Groot, Maya Hakvoort, Jeffrey Hamilton, Maarten Heijmans, Michiel Huisman, Donald Jones, Antonie Kamerling, Melody Klaver, Frank Lammers, Victor Löw, Johnny de Mol, Linda de Mol, Saskia Mulder, Manon Ossevoort, Halina Reijn, Thekla Reuten, Renée Soutendijk, Aart Staartjes, Johanna ter Steege, Hans Teeuwen, Annemieke Verdoorn, Dolf de Vries, Jack Wouterse
• As proposed by Ilse@ 15:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously this is well-scoped, but if that's the whole list, it's potentially a little small. (I can only find a similar number looking through the permcats.) What about a double-upmerged template for the time being? Alai 15:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean to make a template that includes the templates for the two other stub categories mentioned above? - Ilse@ 16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

16 more articles that would fit in the proposed stub category: Doris Baaten, Hein Boele, Pierre Bokma, Bill Van Dijk, Cees Geel, Fedja van Huêt, Hellen Huisman, Alfred Lagarde, Lesley van der Lek, Stef van der Linden, Fred Meijer (actor), Hero Muller, Peter Piekos, Sjef Poort, Piet Römer - Ilse@ 16:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In effect, though it's slightly more elegant to have a single stub template, in the usual style, that includes both categories. But I suppose that's now close enough, numbers-wise. Alai 17:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. Wish I'd seen this earlier as I have just gone through the Dutch people stubs sorting out the sport articles and could have waited anddone both at the same time, never mind. Although I don't have a proper count there seemedto be plenty of actors/actresses for a stub stype (est 70-90). Waacstats 15:29, 10 December 2006 (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.

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.
The New Category for all the Television Networks in New Mexico at over 20 to 50. Currently There's No New Mexico Stations to attached the Network & Independent Stations for the reason, I'm proposing {{CBS New Mexico}}, {{NBC New Mexico}}, {{ABC New Mexico}}, {{PBS New Mexico}}, {{FOX New Mexico}}, {{CW New Mexico}}, {{MyNetworkTV New Mexico}}, {{Univision New Mexico}}, {{Telefutura New Mexico}}, {{Telemundo New Mexico}} and {{Other TV Stations in New Mexico}}.--BenH 08:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If there's 20-50 in the category, that's not even really enough for one stub template, let alone 11! But these don't look like stub templates at all - are you sure that's what you really want, or do you just want navigation templates? Grutness...wha? 13:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're proposing stub articles (CBS New Mexico, NBC New Mexico, ABC New Mexico, PBS New Mexico, FOX New Mexico, CW New Mexico, MyNetworkTV New Mexico, Univision New Mexico, Telefutura New Mexico, Telemundo New Mexico...), just go ahead and create them. OTOH, there are several local network affiliates articles already -- KASY-TV, KENW, etc -- so perhaps you just need redirects, or a "list of television stations by network" page? Alai 15:59, 9 December 2006 (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.

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.
Most other major religions have stubcats for their religious figures and also the Sikhbiocat has at least 80-90 automatic stubs (from Category:Sikhism stubs that can be filled.Bakaman 01:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support template, for the sake of symmetry, but the "parent" is less than a page, so a split is completely unnecessary, and would leave same pretty small. Suggest upmerger. Alai 01:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not getting what youre saying? Could you simplify the stuff you said above? Are you saying I should create the template and redirect to the parent cat?Bakaman 02:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Alai 02:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Replies - I counted about 70 bio stubs, the other 80 or are general stubs. I think the cats should be separate if only because Category:Sikh politicians, Category:Sikh warriors, etc. are more fit to be categorized under Sikh religious figures and the bio stubs cat is about as big (if not bigger) than the Sikhism scripture, theology, practice, etc.Bakaman 02:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That's just the thing: if there's 80-90 bio-stubs, that leaves 50-60 in the parent; it may not be undersized as such, but it seems a bit premature to be creating a two-way split of a category that's not even in danger of reaching a page yet. (Having said that, I'm not opposed as such, if the Sikh editors would prefer that organisation.) Alai 03:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Update - I changes cat title to "Sikh people stubs", for consistencyBakaman 23:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Support and comment This would create a major category for stub items that can be brought to attention of specialist in this subject. Many editors engaged in Sikhism only deal with bio-type articles - so yes, I support this proposal. However, don't ask me, someone will have to allocate this to the stubbed items as I am not very active on Wikipedia at present.--Hari Singh 21:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hari singh was the only active Sikh (I'm a Hindu myself) member of WP:SIKH I could ask to comment. Like he said and my experience shows, a large number of articles would be able to be organized this way. Since Alai has said he isnt opposed to the creation either, I think I will create and organize the stubcat/template and also work on filling the parent cat as well.Bakaman 14:47, 13 December 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was create upmerged templates.

