Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

Upmerge templates for Category:Asian building and structure stubs

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

The result of the debate was create upmerged templates, and categories as they become numerically viable.
Create the following templates and upmerge. Sooner or later it will need to be done given that buildings and structure are a very general category and it gives us a standard framework to build upon. It would also reveal the disproportion of stubs for certain countries and a move towards a more even coverage of Asian buildingsBlofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong support, and speedy: much better than continental template. One or two of these might argue for being double-upmerged into Europe also (though doubtless the UN geoscheme has them all in one or the other). Alai (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I've been to Cyprus and have always considered it Europe but these days they seem to label Turkey and Cyprus under Asia. Georgia is pretty much border line I think Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus hadn't occurred to me; I was thinking in terms of Azerbaijan, Armenia, possibly Georgia, and I vaguely recall at least one definition the Europe/Asia border has it running through one of the CARs (confusingly enough). But if we stick with the UN, that's good enough for me. Alai (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


speedy Category:Austrian actor stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

Template has over 60 articles. Waacstats (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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


{{Svalbard-geo-stub}} and Cat:Svalbard geography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

I count 115 Svalbard geography stubs, so it is about time it got its own template and cat. The nineteen counties of Norway each have their own cat, but Svalbard is not part of any county, instead being a overseas territory, and has seen a recent explosion in short geography-related articles. Arsenikk (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Close enough to existing pattern to be sped, I think. Alai (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


Split of Switzerland-geo-stub

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

The result of the debate was create.
Category:Switzerland geography stubs has about 1100 articles - propose canton-specific templates, with categories speedied for any passing the 60 mark. We already have about half of them - the others would be:

Grutness...wha? 23:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - greatly needed The Bald One White cat 11:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Support templates, and any viable categories. By-canton categorisation (and infoboxing) seems to be relatively poor, though there's some undersorting to existing types. Manual re-sorting may be required, though if many of these are on large landforms, that may require a lot of multi-stubbing. If we need to upmerge to regions, I'd recommend using the NUTS-2 ones. Alai (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


Split of Category:Russia geography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.


Previously Russian geography stubs have been sorted by way of Federal District, however the time has come that they should be split into Federal subject categories and stubs. Those which need creation are:


--Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 04:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all of them are viable to be split from the regional categories. Are you certain all of the oblasts have over 60 geography stubs in them? I mean this is easily possible of course but I know a lot of content is missing for some oblasts in terms of rural settlements and rivers. I'd support the creation and sorting of the templates and then upmerge the oblasts which are not viable to have their own categories yet. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • There's nowhere near enough stubs for these to all be viable, and none of the regional categories is close to being oversized yet. The largest has only 588 stubs, and contains the stubs for 18 oblasts - quick calculation shows there's no way that they will all reach 60 stubs - and it's doubtful whether any of them would. And another of the regions has fewer than 200 stubs. I definitedly oppose any new categories at present (except in cases where there are clearly 60 stubs), and don't really see the need yet for any of the templates, though i suppose they wouldn't hurt too much. Two of the names on your list needed altering to match stub naming standards, BTW - I've altered the Yamalo-Nenets and KhantyMansi ones on your list to meet stub standards. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support upmerged stub templates for all: if we don't need them now, it's starting to look foreseeable for us to need them sometime soon. Oppose any categories that wouldn't hit 60. If any of the regional cats pass 800 before the oblasts become numerically viable, let's pool brains again to see if there are other sensible sub-regional categories to "lump" to. Alai (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support creation. If any of these fall short of the required sixty stubs, I will personally create some stubs to cover for the shortage :) It is easier to switch to organizing the stubs by the federal subject now, when the total number of stubs is around the minimum, than it is later, when the number of stubs is going to be in the hundreds if not thousands. As for the statement doubting that any of these needed stub types would ever reach the minimum, please consider that with over 1,000 cities/towns, over 1,500 urban-type settlements, and with almost 1,900 districts in Russia, such doubt seems kind of strange (and note that I am not even counting numerous rivers, mountains, or rural localities, many of which will eventually have stubs/articles of their own).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not a matter of some of them falling below 60, but rather, almost all of them inevitably doing so. Creating templates now and upmerging them avoids the difficulty you mention of re-sorting (if and) when there are thousands. Alai (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Upmerging always get's me. So what you are saying is that we create templates for all of them now and continue to categorise by Federal District, and then create Federal Subject categories for them once they reach 60? --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Exactly right. The templates can be made, but categorising articles in the current categories. It will be easy enough to check which ones reach 60 (using the "what links hear" link in the toolbox) - once they do, there should be no problem with new categories for them. Grutness...wha? 22:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. The sorting by federal district is not only impractical now, it has been very artificial from the very beginning. The federal districts of Russia are not the constituent units of the Russian Federation. They are more akin to Standard Federal Regions of the U.S. Colchicum (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Specific sorting of American films

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 know the convention at WP:Films is to stub sort by genre, but myself and other editors i know like to work through years in film. I don't think the sheer number of American films is a reason not to organize it. What for instance if I wanted to work through American films of 1941?. How would I know which are stubs, I;d have to plough through them all and check each one. Given that US subjects however many thousands of articles we have are stub tagged shouldn't this be the same for US films too? Why are they exempt from US tagging? I know that many people would probably see this proposal as too extreme but I think it is a valid one given the considerable improvmeent needed on many notable American films and would be a very useful tool to organizing exactly what needs improving and working towards a situation where we can actively work at getting them all up to start class. As an example {{2007-US-film-stub}}. Naturally a bot would be used. If some years don't hit 60, which I would find highly unlikely for later years then they could always be upmerged e.g Category:1900s United States film stubs. I propose the following:
The Bald One White cat 10:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support + Comment I know when I've been working on films from 1930-1940 in the past, of the 200+ articles per category, most of them have been American films (as you'd expect). I think this is a good idea to identify the stubs per year, as per Blofield's rationale. A question though - most of these will alread be stubbed by genre (1930s-drama-film, etc) - what is the policy on how many stubs an article should have? I've seen some articles in the past with 3 or 4 stub tags, and to me that just looks messy (I don't know how other editors feel on this). If these stubs were created, what would happen to existing stubs on the articles? Lugnuts (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep anything over three stub categories begins to look awful and cluttered. Basically I think there should be one genre stub cat {1930s-drama-film-stub} and one country template e.g {1933-US-film-stub}. Occasionally the film may clearly be in another genre so it may need 3 but gneerally I think it is possible to have two stub templates per article. In terms of organization and content building I know it would be a very useful tool and may even encourage editor to work at devleoping the years and also the lists The Bald One White cat 14:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong feeling of despair and hopelessness. This is a proposal to split a category that does not currently need to be split, on an axis totally at odds with the basis it's currently organised. With no rationale as to why it it's at all likely to be in any way more useful. Suppose you didn't want to work on all the films of 1941. Who exactly does, anyway? This would inevitably give rise to both more multi-stubbing clutter, and to inconsistency in tagging between those that only get a by-year tag, those that only get a by-genre tag, and those that get both. As I recall, the original point of splitting by country was on the basis that various countries had their own distinct, indigenous film industries, characterised by a particular film industry. So why did we end up with Category:British film stubs? That seems to me to be a poorly thought-out notion entirely. The distinction between a "British" and an "American" film is often entirely inobvious, if not to say pretty subjective. (Nationality of the cast, the director, the crew, the location, or the money?) Come to that, why is the category at Category:British films when the main article is at cinema of the United Kingdom? Given the size of the UK-film- type, it may be a little late to try to get rid of it, but adding a US- type would be throwing good effort after bad. Alai (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
In your opinion yes, not fact. Equally how are you do know the film work group wouldn't find it useful as a way to develop the articles? You and a number of others persist that genre categories are of vital importance, but basically you are assuming that editors would be more interested in working through e.g "2000s drama film stubs" which includes films not only from the United States but just about everywhere else China, Philippines, Thailand, Brazil, Mali etc. Do you think it is more common for editors to want to work on films from every country in one stub category which are often barely related in terms of cinema, language and style? Or is having stub categories for US films which is completely in keeping with other US-stub sorting on wikipedia, which many more are interested in and focus almost purely on would be an absurd idea as a tool for the film project?? As for your justification that it is invalid because there is often an overlap between American and British film, you must surely know that there is in every way a strong overlapping in production between Italian and French films, and spanish and argentine films yet we have a decent country structure in place for each of these. The Bald One White cat 09:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I must admit I agree with Alai - this sounds like it will simply complicate matters. And things are more complicated than even he suggests, since the "by nation" split is often a confusion of "by nation" and "by language". I think this may need considerable thought. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong feeling of despair and hopelessness????? . In that case if thats your attitude thats the last time I ever list a stub proposal here. The Bald One White cat 09:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoabackupthereabit. It was a valid suggestion for a split, and it was also a valid rationale why it wouldn't be the best idea. I appreciate that the "strong feeling of despair" line may not have been the most appropriate, but we all get feelings like that about stub splits every now and again and sometimes they come out (I know I'm one of the first to say things that others can take the wrong way - it happened recently at SFD). Please let's just assess the options and try to find a good way of splitting things. Both of you are important stub workers, so no talk of stalking off, huh? Grutness...wha? 11:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Haven't thought this through completly but how about splitting the American films out of the current genre/decade categories so we would have something along the lines of {{2000s-US-drama-film-stub}} - Category:2000s American drama film stubs etc. I'm sure that in the same way that the people working through Category:drama film stubs may not know much about say spanish films, those working through a Category:1900s United States film stubs may not know much about horror films. Waacstats (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
That would be an excellent idea I think and would solve my concern about the generalisation. Naturally we wouldn't want to have that category split too much but making American films more distinct from them would be a good move The Bald One White cat 13:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


