Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/August 2006 completed#Software split

To help thin out :Category:Bridge (structure) stubs, I would like to propose subcategory ":Category:Canada bridge (structure) stubs" for Canadian bridges, the same way we also have the subcategory :Category:United States bridge (structure) stubs. --Stephane Charette 16:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• oppose don't like the name. Monni 16:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Please propose a more acceptable name. I don't like it either, but it matches the format used by the parent and the sibling. --Stephane Charette 17:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment My point was that US stubs are pretty much one of the few exceptions I would consider as bad examples for naming. Highly inconsistent. I looked up Canada-related stubs categories and about half of them started with "Canada" and half started with "Canadian". I prefer "Canadian" more as it is consistent with naming style of categories for other countries than USA. Maybe it's just me wanting to change the world, but one has to start from somewhere. Monni 18:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with that preference, but I despair of any consensus happening on it, so I'm not going to oppose on those grounds alone. Alai 18:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• consensus is a funny thing... sometimes people intentionally make things look confusing just to make things end up with "no consensus"... well... like I said... I'm only changing the world... so if it can turn upside down, so can my vote... Monni 18:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• In view of a prior comment (quote: I prefer "Canadian" more as it is consistent with naming style of categories for other countries), I'd like to change the proposal to :Category:Canadian bridge (structure) stubs. --Stéphane Charette 19:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• support revised proposal ;) Monni 19:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Seems sensible in theory; are there 60 such stubs? If not, create just the template for the time being, sort and collect until there are. Alai 16:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• There are 52 stubs according to stubsense, but I think a few of those are no longer stubs. --Usgnus 17:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support 60ish is enough for a category. Yankee Rajput 00:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I just tagged 5-6 stub articles. :Category:Canada buildings and structures stubs would be another parent. --Usgnus 06:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Finished sorting (I think), and we have 75 stubs. --Usgnus 19:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I think we need the following myth stubs in order to sort the multiplying information on gods, goddesses, and myths into what region of the world. Here are the continents missing and suggested naming convention:

• {{tl|MEast-myth-stub}} for myths from Middle East ancient civilizations (Mesopotamia, Sumaria, Arab, Persia, Israel, Babylon)

• {{tl|Australia-myth-stub}} for myths from Australia (thinking of the Aborigines)

• {{tl|SouthAm-myth-stub}} for myths from South America (i.e. lots of Inca, Chile, Peru and Brazil mythology exists to date)

• {{tl|CentralAm-myth-stub}} for myths from Central America (i.e. lots of Aztec mythology exists to date)

I was sorting the myth stubs but have no where to put myths from these large regions or continents! I probably don't need to explain Middle East ancient civilizations, or Australia. For the Americas, there is already the {{tl|americas-myth-stub}} it does not want central or south america myths? I've got the Aztec and Inca myths saved under mesoamerican-stub and pre-columbian-stub - for the time being. It would be natural to split America Myths into 3 regions: North, Central and South. Goldenrowley 01:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:Right. I was going to ask why you wanted the mid-east split off, then I realised you mean the Middle East - which never includes India, BTW. Correct names would be {{tl|MEast-myth-stub}} (and {{tl|India-myth-stub}}, {{tl|Oceania-myth-stub}}, {{tl|SouthAm-myth-stub}}, and {{tl|CentralAm-myth-stub}}. As you can see, one of those already exists, as does {{tl|Asia-myth-stub}}, which currently takes the Middle Eastern myth stubs. Many of the Indian ones are covered by {{tl|Hindu-myth-stub}}, too.

:BTW, you may like to know that "aboriginals" is often regarded as insulting in Australia (the term is either "Aborigines" or "Koori"), and doubly so in New Zealand, (where the term is "Maori"). They (and I) would feel doubly insulted by the suggestion that New Zealand is part of Australia. Please be more careful in making proposals! Grutness...wha? 02:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks I went back and changed the proposals based on Grutness' feedback. I certainly do not mean any insult to any native people or region, sorry, I was just trying to cover the continents.

::*Myths and legend project have a "most wanted" list out that includes many requests for "Middle Eastern" -- it should not be in Asia any longer.

::*I can't see a critical mass (at this time) to make a myth stub for India (apart from Hindu myths) -- so India can remain in Asia although can be monitored

::*I can't see a critical mass (at this time) to make a myth stub for New Zealand, but dropped the idea to merge it with Australia.

::*addition proposing {{tl|americas-myth-stub}} be renamed {{tl|NorthAm-myth-stub}}, at the same time as adding Central and South America stubs. Goldenrowley 19:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I'd oppose the middle eastern as a separate category until there's at least 60 stubs to populate it: this is Wikiproject stub sorting, not most-requested-sorting, and redlinks don't fill out a stub category well. :) However, I'd fully support a {{tl|MiddleEast-myth-stub}} (or {{tl|MEast-myth-stub}} to its friends) template, upmerged pro temps to the Asian category. For the antipodes, perhaps Oceanania-myth-stub, if there's the population (at the risk of confusing matters by not following the UEFA confederation regions...). Alai 20:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Thanks I began a list of pages that qualify as Middle Eastern myth stubs and I have reached 60. I feel can easily double or triple the rate I am finding them Goldenrowley 01:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Sounds good to me, support on that basis. Don't overdo things, save some energy for sorting the stubs. :) Alai 03:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:As far as the New Zealand ones are concerned, given that there's an oceania-myth-stub (but no oceanania-myth-stub, Alai ;) it's less urgent, but it may be worth later considering separate Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia myth-stubs, those being the biggest three ethnic divisions within Oceania, and having a lot of myths in common within each one (many NZ myths are also found in other parts of Polynesia, for instance). I'd definitely support MEast-myth-stub if it's reached 60, and also ones for Australia and the proposals for the Americas if they too get to the same total. Grutness...wha? 05:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (PS - no harm done with the original proposals - I figures there was no deliberate aim to insult :) Grutness...wha? 05:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::Bah. :) Alai 06:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Phew glad I am off the hook for my NZ goof, Grutness! The Middle East and Americas are nearly ready to stub (got my lists ready). I am not sure I can find 60 Australian myths this summer. Maybe we can agree to change the description part of the stub "Oceania" to "Oceania and Australia" for clarity at least.Goldenrowley 21:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

::::No need. Oceania almost always includes Australia. It seems silly making it "All these countries including Australia plus Australia" Grutness...wha? 00:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC) (sorry - forgot to sign)

:::::I agree with Mystery Caller above. What I would support is an explicit scoping statement on the category page, and a separate template {{tl|Australia-myth-stub}} feeding into the same category. Alai 00:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Ok. that seems perfect! Goldenrowley 02:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

There are at least 66 of these - one entire column at 200 articles per page, 3 columns is made up of Wisconsin highway stubs. There are plenty more, of course, but this proves it meets threshold. Crystallina 17:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ahem-hem! :) Alai 20:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Never mind that too. I really need to start reading more closely... Crystallina 01:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• It's easily done, especially when the page is 216K long... Alai 01:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The novel category is really big, but as far as I can see, most are not genre novels. There are a couple of ways to break it up. I think the least arbitrary way to break up the category is by decade - and lots of people will specialize in books of a particular period. To stop the confusion of whether to sort a 70s sci-fi novel by genre or date, I think these new tags should be marked "litnovel" for literary novel, or something of that kind. So you'll have:

• {{tl|1950s-litnovel-stub}}
• {{tl|1960s-litnovel-stub}}
• {{tl|1970s-litnovel-stub}}

and so on. I haven't checked to see which decades are most in demand, but as there are nine pages of novels I'm pretty sure we won't have any trouble with empty decades.

I think this is a better solution than further subdividing by style, since whether a novel is comic or magic-realist or whatever is pretty subjective. However, another way to split the category would be to divide British and American novels (again with litnovel rather than novel so British mysteries and such didn't confuse). So, as an alternative to the above:

• {{tl|UK-litnovel-stub}}
• {{tl|US-litnovel-stub}}

With other nationalities added as needed. The first option would be more useful for categorizing books in English, but obviously as wiki grows we'll need categories for books in other languages, so the second option would fit in better to that scheme.

One added genre that would not go amiss is Young adult: {{tl|YA-novel-stub}}

Dybryd 07:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm happy to say there is no category of {{cl|literary novels}}, {{cl|non-genre novels}}, as it's a sufficiently problematic concept as to be well worth not setting me off on. For the same reasons, oppose any genre split by non-genre, marketing elitism, etc. Support splitting the novels en masse by decade, i.e. simply {{tl|1950s-novel-stub}}, etc. Alai 07:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Wait a minute, I don't just support it, I already proposed it. Alai 07:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Wait, do I delete this now as a duplicate? Except then I'd be deleting you, too. Given the state of publishing today, seeing literary novels as an "elite" category seems a pretty hard concept to sustain. But whatever, I just don't want people to be confused about where to put their 1970s mystery--and putting it together with the 1970s sci-fi would be no kindness to the genre-based fans who will most likely be expanding these stubs. Dybryd 08:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• I assume you'd want to keep the section in place for the young adult proposal, at least -- on which, btw, a less cryptic template name, please: and how many likely stubs? It didn't show up when I looked for possible splits, but perhaps that's just an artefact of . I think the link between the two connects the two discussions adequately, so I have no objection to you leaving this in place (or striking or deleting, if you'd prefer). It might be the elitism of the garret, but the idea that one has "genre work" on the one hand, and "literature" on the other is positively dripping with intellectual snobbery (I'm not imputing this idea to you, I wish to make clear, just making the general observation of this as a trend of marketing and criticism). A standard patronising "compliment" being to note that someone's work "transcends the genre", with a rather obvious assumption as to which direction is the gutter, and which the sphere celestrial. It's also inherently weaselly, as the standard tactic is to declare "literary" writer so-and-so's fantasy-by-any-objective-definition to be "magical realism", or someone else's work "too good to be SF" (a tactic otherwise known as guilt by association, run in reverse (exoneration by dissociation?)). See the literary fiction article for more-issues-than-actual-definition in the same vein... I do agree that by-genre expansion is most likely, and for the reason I'm fully in favour of sorting by genre first, and indeed suggesting as much with a politely-worded request to that effect on the category. But deciding whether a given no-specified-genre is a "litnovel-stub", or a mere (popular) "novel-stub" is really not the work of stub-sorting, in my view. Alai 08:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support creation of a young adult novel stub by any name; it's a huge field and it has a parent category already. Oppose creation of anything called a "literary novel" as it's Just Too Hard To Define. I would prefer splitting them by century or decade. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose litnovel as POV. Are the Hugo Award for Best Novel winners not literary? --Usgnus 03:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Certainly not. Iain Banks is a literary novelist; Iain M. Banks is a genre writer. :| Alai 00:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I was surprised this didn't exist already. It'd get a lot of stubs out of both {{tl|athletics-bio-stub}} (8 pages) and {{tl|US-sport-bio-stub}} (not sure how many pages but I think it's rather large). Crystallina 03:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Already proposed, and (give or take a few hours of waiting period) approved. Alai 04:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry, didn't see that. Crystallina 17:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• {{cl|United States basketball coach stubs}} 268
• {{cl|United States women's basketball biography stubs}} 74