Having just gone through the Category:Novel stubs to sort them into the categories Category:1930s novel stubs, Category:1940s novel stubs, Category:1950s novel stubs, Category:1960s novel stubs, Category:1970s novel stubs, Category:1980s novel stubs, Category:1990s novel stubs, Category:2000s novel stubs, I came across numerous earlier in the century that could do with sorting. There is a Category:19th century novel stubs which caters for the earlier articles. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Aren't some of these going to be a tad small? Support templates for all, certainly, but categories only if there's 60, otherwise upmerge. Alai 03:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support upmerged templates per Alai, and categories for any that exceed 60. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:45, 10 December 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was create both as insectivora.
I counted 60 articles in the Mammal stubs category related to moles, shrews and hedgehogs, all of which belong to the order Insectivora. Eli Falk 13:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Insectivora and Insectivore two different things? Monni 13:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Insectivore is a word with two meanings:

1. An animal which eats insects
2. An animal from order insectivora.

Eli Falk 18:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't that make the category name ambiguos? Monni 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Since the non-stub parent would be Category:Insectivora, Category:Insectivora stubs would seem better. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Per CW. Alai 03:34, 8 December 2006 (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.

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 paramilitary as per Swpb.
See my subpage User:Swpb/Proposed terrorism stubs for a list of pages to be included. I have identified 74 articles for {{terrorist-stub}}, 103 for {{terrorism-stub}}, and 36 for {{terrorism-org-stub}}. I propose feeding the latter two to the same category until {{terrorism-org-stub}} passes the 60 mark, although assocition with Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism may make the threshold 30 - I'm not a member of that project, and I'm not clear on how the wikiproject association rule works. Not sure the best way to go about this, suggestions would be much appreciated. I am honestly surprised these stubs don't already exist. Totally reorganizing categories and tags per Grutness, see discussion below. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 06:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The thing about this is that it'd be extremely controversial. Category:Terrorists has been nominated for deletion many many times. It opens us up to a lot of subjective arguing. Incidentally, it has a mention in Words to Avoid. Just a massive can of worms, that's all. Crystallina 01:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thus, the tags would be worded as neutrally as possible, for example, the terrorist-org tag would read something like "This article about a group or organization which has been associated with terrorism" rather than "This article about a terrorist organization", and terrorist-stub would read "This article about an individual accused or suspected of terrorism or membership in a terrorist organization" rather than "This article about a terrorist". Terrorism-stub would simply read "This terrorism-related article..." (without the italics). I realize there is some potential subjectivity to this, but I think the overwhelming need for these stubs, evident by the sheer number of categories across which these articles are spread, overcomes this concern. While not everyone agrees on a strict definition of terrorism, I think in general associating the word with "acts of violence against groups of non-military personnel" is pretty fair. Nearly all of the articles I have included already use the word terrorism or terrorist, or refer to activities of groups almost universally agreed to engage in terrorism, such as Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the IRA. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 03:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Incidentally, I think it is important to note that Category:Terrorists has survived it's numerous CfDs. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 03:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Survived with no consensus; it got deleted once but overturned on DRV. It's still rather controversial and the lines get very fuzzy very fast. Crystallina 03:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
        • They do tend to get fuzzy, no arguement there. I just think this would be more of a boon to people with expertise in the subject than it would be a detriment to the project. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 03:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OpposeThis stub is just way too subjective for me. If we don't support disputed place stubs, then this is definitely not satisfactory.--Thomas.macmillan 03:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to oppose as well for the same reasons. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter - we're way into POV territory when we start using terms like this. Grutness...wha? 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• There must be some fairly NPOV way to tag stubs related to extra-military violence. Even if the word terrorism must be avoided, I think this is a needed addition. Can anyone propose more neutral terminology? —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 04:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • how about paramilitary-org-stub and paramilitary-bio-stub for paramilitary organisations and individuals? Not exactly the same scope, but close enough to cover a lot of the same ground. Grutness...wha? 05:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I like it. I would also like to cover articles about terrorism in general, the study thereof, and the responses to it. I believe there may be enough articles to form such a category. If there are, what name would you suggest? There are also certainly enough articles to fill a category on specific terrorist attacks. Paramilitary-attack-stub perhaps? —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 06:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The word "terrorist" is indeed problematic, but a scope about paramilitary activity sounds workable. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 08:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• OK, so far I have collected 92 for paramilitary-action-stub, 149 for paramilitary-bio-stub, and 61 for paramilitary-org-stub. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 21:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds good, as amended. Alai 03:35, 8 December 2006 (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.

