Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2011/January

{{sfp create}}

If I'm proposing painters, I should propose sculptors as well, I suppose.

• {{tl|Chile-sculptor-stub}}
• {{tl|Argentina-sculptor-stub}}
• {{tl|Peru-sculptor-stub}}
• {{tl|Bolivia-sculptor-stub}}
• {{tl|Paraguay-sculptor-stub}}
• {{tl|Uruguay-sculptor-stub}}
• {{tl|Brazil-sculptor-stub}}
• {{tl|Ecuador-sculptor-stub}}
• {{tl|Colombia-sculptor-stub}}
• {{tl|Venezuela-sculptor-stub}}
• {{tl|Guyana-sculptor-stub}}
• {{tl|Suriname-sculptor-stub}}
• {{tl|FrenchGuiana-sculptor-stub}}

Not sure there would be enough for a {{cl|South American sculptor stubs}} as yet, but that shouldn't be hard to make possible... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

Both feeding into the category {{cl|African artist stubs}} for the moment. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

As with composers - with a couple of rubs. I propose creating most of the following:

• {{tl|Chile-painter-stub}}
• {{tl|Argentina-painter-stub}}
• {{tl|Peru-painter-stub}}
• {{tl|Bolivia-painter-stub}}
• {{tl|Paraguay-painter-stub}}
• {{tl|Uruguay-painter-stub}}
• {{tl|Brazil-painter-stub}}
• {{tl|Ecuador-painter-stub}}
• {{tl|Colombia-painter-stub}}
• {{tl|Venezuela-painter-stub}}
• {{tl|Guyana-painter-stub}}
• {{tl|Suriname-painter-stub}}
• {{tl|FrenchGuiana-painter-stub}}

Six are already created, but they aren't used on many articles. Furthermore, {{cl|Brazilian painter stubs}} is underpopulated. Here's my thinking: if {{cl|Brazilian painter stubs}} is deleted for the moment, and depopulated, that combined with what is a.) currently stub-tagged and b.) what can potentially be stub-tagged (I know there will likely be enough) should be enough to populate {{cl|South American painter stubs}}. This should go some way towards codifying what exists.

Does this make sense? It kind of does in my head, but I'm not sure I'm translating it well. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

:Sounds reasonable to me. I'd expect it would get pretty close to 60 stubs if the Brazilian ones are included, but the separate Brazil cat is unlikely to be viable any time soon. Grutness...wha? 23:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

I intend (and we all know what road is paved with those) to create a few more stubs on South American composers in the coming weeks. We already have a {{tl|SouthAm-composer-stub}}, but I think it would be easier to break down the tags by individual countries. Thus:

• {{tl|Chile-composer-stub}}
• {{tl|Argentina-composer-stub}}
• {{tl|Peru-composer-stub}}
• {{tl|Bolivia-composer-stub}}
• {{tl|Paraguay-composer-stub}}
• {{tl|Uruguay-composer-stub}}
• {{tl|Brazil-composer-stub}}
• {{tl|Ecuador-composer-stub}}
• {{tl|Colombia-composer-stub}}
• {{tl|Venezuela-composer-stub}}
• {{tl|Guyana-composer-stub}}
• {{tl|Suriname-composer-stub}}
• {{tl|FrenchGuiana-composer-stub}}

None of them have nearly enough articles for a separate category of their own as yet, so all would feed into {{cl|South American composer stubs}}.

Any objections? I'm about to suggest the same with painters. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

As below with Romania; there were a lot of untagged ones in the category, so this should now just squeak by. {{tl|Switzerland-composer-stub}} is the parent, of course. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

:As below with Romania; Support Waacstats (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

Just oversized we already have started to split this by department templates and regional categories. I propose we finish this with the following:

• {{cl|Amazonia Region (Colombia) geography stubs}} - {{tl|AmazonasCO-geo-stub}} {{tl|Caquetá-geo-stub}} {{tl|Guainía-geo-stub}} {{tl|Guaviare-geo-stub}} {{tl|Putumayo-geo-stub}} {{tl|Vaupés-geo-stub}}
• {{cl|Orinoquía Region geography stubs}} - {{tl|Arauca-geo-stub}} {{tl|Casanare-geo-stub}} {{tl|Meta-geo-stub}} {{tl|Vichada-geo-stub}}
• {{cl|Andean Region (Colombia) geography stubs}} - {{tl|Cauca-geo-stub}} {{tl|SantanderCO-geo-stub}}
• {{cl|Pacific Region (Colombia) geography stubs}} - {{tl|Chocó-geo-stub}} {{tl|Nariño-geo-stub}} {{tl|ValledelCauca-geo-stub}}
• {{cl|Insular Region (Colombia) geography stubs}} - {{tl|SanAndrésandProvidencia -geo-stub}}

Categories iff we have 60 articels to go in them otherwise upmerge to the parent category. Waacstats (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support all. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

::Support all, though I'd suggest changing the name of one of those templates to {{tl|MetaCO-geo-stub}} to avoid the potential for confusion. AFAIK there's nowhere else called Meta, but the term does have a lot of WP-specific meanings. Grutness...wha? 22:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Good spot, I had been looking out for other places and hadn't thought of that. Waacstats (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

Oversized category it looks like the next level down in vurna is the district this would lead to the following