The parent is seven pages, so the above won't do it entirely, size-wise. However, the only other permcat-based splits I can find are per-team based splits, which haven't been wildly popular in the past... Alai 01:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This will at least cut into it somewhat. --fuzzy510 05:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I've just added a 65th French Guiana geo-stub... Suriname and French Guiana are both now at threshold - the last two countries/territories in South America. Adding {{tl|Suriname-geo-stub}} and {{tl|FrenchGuiana-geo-stub}} will completely empty {{cl|South America geography stubs}} in fact, so it's worth considering getting rid of that cat's template, too, and leaving it just as a parent. Grutness...wha? 11:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Congratulations! I have been wondering when they'd make it. Support per nom (and if we don't need the template, then by all means). Valentinian ^(talk) 14:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• {{cl|Rugby league biography stubs}} 611
• {{cl|Australian rugby league biography stubs}} 425
• {{cl|Rugby union biography stubs}} 191
• {{cl|European rugby league biography stubs}} 102
• {{cl|New Zealand rugby league biography stubs}} 83
• {{cl|United Kingdom rugby league biography stubs}} 76
• {{cl|United Kingdom rugby union biography stubs}} 76

Counts are non-exclusive. Alai 03:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support all. --Usgnus 02:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'm going to withdraw the Europeans, unless someone is hiding a hatful somewhere else, since on the above numbers the UK is responsible for all but 26 of them. Alai 05:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{tl|school-stub}} is four pages. I'd like to nip it in the bud before it gets larger. Creating {{tl|Asia-school-stub}} and {{cl|Asia school stubs}} would remove a significant (100+) amount of articles. Aelfthrytha 02:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Alai 03:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Usgnus 02:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

These may well be de-oversize-able just by sorting to the new US- subtype, but the following also look viable:

• {{cl|Bank stubs}} 419
• {{cl|Insurance company stubs}} 81
• {{cl|United States bank stubs}} 69

Assuming I'm not missing any massive amount of false-possing. Alai 02:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• {{cl|European newspaper stubs}} 314
• {{cl|Asian newspaper stubs}} 200
• {{cl|English-language newspaper stubs}} 68

Slight overkill for a five-pager, but... Alai 01:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm a little less happy with the language category (since it will lead to a lot of double-stubbing), but the other two certainly make sense. Grutness...wha? 06:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::I was looking to cover my bases, but had forgotten we'd already started splitting regionally, so I agree that the language-based split is a bit pointless. Alai 07:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Where Alai sees "overkill", I see "an oversized cat getting a stake through the heart", which is rare enough. Support Asia- and Euro-. --CComMack (t•c) 10:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Yes, yet more albums:

• {{cl|2000s album stubs}} 243
• {{cl|1990s album stubs}} 109
• {{cl|1980s album stubs}} 38
• {{cl|Alternative rock album stubs}} 27
• {{cl|Indie rock album stubs}} 19

Obviously the first two are viable unto themselves; the remainder I suggest we create largely as "container" categories for the already-existing by-genre and by-decade cats. Alai 01:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• support all with >= 60 articles. Monni 08:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Following the obvious pattern of by splitting by geographical sub-division:

• {{cl|Buckinghamshire school stubs}} 106
• {{cl|Wales school stubs}} 87
• {{cl|London school stubs}} 70

That ought to be enough to whack it back to non-oversized for now. A more systematic split might go with English regions. Alai 00:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. --Usgnus 02:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Some possible mis-counts here, deferring Wales- for now. Alai 20:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• {{cl|German sports venue stubs}} 97
• {{cl|Italian sports venue stubs}} 96
• {{cl|Spanish sports venue stubs}} 69
• {{cl|French sports venue stubs}} 69

Five-page parent. Let's start creating these at vaguely sensible names: if there's no hope of splitting sports venues either by form, or by function, let's give them an appropriately generic name, which echos the perm cat ({{cl|sports venues}}). (SFR of existing types to follow, unless this gets stomped all over on.) Alai 23:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support all. Even if when we do split US stadiums by some other criteria, that criteria will almost certainly only apply after a country sort has been done. --fuzzy510 03:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support all. --Usgnus 02:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• {{cl|2000s electronic album stubs}} 347
• {{cl|1990s electronic album stubs}} 229

As below, pretty much. Alai 22:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• support Monni 16:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Following the pattern of the rock, metal, indie rock, etc -- and just about the only axis I can find to split this five-pager, I propose:

• {{cl|2000s hip hop album stubs}} 416
• {{cl|1990s hip hop album stubs}} 255

Incidentally, several by-year splits would be possible (in fact, every year from 2002), but those seem to have proved less popular. Alai 22:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• support. Monni 16:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

This is a bit more like it:

• {{cl|Sindh geography stubs}} 253
• {{cl|Karachi District geography stubs}} 206
• {{cl|Punjab (Pakistan) geography stubs}} 119
• {{cl|North-West Frontier Province geography stubs}} 65
• {{cl|Balochistan geography stubs}} 59

Parent is only five pages, so all the above would be overkill. Alai 19:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Support, and let me know so I can help sort it. Aelfthrytha 02:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Yes, these are actually over-full again, and there are some actually viable splits available. I suggest the following, scoped to be as inclusive as possible, and named to be as innocuous as possible, given recent arbitration-related shenanigans.

• {{cl|Indiana road stubs}} 101
• {{cl|Wisconsin road stubs}} 83
• {{cl|Minnesota road stubs}} 63

In each case, the perm-parent I'm counting from is a "state highway", but that's a) not as inclusive as it might be, and b) likely to be subject to dispute, so let's not go there. If we can scrounge a couple more, then {{cl|Ohio road stubs}} at 57 is also a possibility. Alai 18:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

See comments two proposals down. Alai 05:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support as per my previous comments. Grutness...wha? 07:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Dude, like, totally support but I think {{cl|California buildings and structures stubs}} is, like, more gnarly. 15:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pegship (talk • contribs)
• And uses the traditional "WSS grammar rules"? :) Alai 15:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• As noted below, this has been proposed and approved before, and is technically speediable, but I agree with Pegship that "California" is preferable. --CComMack (t•c) 10:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• It was? When? Alai 15:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Check the discussion and link at #United States skyscrapers. --CComMack (t•c) 08:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oops, of course. I'd missed that that had gotten down to the state lavel... Alai 16:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

107 of these, oversized parent. Alai 01:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Another six-page geo, splittable by the following peripheries of Greece.

• {{cl|Central Macedonia geography stubs}} 117
• {{cl|Crete geography stubs}} 100
• {{cl|Thessaly geography stubs}} 91
• {{cl|Peloponnese geography stubs}} 75
• {{cl|Epirus geography stubs}} 71
• {{cl|Central Greece geography stubs}} 68
• {{cl|South Aegean geography stubs}} 60

There's scoping nuances between {{cl|Epirus}} and {{cl|Epirus (periphery)}}, but I think not enough to keep anyone awake at night, or to insert same into the stub category names. Alai 00:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Geo-stub Coordinator-General and NZ-stubber Pursuivant, are you asleep at the switch? :) Six pages, the following appear to be splittable:

• {{cl|Auckland geography stubs}} 165
• {{cl|Canterbury, New Zealand geography stubs}} 152
• {{cl|Otago geography stubs}} 124
• {{cl|West Coast, New Zealand geography stubs}} 73
• {{cl|Southland, New Zealand geography stubs}} 69

Perhaps we can drop the NZ qualifier from some of the cat names; the above are echoing the perm-cat names. Alai 00:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm here :) - but I missed this one while wading through all the new proposals, and it was only four pages last time I checked! I've been thinking of a split like this for a while... I support, but would make the following slight tweaks to the naming:

:*{{cl|Auckland Region geography stubs}} / {{tl|Auckland-geo-stub}}

:*{{cl|Canterbury, New Zealand geography stubs}} / {{tl|CanterburyNZ-geo-stub}}

:*{{cl|Otago geography stubs}} / {{tl|Otago-geo-stub}}

:*{{cl|Westland geography stubs}} / {{tl|Westland-geo-stub}}

::*{{cl|West Coast, New Zealand geography stubs}} / {{tl|WestCoastNZ-geo-stub}}

:*{{cl|Southland geography stubs}} / {{tl|Southland-geo-stub}}

:I think they'd probably be unambiguous enough (The West Coast region is almost always called Westland within NZ - after all, both islands have a west coast). There's a tiny bit of overlap, particularly Otago/Southland, but not enough to cause any real probolems (let's face it, rivers will often overlap anyway). Other regions such as Wellington and Waikato can't be far off splitting, either. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::I'm not quite sure about your names: I'm following the permcats here, and there's no {{cl|Auckland Region}} or {{cl|Westland}}. (Southland seems fair enough, unless anyone finds it too unclear or ambiguous.) Funny you should mention the rivers: they're easily viable as a type unto themselves, though I didn't check to see how much overlap they, and the mountains, etc, cause between regions. You're not wrong about the bubbling unders: {{cl|Wellington Region}} (sic!) is on 52, {{cl|Waikato}} is on 46. {{cl|Bay of Plenty-East Coast}} (siccer?) has them beat on 55, though. Nelson, Marlborough, Manawatu-Wanganui, Central North Island, and Northland are all in the 40-30 range (in that order). Obviously I'd be fully in favour of the "templatise everything in sight" model. Alai 01:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Well, the main articles for one of them is at Auckland Region - and given that the region includes and is dominated by a city called Auckland, it's definitely a better term to use. The permcats are a slight problem, BTW (and probably originally my fault). The actual governmental regions of New Zealand are slightly different to them, as can be seen if you look at Regions of New Zealand. The template at the bottom of the article suggests Fiordland is a 13th region, but it is usually considered part of Southland. You're right about the West Coast though. I'm just concerned that people will start adding stubs relating to places like Piha and Karekare to it. I'm going to suggest some permcat changes at the NZ noticeboard so that they match the actual regions, BTW. Grutness...wha? 02:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::OK, I'll take your word for it that the permcats will be "eventually trending" in that direction, unless I hear different. The count for Southland will include those for Fiordland (23), as it's a subcat. If there's any other anomalies give me a "hold on" before I sic the 'bot on them (or else make good after the fact). Alai 02:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::The only other differences would be to ones not yet proposed (i.e., don't make any of those other templates yet!). Auckland's the only one of the proposals that would be affected (for my actual proposed changes, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand. Grutness...wha? 07:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::PS - forgot to say, there probably isn't too much double stubbing of rivers, especially in the S.I., except where they form borders of regions. Many of the mountains in the Southern Alps would get both CanterburyNZ-geo-stub and WestCoastNZ-geo-stub though (yeah, OK - West Coast not Westland). Grutness...wha? 07:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW - Thames-Coromandel is technically part of the Waikato Region (and if the roosed new categorisation goes ahead, it'll be a subcat of it). Would that ush Waikato-geo-stub above threshold? Grutness...wha? 01:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, 27 in that, making 66 in total. (Note the overlap.) Any other rogue districts that should be subcats, but aren't? Alai 01:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

::The only three other problem areas are EC-BoP, which should be split between the two separate regions, Nelson, which also needs splitting between the Nelson and Tasman regions, and Central North Island, which isn't a real region and takes in places in several regions (including Waikato, so that would increase the total further still). Grutness...wha? 01:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:::OK. If you fix those up, then a future db dump will pick up the new categories, and give more useful fix for those, too. OTOH the current proposal should keep them below threshold for the time being, it would seem (unless they're growing like, say, the Swiss geos...). Alai 02:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:OK, this is a done deal as far as I'm concerned, but if anyone's feeling super-keen, there's 27 apparent double-stubbing candidates I haven't resolved that would further deplete the parent, and if anyone's feeling really keen, they could tag the remainder with {{tl|CanterburyNZ-geo-stub}}, {{tl|Nelson-geo-stub}}, {{tl|Marlborough-geo-stub}}, {{tl|Tasman-geo-stub}}, {{tl|Gisborne-geo-stub}}, {{tl|ManawatuWanganui-geo-stub}}, {{tl|Taranaki-geo-stub}}, {{tl|Hawke'sBay-geo-stub}}, {{tl|BayofPlenty-geo-stub}}, {{tl|Northland-geo-stub}} and {{tl|Wellington-geo-stub}} -- all upmerged templates for now, but at least one (Wellington) is close to being a viable split. Alai 04:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