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.
Would take care of all the sporting competitions, multi-sport events, etc. that are currently in the top sport stubs category. This will meet threshold - there are roughly 200 articles a page and these take up about half the front page (X year in Y event article formats). Also, if anyone knows of a better name, go ahead and mention it. Crystallina 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support and cheer loudly, as parent is oversized again. Alai 03:36, 8 December 2006 (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.

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.
Looking through the US-bridge-struct-stub category I think there are at least 40 or so articles tagged with US-bridge-struct-stub and US-rail-stub so I propose creating this merged into the two parent cats at first and then creating an appropriate category once it reaches threshold.--Carabinieri 12:03, 6 December 2006 (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.

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.
64 NZ-geo-stubs are now marked with the wellington-geo-stub template, and there's still some undersorting - time this got a separate category, methinks. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Alai 01:37, 6 December 2006 (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.

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.
While searching for articles to populate Category:Festivals in California, I found several short film festival articles that had no stubs at all, or that had {{festival-stub}}, but film stub. I looked for a film festival stub, but didn't find one. I did find film festivals in the following categories:

• Category:Film stubs 8
• Category:Film award stubs 48
• Category:Film organization stubs 30

That's 86 articles without looking for more unstubbed articles, or film award articles that might be hidden in some of the other film stub categories. ^BlankVerse 11:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• ISTR that this was proposed several months ago and was approved, but seems not to have been made (IIRC the idea was to split out music festivals, film festivals and religious festivals, or something like that - anyone remember the details?). If my memory is correct, then this can probably be speedied... but I'd like confirmation that my mind isn't up to its usual tricks again :) Grutness...wha? 13:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought this was discussed as well, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. I'll keep digging, but in the meantime, support. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • My best guess is that there are probably enough short music festival articles to get their own stub as well. ^BlankVerse 15:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support as I grow weary of classifying film festival stubs under {{film-org-stub}}. And the discussion was back in July, hosted by our very own Grutness. Cheers, Her Pegship 19:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hurray, Pegship! I only looked back through August because I didn't think it was that long ago (my, how time flies). ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• No wonder it sounded familiar :) Grutness...wha? 05:29, 7 December 2006 (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.