{{Norway-politician-1740s-stub}} and {{Norway-politician-1750s-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create.
The thing is, while there are not 60 stubs of Norwegian politicians born in the 1740s or 1750s, this is meant to be categorized in the large Category:Norwegian politician, 18th century birth stubs. Categorizing here, and not in the vague Category:Norwegian politician stubs, would be good. Punkmorten (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy support per precedent. Waacstats (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy, and might as well throw in the remaining decades, too. Alai (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • SpeedyBlofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


{{Korea-writer-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create.
The Bald One White cat 15:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll upmerge this now. The Bald One White cat 11:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Category:Central American writer stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
The Bald One White cat 21:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support with by nation templates. Waacstats (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
There are many missing articles from spanish wiki which I have and will be adding further so that seems like a logical idea. Upmerge the ones that don't qualify? The Bald One White cat 18:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposals:

Could somebody offer a stub count and which need upmerging, me has to go to beddy boys. Cheers The Bald One White cat 22:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Change to {{ElSalvador-writer-stub}} and add {{Guatemala-writer-stub}}. Probably best to upmerge all of them till we have an exact figure.Waacstats (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, but one comment - Mexico is rarely if ever described as being in Central America, so hopefully it will reach threshold. Grutness...wha? 22:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah - I see it's already got its own cat... and I've just removed the vandalism from it :/ Grutness...wha? 22:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Nepal-school-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create.

Template upmerged

Create as upmerged template for {{Asia-school-stub}} and {{Nepal-stub}}. Most of the 26 articles in Category:Schools in Nepal are stubs. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support Create upmerged template. As long as it doesn't encourage the creation of non notable school articles The Bald One White cat 17:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yup - an upmerged template here makes a lot of sense. Grutness...wha? 01:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Split of Category:Romania geography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
We already have templates for all(?) the counties upmerged to regional cats. Someone has been busy and the following are all viable on the basis of those templates.

Waacstats (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy. Alai (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Singapore-struct-stub}} and {{SouthKorea-struct-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create Singapore type.
Much needed. Would also take many out of the geography stubs cat. How we are missing one for singapore I have no idea The Bald One White cat 21:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Note that we do have a {{Korea-struct-stub}}, currently upmerged -- we seem to mostly have "conjoined" stub types for (the) Korea(s). I'd be happy to see an upmerged Singapore tag, and I think we could speedy that. Alai (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Norway-gov-stub}} and Cat:Norwegian government stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
I count ca 70 stubs for government agencies, ministries, affairs etc in Category:Norway stubs, so should be speediable per S2. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There certainly seem to be a few, though my knowledge of Norwegian is not good enough to know at a glance whether there are 60, and Category:Norway stubs isn't crammed full (seems to be a bit of undersorting, too). A template's a good idea, and if there are indeed 60 then I've no objection to a category either. Grutness...wha? 22:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up on the undersorting- I've gone through A-J the lot sorting any that could have gone in subcats - and the main cat's down from 460 to 430 375. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC), updated 00:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Infosec-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was do not create.
There are a great number of information security related articles which need care to knit them together and flesh them out. Currently, the articles are spread across financial/economic, business, risk analysis/management, and other topics. One of threads that binds these together is information security which is often under-represented as in the following articles. These are not all stubs, but the parts relevant to information security may be considered stubs in some cases. Single loss expectancy, Risk assessment (I've begun to add infosec information to the article), Risk management, Information assurance, Information security, Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Vulnerability (computing), Exploit (computer security), Computer security, Computer insecurity. Thanks. DavidBailey (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Perhaps this should be scoped more as "computer security"; there is already a {{crypto-stub}} but I imagine there are lots of other sub-cats to be considered. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Information security is actually a broader topic than computer security. It encompasses things like communications systems and networks, security awareness training, and even things such as physical building security. The problem is that there are many more specific-type stubs, such as cryptography, but nothing that encompasses this broader discipline. As a result, there is no cohesive information security sections within relevant articles. Basically, the information security aspects of relevant articles are being overlooked, or added only disjointedly and intermittently. DavidBailey (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What would be the permcat for this type? The closest I could find was Category:Information sensitivity, which I believe is not the same thing. Also, if it's portions of articles which need further development on information security, it's {{sectstub}} you need. I can try to get a count for you if you can nail down where I should look. Thanks - Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Or {{expand-section}}, as it's canonically called these days. I share all the above concerns: one person's broader topic is another's more loosely-defined one, I fear, and this could cut across existing types in a way that might not be helpful for other editors coming at the same topics from different disciplinary scopings. Likewise, 'numerosity' could be a concern. Perhaps a talk-page template would be a better way to go. (Is there a Wikiproject/Task Force/Work Group to cover this area?) Alai (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, it's not just expanding the section, it's that there isn't one, regarding information security, in a lot of these articles. I was wondering if a Wikiproject would be the way to go instead of a stub tag, but I'm less familiar with the administration and operation of those. In my efforts to locate a Wikiproject regarding information security, I came up empty. Under Computing, the closest would be "Computer Science". Under Information Science, there really isn't anything related. DavidBailey (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
        • If push comes to shove, you can always create an empty section, and add {{expand-section}}... Though if the article is otherwise-complete looking, that might be a little jarring, but it seems preferable to labelling the whole article a stub, if it isn't. Alai (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
      • However, I did find a proposal for Computer and Information Security taskforce that looks promising. I'll redirect my efforts there. DavidBailey (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Analytical chemistry stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Proposed for speedy create - There's already a template. The category got upmerged into physical chemistry stubs 2 years ago, presumably for lack of entries... There are currently 67 stubs for this category, after a not-really-complete sorting process, and several people to actively work on sorting & improving the articles. The category would focus and accelerate that. -- Jaeger5432 | Talk 16:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Recreated under WikiProject Chemistry as {{analytical-chem-stub}}, with category and hierachy. Physchim62 (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Specific sorting of American films