::Most of them are on the borders between two regions - I've added some annotations to the list. I've also added a redirect from HawkesBay-geo-stub, since most NZers (including a lot of government departments) ignore the apostrophe. Grutness...wha? 10:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

There's 42 of these double-stubbed: anyone able to find another 18? Alai 04:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Unless I'm using stubsense wrong[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/stub_sense?category=American+bassists&num_pages=300&dbname=enwiki], there are now 113 {{tl|bassist-stub}}s under :Category:American bassists. --Usgnus 19:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Even though StubSense is pretty behind in enwiki, I could weak support just to get rid of some double-stubbing. Monni 11:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• If my numbers from the latest db dump are correct, it's now 158 of 'em... Alai 05:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• After sorting, there are over 200. --Usgnus 06:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Could have sworn I'd already proposed this (under some other name?), but I'll be blowed if I can find it. Anyhoo, 83 in the oversized China-bios, under {{cl|Chinese sportspeople}}. Alai 22:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I created these prior to reading the policy. I apologize for that. Nevertheless, the above are proposed for stubs. Others and myself will populate the category to demonstrate that it meets the criteria of a "good number" as outlined in the relevant policy. Regards, --Riurik 19:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: often created, never populated remotely within threshold, despite some heroic attempts at triple-tagging certain articles. Instead I'd like to suggest a {{cl|Eastern European history stubs}}, which I confess I thought already existed. This would also take in the equally unproposed (though less deleted) {{cl|Belarusian history stubs}}, which I'll be taking to SFD in the fullness of time. Alai 19:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps you are thinking of {{tl|East-Slavic-hist-stub}}? --Usgnus 19:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Ah-hah, that must be the one. Perhaps a bit clearer in scope, though not a subcat of {{cl|European history stubs}}, just the confuse matters. As this explicitly includes both {{cl|History of Ukraine}} and {{cl|History of Belarus}}, let's just upmerge both to there. Alai 19:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support new stub and a cat. East-Slavic history stub was created a while ago and I discussed it with Grutness. It is only remotely related to the issue of the History of UA stub itself and cat. Please study the issue a little before coming up with the proposals like to upmerge. While East Slavic history is a history of Ukraine, the reverse is not true. East slavic history is a period of history related to the modern nations of UA, BE and RU for the period of their common statehood and etnos. --Irpen 00:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• As for the underpopulated argument, I can write in a matter of an hour 30 stubs like "XXX was YYY that happened in ZZZ and the main participants were AAA and BBB" IMO, such substubs do more harm than good, but if some think otherwise and see the need for such articles, please say so. --Irpen 00:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• I agree, that would be pointless as best. As is quadruple-stubbing stubs with the history types of different modern-day countries that didn't exist at the time of the event in question, and creating stub types that are, realistically, seriously undersized. And please explain (slowly and with small words as necessary) why neither of the above-suggested upmerged are not appropriate, rather rather merely allude to your superior, and my greatly inferior knowledge. Is Ukraine not an East Slavic nation? Is it not in Eastern Europe? If you're assuming the first type is restricted to Early East Slavic history, that doesn't appear to be reflect in the scoping statement of the category. Alai 18:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• By convention among all scholars, "East Slavic history" always refers to the early East Slavic history. I hope I answered this consern you have. Now, you have a point that not everything that happened in the territory of modern-day Ukraine is conventionally attributed to the history of Ukraine. However, not all stubs about something that happened in the territory of modern day UA are categorized as Ukrainian history stubs for exactly this reason. For instance, some are East-Slavic-hist stubs, others are Jewish-history stubs. The articles currently in this stub cat are all appropriate for the Ukrainian history. Other objections? --Irpen 00:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Then that (counter-)objection is merely one of terminology (and terminology that's very poorly indicated on the corresponding category, with not so much as a link -- not that there's a clearly defining article per se to link to -- the scope is what, everything pre-Imperial Russia? Includes or does not include Kievan Rus?), not that a single category with either of the scopes (one of which you didn't address at all) I indicated would be infeasible or undesirable per se. And some of the are quadruple-stubbed, and some of them occurred this year: any progress on those objections? Alai 02:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Alai, while I am not a native speaker, I am fluent in English and I understand very well most everything that goes around WP. However, I often find it very difficult to understand you. This applies not just to the statement above but to things you say elsewhere too. So, please rephrase the question above more clearly for me, the poor sole, and please make it a habit to generally reread what you just wrote before hitting the submit button. --Irpen 16:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• I assume you mean soul rather than sole. Sorry, but it makes perfect sense to me, and I'm highly disinclined to rewrite the whole thing on no information beyond "everything you write makes no sense". In any event, the final question was largely rhetorical, and the "what the heck is the exact scope?" point seems clear enough, surely. Alai 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, that is what Irpen meant; if not a rewrite then please let's make an effort (myself including) to write more clearly in the future (e.g. avoid double negatives, when using pronouns refer clearly to a specific noun). Anyway, I think the scope for UA-hist stub can roughly be from 8-9th century until today, with occasional exceptions unavoidable. Quadruple-stubbing is not pretty, but that is yet another incentive to unstub the article. Are there many articles stubbed four ways?--Riurik 19:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• So Kievan Rus' is Ukrainian (and Belarussian and Russian) history, and not "East Slavic" history? The categories (for each) should make that as clear as possible (though I'd still be inclined to upmerge the Belarus history stubs there (or elsewhere), as they're even more undersized. Come to that, the East Slavs page should make that much clearer, if this is standard/universal terminology. I can't tell you off-hand how many are quadruple-stubbed, but I noticed more than one on a very small sampling of the current contents. (The scope you suggest seems likely to produce triple-stubbing en masse for the 9th-12th C., certainly, which is why I'd favour a common category for that period (and earlier), whatever the standard terminology.) I've more than once threatened to compile a "rogue's gallery" of articles with 4, 5, 6, or even more stub tags from the whole database, perhaps I'll actually follow through one day... Alai 19:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Irpen. Also, this stub category can be filled with countless stubs, within max. 1 day or 1 hour like Irpen said :))). —dima ^/sb.tk/ 00:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support the need for UA history stub category exists. In a day or two, the cat will be properly populated by editors.--Riurik 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Needed long ago.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  08:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'm amazed anyone can say that with a straight face, given the ludicrousness of the attempts to get this up to size, e.g., tagging Ukraine at the 2006 Winter Paralympics -- what the heck, let's just rename {{tl|Ukraine-stub}} to {{tl|Ukraine-history-stub}} en masse, on the basis that everything that happened long enough to put on Wikipedia is "history". Alai 18:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• First, I have made a couple of these history stubs, and have tagged those that are apppropriate. The last time I counted, the number was about 60. Quote: Good number means about 60 articles or more. Second, look at :Category:Polish history stubs. They also include articles like paralympics/olympics: Poland at the 1972 Summer Olympics. Ukraine is a large country with a big history. Does it not deserve a separate stub category for it??? If there is :Category:American academic administrator stubs, why can't Ukraine have a History stub??? —dima ^/sb.tk/ 18:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Do you detect a difference between the "historical" nature of something that happened in 1972, and something that happened five months ago? The doubtless-equally-determined-to-pad-out-their-"own"-stub-type editors of the Polish articles might be somewhat pushing the envelope, but there's such a thing as "taking the piss". If there are real articles, in sufficient quantity, which are meaningfully taggable with this type -- without triple- and quadruple-, and outright mis-tagging -- then I'm all in favour of a separate type, but this whole "deserves a separate stub category" stuff, as if it were properly a matter of national pride, or of "the Poles have one, therefore we obviously must too", is deeply wrong-headed. Stub types are an editing tool, not fetish objects. Alai 18:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• After edit conflict (gee thanks: can you avoid making your comment a moving target, please?): Ther's an {{cl|American academic administrator stubs}} because that was needed to avoid persistently oversized parents. There's a {{cl|History of Ukraine stubs}} because... why? Other than that it's been created four times, absent any real need whatsoever? Alai 18:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Alai, ifa particular stub in the cat is misplaced, just retag it. Most stubs in the cat are placed there correctly. Second, Alai might not be aware, but anyone with any familiarity of the topic may note that of the stub's proponents above there is not a single Ukrainian nationalist. Every single editor who voted above is known for rather moderate views and some have been attacked by certain Ukrainian wiki-nationalists with agendas on unrelated disputes. Editors familiar with the topic and with the current state of affairs in Ukraine's coverage at Wiki all see the need for the cat and they are driven by the desire to get a better wikipedia rather than by their personal Ukrainophilia. Finally, Alai, if you insist on me creating a dozen of "articles" using the pattern above (XXX was YYY that took place in ZZZ) as a mandatory condition for agreeing to accept the cat, please say so clear and loud. I avoided that because IMO there is more harm than good in empty articles, but there is even more harm in lumping the Eternal Peace Treaty of 1686 and modern Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine in one generic Ukraine-stub cat as I explained above. I also explained to you, why East-Slavic history solution is simply wrong. These are not one and the same and complement each other rather than can be used interchangeably. --Irpen 18:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not in the least interested in getting into a tag revert war, or frankly even in cleaning up after the mess other people have created in their quite evident zeal to "justify" this stub type. If you (collectively) are going to category-pad and pile on the "users voicefully defending it" in order to have such a type for the sake of having the type, then you (collectively) can clean it up, or live with the consequences. It suffices for me to note the laughability of the argument that this is a coherent category requiring specialist editors, in the face of this behaviour. I don't believe I suggested anyone had other than "moderate" views, and being attacked by alleged extremists is hardly in itself evidence of neutrality, or of correctness of one's position. The term "nationalist" means many different things to many different people -- and I didn't use it. I was responding to a (triple-question-marked, no less) claim that this topic "deserves" a stub type, and which is (if anything) an 'import topic' argument, and (another triple-question-marked) dismissive comparison to a topic the editor clearly left was "less important". This has nothing to do with the criteria for creating new stub types, which is everything to do with the management of stubs that actually exist. Hence, "Wikipedia Stub sorting", not "Wikipedia Scent-Marking of Important Topics". I defy anyone to provide an analysis in a systematic manner of the comment I was responding to, that's inconsistent with my own. If what you want to do is concentrate on better coverage of these topics, then what you want is a Wikiproject, not (just) a stub type. (Then explain to me afterward why WikiProject Ukrainian History overlaps with three other similar wikiprojects on most of "its" articles, and also covers current sporting events.) You've not in fact "explained" the harm in having a single one listing page Ukrainian stub category at all; you've not "explained" the wrongness of upmerging to the East Slavic stub type -- in both cases you've merely blandly and repeatedly asserted it, with allusions to how your familiarity with Ukrainian topics qualifies you to override stub creation guidelines, and others' alleged lack of knowledge disqualifies them from commenting. If you'd care to actually explain either at some point, I most be most grateful. You'll at least note that I've sought to do as much for the stub guidelines you're intent on ignoring. Alai 20:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