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.
Have counted well over 60 of these. Will also be a parent for Category:Dutch football biography stubs and Category:Dutch swimming biography stubs. Waacstats 20:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 11:06, 4 December 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was create.
Currently, the only road stub for New York is {{NewYork-State-Highway-stub}}. This is fine for state routes, but it creates an odd situation when a non-state road in New York (such as a county route) needs to be tagged as a stub, hence my proposal for a generic road stub for New York, as well as a cat for such. ~25 articles currently in Category:New York State Highway stubs (county routes and articles about non-state route roads) would be better suited for a generic template/category, and most of the articles in Category:County routes in Dutchess County, New York are untagged stubs that would also fall into the scope of the generic road stub but not the state highway stub. For the most part, every article that would be tagged with this stub is associated with the New York county routes WikiProject. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, thought it should have been done that way all along. Alai 03:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but with this reservation: How many roads in New York are notable enough for articles? Darcyj 12:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Mostly county roads; as for a number, it'd definitely be more than 60. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• How many of them are notable enough for articles is the business of AfD (if it comes to it, and obviously the writers in the first place); our business is just managing the roads that already have (stub) articles. Alai 23:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Just out of interest, Alai, is there any reason why you're keen on this split but far less so on the London one? Personally I can't see any difference between the two (support, BTW). see below Grutness...wha? 18:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Personally, I really can't see the similarity. These are already tagged as roads, are quite clearly in the "primarily notable as transport infrastructure" food group (rather than being essentially 'local' articles), and are currently in an inappropriately named, over-specific, and questionably-capitalised stub cat (that the roadfans seem to be inordinately fond of). The London ones, well, aren't. Alai 21:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The London ones should also be stubbed as roads - that they aren't is neither here nor there. They are also currently in an inappropriate stub cat - a geo-stub cat, unlike every other road article I know of. Many of them are also transport infrastructure, and - if the NY cat is made, I would expect to find New York City streets listed in it as well in exactly the same way (there are quite a large number of them currently residing in the US-road-stub category). There is no difference at all between these two proposals, and if one is made, it forms a further precedent for the other. Grutness...wha? 22:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That they aren't, on the contrary, argues that many of them are only marginally anything to do with transport (as is also clearly the case by inspection); to argue that they're "inappropriately" tagged as geo-stubs seems to be putting this backwards. This category is being cleary and explicitly proposed on the "transport" basis, and your gloss on what it "should" contain is rather unhelpful. Once again, asking NYC editors which scope and sorting scheme they'd find more helpful would seem to be prudent, rather than ignoring both notability and utility in favour of an arrangement based on semantics. Alai 22:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • So the New York City streets marked with US-road-stub should go where, exactly? Are they or are they not covered by NewYork-road-stub? If they're not, then I oppose this proposal, because it clearly doesn't cover what it says it does, and needs considerable tinkering to make sure it's for "New York roads except thpse which are primarily known for other things than transportation stubs". If they're not, then why are they marked with US-road-stub? And if they're not, why not? These are roads within the United States - in fact, within New York State, and as such, there is no logic whatsoever in marking them with anything other than the stub which is for exactly the topic which they are part of. To say that a road suddenly stops being a road because it has buildings on it is ridiculous. Both the London and New York proposals cover exactly the same sort of thing - thoroughfares within the boundaries of a specific subnational region. Arguing that one is worth creating and the other isn't makes no sense whatsoever. And arguing that for some reason the London ones should not be marked with a road stub because of objections to the split of geo-stubs by type ignores the fact that we have had road-stub and its subcategories for a very long time. You might just as well argue that we shouldn't have rail-stub or any of its subdivisions. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Since it appears my initial proposal has been skewed out of proportion here, let me reiterate my point: my intentions were to create this stub and the associated cat so that articles for roads not maintained by the state such as county roads or city streets would have a proper stub type. Additionally, I am not requesting that the existing NY highway stub be abolished - rather, it should become a "sub-stub" of the proposed road stub. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
      • No - no-one was expecting you to mean that. The problem was whether you also intended to include NYC streets and roads. I thought you were (correctly, it seems), whereas it looks like Alai didn't think they'd be included. I can support this scope for the category far more easily than if the NYC thoroughfares were not included. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah, when I made this proposal, I fully intended on including NYC streets and roads, as a couple have seeped into the NY highway stub cat and, after reading this discussion, it appears that the US road stub cat has a handful as well. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
      • More than a handful - there are about a dozen in the first column of Category:United States road stubs - 1.e., about 20% of that column. Grutness...wha? 22:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
        • "Skewed out of proportion" seems about right to me; I think it would have been highly preferable to 'keep what happens in London-road-stub proposal, in the London-road-stub proposal'. No, obviously I'm not suggesting that there's any problem at all in sorting what there's common consent to tag as a -road-stub, that happens to be in New York, as a New York road stub. As I've already said, the "street" vs "road" distinction is moot, if the article really a "road transport" one. I'm saying it's far from obviously useful to take what's for all intents and purposes a "local human geography" article that happens to have "Street" in the title, and insist that it be tagged as roads, absent of any prior inclination for anyone to do so. Alai 03:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Virtually identical situations i.e., urban roads, ended up being commented on in exact opposite ways, and that certainly needed mentioning somewhere - and it had to be either here or in the London proposal. If I'd commented on it in the London section, you could have just as easily made comments saying 'keep what happens in NewYork-road-stub proposal, in the NewYork-road-stub proposal'. It's clear from the US-road-stub category that local urban streets are being marked as roads. It's also clear from almost every geo-stub category that they shouldn't be marked as geo-stubs. So, where to put them? Obviously in a road-stub category directly related to the area in which they exist, be it New York, London, or wherever. If streets and roads are regarded as a local human geography topic, then that's fine. They'll be marked within a regional-road-stub type where anyone working on such matters can find them readily. If there were complainst about these actually being geo-stubs, there would never have been a split of all the dozens of different road-stub categories there currently are. You can't have it both ways - it can't be a road stub when it's a road that has gaps between the buildings and runs across the country and not a road-stub when it runs through a city and has buildings on most of its length. Grutness...wha? 05:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'll create the stub/cat sometime later today. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, in theory you should wait the (now) 5 days before creating, which would be Dec 6th. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Wasn't sure if there was a waiting period or not. That's no problem. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. It's right here. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Since it appears that there is a good deal of support for this stub and the proposal is now well-beyond the five day period, I'll go ahead and create it. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:14, 8 December 2006 (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.