• {{tl|Kale-geo-stub}} - {{Cl|Kale district geography stubs}}
• {{tl|Tamu-geo-stub}} - {{Cl|Tamu district geography stubs}}
• {{tl|Mawlaik-geo-stub}} - {{Cl|Mawlaik district geography stubs}}
• {{tl|Hkamti-geo-stub}} - {{Cl|Hkamti district geography stubs}}
• {{tl|Katha-geo-stub}} - {{Cl|Katha district geography stubs}}
• {{tl|Monywa-geo-stub}} - {{Cl|Monywa district geography stubs}}
• {{tl|Shwebo-geo-stub}} - {{Cl|Shwebo district geography stubs}}
• {{tl|Sagaingdistrict-geo-stub}} - {{Cl|Sagaing district geography stubs}}

I don't think any except the last one need any disambigs, but if someone could double check. Waacstats (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support all --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Some will need dabbing. I note too that named districts in Burma/Myanmar use a capital D, so all the categories will need to be changed appropriately. I propose the following (slightly renamed) variants on the above:

• {{tl|KaleMM-geo-stub}} - {{Cl|Kale District geography stubs}}
• {{tl|Tamu-geo-stub}} - {{Cl|Tamu District geography stubs}}
• {{tl|Mawlaik-geo-stub}} - {{Cl|Mawlaik District geography stubs}}
• {{tl|Hkamti-geo-stub}} - {{Cl|Hkamti District geography stubs}}
• {{tl|KathaMM-geo-stub}} - {{Cl|Katha District geography stubs}}
• {{tl|Monywa-geo-stub}} - {{Cl|Monywa District geography stubs}}
• {{tl|Shwebo-geo-stub}} - {{Cl|Shwebo District geography stubs}}
• {{tl|SagaingDistrict-geo-stub}} - {{Cl|Sagaing District geography stubs}}

Grutness...wha? 22:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

:I agree with those ammendments, It's a good job someone on here knows there stuff. Waacstats (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

Pakisan Punjab is oversized but 2 upmerged templates have passed 60 and so the following two categories are viable

• {{Cl|Gujrat District geography stubs}}
• {{Cl|Kasur District geography stubs}}

Any objections to speedy? Waacstats (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support - none here. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

::Change those "districts" to "Districts" (capital D), and you've got my support, too! The other "district" categories need renaming... all the permcats and key articles capitalise the District. Grutness...wha? 22:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Capital D's sound good to me and yes I had based this on the existing district stub cats. Waacstats (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

I'm sure that this will aid in cutting down the oft oversized {{Cl|british actor stubs}}. Catscan suggests 75 articles plus. Waacstats (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support speedy --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

Should now be viable with just over 60 tagged with {{tl|Romania-composer-stub}}. As usual, there were a lot in the general category that could take the stub tag but did not have it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 07:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

:Speedy' as I'm sure there is 1 or 2 precedants out there somewhere! Waacstats (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp top|created}}

Apologies for not doing this first.

Existing railway station stubs in Lincolnshire are allocated either to 'east midlands' or 'yorkshire & the humber', the current structure based on moribund english regions seems to have achieved little by way of reducing the number of stubs. Lincolnshire has an active project, and it makes sense to me to associate the articles more closely with the area people identify with than with discredited 1960s government pipedreams.

I have already found 41 members and have covered less than half of the historic routes. My plan was to build a list, then arm myself with some histories and work toward knocking them off.

I am also keen to have some sort of rational view of what is required for an article about a closed railway station. Thee amount of WP'ble info that exists for e.g. Braceborough_Spa_Halt_railway_station may well not exceed what is there already, and with the evidence of a stub list the Lincolnshire project would be free to decide that such articles may be complete enough.

Thus the stub list could be emptied in 2 or 3 years, which would be more useful than what is happening now.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

:I would suggest a tempalte upmerged to {{cl|Linolnshire stubs}} and whihcever of 'East midlands' and Yorkshire & humberside' it should really belong to till we get 60 then I see no reason not going for the category. Waacstats (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

::Comment Railway station stubs in England are presently broken down by region (which is not "a discredited 1960s government pipedream" but a legally-defined area in current usage). Ceremonial Lincolnshire (the area covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Lincolnshire) is split between two regions because regional boundaries are drawn along post-1974 county boundaries; the present-day non-metropolitan county of Lincolnshire falls entirely within East Midlands (for which we have {{tlx|EastMidlands-railstation-stub}} and {{cl|East Midlands railway station stubs}}, with 332 members); to the north of the non-metropolitan county of Lincolnshire lie the unitary authorities North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire, which between 1974 and 1996 were part of the County of Humberside, and so they are in Yorkshire and the Humber (for which we have {{tlx|Yorkshire-Humber-railstation-stub}} and {{cl|Yorkshire and the Humber railway station stubs}}, with 474 members). See also WP:UKCOUNTIES.

::Prior to the creation on 27 January 2011 of {{tlx|Lincolnshire-railstation-stub}} (and {{cl|Lincolnshire railway station stubs}} which presently has 41 members), the only existing subdivisions of any of these regions were: {{tlx|GreaterManchester-railstation-stub}} ({{cl|Greater Manchester railway station stubs}} presently has 208 members); {{tlx|Merseyside-railstation-stub}} ({{cl|Merseyside railway station stubs}} presently has 91 members); {{tlx|Kent-railstation-stub}} ({{cl|Kent railway station stubs}} presently has 84 members).

::There is no present {{cl|Linolnshire stubs}} (or even {{cl|Lincolnshire stubs}}) to which these could be upmerged. The best would be {{cl|Lincolnshire building and structure stubs}} (already populated by {{tlx|Lincolnshire-struct-stub}}. But even if this is done, the articles so tagged should still be reachable through the tree rooted at {{cl|United Kingdom railway station stubs}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

:::I must say that I( tend to agree with Redrose's comments. Robert, I suggest that this is yet another case where assessment templates make far more sense than stub templates (as explained at WP:STUB#Stub types, WikiProjects, and Assessment templates. A general {{tl|Lincolnshire-stub}}/{{cl|Lincolnshire stubs}} would certainly make sense, though. Grutness...wha? 18:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

This is a new taxonomic classification as of last year for the Heterobranchia. Proposing this as a parent-only category that will pull in {{cl|Stylommatophora stubs}}, {{cl|Systellommatophora stubs}}, and {[cl|Planorbidae stubs}} as well as most of the templates currently found under {{cl|Heterobranchia stubs}}.