::This is turning out to be a truly amusing discussion and one, in my opinion, that unnecessarily drains time on arguing about - what should be - simple matters. The Ukraine-hist-stub meets the criteria outlined in the new stub guidelines. Whereas a lack of knowledge on the topic does not disqualify anyone (this can usually be remedied using an internet search), the stub categories such as Ukraine-hist-stub attract "experts in specific areas", as stated on the WikiProject Stub sorting page (see section "Why Stub Sorting is Important"). Hence, one of the goals seems to be to attract experts (at the same time, anyone is welcome to edit. --Riurik 02:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. As I understand the problem with the stub-category is that it is borderline-underpopulated. It might be true, but the tag is very useful. Ukraine won her independence not that far ago and as a result many Ukrainian editors are understandably fiercely patriotic (and/or) nationalistic. They are interested in unstubbing Ukrainian history articles and not that interested in the history of the neighbors. For them the tag/cat is very useful. The other problem is that many events of Ukrainian history are connected with Russia and/or Poland. There exists tag Russia-hist-stub and Poland-hist-stub. Having an important Ukrainian event marked by any of these tags and not labeled by an Ukraine-hist-stub upsets the Ukrainian editors. Thus, introducing the tag can defuse possible editorial conflicts that is a very useful thing. I understand that stub category creep creates problems for the stub sorters but I expect that the tag would be mostly added by the participants of the P:UKR. abakharev 00:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you abakharev for some fine points with which I more or less concur. Might I add that because histories of PL, RU, and UA overlap, the Ukraine-hist-stub will provide another potential set of editors with area expertise/interest who will work to "unstub" an article even quicker. Additionally, a neutral/balanced point of view will be more actively sought by pl/ru/ua editors who will have to somehow reconcile individual histories of these respective countries.--Riurik 02:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• (ec)The problem is that at time of (all four!) of its creation(s) it was massively underpopulated, by a factor of two, and the tactics employed to achieve its current pop. look to me at least, to be extremely marginal in their utility (at best, frankly). Also notice that no-one is suggesting deleting {{tl|Ukraine-stub}}, which heretofore would have tagged all the "historical" articles too, and were themselves <200 articles. So no-one would have to besmirch their eyes by looking at a Belarus- or a Poland-related stub -- well, other than the ones tagged with some or all of the above at once. The "utility" argument is thus, in effect, that looking down a single-page listing of "current" and "historical" Ukrainian topics is too much trouble for those only interested in the one, or the other (though "history" is seemingly as recent as this March). The rest of your diagnosis, as to the underlying psychology, appears to me to be exactly correct. Alai 02:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Wow, I just got analysed (you know psychologically). It's so easy, let me try: Ukrainian editors get so upset because...they don't have their own stub, like Poles and Russians. Oh, and they're so nationalistic because they got their independence so recently; (by implication other nations/states who have been "independent" are not nationalistic?). The cogency of this argument is stunning! Are you serious? Is this what you think of people who work on Ukraine related articles or through portal:Ukriane, because I hope that you are aware that not everyone is Ukrainian who edits on Ukraine portal or that people do not get "upset" because of a stub. What does tend to piss people off is generalizing and lumping individual editors under one category (e.g. patriotic, sensitive to national stub issues). Did you know that m:don't be a dick is a corrollary of WP:IAR? Does this psychological analysis stuff fall under "bad faith" category? That's some food for thought. For myself, I want the stub because I do not frequent either Russian or Polish portals and thus would have no one place to find Ukraine related areas needing expansion. How about another diagnosis, doctor?--Riurik 03:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Why certainly, I shall: you're apparently happy to agree with Alex Bakharev, and yet are massively offended when I agree with him? One might speculate that the difference might relate to his "support" of this proposal, and my "calling people on their slipshod stub-tagging efforts", but obviously it would be wrong to assume such a thing. And don't you know what don't be a dick says about telling people "don't be a dick"? See also WP:CIVIL. (Personally I'd happily delete both IAR and DICK as "much more prevalently abused than ever employed usefully", but of course, ironically, I'd have WP:IAR to do so (and probably get blocked for a year, oh well...). "No one place to find Ukraine related areas needing expansion"... aside from {{cl|Ukraine stubs}}, you mean? (Had there not been such a stub type, I'd have argued for one had there been a couple of dozen such articles, and a template had there been any articles at all, for the record. But creating sub-types is a much more marginal proposition. What's the wagering as to how marginal (or totally unviable) {{tl|Ukraine-politics-stub}} will be when it gets created as a "useful" and "deserved" stub type?) Alai 03:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Correction: I concurred "more or less" with Alex Bakharev, not "happy to agree" as you put it. As to the difference in reaction, it was your choice of words that was responsible for the sarcasm on my part. Regarding the meta:don't be a dick policy: that is why I asked if you were aware of the policy's correlation with IAR, since telling you not to be a dick would have been a dick move, although in asking the question one can speculate that I implied so. Look, we obviously disagree about the stub's necessity, and it does not seem that either one of us will change our views whatever the reasoning offered.--Riurik 04:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Well, I can agree with all that (more or less, at least). To return briefly to an earlier point: note that I did not indulge in generalisations about portal-frequenters, "nationalists", or anyone else that I'm aware of: I raise the criticism of the "important topic" argument in relation to those employing it, and of doubtfully-sorted stubs of those doing the tagging, and I don't for a moment mean to suggest that anyone not engaging in either (or of whichever it is they happened not to be involved in) is guilty of those things (or of anything else) by association, much less by nationality. Alai 04:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support —Michael Z. 2006-08-16 03:29 Z
• Oppose: On the face of it, :Category:History of Ukraine stubs looks to be reasonably populated (currently 81 stubs) but examining a random selection of articles I'm very dubious about the contents. It seems to have been padded with non-historical articles. For example, the first article I looked at was Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Yalta which consisted of "The Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in the seaside resort of Yalta in Ukraine was built in 1902.". That's a {{tl|church-stub}} to me (so I am changing it to that). There is no indication that it has anything to do with Ukrainian history (unless you count the fact that it was built over a century ago - tenuous link at best). The others I looked at had similar problems, so I have doubts about the contents of the entire category. :Category:Ukraine stubs is not excessively large so I see no (current) need for this split. --TheParanoidOne 05:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Going through the stub category, I have found at least 65 articles worthy of having the {{tl|Ukraine-hist-stub}}. Why do we have to combine history stubs and some very unrelated articles like football club stubs? Within the last week, I saw a couple of stub categories, never proposed, each having ~ 15 articles. Those stub categories are probably not important. But why turn down this stub cat, when it is worthy. Ouote: A good number may mean 60 articles or more... Anyway, if you don't agree about the stub category creation, we can always create numerous history of Ukraine stubs... —dima ^/sb.tk/ 15:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Proposal and subsequent discussion feel like an end-run around policy, and {{tl|Ukraine-stub}} is extant and not overpopulated. I am willing to revisit the subject when tempers have cooled, but this is just a circus. --CComMack (t•c) 09:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

No decision (below) has been made on whether to split museum-stub by type or by country/region. However, this proposal covers both. Stubsense reports 80 {{tl|museum-stub}}s in :Category:Art museums and galleries in the United States. From below, there are over 250 museum-stubs in :Category:Museums in the United States. --Usgnus 18:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Created and partially populated (62 stubs so far). --Usgnus 19:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Done with 103 stubs. --Usgnus 02:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• {{tl|US-indie-rock-band-stub}} / {{cl|United States indie rock musical group stubs}} - 79
• {{tl|US-alternative-rock-band-stub}} / {{cl|United States alternative rock musical group stubs}} - 144

{{tl|US-rock-band-stub}} is currently sitting at 6 pages and this is an initial split (with StubSense counts). The corresponding main categories will be {{cl|Indie rock groups}} and {{cl|Alternative musical groups}} (which is actually alternative rock groups). --Bruce1ee 11:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. (Well, the alt-rock vs. indie rock doesn't, a great deal, but the perm-cats seem to follow it in a semi-consistent, if highly overlapping, way.) Alai 17:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Created, listed and populated. --Bruce1ee 13:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• {{cl|Lithuanian football club stubs}} - 64
• {{cl|Spanish football club stubs}} - 105

Somebody mentioned the need for Spain to be split back in the French club discussion, but Lithuania wasn't mentioned (and why should it have been - who'd have thought?). In any case, here's both submitted for approval. --fuzzy510 08:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

:'twas I. I was going by the very Spanish looking names, but my knowledge of Eastern European languages and geography isn't good enough to instantly tell Lithuanian, Latvian, Polish and Belarusian clubs apart. I knew there were a lot in that area somewhere, but didn't investigate :). Support both. Grutness...wha? 23:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

::Go Lithuania! Support both. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• {{cl|1990s novel stubs}} 199
• {{cl|2000s novel stubs}} 160
• {{cl|1980s novel stubs}} 106
• {{cl|1970s novel stubs}} 93
• {{cl|1960s novel stubs}} 82
• {{cl|1950s novel stubs}} 68

Splitting by genre seems to have petered out several listings pages short of the upper size threshold. These look likely to help a fair bit. Alai 06:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Alai, don't you ever sleep??! ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Confused SupportDo you really mean to mix in the sci-fi with the mysteries with the romances? I think that would be a pretty big practical obstacle to the people trying to expand/cleanup the stubs. I really think if this is done (which obviously I support as I suggest it above not having noticed this nomination), it needs to explicityly leave the genres out. I don't care what non-elitist term you want to use, but I think it would just be confusing to not use anything. Dybryd 08:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• No, I mean to tag them with the types that already exist for those, as is already is the case for SF (which I think is the term you're looking for) and romance (and re-split those by decade too, if size demands/permits), and split whatever remains by decade, be it of no genre, the marketed as "literary" genre, a niche genre with no stub stub type, several different genres at once, or whatever else. (They could in theory be double-stubbed with both genre and decade, but I'm not het up about that either way.) I don't want the "non-genre" genre by another name: I don't want it at all. The lack of any corresponding perm-cat whatsoever should make the problematic nature of any such scoping clear. (And the one thing that stub-sorting should most definitely not be is more problematic than perm-catting, where fine-grained distinctions that it takes an expert to determine are at least permissible in principle.) And talking of sleep... Alai 09:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• {{cl|Asian football club stubs}} - 186
• {{cl|North American football (soccer) club stubs}} - 70
• {{cl|Oceanian football (soccer) club stubs}} - 101

The only one that I might be against myself is Oceania stubs, which is around 95% New Zealand, so it's probably more sensical to split for New Zealand instead of Oceania as a whole. Just to make it clear - North America doesn't include US clubs (which I would like to become a child of the North American clubs if this is created) and Asia DOES include Australia, since the precedent is to include the countries of each continentconfederation's governing body, and Australia is officially a part of Asia. --fuzzy510 05:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

:Uhm ... Isn't Australia its own continent? --Amazzing5 06:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

::Not according to FIFA. Support all of these, and suggest using the word confederation rather than continent in future :) Grutness...wha? 06:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

:::What do you mean? It was always like that! ;-) --fuzzy510 08:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Created. --fuzzy510 05:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• {{cl|1990s alternative rock album stubs}} 265
• {{cl|1990s indie rock album stubs}} 124