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:1972 Summer Olympics stubs 91
• Category:1964 Summer Olympics stubs 86
• Category:1960 Summer Olympics stubs 77
• Category:1976 Summer Olympics stubs 75
• Category:1956 Summer Olympics stubs 65
• Category:1952 Summer Olympics stubs 60

These have grown a huge amount, but fortunately they're well-categorised, so splitting should be easy enough. IIRC the '72 one is already proposed and approved. Alai 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Make it so. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 10:58, 4 December 2006 (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.

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.
Only 51, I'm afraid, but the euro-sports-venues are oversized again, and this seems to be the largest split available. Alai 03:19, 4 December 2006 (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.

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.
Must have been Haiti month in November: this seems to be the largest candidate split available, at 54. (Much uncategorisation by nationality, however: only about half.) We could go for a Category:European painter stubs, over threshold from just the Poles and Spaniards, but I don't know how useful that'd be in the long run. Alai 03:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Someone really likes creating stub-level Haitian biographies!--Thomas.macmillan 15:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - yay for Haiti.Bakaman 04:05, 10 December 2006 (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.

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's 63 articles double-stubbed with Category:American novelist stubs and Category:American short story writer stubs, which suggests to me we're rapidly going the way of the actors with these. I suggest a similar solution (i.e. the Category:American screen actor stubs). We'll probably have to split the fiction-writers by genre pretty soon anyway though (cue noises of db grinding in background). Alai 01:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, I guess - it's going to be a massive category. I originally saw the novelist/short story stubs as intended for people who exclusively or primarily wrote for one or the other, but it could go both ways. Crystallina 14:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm fully in favour of keeping those, too, on exactly the basis you suggest, just as long as the double-stubbing doesn't get outta hand. Alai 18:20, 4 December 2006 (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.

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.
Thought I'd proposed this already, but I can't find a link to it. Anyhow, there's now 65 double-stubbed with the two parents, one of which is significantly oversized. Alai 01:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Support per nom. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 11:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nom.Bakaman 23:50, 9 December 2006 (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.

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 see this one coming, but there's 63 double-stubbed this way, one parent is oversized. Alai 01:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Thomas.macmillan 15:19, 6 December 2006 (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.

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.
Further to the musicians, and the need to whack this down below 800; there's something like 129 of these, at least 80 of them double-stubbed in some manner. Alai 03:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Not sure how much I like this one. It seems like we've begun splitting both by party, by constituent nation and by chronology, so the British -politician tree is getting somewhat complicated. On the other hand, we've already split off the Scots. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 11:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like it much myself; however, {{England-bio-stub}} is an oversized type, so pretty much necessarily we either have to split it on such bases as present themselves, or get rid of it and split the Brits on different axes. Alai 04:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Support as per original propose. Monni 14:34, 8 December 2006 (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.