Dawynn (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

oops! I didn't realize that we had to propose the creation of stubs beforehand. So it's already created but I think I should still put here.

• {{tl|Ahmadiyya-stub}} Main article Ahmadiyya

Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• No objection to the template, but it looks like there will be serious problems in this getting to the required 60-stub threshold... the category may need to be upmerged. Grutness...wha? 21:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support template - could be useful. I don't think the category will be just yet, though. ---Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

Propose building the following templates to upmerge to the spiders for now:

• {{tl|Araneidae-stub}} 46 P. Main article Araneidae
• {{tl|Lycosidae-stub}} 34 P. Main article Lycosidae
• {{tl|Theridiidae-stub}} 30 P. Main article Theridiidae

Dawynn (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

Time to breakdown yet another overlarge category. As I did with the {{cl|Caenogastropoda stubs}}, so I would like to do here. I'd like to use parent-only subcategories for further sorting. All tagging will either be at the Heterobranchia level (for smaller families), or at the family level. I propose the following splits at this time:

• {{cl|Opisthobranchia stubs}}. {{tl|Aplysiidae-stub}}, {{tl|Hermaeidae-stub}}, and {{tl|Limapontiidae-stub}} will reside here.
• {{cl|Nudipleura stubs}}. {{cl|Chromodorididae stubs}}, {{cl|Discodorididae stubs}}, and {{cl|Tritoniidae stubs}}, as well as a few templates will reside here.
• {{cl|Pulmonata stubs}}. {{cl|Planorbidae stubs}} and a couple templates will reside here.
• {{cl|Stylommatophora stubs}}. {{tl|Athoracophoridae-stub}} and {{tl|Succineidae-stub}} will live here for now.
• {{cl|Orthurethra stubs}}. {{cl|Achatinellidae stubs}}, {{cl|Partulidae stubs}}, and {{cl|Pupillidae stubs}}, as well as a few templates will reside here.
• {{cl|Sigmurethra stubs}}. Several templates and categories will live here, including {{cl|Camaenidae stubs}}, {{cl|Charopidae stubs}}, and {{cl|Hygromiidae stubs}}.
• {{cl|Systellommatophora stubs}}. {{cl|Onchidiidae stubs}} will reside here.

Dawynn (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

::Further review showed that Opisthobranchia and Pulmonata are no longer supported under the 2010 taxonomy scheme. These will not be created. Dawynn (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

I propose creating {{cl|Cetacean stubs}} - we now have [http://toolserver.org/~jarry/templatecount/index.php?lang=en&name=Template%3APaleo-whale-stub#bottom 45 articles] tagged as {{tl|paleo-whale-stub}} and [http://toolserver.org/~jarry/templatecount/index.php?lang=en&name=Template%3AWhale-stub#bottom 19] as {{tl|whale-stub}}, giving a total of 64 articles for this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

Just a few more of these.

• {{tl|Aciculidae-stub}} 20 articles
• {{tl|Buccinulidae-stub}} 13 articles
• {{tl|Paludomidae-stub}} 10 articles
• {{tl|Melanopsidae-stub}} 8 articles

Will clear 51 more articles out of {{cl|Caenogastropoda stubs}}. Dawynn (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

::Support templates and I asume you mean they will clear articles from {{tl|Caenogastropoda-stub}}. Waacstats (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

::Actually, moving them into the family templates will allow moves into the parent-only subcategories of {{cl|Caenogastropoda stubs}}. Thus, it removes them from both the template and the category. Dawynn (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

These will be pulled from {{cl|Caenogastropoda stubs}} for upmerge to {{cl|Hypsogastropoda stubs}}:

• {{tl|Amnicolidae-stub}} 18 P
• {{tl|Colubrariidae-stub}} 26 P
• {{tl|Moitessieriidae-stub}} 12 P
• {{tl|Pomatiopsidae-stub}} 13 P
• {{tl|Pseudomelatomidae-stub}} 11 P
• {{tl|Strictispiridae-stub}} 11 P

This will move a total of 91 articles into these family-level templates.

Dawynn (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp nocreate}}

There is no Canadian Internet Company Stub, although there is a US Internet Company Stub, per:

: {{tl|US-internet-company-stub}}

I have seen some instances where Canadian technology companies in general, including Internet companies have been falsely tagged as US Company stubs. If there is a US Internet Company stub, then, presumably, there should be for other countries too where there is a significant technology sector. (How many technology related sectors does Wikipedia recognize?)