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 know the convention at WP:Films is to stub sort by genre, but myself and other editors i know like to work through years in film. I don't think the sheer number of American films is a reason not to organize it. What for instance if I wanted to work through American films of 1941?. How would I know which are stubs, I;d have to plough through them all and check each one. Given that US subjects however many thousands of articles we have are stub tagged shouldn't this be the same for US films too? Why are they exempt from US tagging? I know that many people would probably see this proposal as too extreme but I think it is a valid one given the considerable improvmeent needed on many notable American films and would be a very useful tool to organizing exactly what needs improving and working towards a situation where we can actively work at getting them all up to start class. As an example {{2007-US-film-stub}}. Naturally a bot would be used. If some years don't hit 60, which I would find highly unlikely for later years then they could always be upmerged e.g Category:1900s United States film stubs. I propose the following:
The Bald One White cat 10:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support + Comment I know when I've been working on films from 1930-1940 in the past, of the 200+ articles per category, most of them have been American films (as you'd expect). I think this is a good idea to identify the stubs per year, as per Blofield's rationale. A question though - most of these will alread be stubbed by genre (1930s-drama-film, etc) - what is the policy on how many stubs an article should have? I've seen some articles in the past with 3 or 4 stub tags, and to me that just looks messy (I don't know how other editors feel on this). If these stubs were created, what would happen to existing stubs on the articles? Lugnuts (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep anything over three stub categories begins to look awful and cluttered. Basically I think there should be one genre stub cat {1930s-drama-film-stub} and one country template e.g {1933-US-film-stub}. Occasionally the film may clearly be in another genre so it may need 3 but gneerally I think it is possible to have two stub templates per article. In terms of organization and content building I know it would be a very useful tool and may even encourage editor to work at devleoping the years and also the lists The Bald One White cat 14:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong feeling of despair and hopelessness. This is a proposal to split a category that does not currently need to be split, on an axis totally at odds with the basis it's currently organised. With no rationale as to why it it's at all likely to be in any way more useful. Suppose you didn't want to work on all the films of 1941. Who exactly does, anyway? This would inevitably give rise to both more multi-stubbing clutter, and to inconsistency in tagging between those that only get a by-year tag, those that only get a by-genre tag, and those that get both. As I recall, the original point of splitting by country was on the basis that various countries had their own distinct, indigenous film industries, characterised by a particular film industry. So why did we end up with Category:British film stubs? That seems to me to be a poorly thought-out notion entirely. The distinction between a "British" and an "American" film is often entirely inobvious, if not to say pretty subjective. (Nationality of the cast, the director, the crew, the location, or the money?) Come to that, why is the category at Category:British films when the main article is at cinema of the United Kingdom? Given the size of the UK-film- type, it may be a little late to try to get rid of it, but adding a US- type would be throwing good effort after bad. Alai (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
In your opinion yes, not fact. Equally how are you do know the film work group wouldn't find it useful as a way to develop the articles? You and a number of others persist that genre categories are of vital importance, but basically you are assuming that editors would be more interested in working through e.g "2000s drama film stubs" which includes films not only from the United States but just about everywhere else China, Philippines, Thailand, Brazil, Mali etc. Do you think it is more common for editors to want to work on films from every country in one stub category which are often barely related in terms of cinema, language and style? Or is having stub categories for US films which is completely in keeping with other US-stub sorting on wikipedia, which many more are interested in and focus almost purely on would be an absurd idea as a tool for the film project?? As for your justification that it is invalid because there is often an overlap between American and British film, you must surely know that there is in every way a strong overlapping in production between Italian and French films, and spanish and argentine films yet we have a decent country structure in place for each of these. The Bald One White cat 09:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I must admit I agree with Alai - this sounds like it will simply complicate matters. And things are more complicated than even he suggests, since the "by nation" split is often a confusion of "by nation" and "by language". I think this may need considerable thought. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong feeling of despair and hopelessness????? . In that case if thats your attitude thats the last time I ever list a stub proposal here. The Bald One White cat 09:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoabackupthereabit. It was a valid suggestion for a split, and it was also a valid rationale why it wouldn't be the best idea. I appreciate that the "strong feeling of despair" line may not have been the most appropriate, but we all get feelings like that about stub splits every now and again and sometimes they come out (I know I'm one of the first to say things that others can take the wrong way - it happened recently at SFD). Please let's just assess the options and try to find a good way of splitting things. Both of you are important stub workers, so no talk of stalking off, huh? Grutness...wha? 11:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Haven't thought this through completly but how about splitting the American films out of the current genre/decade categories so we would have something along the lines of {{2000s-US-drama-film-stub}} - Category:2000s American drama film stubs etc. I'm sure that in the same way that the people working through Category:drama film stubs may not know much about say spanish films, those working through a Category:1900s United States film stubs may not know much about horror films. Waacstats (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
That would be an excellent idea I think and would solve my concern about the generalisation. Naturally we wouldn't want to have that category split too much but making American films more distinct from them would be a good move The Bald One White cat 13:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Artistic gymnast stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Recently created - already oversized, propose the following splits

all will be over 60. Waacstats (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Split of Switzerland-geo-stub

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

The result of the debate was create.
Category:Switzerland geography stubs has about 1100 articles - propose canton-specific templates, with categories speedied for any passing the 60 mark. We already have about half of them - the others would be:

Grutness...wha? 23:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - greatly needed The Bald One White cat 11:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Support templates, and any viable categories. By-canton categorisation (and infoboxing) seems to be relatively poor, though there's some undersorting to existing types. Manual re-sorting may be required, though if many of these are on large landforms, that may require a lot of multi-stubbing. If we need to upmerge to regions, I'd recommend using the NUTS-2 ones. Alai (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

speedy Category:Austrian actor stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

Template has over 60 articles. Waacstats (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

{{Svalbard-geo-stub}} and Cat:Svalbard geography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

I count 115 Svalbard geography stubs, so it is about time it got its own template and cat. The nineteen counties of Norway each have their own cat, but Svalbard is not part of any county, instead being a overseas territory, and has seen a recent explosion in short geography-related articles. Arsenikk (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Close enough to existing pattern to be sped, I think. Alai (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:moth stubs families

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

The result of the debate was create.

Parent is oversized. Alai (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Support for any sub-taxon which has enough stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

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

{{Earthquake-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create.

Owing to confusion at the Canadian WikiProject over what geo-stubs are used for, they seem to have been labelling earthquakes as geo-stubs (since they relate to geography - questionable, since they actually relate more to geology, but still). Given that they are specific events, we generally stub-sort them as history stubs. In order to alleviate this confusion, I'd like to propose {{Earthquake-stub}}, plus separate by-country stubs for earthquakes in several countries/regions where they may be useful, as follows:

All would be upmerged into Category:Earthquake stubs and into the respective history stub categories for now, with separate categories once threshold is met. Category:Earthquake stubs itself would be a subtype of Category:History stubs, Category:Geography stubs, and Category:Tectonics stubs. Grutness...wha? 22:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I feel their pain, since both fields start with "geo", tend to share buildings on university campuses, and blur together at the edges in my mind, too. Support all. Alai (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Geography is not simply locations. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • That's correct. Which is not to say that earthquakes aren't more to do with geology, as Grutness pointed out. Alai (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
      • ...and while geography is more than just locations, geo-stubs are only used for locations, so a new stub type is desirable. Grutness...wha? 22:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Definately the right step to take Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree. Also because Canada has its own geography wikiproject and therefore the Canadian earthquake stub could probably be a subcat of that wikiproject as well. Black Tusk (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Stubs aren't subcategories of wikiprojects. In any case, there's almost certainly nowhere near enough articles for a specific category of Canadian earthquake stubs at the moment. Grutness...wha? 04:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
      • That's not what ment. What I ment is the Canada WikiProject has subprojects (e.g. Geography, Ontario, Quebec) and if you tag the template or category talk page it automatically brings it into the wikiproject. This is how Canadian and most other country articles, categories, templates etc are. Black Tusk (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Project and article tags are distinct. The article may be tagged with {{earthquake-stub}} but added to the Canada geogaphy WikiProject with a talk page template. I understand what you mean, but the point is immaterial for the purposes of defining stub categories and templates. Mindmatrix 04:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
        • (after edit conflict, and generally agreeing with Mindmatrix) That's not how stub templates normally are - they don't normally link with WikiProjects like that. WikiProjects have their own assessment templates for talk pages as a separate system to stub templates. There's no harm in a WikiProject adding a link to its main page in a stub category - that's quite usual. But stub templates don't normally categorise articles as "belonging" to a WikiProject in that way. Grutness...wha? 04:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree for general {{earthquake-stub}}. According to Google, there are 436 articles whose title includes "earthquake" (see this). Neither Canada nor the US merit their own stub type currently (assuming not all of the 40 US earthquake articles are stubs). Not sure about the other two. Mindmatrix 04:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah don't use google as a judge. A few weeks back I cam across a book on natural disasters in Guatemala and there are well over 500 earthquakes recorded in that book aloneBlofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    • That's what I ment. Canada is getting more earthquake articles. I created at least 6-7 earthquake articles this month. Black Tusk (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Once it has enough for its own stub category, there'd be no problem with one being proposed and presumably speedily created, but it's a fair way off yet (the threshold for separate stub categories is 60). For now, though, iupmerged templates are fine. Grutness...wha? 05:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd support by decade if we had enough recorded earthquakes during that time period. For example we couldn't have {{1930s-earthquake-stub}}. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 15:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • By region might be best considering the huge disproportion of earthqakes covered leaning towards the present. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • support - by region. I created the Earthquakes WikiProject and rhis has been a vital discussion over the past months. I agree, decade is probably best except in specific occasions where there are too many earthquakes in one year to fit. —Ceranthor(Sing) 16:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like the template's been created - I created a category for it; in addition to the parent cats listed above I added Category:Disaster stubs as a parent. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Travel Writer stubs

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

The result of the debate was never mind.
Category:American Travel Writer stubs Cruise Confidential is an expose of the cruise industry by the only American to complete a full contract in Carnival Cruise Line's 30 year history. Published by Travelers Tales, written by Brian David Bruns.Annie Aura (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)--

  • Misplaced article creation request? Alai (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:South African government stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Category:South Africa stubs is over 500 and could easily by split using a government stub. Between an upmerged {{SouthAfrica-election-stub}} and a stub for government ministries, it is easily viable.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Wouldn't upmerging to "politics" be slightly more inclusive? Especially if you're going to throw in the elections. Alai (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
That works just as well, I suppose.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
So, upmerged -gov-, -election- and -pol- templates, then? Alai (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I know poli is the current format, but I would think politics makes more sense. Thoughts?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Why not keep it at -poli- for consistency, but add a redirect at -politics-? Alai (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, a {{SouthAfrica-law-stub}} would be useful for upmerging as well.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Why not, indeed. Alai (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:English cricket biography stubs; by DoB?

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 DoB.
Significantly oversized. We've already split out the internationalists; by county might work, but might involve multi-stubbing, especially for the more recent chaps. Other than that by decade (or century) of birth would seem to be the somewhat traditional thing. Alai (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Makes sense, and would parallel other sports - Support. Grutness...wha? 23:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support and our other systems of bloated subjectsBlofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Split of Category:Russia geography stubs

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

The result of the debate was created upmerged templates, and categories as they become numerically viable.

Previously Russian geography stubs have been sorted by way of Federal District, however the time has come that they should be split into Federal subject categories and stubs. Those which need creation are:


--Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 04:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all of them are viable to be split from the regional categories. Are you certain all of the oblasts have over 60 geography stubs in them? I mean this is easily possible of course but I know a lot of content is missing for some oblasts in terms of rural settlements and rivers. I'd support the creation and sorting of the templates and then upmerge the oblasts which are not viable to have their own categories yet. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • There's nowhere near enough stubs for these to all be viable, and none of the regional categories is close to being oversized yet. The largest has only 588 stubs, and contains the stubs for 18 oblasts - quick calculation shows there's no way that they will all reach 60 stubs - and it's doubtful whether any of them would. And another of the regions has fewer than 200 stubs. I definitedly oppose any new categories at present (except in cases where there are clearly 60 stubs), and don't really see the need yet for any of the templates, though i suppose they wouldn't hurt too much. Two of the names on your list needed altering to match stub naming standards, BTW - I've altered the Yamalo-Nenets and KhantyMansi ones on your list to meet stub standards. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • ...and four others that were misnamed, too... Grutness...wha?
  • Support upmerged stub templates for all: if we don't need them now, it's starting to look foreseeable for us to need them sometime soon. Oppose any categories that wouldn't hit 60. If any of the regional cats pass 800 before the oblasts become numerically viable, let's pool brains again to see if there are other sensible sub-regional categories to "lump" to. Alai (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support creation. If any of these fall short of the required sixty stubs, I will personally create some stubs to cover for the shortage :) It is easier to switch to organizing the stubs by the federal subject now, when the total number of stubs is around the minimum, than it is later, when the number of stubs is going to be in the hundreds if not thousands. As for the statement doubting that any of these needed stub types would ever reach the minimum, please consider that with over 1,000 cities/towns, over 1,500 urban-type settlements, and with almost 1,900 districts in Russia, such doubt seems kind of strange (and note that I am not even counting numerous rivers, mountains, or rural localities, many of which will eventually have stubs/articles of their own).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not a matter of some of them falling below 60, but rather, almost all of them inevitably doing so. Creating templates now and upmerging them avoids the difficulty you mention of re-sorting (if and) when there are thousands. Alai (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Upmerging always get's me. So what you are saying is that we create templates for all of them now and continue to categorise by Federal District, and then create Federal Subject categories for them once they reach 60? --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Exactly right. The templates can be made, but categorising articles in the current categories. It will be easy enough to check which ones reach 60 (using the "what links hear" link in the toolbox) - once they do, there should be no problem with new categories for them. Grutness...wha? 22:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. The sorting by federal district is not only impractical now, it has been very artificial from the very beginning. The federal districts of Russia are not the constituent units of the Russian Federation. They are more akin to Standard Federal Regions of the U.S. Colchicum (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Upmerge templates for Category:Asian building and structure stubs

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

The result of the debate was create upmerged templates, and categories as they become numerically viable.


Create the following templates and upmerge. Sooner or later it will need to be done given that buildings and structure are a very general category and it gives us a standard framework to build upon. It would also reveal the disproportion of stubs for certain countries and a move towards a more even coverage of Asian buildingsBlofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong support, and speedy: much better than continental template. One or two of these might argue for being double-upmerged into Europe also (though doubtless the UN geoscheme has them all in one or the other). Alai (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I've been to Cyprus and have always considered it Europe but these days they seem to label Turkey and Cyprus under Asia. Georgia is pretty much border line I think Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus hadn't occurred to me; I was thinking in terms of Azerbaijan, Armenia, possibly Georgia, and I vaguely recall at least one definition the Europe/Asia border has it running through one of the CARs (confusingly enough). But if we stick with the UN, that's good enough for me. Alai (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Split of Category:Botanist stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Category is over 700 propose 'the usual suspects'.

Might also be an idea to have the parent

Waacstats (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support -I;d even go so far as to propose creating a full series of templates and upmerging them for the "mainstream" ones anyway. I'd go for France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Poland, Netherlands, Sweden and any other country which has a number of them Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Split of Category:American football season stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
We've split the Category:Baseball season stubs by franchise propose the same here. The following appear viable

and anyother teams that are viable. Waacstats (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Split of Category:Roman Catholic bishop stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Another large category, propose splitting out the US, not many are marked with a by nation cat but cat scan seems to say there are plenty of articles for

Waacstats (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. But it is a shame the bias we have towards United States and UK. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Split of Category:Finland geography stubs by province

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

The result of the debate was create.