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 with previous splits i would like to propose

• Category:Hungarian athletics biography stubs – template already exists - 61
• Category:Finnish athletics biography stubs – template already exists - 70
• {{Bulgaria-athletics-bio-stub}} – feeding into Category:European athletics biography stubs and Category:Bulgarian people stubs - 40
• {{Netherlands-athletics-bio-stub}} – feeding into Category:European athletics biography stubs and earlier proposed Category:Dutch sportspeople stubs - 40

These should help cut down the European category. Also although neither Category:African athletics biography stubs nor Category:Central America and Caribbean athletics biography stubs is not in need of pruning

• {{Cuba-athletics-bio-stub}} / Category:Cuban athletics biography stubs } - 65

is possible and for future splits

• {{Nigeria-athletics-bio-stub}} – feeding into Category:African athletics biography stubs and Category:Nigerian people stubs - 45
• {{Ethiopia-athletics-bio-stub}} – feeding into Category:African athletics biography stubs and Category:Ethiopian people stubs - 44
• {{SouthAfrica-athletics-bio-stub}} – feeding into Category:African athletics biography stubs and Category:South African people stubs - 40

Waacstats 23:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Let me also throw in Category:Australian athletics biography stubs, 66 on double stubbing alone. (I think actual double-stubbing, as far as I can see there's no {{Australia-athletics-bio-stub}}, {{Australia-athlete-stub}}, etc yet.) Alai 01:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't propose Australia as that would have left Oceania-athletics-bio-stub serious short of numbers at 26. Waacstats 22:22, 4 December 2006 (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.

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.
The record labels are over 800 again, and while my db dump is now over a month old, there's still nothing remotely like a country reaching 60 (but there's also huge uncatting by country). For the time being, I suggest a Category:European record label stubs, which would be viable if we throw in the Germans, Swedes, and French (separately templated, of course). Alai 17:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• I though European record labels were approved already. I'll do some digging to see if I can find it. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe it was just Germany and Australia I proposed previously, which it was correctly pointed out I'd no idea if they'd actually reach threshold (I was just hoping, on the basis of the aforementioned undercategorisation). Alai 17:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I did find this discussion about Italian record labels, and you even suggested a {{Euro-record-label-stub}}. =P Oh, and support. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah-hah! Close enough to fair warning for my purposes, I think... Alai 21:51, 2 December 2006 (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.

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.
Canada bio stubs have reached 7 pages since the last dump; a rudimentary search provided me with plenty of candidates, and probably more unsorted. Crystallina 14:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• This was actually approved back in November, so it's probably a speedy create or something like that. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:48, 4 December 2006 (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.

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, upmerge cat.
We already have stub categories for United Kingdom Members of Parliament (MPs) from the other two major parties ({{Labour-UK-MP-stub}} and {{Conservative-UK-MP-stub}}). At the time those stub categories were created earlier this year, there were not many articles on Liberal MPs. That's partly because editors have concentrated on creating articles on more recent MPs (and obviously there have been no Liberal MPs since 1948).

However, as coverage of 19th century MPs grows, there are an increasing number of articles on Liberals: until the 1920s, they were one of the two dominant political parties. Category:Liberal MPs (UK) now has over 300 articles, some of which had existed previously but not been correctly categorised. I haven't counted how many of them are stubs (does someone have a tool to do that?), but I think that about half of the current crop are stubs, and I know that more will be created. (Note those counting: it's not enough simply to chck the intersection between Category:Liberal MPs (UK) and {{UK-MP-stub}}; some of th existing stubs may be tagged as {{Scotland-MP-stub}} or {{UK-politician-stub}}, and I have found plenty that have a much more generalised stub tag) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

For information The discussion which led to the creation of {{Labour-UK-MP-stub}} and {{Conservative-UK-MP-stub}} is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/August 2006 completed#Split_of_.7B.7BUK-MP-stub.7D.7D_.2F_Cat:British_MP_stubs. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Support template. Create category as soon as we have 60 relevant articles. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 18:22, 1 December 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was create.
With the success of the Tanzania stub (there are well over 100 in the category created yesterday), I am proposing another major stub to break down the behemoth that is the Africa-ethno-group-stub. I haven't done a count, but Sudan has 173 articles in their "Ethnic groups in Sudan" category. Just guessing, but I bet their is at least 100 stubs to be found for this one. I am also proposing templates and upmerging for the Kenya (59 articles in category) and Ethiopia (49).--Thomas.macmillan 14:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Support per nom. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 17:28, 3 December 2006 (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.