Enquire (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

:If you see any falsely tagged with a US-related stub, then simply change them to {{tl|Canada-company-stub}}. Yes, a {{tl|Canada-internet-company-stub}} might be worthwhile, and I don't think anyone here would oppose the creation of one, but it's not really dependent on the size of the technology sector - what's more important is the number of stubs which exist which are likely to use the template and how significantly it will reduce the usage of other templates. If there are 1000 internet companies in Canada but only ojne of them has a stub article, there's little point in making the templ,ate - if there are a considerable number, though, it would be worthwhile. How many Canadian internet companies are there with stub articles, approximately? Grutness...wha? 07:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

Oversized (for now) sorting will reduce it but as we already have Scottish and English I think the following will be of use

• {{tl|Wales-actor-stub}} - {{Cl|Welsh actor stubs}}
• {{tl|NorthernIreland-actor-stub}} - {{Cl|Northern Irish actor stubs}}

categories only if we have at least 60.Waacstats (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

Propose speedy creation of category. To pick up {{tl|Caribbean-artist-stub}}, as well as the following:

• {{cl|Cuban painter stubs}}
• {{cl|Haitian painter stubs}}
• {{tl|Jamaica-painter-stub}}

Dawynn (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support speedy. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

The arachnids have grown too large. I'll propose a split of a couple groups for now:

• {{tl|spider-stub}} / {{cl|Spider stubs}}. Pulling out of redirected stubs already provides 360 articles. Main {{cl|Spiders}}.
• {{tl|scorpion-stub}}. Catscan indicates 25 articles. Main {{cl|Scorpions}}.
• {{tl|opiliones-stub}} / {{cl|Harvestmen stubs}}. Catscan indicates 257 articles. Main {{cl|Harvestmen}}.

:Support (though I'd rather split 'em with an axe.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support, but watch the spelling :) Grutness...wha? 21:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

I propose {{cl|Egyptologist stubs}}, as a stub category for the permcat {{cl|Egyptologists}} - [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&basecat=Egyptologists&basedeep=5&mode=ts&templates=asbox&go=Scan&format=html&userlang=en scan] shows 98 stubs here. {{tl|Egyptologist-stub}} is a good template for it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

Propose restoring the following from template redirects to full templates:

• {{tl|Bithyniidae-stub}} 15 articles
• {{tl|Chilodontidae-stub}} 53 articles
• {{tl|Lepetellidae-stub}} 20 articles
• {{tl|Lepetidae-stub}} 25 articles
• {{tl|Lepetodrilidae-stub}} 27 articles
• {{tl|Nacellidae-stub}} 23 articles
• {{tl|Neomphalidae-stub}} 20 articles
• {{tl|Peltospiridae-stub}} 26 articles

Propose new templates / categories for the following families:

• {{tl|Amastridae-stub}}
• {{tl|Aplysiidae-stub}}
• {{tl|Athoracophoridae-stub}}
• {{tl|Bradybaenidae-stub}}
• {{tl|Epitoniidae-stub}}
• {{tl|Facelinidae-stub}}
• {{tl|Helicinidae-stub}}
• {{tl|Helminthoglyptidae-stub}}
• {{tl|Hermaeidae-stub}}
• {{tl|Lauriidae-stub}}
• {{tl|Limacidae-stub}}
• {{tl|Limapontiidae-stub}}
• {{tl|Melongenidae-stub}}
• {{tl|Neocyclotidae-stub}}
• {{tl|Phasianellidae-stub}}
• {{tl|Pleurobranchidae-stub}}
• {{tl|Pupinidae-stub}}
• {{tl|Sagdidae-stub}}
• {{tl|Zonitidae-stub}}

Dawynn (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support all --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

I propose the following stub tags, all upmerged to the national people stub category and {{cl|African scientist stubs}}:

• {{tl|Algeria-scientist-stub}}
• {{tl|Burundi-scientist-stub}}
• {{tl|Ethiopia-scientist-stub}}
• {{tl|Ghana-scientist-stub}}
• {{tl|Mali-scientist-stub}}
• {{tl|Mauritius-scientist-stub}}
• {{tl|Morocco-scientist-stub}}
• {{tl|Senegal-scientist-stub}}
• {{tl|Somalia-scientist-stub}}
• {{tl|Sudan-scientist-stub}}
• {{tl|Zimbabwe-scientist-stub}}

These are all based on [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&basecat=African+scientists&basedeep=5&mode=ts&templates=asbox&go=Scan&format=html&userlang=en this scan], which would populate {{cl|African scientist stubs}} by a total of just over 100 articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - and {{tl|SouthAfrica-scientist-stub}} would be useful, too (the currenly SfD'd category is populated by a botanist-stub only). Grutness...wha? 22:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Hm - okay, skip that. Bizarre. It wasn't feeding into either the cfd nominee or to {{cl|African scientist stubs}}! Grutness...wha? 22:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support all. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

Proposal for a template for this clade under {{cl|Gastropod stubs}}. I don't believe that there are enough articles for now to justify a category, but would like to separate these from the general gastropod template. Dawynn (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support template for now, category when appropriate. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

I propose creating this category, as a stub category for {{cl|Social scientists}}. This category will be populated by already existing stub categories (e.g {{cl|Anthropologist stubs}}), and possibly new categories or upmerged stub tags for permcats which don't yet have stub categories (any such new stub tags or categories willbe proposed first). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - sounds like a good idea to me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

This is yet another split from the formerly oversized {{cl|Gastropod stubs}}. This would pick up the following, as well as others currently tagged simply as gastropod stubs:

• {{cl|Neritidae stubs}} - 75 articles
• {{tl|Neritiliidae-stub}} - 21 articles
• {{tl|Neritopsidae-stub}} - 7 articles
• {{tl|Phenacolepadidae-stub}} - 15 articles

As part of this proposal the three templates listed above will be raised to full template status (as opposed to redirects to {{tl|Gastropod-stub}}.