Hit 800. Split by province Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

And the remainder should get at least upmerged templates. (Counting by infobox might get slightly different results, I'll try that in due course.) Alai (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you let me know which provinces don't hit 60 and the number we have at present? I reckon filling out a few articles from this etc which has articles on villages within it might do the trick. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my list is a bit duff: two of the items above aren't provinces at all. So just going by the categories, just two of them are immediately viable. However, Eastern Finland Province is very close (56) and Oulu Province is at 44. The other two seem to be oddly small: perhaps either under-tagging or under-catting? Alai (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Infoboxes are (much, much) worse. So after Western and Southern, it'll take a manual trawl, it looks like. Alai (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh indeed most of them don't even have infoboxes, a shambles. If we did the split creating both the templates and categories I'd ensure they were all viable by topping up what was needed. Given the number of municipalities in Finland and villages and lakes within them in each province it should pass the test. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably very feasible for the two I mentioned, but the Åland Islands and Lapland Province might actually be as "small" as they look (numerically), so I wouldn't necessarily rush into creating those, also. Alai (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes rather strangely in FInland the "regions" are actually the second level divisions below the "provinces" usually the other way round. It doesn't surprise me at all the uneven coverage. I'll create a few to make them all viable. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I just wasn't paying proper attention to what my SQL queries was coughing up: my bad. Alai (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Aland might have considerably fewer but Lapland Province at nearly 100,000 km² is the largest of the provinces in FInland. There are less settlements due to the temperature but I count 21 municipalities, each of which has about 10 towns and villages on average some with nearly 50. That combined with any lakes or rivers/mountains should be OK. Afraid I don't know too much about Aland -by the looks of it -a clear upmerge. Only a handful of municipalities. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

By permcat, there's only 10 at present (even fewer than there are in Åland, which makes it to a mighty 12), so just bear in mind you'd be signing up for writing 50 of 'em. Alai (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Aren't there more than 10 stubs in Category:Municipalities of Lapland Region? I count about 20 stubs for Inari, Finland municipality alone. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Aland's been on my "to expand" list for some time now - it's had a stub template for some time ({{Aland-geo-stub}}). Grutness...wha? 00:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. The best thing to clear up Lapland tomorrow is to probably create the template and find the stray stubs which are not categorised at present and see if it is viable for a seperate stub category by the end of it. By browsing the categories and it looks like we have in the region of 40-45 at present alone and plenty more to stub. Don't worry about that one for now, I'll sort it out tomorrow, LOL I'm getting all Christmasy evne browsing the articles!.Do you think Grutness that Aland is likely to ever have 60 geography stubs? Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Usual caveats apply: if they're not tagged with the stub template, not in the "province" category, or are newer (or newer-tagged, or newer-catted) than the last db dump, they won't show up in these counts. Alai (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why not. It seems very underrepresented by Wikipedia articles at the moment - it should certainly get far more stubs than it currently has. Grutness...wha? 22:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup I just checked it out we have 65 stubs now in Category:Lapland geography stubs so at least that is taken care of, I've probably missed lots of lakes and rivers too Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I should have known better than to have doubted you for a moment in such matters. That's one problem solved... Alai (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Cat:Water transport stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Currently this diverse stub category, {{water-transport-stub}}, consists of 855 entries. Everything except UK canals, individual ships and navy-related articles go into this one category. I propose creating the following:

Support. However I have no idea what you mean by water-bio-stub. For all I know it could be about biographies of dolphins, humpback whales or trout fish. Do you mean shipping-bio-stub?? Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. How about {{shipping-bio-stub}} instead? Arsenikk (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah if they are to be applied generally to shipping magnate biographies and related content on people in the shipping industry then yes, exactly that would be fine. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support, with the usual proviso that ports - like airports - are double-stubbed with the appropriate geo-stub. Grutness...wha? 23:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Azerbaijan geography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
This was recently split but is still over 1000 articles large. All rayons have a template but none that don't already have a category have over 60 articles. I can see two solutions, firstly someone creates some missing articles (I think all the towns etc already have articles) or we split out those over 50, that would be

this would bring it down to around 750. Thoughts anyone. Waacstats (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Why not completely sort the lot? Dr. Blofeld 17:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Lump upmerged templates according to economic regions and districts of Azerbaijan (and viability of same, but surely all of these would now be feasible?). Alai (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    • A good look through the unsorted articles shows that either they dont have the information or are of a general nature. It does look like most of the regions would be viable I hadn't seen that. Waacstats (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Further split of Category:English cricket biography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Having sorted most of these to by decade templates, no further decades appear viable and the cat is still oversized, do we want to have by century categories fed by the upmerged templates. Waacstats (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I think so: those are likely to be at least as useful as the by-decade ones. Alai (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree Dr. Blofeld 19:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Norwegian organization stubs and {{Norway-org-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create.
I'm positive that we have over 60 possible candidates. Category:Norway stubs is full of them. Punkmorten (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I'd certainly support an upmerged template... I can remember going through Category:Norway stubs fairly recently, though, and I'd be surprised if it reached 60 stubs. I think there'd probably be more songs in there than organisations...(oh, and going by the parent Category:Organisations based in Norway it probably should have the international spelling rather than the US spelling, too, but that's another matter). If it does reach 60, though, I'd support a category too. Grutness...wha? 07:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support -sensible seems as we have a high number of them Dr. Blofeld 10:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Counting by permcat, I see 59 in the parent. However, that's using a fairly broadly category tree, that takes in the likes of Category:Scouting in Norway and Category:Basketball teams in Norway. Of course, this count is also certain to miss some, for the Usual Reasons. 3/4 support, per Grutness, perhaps trending towards 7/8. Alai (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are some lying around in the Category:European organization stubs as well. Based on the comments, I'm creating the template right now, and you can attend to the category later. Punkmorten (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Split of Category:Chile geography stubs by region

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

The result of the debate was create upmerged templates, and categories as they become numerically viable.


Nearing 800 stubs. Some may not quite be viable but there in practice should be over 60 for each. A cat scan anybody? Also I've noticed numerous landmarks in Chile are off the stub sorting radar. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The following certainly work:

(Permcat names include the "Region", dunno about the articles.) Alai (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. In that case I propose that we create templates and upmerge the ones that don't apply and create those categories above. They are regions rather than the smaller provinces so it they should easily hit 60 soon enough, I;ve also spotted a Chilean actively stubbing municipalities as we speak!Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I spot a possible problem with the "certainly work" section - two of those categories are actually the same! Category:Geography of Magallanes and Chilean Antártica Region geography stubs is certainly not as good a name as Category:Magallanes y Antártica Chilena Region geography stubs, as far as the doubling up of the word "geography" and keeping things with their local names (which is IIRC how we normally do things). What's more, they take in an area of Antarctica which technically isn't part of Chile due to the Antarctic Treaty and which overlaps with the claims of both Argentina and the UK (see also the comments on the proposed split of Antarctica-geo-stub mentioned earlier this month). BTW, hope you don't mind, but I removed the spaces from the non-standard template names you listed above. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL do you find it an amazing cooincidence that the two regions we are having trouble with are at opposite poles!!! LOL!! Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, spot more inattentive cut'n'edit'n'pasting. It does point out that there's a lot of naming ad hoccery here: Category:geography of Magallanes and Chilean Antártica Region vs. Category:Magallanes y Antártica Chilena Region vs. Magallanes and Antártica Chilena Region. Pick any one, and make the other two consistent with it. But under any such case, you won't be able to get a non-artificial -- much less "local" -- category name that doesn't include the dodgy Antarctic claim. For the templates, this could be finessed by having three upmerged provincial tags, however. For the category, I suggest following whichever one of the above three forms we converge the aforementioned pages on, and perhaps add a scoping note that the Antarctic claim isn't sorted here. Alai (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Officially it would be "Magallanes y Antártica Chilena, so the cat link above is correct. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