Per a recent, similar, albeit somewhat more extensive, by-genre split on the 2000s. Alai 05:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• By decade:
• {{cl|1980s heavy metal album stubs}} 82
• {{cl|1990s heavy metal album stubs}} 371
• {{cl|2000s heavy metal album stubs}} 348
• And/or by sub-genre:
• {{cl|Death metal album stubs}} 77

Parent is six listings page, which I suppose makes it "middleweight-oversized" in the scheme of things. Alai 05:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Lest anyone be curious, the first three weren't so much speedied, as caught up in a drive-by SFR. Alai 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

This one may or may not actually have 60 - I'm really not certain, I don't have the full list in front of me, and it'd be hard to make. What I can tell you is that it'd be a sizable number, and that this one (in my opinion) should be made out of necessity. Nobody seems to be able to know exactly where they should be sorted (some stay in {{cl|Football (soccer) stubs}}, whereas others end up in various football club categories), and this ends the confusion. --fuzzy510 03:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Added info: there are 84 articles that fit this category, so it does in fact break the 60 article threshold. --fuzzy510 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Created. --fuzzy510 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

An eight-pager. Shall we split these by state? If so, the following are viable immediately:

• {{cl|California radio station stubs}} 87
• {{cl|Ohio radio station stubs}} 69
• {{cl|Wisconsin radio station stubs}} 65
• {{cl|Texas radio station stubs}} 60

Then, we can do the usual four-way regional split of the rest. Alai 03:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support as proposed. --Usgnus 04:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

These are now seven pages, admittedly not helped by me dumping a load of song-stubs in there. Per-decade seems to be the only immediately viable way to go in terms of existing perm cats (well, nearly existing, they're catted by year). Alai 01:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest splitting the aforementioned {{cl|song stubs}} on the same basis, starting with {{cl|2000s song stubs}}, which would muster 71. Alai 01:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support all of the above proposals. --fuzzy510 08:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Monni 10:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The Swiss geos are at nine pages, and the following look like likely splits:

• {{cl|Vaud stubs}} 370
• {{cl|Canton of Berne stubs}} 339
• {{cl|Aargau stubs}} 209
• {{cl|Canton of Lucerne stubs}} 90
• {{cl|Canton of Jura stubs}} 83
• {{cl|Canton of Neuchâtel stubs}} 59
• {{cl|Grisons stubs}} 58

Categorisation seems to be high, so I doubt any of those in the low 40s are crypto-viable in the short term. Alai 01:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

:Um...do you mean:

:*{{cl|Vaud geography stubs}}

:*{{cl|Canton of Berne geography stubs}}

:*{{cl|Aargau geography stubs}}

:*{{cl|Canton of Lucerne geography stubs}}

:*{{cl|Canton of Jura geography stubs}}

:*{{cl|Canton of Neuchâtel geography stubs}}

:*{{cl|Grisons geography stubs}}

:???

:(Support BTW, with the proviso that we use {{tl|Neuchatel-geo-stub}} with no diacritics). Grutness...wha? 06:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

::Pesky permanent cats leading me astray... Yes, I do. (I think we can manage a redirect, one way or the other.) Alai 06:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The actors and the UK actors are each ten pages. From just the former:

• {{cl|Film actor stubs}} 637
• {{cl|Television actor stubs}} 559

In addition, I suggest {{cl|screen actor stubs}} and {{cl|United Kingdom screen actor stubs}} to catch the doubtless large TV+film overlap. Alai 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support all. Bring 'em on. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 14:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support all. Monni 09:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

A majority of the stubs in {{cl|Football (soccer) stubs}} are in reference to various different leagues, so I think this is a fork worth adding. --fuzzy510 20:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Created at {{tl|footy-competition-stub}} to match the Permcat. --fuzzy510 05:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

There are 750 guitarist stubs. Quite a few of them are classical guitarists. Some classical guitarist stubs are listed under other categories like Dionisio Aguado as a composer stub. --Amazzing5 04:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• How many is "quite a few"? If there's 60, this seems sensibly scoped. (You may also wish to check in the various -guitarist-stub types too, though please double-stub with those rather than replacing them.) Alai 06:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

So far I've found 87, make that 93 (or 98 if I can include classical guitar ensembles under the same category). --Amazzing5 19:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Probably best not to include those, if it's intended to be a sub-type of the bios. (And if it's not, we'll end up having to double-stub them to be strictly accurate.) Alai 21:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Except there are only five of them, which isn't exactly 60. Do you have any ideas about other pages? What about articles dealing with other aspects of classical guitar besides biographies? Most of these don't have anything more specific than a music stub. There have been people lately making lots of strange articles like History of the classical guitar by country or Region that should be catagorized somehow if they are going to be fixed up. --Amazzing5 05:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• For the non-bios, we should probably look to split off a more general {{tl|classical-music-stub}}, if there's not currently anything to that effect. Alai 15:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

By my count, there are about 58 of these under Angola-stub. It is just another African country in need of a bio stub and eventually a politician stub.--Thomas.macmillan 03:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Alai 04:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Suppport Briaboru

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

The Russians are coming! Or are slightly oversized again, at least. The above looks highly viable (don't have any exact count at present). Alai 00:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• My bad, I already proposed this. (To no objections, so I'll go ahead once I manage to build a list of them,) Alai 00:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

There's 58 articles double-tagged into both {{cl|Florida_geography_stubs}} and {{cl|Protected_area_stubs}}, up with a distinct bullet from last time. Technically we should find another two from somewhere... Alai 00:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• StubSense gives over 200 possible stubs excluding bands, songs and albums starting from {{cl|Hip hop musicians}}. Would be new parent for {{tl|US-hiphop-bio-stub}} and {{cl|United States hip hop biography stubs}}. Monni 18:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Alai 18:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support NCurse 16px _work 06:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but keep {{tl|hiphop-stub}} in mind, which is supposed to be for the hiphop genre but which currently has a lot of hiphop musicians and groups. --Bruce1ee 09:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment, the new stub would be child for {{tl|hiphop-stub}}, which is currently pretty large, we already did split a lot of groups to own child stub, this is continuation of that split. When the currently proposed stub gets too big, we can split it further to musicians, producers etc. Monni 17:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Both Jamaica and Benin have been bullied and cajoled to the target 65 stubs for their own geo-stubs. In the case of {{tl|Jamaica-geo-stub}}, it should be easy, since it's a well populated redirect to {{tl|Caribbean-geo-stub}}. In the case of {{tl|Benin-geo-stub}} it's another one to build from scratch. (If you're wondering about the "bullied and cajoled" bit, I dug out a Caribbean map made the last half-dozen Jamaican stubs myself :) Grutness...wha? 10:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• support of course. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 11:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Make that three - I've managed to get the Bahamas to target as well, so add {{tl|Bahamas-geo-stub}} to those proposals. Grutness...wha? 05:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support categories about 5 stubs ago, and templates when they were at most half the size. :) Alai 16:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

About 1375 stubs. Mostly well distributed across countries. However, stubsense reports

• {{tl|US-athletics-bio-stub}} 147 under :Category:American track and field athletes
• {{tl|UK-athletics-bio-stub}} 73 under :Category:British athletes
• {{tl|Russia-athletics-bio-stub}} 73 under :Category:Russian athletes
• {{tl|Australia-athletics-bio-stub}} not quite enough at 56 under :Category:Australian athletes
• {{tl|Germany-athletics-bio-stub}} not quite enough at 52 under :Category:German athletes
• {{tl|Kenya-athletics-bio-stub}} not quite enough at 50 under :Category:Kenyan athletes

--Usgnus 12:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. We already approved {{tl|Euro-athletics-bio-stub}}, so let's (actually create it, and) make the Germans an upmerged template to that for now. Alai 14:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• {{tl|Euro-athletics-bio-stub}} created, ready to populate. --CComMack (t•c) 16:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support the first three, and also an {{tl|Africa-athletics-bio-stub}}, giving the Kenyans an upmerged template there as Alai suggests for the Germans. I could go either way on the Australians. --CComMack (t•c) 14:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• We don't have "pre-approval" for an African type, but it makes a lot of sense to me: support. Alai 14:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• support first three and {{tl|Africa-athletics-bio-stub}}. Monni 16:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support NCurse 16px _work 06:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support as suggested plus {{tl|Africa-athletics-bio-stub}}. GregorB 22:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've been bold and also created the Kenyans as a separate type, as from the db dump they looked to have grown to 61 (exactly 60 as it panned out), and also an {{cl|African sportspeople stubs}} as a container type, since three misc children rattling around {{cl|African people stubs}} was starting to look very scrappy. Alai 22:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• After sorting the Germany athletes, there were 75 stubs, so I created the :Category:German track and field athletics biography stubs. --Usgnus 18:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Fully sorted. :Category:Track and field athletics biography stubs is now <400. However, Europe is >600. --Usgnus 06:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I ran into many, many of these while sorting India-bio-stub. More than 60, at least. Both parents are oversized. Crystallina 14:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is on the approved-but-not-created list from waaaay back, so I'm going ahead with this one immediatement. Alai 02:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Briaboru

• Again, please note the naming guidelines: no spaces, and singular "stub" in the template name. I'd suggest {{tl|RepublicoftheCongo-stub}}, or simply {{tl|RepublicCongo-stub}}. I'd like some idea of whether a separate category is likely to be numerically viable, however. Alai 04:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'd suggest {{tl|RCongo-stub}} - in fact it's what I was going to suggest for the geo-stubs when they get to that level. It will be in keeping with the country's larger neighbour, which has {{tl|DRCongo-geo-stub}}. All this depends on whther there are enough stubs and/or some rationale, mind you, and it'd reallyhelp your case if you did more than simply added a header and signed it. Tell us more! Grutness...wha? 06:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• weak oppose. Need refining. Monni 17:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support This is a country without any stub of any sort. Stub Sense lists 42 AfricaC-geo-stubs. I would be extremely surprised if the total didn't reach over 60.--Thomas.macmillan 23:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• My last hand-count of R of Congo geography stubs was less than two weeks ago. There were 46. Grutness...wha? 01:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Amended the stub category name: no abbreviations there, please. Alai 23:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry that was my fault!!!!!!

Briaboru

• Reverted header to follow naming guidelines for templates. Also, weak oppose for now, unless there are a bunch of non-geos which could take the template. A geo template soon might be in order thoug, presuming StubSense has its head sufficiently screwed on. --CComMack (t•c) 00:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• see my comments above. You'll find that the counts at User:Grutness/Geo-stub tallying are usually closer to the mark than stub-sense, albeit up to two weeks out of date at any one time. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Just to clarify everything, Stub Sense lists 79 stubs under "Republic of the Congo", including 46 Geo-stubs, just as Grtuness had calculated. 8 of these, by hand count, are Africa-politician-stubs. 4 are under africa-labor-org stubs and so on.--Thomas.macmillan 02:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• If that's accurate, then I strongly support a {{cl|Republic of the Congo stubs}}, with two templates, {{tl|RCongo-stub}} and {{tl|RCongo-geo-stub}}, the latter double-catted into the above category and {{cl|Central Africa geography stubs}}. Alai 04:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• With no objections, I will create these stubs and category today, as this was proposed nearly 2 weeks ago.--Thomas.macmillan 14:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Alai. --CComMack (t•c) 18:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

At least 60 of these in the unproposed {{tl|India-sports-stub}} alone and I'd like to reduce the size of that before sending it to SFD. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Already proposed, already created, and already part-populated. Alai 23:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• I just sorted twenty {{tl|India-sports-stub}} into {{tl|India-sport-bio-stub}} and every single one was for field hockey. Is {{tl|India-fieldhockey-bio-stub}} in order, even though there might not be 60+ right now? --Usgnus 03:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Where's the fire? :) I suggest just double-stubbing them for the time being. Alai 03:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• No more bio stubs in {{tl|India-sports-stub}}. All but two were field hockey. --Usgnus 12:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Briaboru

Again, my thinking was that even if there aren't that many stubs now new articles could be created using this stub.