Dawynn (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support the nasty little things. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Apologies. The template should have been {{tl|Neritimorpha-stub}}. Dawynn (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

Proposing a further split of the Caenogastropoda, using the same major splits as the main category ({{cl|Caenogastropoda}}):

• {{tl|Architaenioglossa-stub}} / {{cl|Architaenioglossa stubs}}. Would pick up {{tl|Cyclophoridae-stub}}. May need to bypass this for now, unless another 6 articles can be found.
• {{tl|Hypsogastropoda-stub}} / {{cl|Hypsogastropoda stubs}}. Would pick up several stub categories, including the over-sized {{cl|Conidae stubs}}, {{cl|Muricidae stubs}}, {{cl|Rissoidae stubs}}, and {{cl|Turridae stubs}}.
• {{tl|Sorbeoconcha-stub}} / {{cl|Sorbeoconcha stubs}}. Would pick up several smaller families, most too small for their own category, as well as {{cl|Cerithiidae stubs}}, {{cl|Pleuroceridae stubs}} and {{cl|Turritellidae stubs}}.

Dawynn (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:I was overlooking some things. The Architaenioglossa category would also pick up {{tl|Ampullariidae-stub}}, {{tl|Viviparidae-stub}}, and {{cl|Diplommatinidae stubs}}. So, a category is justified. Dawynn (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:In order to cut down on cross project fighting, I'm choosing to make these parent-only stub categories for now. The mollusc / gastropod projects have indicated that they would rather not stub at any levels outside of families. By creating parent-only categories, we can keep our categories to a minimum, while allowing them to keep stubbing just at family-level. Dawynn (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

Making a start here, will be back with a few more as the process goes on. 690 articles in {{cl|European television stubs}} with some big countries not having their own stubs, and some upmerged templates above threshold.

;Categories with new worthwhile upmerged (for now) templates

• {{cl|French television stubs}} (125) + {{tl|france-tv-prog-stub}} (60), {{tl|france-tv-station-stub}} (45)
• {{cl|Italian television stubs}} (125) + {{tl|italy-tv-prog-stub}} (40), {{tl|italy-tv-station-stub}} (80)
• {{cl|Polish television stubs}} (95) + {{tl|poland-tv-prog-stub}} (40), {{tl|poland-tv-station-stub}} (40)

;New templates with categories if 60 threshold is met

• {{tl|germany-tv-stub}} (expecting 90 - {{cl|German television stubs}}) + {{tl|germany-tv-prog-stub}} (20), {{tl|germany-tv-station-stub}} (50)
• {{tl|spain-tv-stub}} (expecting 90 - {{cl|Spanish television stubs}}) + {{tl|spain-tv-prog-stub}} (45), {{tl|spain-tv-station-stub}} (20)
• {{tl|russia-tv-stub}} (40)
• {{tl|belgium-tv-stub}} (31)
• {{tl|portugal-tv-stub}} (20)
• {{tl|CzechRepublic-tv-stub}} (20)
• {{tl|norway-tv-prog-stub}} (35)

Next I will look at television station stubs. Severo^TC 18:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC) - updated 08:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC) & 14:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - anything to winnow the list down a bit. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

I know this doesn't need to be split, but found it while I was exploring outward from the gastropods.

• {{cl|Octopus stubs}}. Will pick up {{tl|Octopus-stub}}. 69 articles.
• {{cl|Bobtail squid stubs}} / {{tl|Sepiolida-stub}}. For bobtail squids. Catscan indicates 67 articles.
• {{cl|Nautiloid stubs}} / {{tl|Nautiloidea-stub}}. For nautiloids. Catscan indicates 121 articles.

Dawynn (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

New template: {{tl|Cerithiopsidae-stub}}. To be carved out of the {{cl|Gastropod stubs}}. Cat scan indicates 70 articles. Dawynn (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

I propose to create {{tl|PuertoRico-road-stub}} and :Category:Puerto Rico road stubs which will feed into :Category:United States road stubs and :Category:Puerto Rico stubs. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Sounds appropriate. PR has a lot of road stubs. Dough4872 04:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• There are just over 60. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• No Support. There is a significant number of PR roads articles that are pass Stub class and have not been reclassified as Start or beyond. Once that's done, I could give my support. Mercy11 (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Its also being proposed as currently PR Stubs use {{tl|US-road-stub}} and unlike every other state, and the VI, does not have a "state detail" template. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - it should also feed into any appropriate Caribbean categories. Mercy11, Start-Class articles may still be stubs - there is not a strict 1:1 correlation between stub articles and Stub-Class articles, since one is assessed per editing by Wikipedia as a whole and one per the requirements of a specific WikiProject. Grutness...wha? 22:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support for all of the reasons given above. Imzadi 1979 → 23:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

Hopefully the final speedway category I bring here! Speediable {{cl|Polish motorcycle speedway competition stubs}} and {{tl|Poland-motorcycle-speedway-competition-stub}} - [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&basecat=Polish+sport+stubs&basedeep=1&mode=cs&tagcat=Motorcycle+speedway+competition+stubs&tagdeep=1&go=Scan&format=html&userlang=en 128]. Severo^TC 18:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

OK -- this is one of the weirder things I've run into. There are a number of redirected stub template pages that I originally found under {{cl|Gastropod stubs}}. The ones I've listed here, I have moved under the {{cl|Caenogastropoda stubs}}, and am asking permission to raise these back up to a level of true templates:

• {{tl|Turbinellidae-stub}} / {{cl|Turbinellidae stubs}}. 65 articles. See Turbinellidae
• {{tl|Volutomitridae-stub}}. 52 articles. See Volutomitridae
• If I can find 8 more articles, please also approve {{cl|Volutomitridae stubs}}.
• {{tl|Batillariidae-stub}}. 15 articles. See Batillariidae
• {{tl|Litiopidae-stub}}. 17 articles. See Litiopidae
• {{tl|Pediculariidae-stub}}. 21 articles. See Pediculariidae
• {{tl|Planaxidae-stub}}. 20 articles. See Planaxidae
• {{tl|Potamididae-stub}}. 28 articles. See Potamididae
• {{tl|Provannidae-stub}}. 31 articles. See Provannidae
• {{tl|Pseudolividae-stub}}. 17 articles. See Pseudolividae
• {{tl|Siliquariidae-stub}}. 18 articles. See Siliquariidae