At most one of them them would be correct: the two cats are inconsistent with each other, as well as with the article. As they're basically different degrees of anglicisation of the same name, it's not at all obvious which is "correct" for our purpose... just that two of the three should change, so at a minimum a CFR is indicated. Alai (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes some of those categories need name changing to comply for consistencyBlofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

nominatified. Alai (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S I created the missing Swiss stub templates earlier. I don't know if you want to advance with sorting the 1100 or so remaining Swiss geo stubs Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

POST-CLOSING COMMENT - for some reason all of these templates were created with new redlinked categories. I've upmerged all by Aisen, Los Lagos and Los Rios, which I'm makingg categories for. I've left the Magellanes one upmerged until there's consensus on the name at CFD. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Post post-closing comment comment: CFR was spectactularly useless, and has now been relisted. Please comment there, if only to reaffirm the blitheringly obvious principle that all of these entities should be at some sort of consistent name. Alai (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

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

{{fruit-bat-stub}}/Category:Fruit bat stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Category:Bat stubs is oversized, and it seems that there are a lot of articles about fruit bats (also known as "flying foxes") - of the first 31 (all the As), there are 10 which end with "flying fox" or "fruit bat". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you can speedy this one; several types were approved back in August, but only two were created. The remaining are:
HTH, Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are the counts, as of the last db dump:

  • Fruit_bats | 176 |
  • Hipposideridae | 79 |
  • Molossidae | 69 |
  • Hipposideros | 60 |
  • Pteropus | 56 |

Perhaps there was a category rename of Pteropodidae to the common name... Alai (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Category:paleontology stubs: by taxon, or by time?

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 apparently re-sorted.
Oversized. Lots of these are for forms of prehistoric life, for which we already have a number of existing types; we could continue that, with ever finer-grained taxa, paralleling the general tree-of-life hierarchy. Or, we could split by geological era (not to say, supereon, eon, period, epoch and/or age, as required). There must be a WPJ or two we could give a bell on this... Alai (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a more practical issue: How would we deal with stubs about types of animals who lived across the boundaries of periods/eras? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, in practical terms, they'll be dealt with as whoever does the sorting decides, whenever it happens, rather than necessarily how we decide it ought to happen, here. (Double-stubbing, leaving in parent, or deciding which is "primary" all spring to mind.) I doubt it's a very common case, in any event. Alai (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
We'd split them by decade of birth, of course ;) Grutness...wha? 21:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The type's off the list, but I'm not sure how. Did someone resort to existing subtypes? Alai (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Split of Category:Malaysia geography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Split Category:Malaysia geography stubs by state of Malaysia The Bald One White cat 10:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Seems to be what has already been started so don't see any problems. Waacstats (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{surfing-bio-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create.
This one's more opening the top of my head and letting the wind blow my brain around than a well thought-out suggestion, but if I put it here someone may have some good thoughts on it. I was just sorting the stub Michael Ho when i realised that at the moment, we don't seem to have a stub type for sports surfers. An upmerged {{Surfing-bio-stub}} might be very useful... it may even get to the point of viability for a separate category. Any takers? Grutness...wha? 09:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have always given surfers a {{Water-sports-bio-stub}}, abd certainly a fair chunk of that category are surfers so should be viable (at least as an upmerged template) Waacstats (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I like the idea Grutness although thats probably my bias towards surfing, but we have a number of stubs already. There are also many missing notable surfers on here which sometime I'll get around to starting. It is also incredibly insulting for surfers to see as stub tag with a football on as if it is somehow related to the sport. My dad would have a fit if he saw that. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm amazed at some of the gaps myself (I'm not a surfer, but I live 400 metres from one of NZ's main surf beaches - and Category:New Zealand surfers is... deletably empty. Where's Maz Quinn?). Grutness...wha? 22:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Might try to write a stub on him myself, actually - BTW, I like the new streamlined moniker, Dr.B... Grutness...wha? 23:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Given the breadth of the water sports type, this seems sensible to me, and in theory likely to to be useful (eventually, at least). Especially if there's about to be a cottage industry of stub-sorters writing (gasp!) surfer stubs... Alai (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Heh - don't worry Alai - it was a one-off, basically to stop Category:New Zealand surfers from being speediable. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
It certainly seems logical and if sufficient stubs are present to require tagging, then it needs to be created. - Dravecky (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Creation of Central American struct templates, Further split of Category:Museum stubs

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

The result of the debate was create as revised.

Part of this conversation has been moved up as it is a reproposal

Propose:

Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Personally, I'd prefer to see by-country templates. Support Mexico, and any categories that hit numeric viability (either country-wise or regionally). Alai (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

WOuld make sense for countries like Argentina, Brazil and perhaps Colombia certainly. I know there are a few missing from Spanish wiki. As long as there isn't a problem with upmerging the templates, countries like Belize and Suriname I doubt they;ll have 60 museums. I'm sure User:Travellingcari would support a by country template system tooBlofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I too would prefer by-country templates, though I'm open to the possibility of South American and Central American categories if the continental totals can reach 60. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Ditto Grutness and Bloefeld, by country makes more sense (i.e. the existing Australia, Canada, UK, etc. Upmerging is a good option when there aren't enough, as we already do with Africa TravellingCari 00:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Reproposal

Aah, actually this proposal need rethinking. Given that we don't even have a e.g {{Honduras-struct-stub}} it would seme a bot weird having ones for museums first. What we need to do I think it sort out Central and South American struct stub categories first and then worry about museums afterwards Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I propose:


OK amigos? Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


Then cross cut museums with the general regional categories I think.Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Good point, though that needn't prevent going ahead with by-country museum templates. Regional templates would just be a recipe for another handling step, IMO. Alai (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm with Alai on this - two stub templates per country, with upmerging where appropriate. Grutness...wha? 22:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
That would be best in practice I think too. At present I'm sure though that we only have one or two articles on museums for each if any at all. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bangladeshi school stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Urgh Category:Schools in Bangladesh and its sub cats really needs sorting. I;ve just completed sorting the Bangladesh-struct-stubs but I think it would be best to create a {{Bangladesh-school-stub}} and sub sort it with a seperate category. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. It would happily move the category away from Asian school stubs. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Split of Category:Mineral stubs

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

The result of the debate was create per Strunz as suggested by VSmith.
I'm about to get off the computer, so I've no time to contact the relevant WPs or do an analysis, unfortunately (hopefully someone else can...) - Category:Mineral stubs is pushing 800 articles, and can probably be split into:

If anyone has any ideas for a better way to split it, please suggest it, but this one seems reasonable to me. As I said, various WikiProjects probably need consultation, too. Grutness...wha? 02:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support the idea of a split. Still pondering the viable substubs (comments on my talk) may add more here tommorrow. Vsmith (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The minerals seem to be categorised by chemical composition, rather than formation process (as are the rocks). If we followed that, we could have Category:oxide mineral stubs, etc, or else Category:iron mineral stubs, and so on. Or both, if we wanted to make a systematic multi-stubbing rod for our own backs. Alai (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I've been thinking more of following the classification sysrem used in the mineral article. Class by anion group Category:silicate mineral stub, Category:carbonate mineral stub, Category:sulfide mineral stub etc. With additional Category:mineraloid stub and maybe Category:gem mineral stub for the many gemstone mineral variety articles. Still thinking, Vsmith (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Around four by-anion subtypes would be viable, though you'd want to pluralise those names. So would Category:gem mineral stubs, but that rather cuts across the first. As would mineraloid, which also doesn't correspond to a permcat (which means both that I can't give you a count, and that I'm somewhat suspicious of the significance of that as a grouping). Alai (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Viable? The published mineral classification systems list the following 9:
          • Silicate class
          • Carbonate class
          • Sulfate class
          • Halide class
          • Oxide class
          • Sulfide class
          • Phosphate class
          • Element class
          • Organic class
        • Are you saying we're limited to four? That would make it sorta difficult and artificial, no? Vsmith (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Not limited to four, no - but the number of current stubs suggests that four or five would be the optimum number for a split - also Alai was possibly influenced by my initial suggestion. With nine there's the danger that some of the types wouldn't get to the 60-stub threshold normally used for splitting out subcategories (i.e., "viable" in stubbing terminology), though I don't see any problem with having nine templates and upmerging any which don't reach that threshold. I'm a little confused by Alai's comments that minerals don't seem to be categorised by formation process, though - I first suggested this after seeing Category:Igneous rocks, which seems to me to do exactly that, as do Category:Sedimentary rocks and Category:Metamorphic rocks. Grutness...wha? 08:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
            • About the last point - I hadn't realised at the time that stubs for rocks were no longer listed in with mineral stubs (a point which someone not totally au faitr with the field hadn't grasped) - in which case the igneous/sedimentary etc split probably isn't the best. Grutness...wha? 11:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
            • No, I was only commenting on the number that would pass 60. Alai (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In light of the above discussion I would suggest following the Strunz classification (the Dana system is very similar) and divide the mineral-stubs as follows:

with the possibility of combining the last two if they are too sparsely populated. Note the new 10th ed of Strunz has broken out the borates. The point made above regarding gem-minerals was really considering the abundant lapidary and commercial names for varieties of agate and such that exist - perhaps most of those stubs should simply be merged with and redir to the main related mineral variety page.
The category page for each would include discussion of the related mineral groups included, sourced to Strunz. With these groupings we are following published mineralogic example rather than inventing our own OR wikisystem. Vsmith (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The Strunz classification system looks, well pretty scientific. Are you sure there will be editors who would be interested in filling out the stubs organised in this way? Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
"Pretty scientific" -- and? Most people who are interested in minerals, whether through vocation or collecting hobby, should be aware of basic classification based on chemistry, so they should be "up to it." What alternative do you have in mind? Of course there will be those who ignore any such system and simply use mineral-stub - if anything at all. Then we wikiholics come along and fixit, gives us something constructive to do :-) Vsmith (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Calm down VSmith I support the proposal. I just couldn't see the average wikipedian knowing how to stub tag it thats all. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Note that the template names should be hyphenated: {{oxide-mineral-stub}}, etc. I've no objection to any of the above templates, though it might be best to upmerge the undersizeds to the parent, rather than 'lumping' them otherwise. (I only count 20 in Category:organic minerals and 27 in Category:native element minerals, so they're not necessarily numerically viable even if combined, nor is it instantly obvious to me why one would want to.) It's not at all clear that the existing (permanent) categories are organised in either of these ways, since there are permcats such as Category:hydroxide minerals (which is one of the ones I was counting as viable, incidentally). Alai (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hyphenation is no problem, I went back and inserted them. And, yes the element and organic groups are small. The existing category system for minerals - well it is no system. Way back when I started categorizing based on the similar Dana system to organize things a bit. Several editors then decided to have a category for category:Anyelement minerals and although it blew my neat organization - I thought, well why not, someone may want to find all silver containing minerals, or some such. So I backed off and said "so be it." Where does that leave us now? We don't need a stub for anyelement mineral -way too many and severe overlap would ensue. The hydroxide mineral category falls under the oxide minerals in the Strunz system so they'd be covered there. With the stub classes clearly defined we get by with the 8 or so orderly "viable" stubs and reduce the chaos in the mineral-stub. Haven't looked at numbers in detail, but the silicate minerals far outnumber the others, so that would be the largest stub group, most likely. Vsmith (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Nope, the oxides are much the largest, especially if you include the hydroxides with that (which is a new one on me, but I never claimed to know anything about mineralogy). 238 oxides, 74 hydroxides, 176 silicates, 62 sulphides. The numerically viable categories on that basis are the oxides, silicates, and sulphides, and everything else ought to be either upmerged, or more found by other means (or both of those, preferably in approximately that order). Given the existence of a separate hydroxide category, I would certainly not favour simply assuming that we ought to be using the Strunz system, but ignoring that we in fact aren't. Either we should follow the chemistry (on which basis hydroxides aren't oxides), and keep those separate, or we should start CFDing and CFRing to bring the permcats into line with Strunz. Alai (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
First, where are your numbers coming from? - seems I'm missing something here.
Looking at what has developed with the free-for-all mineral categorization, I see the silicate category has been placed as a subcat of the oxides ... yeah silica has oxygen ... Ok, the hydroxides - some are also oxides, some are also silicates, carbonates, phosphates, sulfates ... - just anything that has OH in the formula. Couple of obscure examples: saliotite is a phyllosilicate - it also is cat'd in the hydroxides 'cause it (along with all phyllosilicates) has that OH in the formula; wyartite is a carbonate - but it also has that OH in the formula - so guess where else it is cat'd. Which has more mineralogic meaning - the OH or the CO3 and SiO4? We can go with meaningful published mineralogic classification or with wiki OR/SYN. Yeah, I know cats & stubs aren't referenced. Vsmith (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry -- I get the numbers from an offline rebuild of the latest db dump. Various caveats apply -- such as the subcategorisation you mention, which I hadn't noticed. I lose track of who's a semi-regular here, and who I'm blinding with jargon and unstated assumptions, my bad. I'm in no way arguing for OR. There's nothing in the name or scoping statement of Category:oxide minerals that states that it's supposed to include minerals that are not chemically oxides, and I'd suggest that the existence of the separate Category:hydroxide minerals rather implies that that's not the case. If we're to use the Strunz system, we should use it explicitly (noting this in the category scoping statements), and consistently (in both perm cats and stub cats). If not, and the permcats are left as they are, then overlap might mean the hydroxides aren't separately viable anyway, but it would certainly imply to me placing only actual oxides in Category:oxide mineral stubs. Alai (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{marine-current-stub}} (upmerged template)

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 (no pun intended) ocean currents and open ocean features are grouped together in Category:Marine geography stubs, using {{marine-geo-stub}}. It's not a very comfortable mix of the two, but the category's not needing to be split yet. I'd like to propose a separate template for the currents, leaving the geo-stub for actual geographic/oceanographic features. I think it would be used on about 40 articles, at a rough count (and that's without further checking Category:oceanography stubs which might be hiding a few). Grutness...wha? 00:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Currently I say currents are currently on the current agenda and I currently feel that creating templates for currents, given that the situation is a current one, is a good idea if you feel it necessary to distinguish currents from oceanogrpahic features rather than confusing currents with non currents. Do you catch my "drift" HEHE. Buenos Noches, I;m off to eat my currents, sultanas and milk. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Marine geography/oceanography/et al are a mess from where I watch it not far from the Leeuwin Current and as I am not in the mood for too many puns in one go - I would say marine geo stub and an ocean current sub separation if there are the arts to fill - anything to try to clarify boundaries between the perpetually confused oceanography and marine geography subject areas which look as if they have been sorted by an arguing committee (from where I look at it anyway) SatuSuro 05:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Category:Badajoz geography stubs and Category:Cáceres geography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Create {{Badajoz-geo-stub}} and {{Cáceres-geo-stub}}. See Category:Municipalities in Badajoz and Category:Extremadura geography stubsBlofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Is Cáceres viable too? If so, we might as well do the two together. Alai (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely yes. Check out Holguera and that template. I noticed Badajoz as there is an editor filling in the gaps at the moBlofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Further split of Category:Painter stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Around 700. I would strongly suggest creating a full series of country templates and upmerge the ones not viable yet. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