• Support. I know a few articles that it could be applied to. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support template, upmerge it if there's not a sufficiency of articles. Alai 18:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Seems like a good proposal. I would appreciate your views on my waste-stub proposal. --Alex 07:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Would be useful. --Ezeu 02:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support NCurse 16px _work 06:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:No vote. Last time I checked, I couldn't even find 20 stub articles relating to Eritrea. Has anybody done a recent count? Valentinian ^(talk) 07:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::At long last, I've done a count. A conservative estimate is 70 stubs, so Support. (If I don't hear any protests, I think I'll create this one tomorrow). Valentinian ^(talk) 23:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Regardless of the outcome of the {{tl|museum-stub}} split (see below August and July), I think we need a zoo-stub. This includes aquariums and aviaries. I remember the first time I had to stub a zoo article, it took me a while to figure out to use museum-stub. A manual count of stubsense results within :Category:Zoos and its children gives over 100 stub articles. --Usgnus 23:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Seems sensible to me. Once again, should generally also have a location-specific tag on 'em of some sort. Alai 00:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Using stubsense, I just counted 61 stubs in :Category:Zoos with some sort of US or US-geo stub. Perhaps {{tl|US-zoo-stub}} might be in order (without its own category)? --Usgnus 00:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support with the caveat mentioned by Alai - i.e., double-stubbing with location. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support seems logical --Alex 07:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Your oppinion would be welcome on my waste stub proposal
• Support NCurse 16px _work 06:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Created and populated. --Usgnus 05:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I proudly propose creating this one. My rough estimation is that more than 200 articles will be there. Similar {{tl|Africa-ethno-group-stub}} was created a long time ago. Users from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups support this. - Darwinek 09:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

:Strong support I have been going through the ethno-group-stub's the past few days and have found they are in general poorly organized. This would certainly help. What about creating ethno-stubs for every continent? North America and Africa have already been done.--Thomas.macmillan 15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

::Sounds like a plan to me. Alai 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

:::By all means. Valentinian ^(talk) 23:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

:Created and populated. Huge stub. - Darwinek 22:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

:Given that a) discussion of the name appeared to be a live issue, and b) that there's a one week discussion period, then waiting for the end of the one week discussion period might have been preferable. Alai 23:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I am preparing to launch a WikiProject to create articles for all of the major lighthouses of the world, but there is no suitable stub category. I propose the creation of a Pharology stub. Here is an example of stubs and needed articles for the category for the United States alone (a worldwide list would be much longer):

(list moved, Alai)

--Draugen 21:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• What about plain old {{tl|lighthouse-stub}}? If this goes ahead, can you be sure to double-stub them all with the appropriate -struct-stub (or else, split these up by location where possible, and tag with that). Alai 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'd agree with Alai. BTW, that listing method you use doesn't work with either of the browsers I use (IE and Safari) - I'd suggest that since a lot of WP users are likely to use one or the other of those you don't use it. Grutness...wha? 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry, Grutness. I put the show/hide thing up there because the list was just soooo long. I removed it, but I think what might be best is if Draguen put this on a sub-page of his and linked to it here. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Made sense to me; I know there are people who don't use FireFox, what I don't know is why. :) I've taken the liberty of userifying the list, I hope Draugen doesn't mind. Alai 19:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• I don't mind at all, thanks! --Draugen 21:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support {{tl|lighthouse-stub}}, as "pharology", while correct, is not soemthing that springs to most editors' minds when stubbing. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support {{tl|lighthouse-stub}}, as well as this entire project. Although I have a question...what about for articles about keepers, architects and the like? Might a pharology stub serve to keep them separate from lighthouses? Just thinking out loud, really...--AlbertHerring 18:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Are there enough for a separate type for such, distinct from the lighthouses per se, that are notable primarily in relation to their pharologicalosity? I'd think a single type is sufficient for lighthouse-related topics in general, to be split geographically in the first instance (starting with {{tl|US-lighthouse-stub}}, clearly), would be preferable. Alai 19:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• pharologicalosity: {{subst:prod|nn neologism, 0 Google hits [http://www.google.com/search?q=pharologicalosity]}} =P Just teasing, Alai... ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Without doing any digging, I can think offhand of at least ten people/terms that are related to lighthouses and which might be served by such a stub. I can try to provide a list of the requisite sixty if requested. Sorry to be so wishy-washy, but I'm in the process of dealing with about five irons in the fire at once, and this is but one. --AlbertHerring 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support {{tl|lighthouse-stub}} at the very least. I'm not sure about the -bio-stub, but we'll see how many articles Albert can find. I wouldn't be too opposed to the {{tl|pharology-stub}} either. It's not something you'd think of right away when stub-sorting, but then again, neither is {{tl|philately-stub}} ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• OK, with a little thinking, I was able to come up with thirty articles about lighthouse-related people and terms:

• John Donahoo - lighthouse builder in the Chesapeake Bay region
• Isaac Conro - builder of the Sandy Hook lighthouse, the oldest surviving in the country
• John McComb - builder of the three first federal lighthouses in the United States
• George Worthylake - America's first lighthouse keeper
• Winslow Lewis - noted American lighthouse builder
• I. W. F. Lewis - his nephew, also a noted lighthouse engineer
• Ida Lewis - famous keeper, rescuer in Rhode Island
• Abby Burgess - famous keeper's daughter/heroine from Maine
• Fannie Salter - long-serving keeper of Turkey Point Light in Maryland
• Abigail and Rebecca Bates - the "American Army of Two" that kept the British at bay in Scictuate, MA, in 1812
• F. Ross Holland, Jr. - noted lighthouse historian and writer on lighthouses
• Robert De Gast - Chesapeake lighthouse historian/photographer
• Stephen Pleasanton - fifth auditor of the Treasury, one of the first federal servants to oversee lighthouses; notorious for his cost-cutting measures
• John Brown (lighthouse builder) - builder of the Imperial towers
• Frank Schubert - last civilian lighthouse keeper in the country
• Elzy Burroughs - Virginia lighthouse builder and keeper
• Post light - type of unmanned lighthouse
• Twin light - light station with more than one lighthouse
• Pierhead lighthouse - what it sounds like
• Caisson lighthouse - succesor to the screw-pile light
• Sparkplug lighthouse - type of caisson lighthouse
• Skeletal lighthouse - a more modern innovation
• Imperial tower - a specific design unique to Canada
• Pepperpot - traditional Canadian lighthouse design
• Range light - style of light station with a specific purpose
• Lighthouse tender - the ship which went out to tend lighthouses
• Birdcage lantern - old style of lighthouse lantern
• Argand lamps - early lighthouse lighting system
• Daybeacon - also known as "daymark", a daytime navigational aid
• Fog signal station - a station with no lighthouse, only a fog signal
• Lighthouse Digest - magazine devoted to lighthouses/lighthouse enthusiasts

Additionally, I can come up with the names of three or four more lighthouse builders whose main claim to notability appears to be that they built lighthouses. And there are two or three fairly important authors as well, as well as one or two lighthouse preservation societies of some note. All but two of these subects are related to the United States, and I'm sure there are more articles about non-US subjects which could be written. Is that enough for a separate {{tl|pharology-stub}}?

Also, a couple of these could probably use alternative article titles - this is just what I thought of off the top of my head. --AlbertHerring 20:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• That's usually enough since there's a WikiProject. So, would {{tl|lighthouse-stub}} be a child of {{tl|pharology-stub}}? That would seem to work out - pharology for the people and general terms, then lighthouse for specific structures. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Of course, this is assuming that all these articles are actually created. We don't really want a stub for a bunch of redlinks... ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• That should work. And I promise, I'll get rid of a bunch of those redlinks fairly soon - even if it's only with just the barest of stubs.

Also...what about location stubs? {{tl|US-lighthouse-stub}}, {{tl|Canada-lighthouse-stub}}, and {{tl|UK-lighthouse-stub}} would probably be enough for now.--AlbertHerring 21:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am okay with {{tl|lighthouse-stub}}. Whatever we lose in precision we gain in clarity. Support. --Draugen 21:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to the creation of an additional stub type on the basis of 30 mostly-redlinks, on the strength of the wikiproject or otherwise, given that the wikiproject scope presumably includes the actual lighthouses too, so they're already, or rather, will soon be, served by a "lighthouse-related" stub type. And "pharology" still hardly seems the most useful name: there's no {{cl|pharology}}, the article pharology is a nano-stub, and let's bear in mind Use common names. If wikiproject rutrology starts up tomorrow, we should still favour {{tl|shovel-stub}} for people notable in connection of manually digging holes. On locations, I'll support any of the above (or otherwise) that hit 60 (actual articles). Alai 22:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Alai, it sounds like you're opposed to any additional stubs, correct? Can we assume you're supportive of {{tl|lighthouse-stub}}? Because that's what this proposal has morphed into.

• I'm fully, unequivocally, super-duper, supportive, of {{tl|lighthouse-stub}}, and any viable geographical splits, as I've already said. My opposition was to Albert's re-suggestion of a separate pharology stub, with an undersized (and largely non-existent) population, and a sub-optimal name, and the nature of my comments, and indeed the identation thereof, was intended to make clear (before you changed it). Alai 02:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Concur completely. And I've put your indentation back. Thanks! --Draugen 04:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I'd like to renominate {{tl|pharology-stub}} as a separate category, as I have counted 71 stubs under {{cl|Lighthouse stubs}} that deal with either people or terminology, and not with specific lighthouses. I know pharology isn't the best word, but I can't think of another one that's inclusive enough to cover both biographies and terminology, and there's not enough of either for separate stubs. In addition, there are already 147 stubs on United States lighthouses, and we have a lot left to cover. I think it's about time for a {{tl|US-lighthouse-stub}}. As of yet, that's all that are needed right now, I'd say. --AlbertHerring 21:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy the {{tl|US-lighthouse-stub}}: no-one objected to this when it was mooted previously. I'm still not at all wild about a separate pharology-stub. If you really want to separate the lighthouse-propers and the lighthouse-relateds, I'd suggest instead, that {{cl|lighthouse stubs}} remains the all-inclusive parent, as is the case with {{cl|lighthouses}}, and a separate child, perhaps {{tl|lighthouse-struct-stub}} / {{cl|Lighthouse and lightvessel stubs}}, be created for the actual lights. Or else {{tl|lighthouse-related-stub}} or {{tl|lighthouses-stub}} (to get subtle about it...) as the template feeding the parent. Or come to that, have {{tl|lighthouse-term-stub}} and {{tl|lighthouse-bio-stub}} both feed into a common category (again, the root same), thus finessing the issue of a single such stub template name. Alai 23:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• The only problem I can see about using {{tl|lighthouse-term-stub}} and {{tl|lighthouse-bio-stub}} and feeding them into one category is that I don't think there are ever going to be enough lighthouse terms to warrant the separate stub template. Perhaps I should just create the {{tl|lighthouse-bio-stub}} and leave the terms under the parent category, then? --AlbertHerring 00:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• There's no required numbers of stubs for a template, just for a category. Creating a template (only) for bios, and/or a template (only) for the terms seems a pretty safe and pretty clear option, regardless of where they end up being fed into. Alai 01:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Ah, I see. Templates it is, then. My apologies for being so obtuse - I'm just rather new at this and still feeling my way around a bit. --AlbertHerring 01:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Not at all, this is not the most intuitive, or indeed the best-documented part of our "dark little corner". Just so long as we end up somewhere sensible in the medium-to-long-term... Alai 05:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Hi, I was categorising the article Renée Ferrer de Arréllaga and discovered I should be proposing the category here. There's also a question as to whether it should be {{tl|Paraguayan writers}} along the model of Argentina. Advice appreciated. Dlyons493 Talk 18:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• I editing your proposal heading to use the proper naming convention, and I discovered that this was already created. Considering there are only 3 articles in {{cl|Paraguayan writers}} I oppose this stub category. You can use {{tl|SouthAm-writer-stub}} in the meantime. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• If you're proposing just the template (... as I suspect is not the case), then fair enough, double-cat it into {{cl|South American writer stubs}} and {{cl|Paraguayan people stubs}}. But much too small for a separate category of its own at present, as Amalas says. Alai 03:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