Dawynn (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

I've just tagged a few things with {{tl|Finland-composer-stub}} - there should be 62 or 63 to support the new category. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support speedy. Dawynn (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Support♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

Template: {{tl|Patellogastropoda-stub}}. According to cat scan, would pick up {{cl|Lottiidae stubs}} and {{cl|Patellidae stubs}}, as well as at least 80 articles from the overlatge {{cl|Gastropod stubs}}. Dawynn (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

Proposing a speedy creation for this geography template for this relatively new district in Karnataka. This will upmerge to {{cl|Gulbarga district geography stubs}} for now. Dawynn (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

:My apologies. I should have included a link for Yadgir district. Dawynn (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support template. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp nocreate}}

{{cl|Airsoft}}

About 13 stubs that don't have any real classification because they aren't firearms and using the "technology" stub is the only one that fits. If we could have an airsoft one it could help.

• An upmerged template might be useful, but there are too few stubs for a separate category. Porblem is, where would we upmerge it to? Any suggestions, anyone? Grutness...wha? 04:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Hm... Is there a section for extreme sports? Or shooting sports? What is paintball listed under? The^FSAviator ( T • C ) 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Good point, we don't have one for extreme sports, though that's a pretty amorphous category with everything from paintball to bungy to paragliding... There'd probably be enough stubs for a category, and certainly a template - possibly {{tl|extreme-sport-stub}} - though how to define it might be a problem. Grutness...wha? 21:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

In the spirit of {{cl|Heterobranchia stubs}}, I'd like to propose the following:

• {{tl|Caenogastropoda-stub}} / {{cl|Caenogastropoda stubs}}
• : Will pick up several categories, including the very large {{cl|Conidae stubs}}, {{cl|Muricidae stubs}} and {{cl|Turridae stubs}}
• {{tl|Vetigastropoda-stub}} / {{cl|Vetigastropoda stubs}}
• : Will pick up some categories, including the mid-sized {{cl|Calliostomatidae stubs}}, {{cl|Trochidae stubs}}, and {{cl|Turbinidae stubs}}

Building templates with these categories will allow us to move articles that may have families too small to even bother with templates at the family level. Ultimately, this should allow us to bring the Gastropods down to a reasonable level. Dawynn (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support stub-sorting. Oppose gastropods. (Yecch.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

We now already have stub templates for each of the 21 Counties of Croatia, but 4 categories within :Category:Croatia geography stubs. Does anyone mind if I split them up? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support - I don't mind in the least. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support any that reach the 60-stub threshold - it's possible that there are still some smaller ones which should stay upmerged... Grutness...wha? 21:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the statistic - now updated after sorting --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• {{tl|Croatia-geo-stub}} - 237 6
• {{tl|Slavonia-geo-stub}} - 14 23 9
• {{tl|ViroviticaPodravina-geo-stub}} - 45 48 58 {{done}}
• {{tl|PožegaSlavonia-geo-stub}} - 114 {{done}} 115
• {{tl|BrodPosavina-geo-stub}} - 40 49 {{done|Done despite reservations}}
• {{tl|OsijekBaranja-geo-stub}} - 98 {{done}} 104
• {{tl|VukovarSyrmia-geo-stub}} - 59 60 61 {{done}}
• {{tl|Dalmatia-geo-stub}} - 8 15 13
• {{tl|DubrovnikNeretva-geo-stub}} - 90 {{done}} 101
• {{tl|SplitDalmatia-geo-stub}} - 100 {{done}} 110
• {{tl|ŠibenikKnin-geo-stub}} - 28 39 40 {{done|Done despite reservations}}
• {{tl|Zadar-geo-stub}} - 71 84 {{done}}
• {{tl|CentralCroatia-geo-stub}} - 14 12
• {{tl|Zagreb-geo-stub}} - 91 0
• {{tl|ZagrebCity-geo-stub}} - 31 54 66 {{done}}
• {{tl|ZagrebCounty-geo-stub}} - 37 103 {{done}} 146
• {{tl|KrapinaZagorje-geo-stub}} - 109 {{done}} 118
• {{tl|SisakMoslavina-geo-stub}} - 134 {{done}} 148
• {{tl|Karlovac-geo-stub}} - 83 {{done}} 93
• {{tl|Varaždin-geo-stub}} - 99 {{done}} 107
• {{tl|KoprivnicaKriževci-geo-stub}} - 75 85 {{done}}
• {{tl|BjelovarBilogora-geo-stub}} - 99 {{done}} 117
• {{tl|Međimurje-geo-stub}} - 49 51 {{done|Done despite reservations}}
• Western Croatia
• {{tl|PrimorjeGorskiKotar-geo-stub}} - 120 {{done}} 143
• {{tl|Istria-geo-stub}} - 75 85 {{done}}
• {{tl|LikaSenj-geo-stub}} - 54 61 {{done}}

Most meet the speedy criteria already, there is potential for other immediate upgrades (237+91 are still left in generic categories), and it should all be done purely for the sake of consistency anyway. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

: Only five/six are at or below the limit. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

:: Does anyone actually object to the remaining subcategorization? To summarize, it's 40, 49, 51, 58, 61, 61. The worst case has a total of [http://www.dzs.hr/hrv/pxweb2003/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=Tabela4_15&ti=%8Aibensko-kninska+%9Eupanija+-+broj+stanovnika+po+naseljima++++++++&path=../Database/Naselja%20i%20stanovnistvo%20Republike%20Hrvatske/4%20Stanovnistvo%20naselja/&lang=10 214 settlements] so other than consistency there's also potential. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

:::The 40's a bit thin... I'd certainly say the 58's close enough, though. See if we can hunt out with a few more for the three smallest ones. Grutness...wha? 04:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

:::: It would feel inane to leave out just the three smallest ones without their own category, yet practically with their own category because they'll be the only ones left in their upper category. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

::::: Shrug, I evened it all out. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

I'd like to propose some new templates and categories for the Heterobranchia. In accordance with the Gastropod project, these are all at the family level.