On my travels I'd imagine that Category:Danish painter stubs is viable Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Did this come up a little earlier? Anyhoo, support upmerged templates for anyplace. Closest I can find to viability is Ireland, at 55. For Denmark I can only find 12. Alai (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Only 12? Most of the articles in Category:Danish painters which has 77 articles are stubbies. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Looks like there may be a few Indians in there, too (as well as more than a handful of NZers. Would by-continent categories help? Grutness...wha? 01:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm counting just existing Category:painter stubs, which is, after all, the type we were invited to discuss splitting. Alai (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the stubs in the painter categories at present:

Yes European painters stubs would be sensible for now, definately worth upmerging templates though. The list here though down to Mexican could probably easily reach 60 by transwiki. Belgian/Flemish painters for instance should have several hundred. A quick scan through Category:Belgian painters shows most of the 132 articles within it are stubs, thats not including Flemish painters. We need to break up the painter stub cats for sure but some work needs doing to stub sort articles which have strayed (e.g Andrée Bosquet etc) from being stub tagged. I can look into it in the next few days if you like. Strangely the coverage of Asian painters is extremely poor. The same with writers we only had about 15 articles on Korean writers for instance. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Yeah, if there are stubs that have accidentally "lost" their tags, or have been "destubbed" on a very marginal basis, or that are tagged as -bio-s or -artist-s, the above might be significant-to-vast undercounts. (The data's also 12 days old at this point, and will get considerably older still before there's a fresh db dump...) No harm in creating a shedload of upmerged templates and seeing falls out (or falls in, as it were). Alai (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes best thing would be to create the templates and then actually see how it turns out once the ones not picked up on the scan have been included. Belgium, Austria, Hungary and Denmark appear to be viable for their own categories too Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I'd favour categories for each continent/major region (Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Oceania - possibly also Middle East, and perhaps Central America/Caribbean as one region?). I'm pretty sure all of them would either get to 60 or get close and have subcategories. Europe looks reasonably splittable into national types as well. Certainly the idea of separate templates on a per-country basis has a lot of appeal. Grutness...wha? 23:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

More Comedian stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.
Add more nationalities, Including

Stub sense anybody?Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support templates, categories if any reach 60.Waacstats (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:East Antarctica geography stubs by... I dunno

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 resolved in Dec.
Tricky one. Now even more oversized than its parent type; lack of subdivisions. I hate to engage in such Grutness-baiting ideas as splitting by landform, but few alternatives seem to suggest themselves. Alai (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmph. One or two Antarctic claims (although suspended by the Antarctic Treaty) seem pretty stable, notably AAT, Ross Dependency, and France's Adélie Land. Those could quite easily be split out. Grutness...wha? 21:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
But it necessarily wouldn't be a comprehensive split, since it'd leave a large chunk of the ones that are not only suspended, but overlapping and disputed. So what'd we do whent he remainder hit 800, again? Seems questionable in terms of primary significance and utility, too. If the existing permcat's any indication, Adélie Land certainly wouldn't be numerically viable -- and if it's not, a re-sort by hand would be required. Still, if someone else is going to do the heavy lifting, and it gets it off the list... Alai (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, they've all got equivalent permcats - and all of those permcats are undersorted, so there's a good chance they'd all reach threshold, even Adélie Land. Norwegian Antarctic Territory doesn't overlap with anything either, and between the four of them they cover almost the entirety of East Antarctica. Seems the best way to do it to me, and given that simply knowing the longitude will tell you which of the four they're in (and most Antarctic stubs should have coor templates), it shouldn't be that difficult to sort them. As far as Adélie Land is concerned, we can finally get rid of the dozen or so TAAF stubs as well if we combine the two into a French Southern Territories geo-stub type (leaving the problem of a name for the template...). We could do the same with the one stub for Bouvet Island and N.A.T. It would comfortably kill all three penguins with one stone. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I trust none of those are protected species of penguin. You make a good point about {{coord}}: there seems to be over 1000 such transclusions, which I'll endeavour to find a means of crunching and lumping. Still seems likely ropey to me, but there's a lot to be said for "easy". On the FST: why not two (or more) separate templates? Alai (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem at all - the name is the main problem. TAAF-geo-stub would make sense if we used abbreviations, but we don't usually. FrenchSouthernandAntarctic-geo-stub or similar sounds pretty clunky, though. Grutness...wha? 05:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Drop the "and", for starters. Alai (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Depending how the good people decide to hiarch the stubs, I just want to inform that the Norwegian Antartic Territory consists of two parts, of which on Queen Maud's Land in East Antartica. Peter I Island is on the oposite side, and should be categorized under West Antartica. This of course doesn't matter if they all go under Antartica. Arsenikk (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Oops. We'd have to scope the above split as just QML, then, or else make it a sub-type of both W and E. A little messy either way. Alai (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Hm. That does make it a little messier (then again, I was against the E/W split in the first place for pretty much this reason, and also because they seem to be very little-used terms). There'd be no such problems with the AAT/Ross/TAAF splits, though. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Slovenia geography stubs, by region

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

The result of the debate was create upmerged templates per Blofeld.

Oversized; best bet to me looks to be to split by region. Not sure if lots of upmerged municipal templates are worth the candle, in this case. Alai (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually responsible for creating much of those. The balance is probably pretty uneven. By historical region would be the best way to go Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Quite uneven indeed. By my count, we have: Upper Carniola (144); Lower Carniola (100); Lower Styria (74); Slovenian Littoral (89) and Goriška, Slovenian Littoral (39). Apparently the Littoral isn't a region as such, but a somewhat common grouping of two regions (Goriška and Istria). I'd be equally happy to have a single stub type for the Littoral, with or without upmerged provincial templates, or to skip this one for now, until either component is viable separately. (Upmerged templates for the remaining regions would seem sensible.) Alai (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats correct. If you would like one filled out from Goriska and Istria let me know. The only problem is that these are historical regions and from what I am aware are barely ever used in the twentieth/twenty first century or referred to in Slovenia but would seme the best way to split Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Regions of Slovenia gives 4 "regions" and 8 kraj would these be more useful/easier to use/more upto date. 89.251.192.95 (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a redlink! Do you mean Category:regions of Slovenia? That currently only contains Littoral-Kras statistical region. If there are a set of statistical regions, and those are better-defined and more commonly used, I'm all in favour of that, too. Might be harder to automate if the data isn't currently in the articles, though... Alai (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically I think the best way to do it would upmerge the modern day municpality templates into the historical regional categories Upper Carniola, Lower Carniola, Lower Styria, and Slovenian Littoral. It wouldn't be exceptionally troublesome to create the templates, especially as some of the municipalities have nigh on 60 articles already. The only place they might look redundant is for smaller municipalities which only have small town and a few villages. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Category:New York geography stubs, by region

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

The result of the debate was create.
Slightly oversized. Assorted regions might make viable splits: at the broadest, Upstate/Downstate (which would avoid the tristate-ish connotations of NYMA); perhaps assorted possible narrower ones, like North Country, New York, Western New York, Capital District, Central New York, etc; eventually some individual counties might become splittable. (Obviously we should templatise by country, per usual practice.) Alai (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you list all of the templates or categories which you think are necessary to create? Once that is done we can make a judgement.Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Category:writing system stubs split

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

The result of the debate was create.

Oversized; several of the corresponding subcats would make numerically viable types (such as the diagraphs, the trigraphs, and such like), but the most coherent looking to me would be Category:Latin alphabet stubs and Category:Cyrillic alphabet stubs, each of which seem to be well over 60. Alai (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support as above
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.

Adhesives Stubs

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

The result of the debate was create upmerged tpl.
I think there should be a category called Adhesives Stubs because many articles about adhesives are stubs: Category:Adhesives stubs Monkeyman389 (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

With only 79 articles in Category:Adhesives and its subcategories, I'm not convinced we'd reach the threshold of 60 stubs for a separate stub category. I've certainly no objections to an upmerged template (either {{adhesive-stub}} or {{glue-stub}}) pointing to somewhere like Category:Tool stubs, though. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/October_2008&oldid=1084283361"