:Hi, Thanks for both your replies. What I'm planning is to translate a fairly small number of articles from es.wiki about S. American writers (various countries) and I'd like to see them categorised properly. So I thought of following the model for Brazil and Argentina but then noticed that I should be discussing it here rather than just creating it. I'm happy to go along with whatever is suggested, but I'm not clear what you mean by double-cat. I do think it's important to get the country name in somewhere rather than just displaying them as generic S. America. Also should the model be Paraguay writers or Paraguayan writers? Dlyons493 Talk 13:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

::Sorry, didn't mean to be so opaque. What I mean is, a category that has a single banner ("This article about a Paraguayan writer is a stub..."), but includes two existing categories, rather than one new one. See for example {{tl|Spain-poet-stub}}. (Then once 60 have been created or found, make than a separate category.) Alai 18:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Since the template is alread there, I revised the categories per above. --Usgnus 21:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Thank you, Usgnus, an excellent application of "show, don't tell". Exactly what I was trying to convey... Alai 00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Oops, I already made it. I craeted a stub template for my Wikiproject. There are a lot stubs about atheism, so I created it, and will be using it. Thank you. here it is: {{Tl|atheismstub}} Hezzy 04:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:Oops is right. And it should be {{tl|atheism-stub}}, once it's sanctioned... ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:I've moved it, and amended the section heading; if the creator doesn't object we can kill the redirect without an SFD. How many is "a lot"? (I do hope this isn't including bio-stubs on the basis of their being atheists...) Alai 22:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Stubs related to waste, waste management and related subcategories. This is quite a specialist area as a subcategory of WikiProject Environment.

• Category: Waste 83 stubs according to [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/stub_sense?category=waste+&num_pages=300&dbname=enwiki Stubsense]
• Category: Waste management 73 stubs according to [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/stub_sense?category=waste+management&num_pages=300&dbname=enwiki Stubsense] --Alex 10:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Category: Waste companies 2-3 stubs not picked up by Stubsense
• Further subcategories

• Support ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks User: Amalas --Alex 07:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not sure I'm really seeing the necessity for this. Only 9 of these are even in the environment-stub type, so it's far from obvious this is a specialism of WikiProject Environment in any strong sense. More of them are from {{tl|sustainability-stub}}, which itself only has 85 articles. Is the proposed stub actually more applicable on any of these articles -- much less or all or most of them? Alai 15:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:Waste management does not just contain references to environment and sustainability. It covers issues such as engineering, tax and legislation, all issues which are more relevant to the wider issue of waste management than to vague stubs such as "tax". I believe there is a strong case for a subset related to this area. --Alex 09:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)(some background to my work on Wikipedia in this area) I note you come from Ireland which has extra needs related to waste. Ireland has much higher landfill costs that other countries and there are problems with illegal waste practices. Ireland's waste infrastructure will need to be developed in the next few years along with the UK's making the waste category an important section for people who are investigating this. Both countries are well behind the rest of Europe and the US is in a similar position. I have met with the Deputy Mayor or Connacht and we are due to meet with the political groups for the Irish Government in the near future on these very matters. If I can help formulate a strong area on Wikipedia on the waste sector it will help people in their understanding of the many differnt issues involved.

• support Briaboru

Sounds good, looks good.I just hope there are more stubs where that came from. If it serves a purpose, any purpose God Bless!!!

• Category created, comments welcomeAlex 10:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• There are now 126 waste related stubs I have found, many not linked into the waste section.--Alex 07:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I realize we don't want to end up with, to echo the words of the song, "singer-dancer-actress-model-stub", but there's a tremendous amount of double-stubbings to this general effect. The USs are the largest remainder such double-stubbing (at least counting oversized categories only), in fact: 143 of 'em. Alternative suggestions welcome. Alai 03:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• comment Somehow I don't like "/" character anywhere... Plain old "-" I would accept though... Monni 14:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Point taken, proposal tweaked. Alai 15:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per new proposal by Alai. Monni 17:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support per all of the above. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Ther's 113 of these in both {{cl|Olympic_medalist_stubs}} and in {{cl|Winter_sports_biography_stubs}}, one-or-other of which is oversized. I could have sworn this had been suggested before, but apparently I'm just losing it... Alai 23:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support NCurse 16px _work 06:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Parent group is huge and stub sense over 100 possible stubs. Seems like a good start to sorting the large category. While on the topic, are there any thoughts on the name? The current categories, on India, North American natives and Africa are all worded differently (india-ethno-stub}, (NorthAm-native-stub), and (Africa-ethno-group-stub, respectively)--Thomas.macmillan 03:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Put me in the -ethno- school of thought, per nom. Alai 05:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Me too. Grutness...wha? 05:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Australia biography stubs are at 6-7 pages currently. These two seem like the next splits ready to go. Preliminary searches support this (although scientist is difficult because there are so many subdivisions of science). Crystallina 02:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

This stub is needed for all stubs related to artillery. most stubs are currently classified as firearms stubs or other stubs.

Kaushal mehta 10:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've hyphenated the template name, per the naming guidelines. What's the likely population? (The guns have a history of severely undersized splits, to be candid.) Alai 15:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Classifying artillery just as a firearm is a gross misrepresentation, according to my personal view point. The fact that a lot of guns have remained undersized in their article lengths might be because of the lack of a stub category to categorize them. I am trying to create a list of articles which can be put into this category.Kaushal mehta 15:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• But that wouldn't preclude stubbing them as {{tl|weapon-stub}}, as indeed seems to be the more popular option at present. Alai 15:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• As it turns out, [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/stub_sense?category=artillery&num_pages=4000&dbname=enwiki stubsense results] on this look very promising, so tentative support, despite the earlier false starts in this area. Alai 15:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

This has already been created (not by me), along with :Category:Northern Ireland railway station stubs. This is the last region of the UK not already split from {{tl|UK-railstation-stub}}. While that stub type is only used in a handful of Northern Ireland station articles, having looked in :Category:Railway stations in Northern Ireland and its subcats, most of those (around 40-50 articles) should have a stub (but don't), so this stub type should be retained. If no-one objects, I'll start adding this stub template to these articles. --RFBailey 09:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest we keep the template, but consider upmerging it to the parent on the basis of size. (OTOH, 40-50 articles I can live with.) Alai 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• I suggest we delete this template and replace it with {{tl|NI-railstation-stub}}, since we use NI for Northern Ireland! (Either that or we can consider changing them all to NorthernIreland...) Grutness...wha? 01:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• A redirect one way or the other would appear to be in order, either way. Alai 05:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Move, redirect, and upmerge. I don't see a great call for abolishing the current NI- nomenclature; maybe someday, but not now. Leave a redirect at NorthernIreland- (and if that practice spreads, good). Upmerge to UK- category on basis of size. --CComMack (t•c) 14:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• I've moved the template and made the redirect. I don't understand this "upmerging" business at all: as far as I was aware, each stub type was supposed to have its own stub category, and that article categories are an entirely separate business. Thus, by that reckoning, :Category:Northern Ireland railway station stubs and :Category:Railway stations in Northern Ireland (as well as its subcategories) should remain. In the mean time, I've begun adding the new stub to the relevant articles. --RFBailey 11:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Sometimes it's found to be preferable to keep a stub template but feed it into the stub category of what would be its parent. Usually this is done in anticipation of a future possible split; it saves about 60 edits. :-) In the meantime, at 59 stubs, I'll call the new {{cl|Northern Ireland railway station stubs}} viable, and retract my earlier call to upmerge. --CComMack (t•c) 14:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe we need to spell out upmerging, and "pre-upmerged" templates on WP:STUB. But in this case, all's well that ends well. RFB, {{cl|Railway stations in Northern Ireland}} was never at issue: permanent (i.e. non-stub, article-space categories) don't have size considerations per se, and in any case those are considered at WP:CFD. Alai 15:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Another split of med-bio stub and also Germany-bio-stub; I've found roughly 60 and haven't been looking all that thoroughly. Crystallina 16:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

:Category:Italy geography stubs has almost exactly 1800 stubs, but most Italian municipalities have no article at the moment. I have proposed to add all of them with a bot, and will do so in about a week time. There will be close to 10,000 Italy geo-stubs then. Perhaps it would be time to split them? I suggest at least the following stubs:

• {{tl|Abruzzo-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|Aosta-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|Apulia-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|Basilicata-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|Calabria-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|Campania-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|EmiliaRomagna-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|FriuliVeneziaGiulia-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|Lazio-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|Liguria-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|Lombardy-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|Marche-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|Molise-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|Piedmont-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|Sardinia-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|Sicily-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|TrentinoSouthTyrol-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|Tuscany-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|Umbria-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|Veneto-geo-stub}}

As you can see, some of these have already been created; not all of them through the proper procedure, I think.