• {{tl|Arionidae-stub}} - Cat scan suggests 20 articles.
• {{tl|Dorididae-stub}} - Cat scan suggests 50 articles.
• {{tl|Ellobiidae-stub}} - Cat scan suggests 40 articles.
• {{tl|Endodontidae-stub}} - Cat scan suggests 38 articles.
• {{tl|Enidae-stub}} - Cat scan suggests 29 articles.
• {{tl|Helicidae-stub}} / {{cl|Helicidae stubs}} - Cat scan suggests 82 articles.
• {{tl|Lymnaeidae-stub}} - Cat scan suggests 29 articles.
• {{tl|Oxychilidae-stub}} - Cat scan suggests 37 articles.
• {{tl|Polyceridae-stub}} - Cat scan suggests 40 articles.
• {{tl|Polygyridae-stub}} / {{cl|Polygyridae stubs}} - Cat scan suggests 64 articles.
• {{tl|Pyramidellidae-stub}} - Cat scan suggests 34 articles.
• {{tl|Rhytididae-stub}} / {{cl|Rhytididae stubs}} - Cat scan suggests 64 articles.
• {{tl|Subulinidae-stub}} - Cat scan suggests 37 articles.
• {{tl|Succineidae-stub}} - Cat scan suggests 26 articles.
• {{tl|Vertiginidae-stub}} - Cat scan suggests 44 articles.

Categories to be built, only if 60 articles can be found.

Dawynn (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support all --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

Based on this discusion, I'd like to propose the following Division level splits. Per the discussion, there will be no division templates:

• {{cl|Bangalore Division geography stubs}}
• : will pick up
• ::{{cl|Bangalore Urban district geography stubs}} (67 articles)
• ::{{cl|Bangalore Rural district geography stubs}} (41)
• ::{{cl|Chikkaballapur district geography stubs}} (5)
• ::{{cl|Chitradurga district geography stubs}} (37)
• ::{{cl|Davanagere district geography stubs}} (35)
• ::{{cl|Kolar district geography stubs}} (59)
• ::{{cl|Ramanagara district geography stubs}} (2)
• ::{{cl|Shimoga district geography stubs}} (36)
• ::{{cl|Tumkur district geography stubs}} (54)

• {{cl|Belgaum Division geography stubs}}
• : will pick up
• ::{{cl|Bagalkot district geography stubs}} (49 articles)
• ::{{cl|Belgaum district geography stubs}} (1,132)
• ::{{cl|Bijapur district (Karnataka) geography stubs}} (64)
• ::{{cl|Dharwad district geography stubs}} (184)
• ::{{cl|Gadag district geography stubs}} (24)
• ::{{cl|Haveri district geography stubs}} (35)
• ::{{cl|Uttara Kannada district geography stubs}} (53)
• {{cl|Gulbarga Division geography stubs}}
• : will pick up
• ::{{cl|Bellary district geography stubs}} (59 articles)
• ::{{cl|Bidar district geography stubs}} (25)
• ::{{cl|Gulbarga district geography stubs}} (62)
• ::{{cl|Koppal district geography stubs}} (39)
• ::{{cl|Raichur district geography stubs}} (46)
• {{cl|Mysore Division geography stubs}} (currently existing)
• : will pick up
• ::{{cl|Chamarajanagar district geography stubs}} (35 articles)
• ::{{cl|Chikkamagaluru district geography stubs}} (26 P)
• ::{{cl|Dakshina Kannada district geography stubs}} (132)
• ::{{cl|Hassan district geography stubs}} (47)
• ::{{cl|Kodagu district geography stubs}} (22)
• ::{{cl|Mandya district geography stubs}} (47)
• ::{{cl|Mysore district geography stubs}} (52)
• ::{{cl|Udupi district geography stubs}} (76)

I will point out that the indicated discussion is from 2007, and only one of the divisions have been created so far. Further, although a category exists for Mysore, none of its districts have been moved under it. Is this just a matter where the work hasn't been completed? Or has there been a change in thinking of how the Indian states should be split?

Dawynn (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

::Looks like a good idea and we delete the small categories and upmerge the templates. Waacstats (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

::Somebody saw where I was driving to. Yes -- I want the divisions in place before we upmerge the small categories. Dawynn (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

Looks like the following are missing and worth speedying:

• {{tl|CzechRepublic-newspaper-stub}} 11 articles
• {{tl|Finland-newspaper-stub}} 15 articles
• {{tl|Greece-newspaper-stub}} 18 articles
• {{tl|Hungary-newspaper-stub}} 16 articles
• {{tl|Luxembourg-newspaper-stub}} 37 articles
• {{tl|Moldova-newspaper-stub}} 19 articles
• {{tl|Netherlands-newspaper-stub}} 13 articles
• {{tl|Portugal-newspaper-stub}} 23 articles
• {{tl|Romania-newspaper-stub}} 46 articles
• {{tl|Spain-newspaper-stub}} 28 articles
• {{tl|Sweden-newspaper-stub}} 42 articles

Dawynn (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support all. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

=== {{cl|Women's association football biography stubs}} split ===

{{sfp create}}

Looking to break two categories out of this. Templates already created and loaded, just need to decide on the category names.