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.
In the Category:Art_movements_stubs there is no De Stijl/Neo-modernism art stub; perhaps an addition would be helpful? It seems hard to describe articles like Red_and_Blue_Chair as any other type of art. AC 14:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand (actually, I suspect you don't understand). That category contains individual articles about specific movements. The article on De Stijl is well beyond stub level. Individual works of art are sorted according to what they are, rather than the movement involved in their style. In this case, the item in question is a piece of furniture and as such should be stubbed with furniture-stub as well as art-stub. Hopefully it's in the permanent Category:De Stijl category though. Grutness...wha? 23:16, 1 December 2006 (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.

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 previous English-regional splits; parent is oversized again. 57 articles on the basis of what's now a verrrrrry olllllld db dump, may well have grown in the meantime. Alai 22:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I was forgetting about Wiltshire, which is officially in the SW, so it's over 60. I've speedied this, since the precedent of English regions seems pretty clear. Alai 01:43, 3 December 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was create.
With a hand count, I found 88 potential stubs and it has one sub category.--Thomas.macmillan 20:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to support this, if I may. I've been trying to write up articles for a bunch of Zimbabwean sculptors, and I know there are more than 60 of those alone. I'm not quite ready to request a stub for Zimbabwean artists, but that might not be so far off... --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 06:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. The category should be named Category:Zimbabwean people stubs to match the corresponding material (perm cat and related stub categories). Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 17:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, now that we're at it anyway, an upmerged -politician template might be an idea. Do we have an updated count for them? Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 11:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't do a handcount, but there are 47 articles in the Zimbabwean politican category.--Thomas.macmillan 14:08, 4 December 2006 (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.

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

The result of the debate was do not create.
I would like to propose the above stub, and I propose that {{Fann Wong film-stub}} feeds into Category:Fann Wong films. Voda voda 19:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• There are 7 articles in Category:Fann Wong films, so I'm not sure you'll be able to get 60 stubs out of that. Oppose ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Plus, 99.999% of film stub categories are created by genre or nationality rather than participant, so it wouldn't really conform to the convention either. If you want to connect a bunch of the actress' films, you might try using a navigation box instead of a stub template. Cheers, Her Pegship 23:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • A navigation box was what I was looking for! Thanks! Voda voda 02:44, 4 December 2006 (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.

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 bio, do not create politician.
I got a little inspired by the proposal for Zimbabwe and I counted 59 stubs here. Suggest both template and category. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 17:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done a count, but perhaps an upmerged -politician template might be an idea since we're going through this material anyway. Does anybody have an updated count for them? Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 11:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done a hand count, but there are only 27 articles in the Zambia politician category.--Thomas.macmillan 14:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it was worth a shot :) Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 14:21, 4 December 2006 (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.

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.
7 Television Networks will be reinstated and I can Propose

• {{CBS-stub}}-feeding into Category:CBS stubs
• {{NBC-stub}}-feeding into Category:NBC stubs
• {{ABC-stub}}-feeding into Category:ABC stubs
• {{TheCW-stub}}-feeding into Category:The CW stubs
• {{MyNetworkTV-stub}}-feeding into Category:My Network TV stubs
• {{Univision-stub}}-feeding into Category:Univision stubs
• {{Telefutura-stub}}-feeding into Category:Telefutura stubs All the Television Networks will be hitting 1000.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.215.153 (talk • contribs)

• The first 3 have already been deleted as a part of this discussion. Oppose all ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 04:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

All of them hitting 1,000? Not until pigs begin to fly. Oppose all Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 17:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose I could possibly see using network affiliation as a way of subdividing Category:United States television program stubs or Category:United States television biography stubs but categorizing commercial TV stations by stubs, which based on past practice of stub assignment would be the main use of a plain network stub, is not a good stub assignment. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Found an existing {{MNTV-stub}} / Category:MyNetworkTV stubs pair that got overlooked back in October containing all of 5 station stubs. Have sent that pair directly to SFD without collecting dust at Discoveries first. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:49, 3 December 2006 (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.

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.
This would be a great place for all the character articles clogging up the Computer-Video-Game-Stubs category. If you have a better name or anything you wish to revise, feel free. It seems redundant to list the articles that would fall under this stub, but I will if it is required. Serph, Hitoshura, and Argilla are a few quick examples.N9philim 01:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Already exists with {{cvg-char-stub}}. It may need further sorting though. Crystallina 01:49, 7 December 2006 (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.