• {{cl|English women's football biography stubs}} - 105 articles. Will pick up template {{tl|England-women-footy-bio-stub}}. Title chosen to align with {{cl|English football biography stubs}}.
• {{cl|United States women's soccer biography stubs}} - 83 articles. Will pick up template {{tl|US-women-footy-bio-stub}}. Title chosen to align with {{cl|United States soccer biography stubs}}.

Dawynn (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp nocreate}}

We have some for other birds already, so why not? (75.189.148.4 (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC))

:Birds are divided by order - Ibises are covered by {{tl|Ciconiiformes-stub}} - which is only marginally large enough for its own stub category. In any case, the permanent category for ibises ({{cl|Threskiornithidae}}) only has about 40 articles, so even if all of them were stubs there wouldn't be enough for a separate stub category. Grutness...wha? 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp top|create as revised}}

• {{cl|United States political organization stubs}}/{{tl|US-poli-org-stub}}/[http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&basecat=United+States+organization+stubs&basedeep=3&mode=cs&tagcat=Political+organizations&tagdeep=5&go=Scan&format=html&userlang=en catscan]

Oversized. Would love to propose many more, but I can't find any good ones. Open to suggestions.^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 22:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'd suggest {{tl|US-sci-org-stub}}, {{tl|US-med-org-stub}}, {{tl|US-trade-org-stub}}, {{tl|US-charity-org-stub}}, and {{tl|US-welfare-org-stub}}, several of which look like they might reach threshold. Grutness...wha? 04:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support all. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Wouldn't charities come under US-philanthropic-org-stubs, I asssume the US-trade-org-stub is for organisations linking people of the same trade i.e lawyers assoc. etc but could possibly do with another name so not to confuse with trade-union-stubs otherwise everything seems OK. Waacstats (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Good point about the trade ones (and you're right about what I was intending with them)... as for the charity ones, {{tl|US-philanthropy-org-stub}} would be the name - and already seems to exist (the generic parent used to be at charity-org-stub, but seems to have been moved at some point to philanthropy-org-stub... a redirect at {{tl|US-charity-org-stub}} is probably worthwhile) Grutness...wha? 09:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• I support the redirect adn maybe a {{tl|US-professional-org-stub}} would be a better name if slightly narrower than the intended {{Tl|US-trade-org-stub}}. Waacstats (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

I've been a-sorting with {{tl|Ireland-poet-stub}}; this should pass the threshhold with a couple over 60. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

725+ in cat and growing.

• {{cl|2000s R&B song stubs}}/{{tl|R&B-2000s-song-stub}} [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&basecat=R%26B+song+stubs&basedeep=3&mode=cs&tagcat=2000s+songs&tagdeep=3&go=Scan&format=html&userlang=en catscan]
• {{cl|1990s R&B song stubs}}/{{tl|R&B-1990s-song-stub}} [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&basecat=R%26B+song+stubs&basedeep=3&mode=cs&tagcat=1990s+songs&tagdeep=3&go=Scan&format=html&userlang=en catscan]
• {{cl|1980s R&B song stubs}}/{{tl|R&B-1980s-song-stub}} [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&basecat=R%26B+song+stubs&basedeep=3&mode=cs&tagcat=1980s+songs&tagdeep=3&go=Scan&format=html&userlang=en catscan]
• {{cl|1970s R&B song stubs}}/{{tl|R&B-1970s-song-stub}} [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&basecat=R%26B+song+stubs&basedeep=3&mode=cs&tagcat=1970s+songs&tagdeep=3&go=Scan&format=html&userlang=en catscan]
• {{cl|1960s R&B song stubs}}/{{tl|R&B-1960s-song-stub}} [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&basecat=R%26B+song+stubs&basedeep=3&mode=cs&tagcat=1960s+songs&tagdeep=3&go=Scan&format=html&userlang=en catscan]
• {{tl|R&B-1950s-song-stub}} [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&basecat=R%26B+song+stubs&basedeep=3&mode=cs&tagcat=1950s+songs&tagdeep=3&go=Scan&format=html&userlang=en catscan] <-- not quite enough for a cat yet, but I expect it will be there before too long.

^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 13:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

::Support and with there being over 50 articles already in the 1950s I would support a category if the fine sorting finds a few more. Waacstats (talk)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp create}}

There may be only about 400 stubs in {{cl|Wales stubs}}, but about a quarter of them seem to be organisations. a {{tl|Wales-org-stub}} and accompanyine {{cl|Welsh organisation stubs}} would be fairly useful, methinks. Grutness...wha? 03:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support seems viable, esp. as a sub-cat of {{cl|United Kingdom organisation stubs}} ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 21:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

:Support --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

::Support and looking at UK-orgs the organisations could de with an overhaul of the category structure - Scottish schools being a sub cat of scottish orgs but UK schools not a subcat of UK orgs etc will have to add to the to do list. Waacstats (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

{{sfp top|relisted}}

There are a number of features that are in this county and are not in the San Joaquin Valley. Sequoia National Park and parts of Kings Canyon National Parks are certainly not in the valley. Currently 62 articles us the template {{tl|TulareCountyCA-geo-stub}}.

: :Category:Tulare County geography stubs

::This is an archive page. It hasn't been January for quite some time! I'll move your request to the current month. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC).

{{sfp bottom}}

Proposals 2011 01