Some of these can be split further; for example, Lombardy has over 1500 municipalities, so I may want to create stubs like {{tl|BergamoProvince-geo-stub}}. Eugène van der Pijll 14:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• 10,000, you say? *oof!* Strongly support all of them above, at a minimum as upmerged templates for the time being. (BTW, I can't swear to Sicily-geo-stub, but the others were proposed and created by me, according to what'd get past threshold at the time.) Your point about some provincal-level types seems valid too. If all of the regions become viable (as seems likely), I've no objection to getting rid of the groups-of-regions layer I also introduced, if they're more of a nuisance than a help to navigation. Alai 14:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

::I could only find discussions about Lombardy and Sicily here, but I did not look very hard, as the categories seemed valid enough, based on stub counts. Eugène van der Pijll 15:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Here's the discussion. In fact, said proposal implies approval of all of the above templates, plus categories as needed: so, what are you waiting for? :) Alai 15:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

::::BTW, {{tl|Marche-geo-stub}} also already exists, in line with the article Marche. Alai 15:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::I'm waiting for the approval of my bot :-). For "Marches", I went by the English name given on Regions of Italy. I've changed it. Eugène van der Pijll 15:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::Possibly Marches would be more correct, just so long as we don't end up with two separate templates... Alai 15:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::If we decide to go with marches it should probably be MarchesIT-geo-stub, since the term is also used in other countries. Grutness...wha? 01:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

:OK, I've started to create these, starting with those that are at least within shouting distance of viability on the existing population (and existing categorisation). I've 'botted the parent down to around 1200, but significant manual re-sorting will be required to make this non-oversized. Alai 14:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

::Note that I will probably replace a large number of these completely (those which are no more than a sub-stub, e.g. Castelcivita), so you may want to wait with manual re-sorting until after my bot run. Eugène van der Pijll 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Ah, good point. Hey, you should have said earlier, and maybe saved my bot some work. :) Alai 15:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

::::It would have saved me a lot of work too... I just manually sorted everything from A to C. I think I will wait now. (of course, that's what I get for not checking for replies to this section) ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::If it's any comfort, I'd imagine it's only redundant on very short "substubs" which would be the candidates to be automatically replaced, and I notice that a lot of the articles are medium-length, or even borderline for being too-long-to-be-stubs. My bot's just about out of things to do on this, though: there's less than 100 stubs total in the remaining five templates I haven't bothered creating yet (as less than 20 in each seems too small even for a "surely growing" creation, and creating them upmerged at this point seems likely to shortly be overtaken by events. Alai 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::... or perhaps not. It seems that a lot of these articles have been created very recently, hence the low cat-counts from the last db dump (now well over two weeks old), and the large size of the category. So many of these may have perm-cats that just haven't "shown up" yet, but should do whenever the netx db dump actually gets off the ground. Alai 20:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

:I've only just stumbled across this discussion. I'd best let you know what I've done in the last day or two. I created categories to go with {{tl|Basilicata-geo-stub}} ({{cl|Basilicata geography stubs}}) and {{tl|Puglia-geo-stub}} ({{cl|Puglia geography stubs}} - should probably be {{cl|Apulia geography stubs}}, but the main category is at {{cl|Puglia}}). I've also created the above-mooted {{tl|Aosta-geo-stub}}, and it too has its own category: {{cl|Aosta Valley geography stubs}}. From what I've seen during my sortings, each of the other four (Liguria, Venezia-Friuli-Giulia, Trentino-Südtirol and Sardinia) will happily fill a category of its own. This leaves us with {{tl|Centre-Italy-geo-stub}} and {{tl|South-Italy-geo-stub}} being more or less useless (one article between them). They could probably be deleted already. --Stemonitis 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

::Molise, Marche and Umbria are all undersized for separate categories at present, so the regional categories don't appear to me to be deletable quite yet. Actually, one of them is itself undersized, due to the above creations... I assume this will all change soon enough, though. Alai 00:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:{{tl|Molise-geo-stub}} is the only thing feeding into {{cl|Southern Italy geography stubs}}, so the category must just as well be renamed or abandoned altogether (and revert Abruzzi e Molise to {{tl|Italy-geo-stub}}). But all I meant was that the templates {{tl|South-Italy-geo-stub}} and {{tl|Centre-Italy-geo-stub}} were redundant now, not the categories. --Stemonitis 07:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

::... or else, revert the change that caused it to be undersized... But yes, I completely agree about the template: I'd misunderstood completely on that point. Alai 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, comments on {{tl|Turin-geo-stub}} or {{tl|ProvinceOfTurin-geo-stub}} or {{tl|TurinProvince-geo-stub}} are still welcome. I would like to create these for the provinces of Lombardy (1562 municipalities) and Piedmont (1206 municipalities). Eugène van der Pijll 07:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

:I've created {{tl|Turin-geo-stub}}, in analogy with e.g. {{tl|Lodz-geo-stub}}. The category can wait until after I've written 300 articles to put in it. Eugène van der Pijll 22:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Found 82 among the action films (see discussion below). ♥ Her Pegship♥ 23:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ehhhxcellent. Alai 03:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

... another nationality split of {{tl|band-stub}}. Currently I have 66 Brazilian band stubs, which is more than what StubSense gives, but that is because some of these stubs have no main (non-stub) categories. --Bruce1ee 14:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Created and listed. --Bruce1ee 12:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

:Category:Malaysia geography stubs still has almost 400 geo-stubs, and there are still more articles to be created in Malayasian geography. I propose a stub :Category:Sarawak geography stubs to help organize these geo-stubs. Sarawak is a natural candidate since it makes up 37.5% of the land of Malaysia. Also as Sarawak is on Borneo and was historically separate from Malaya, it may attract editors which the larger category does not. Bejnar 22:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• How many such stubs at present? Alai 02:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Johor and Sabah have been split off (not proposed...). its probably worth thinking about having templates for all the states (11 more, I think...) and the two territories and making categories for any that get over threshold. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• What BL said. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

There is already stub for US specific hip hop groups and collectives and StubSense says there is 250 stubs starting from :Category:Hip hop groups. I know StubSense is a little behind with enwiki, but I think the number is increasing. Also this stub template would cover all groups and collective from any country other than USA and could also be better parent stub for US groups and collectives.

Monni 20:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable, but {{tl|Hiphop-group-stub}} / {{cl|Hip hop group stubs}} would surely be more consistent with existing categories, stub and otherwise. Alai 02:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:* I only checked that {{tl|Band-stub}} is there. Category name is fine for me... Monni 04:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support Alai's modified proposal. --Usgnus 04:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Also checked that the potential child stub is called {{tl|US-hiphop-band-stub}} and not {{tl|US-hiphop-group-stub}}. Monni 04:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Good point. Now, if anyone has any theories as to why we're using "band" in templates, and "groups" in category names, please do write in and say... Alai 15:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• For example, dance group and dance band are two totally different things... "band" is also shorter than "musical group". Monni 19:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Sure, but one feeding into the other implies equivalence (or at least, implication, to be precise), and simultaneously some sort of distinction, which is most odd. But maybe we should just add redirects all around to finesse. Alai 19:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• I think it is more about trying to be consistent with all genres and different kind of non-musical groups, musical groups, collectives etc. Although group and band might be ambigous with one genre, it doesn't have to be with all genres. Also... The sole purpose of this nomination was to refine disambiguating of existing stub types and categories. So it doesn't imply that there can't be other hip hop groups than musical ones. As long as there isn't enough articles and/or stubs about non-musical hip hop groups, there is no real reason for further disambiguating. Monni 19:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• The origin of the band/group discrepancy I think could be because the stub categories use "groups" to tie in with the corresponding main categories, and the templates use "bands" to conform to WP:NC#Album titles and band names. --Bruce1ee 06:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I count 75 of 'em in {{cl|North American football (soccer) biography stubs}}, and while the parent isn't overflowing, I don't see any reason not to create it. --fuzzy510 06:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Create it and I will help you populate it. - Darwinek 07:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support the idea, but wouldn't it be better to simply use the word soccer instead of football and footy? The parent {{cl|Soccer in the United States}} and all the sisters use that word. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 22:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, it would. I ddin't notice that part of the naming convention. I've changed the proposal accordingly. --fuzzy510 22:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support in principle, but predict a mini-riot when the advocates of "blah-footy-bio-stub" style naming find out. A redirect one way or the other would be a plan, at the least. Alai 02:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• I actually would prefer naming it {{tl|US-footy-bio-stub}} with a redirect from {{tl|US-soccer-bio-stub}}. Actually we could add that redirect to all football/soccer-related stub types.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 11:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support with redirect (either way round), as per Carabinieri and Alai. Grutness...wha? 23:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support soccer with redirect at footy--this is the US being referred to. --CComMack (t•c) 02:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• You may well think that "footy" is a ridiculous name for a US category relating to this topic. Personally, I think that it's a rediculous name for any such category on the topic. But some sort of naming consistency is desirable. Alai 00:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• My gut reaction now is to follow the convention set by the category for US football teams, which is to use "soccer" in the category name, with "footy" in the tag. Obviously, there'd be a redirect for the template at "soccer" as well. This sound acceptable to everyone? --fuzzy510 04:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• That's my preference (in the case of the template until such time as the association football fans stop throwing the rattle out of the pram, and agree to a general renaming of the whole tag-hierarchy). Alai 04:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support sounds good. Yankee Rajput 00:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The Forest of Dean is a distinct Cultural, Geographical, Social, Linguistic, Political and Historical entity within the couty of Gloucestershire in the UK. I think it needs its own stub in order to keep track of the various incomplete pages in this area. Also, I think the existence of a stub-type would help users with an interest in this area to work in a more focussed way on a distinct body of work within the ~pedia.

Examples are:

Freeminer

Gaveller

Minsterworth

Bream, Gloucestershire

Newent

A48 road

Dean Forest Railway

Forest of Dean Sculpture Trail

Plus a whole load of things I haven't created yet, including Forest of Dean Dialect, Freemine, Freeminer's Brass,Newland Church/Cathedral of the Forest, Cyril Hart and a whole load of places, monuments, enclosures, museums and so-on not mentioned on the Forest of Dean page, or mentioned but with no pages.

Any objections or suggestions?

--Dan 18:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too small: Forest_of_Dean#Notable_villages_and_towns is short, and riddled with redlinks. No necessity whatsoever: the proposed parent isn't even one listing page. Badly named: "Dean" is confusing. Badly scoped, if it's to cover non-location articles. A page (in user or wikiproject space) to track incomplete/missing articles related to the topic would be a much better solution. Alai 18:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment :Category:Forest of Dean currently has 31 articles in it. There are currently 12 red links in the Forest of Dean article. Bejnar 22:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Only 31 articles in the category. --Usgnus 01:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• oppose nowhere near 65 stubs and not a ceremonial county and the parent stub cat isnt big enough for a split anyway. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons given above. Parent category isn't yet in need of a split, and this wouldn't be the way to do it anyway. Grutness...wha? 06:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

One of an african country without stubs. might be last one in need of one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briaboru (talk • contribs)

• Support template; like to see some evidence of a reasonable number of stubs, else oppose separate category. Alai 00:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• StubSense reports 48 stubs in {{cl|Lesotho}}. [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/stub_sense?category=Lesotho&num_pages=4000&dbname=enwiki] Support as per Alai. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 02:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support stub, category when threshold reached. --Usgnus 04:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Not just a marketing ploy, but a genre heavily used in libraries, criticism, reading groups, etc. "YA" is the usual abbreviation so I hope we don't have to come up with something longer...This would siphon off some of the overflow in {{cl|Children's books}} and in {{cl|Novels}}. (See discussion below.) ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support, YA is a distinct genre amd has been for a few decades. Although probably have {{tl|young-adult-novel-stub}} as a redirect. Crystallina 22:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• YA fails the disambig test (though admittedly, not by much). I'd be inclined to reverse C's suggestion, or else use {{tl|youth-novel-stub}}, say. Certainly support the type. Alai 23:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• I am moved to point out {{tl|fin-stub}}, which on first sight I thought might be about Finland, marine life, or maybe a five dollar bill...But I would settle for {{tl|young-adult-novel-stub}}. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Some of our abbreviations are indeed self-consciously cryptic, but those tend to be long-standing, used (hopefully consistently) over a number of different stub types, and documented in the naming guidelines. Introducing fresh, one-off such I'm wary about (though this one strikes me as merely borderline, not outrageous on its face). Alai 01:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• I doubt we'll be needing yottampere novel stubs anytime soon, in any case. Crystallina 05:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

My assault on all things football stubs continues with these proposals:

Europe

• {{tl|Bulgaria-footy-bio-stub}} / {{cl|Bulgarian football biography stubs}} - 68
• {{tl|Serbia-footy-bio-stub}} / {{cl|Serbian football biography stubs}} - 78
• {{tl|BosniaHerzegovina-footy-bio-stub}} / {{cl|Bosnia and Herzegovina football biography stubs}} - 53
• {{tl|Croatia-footy-bio-stub}} / {{cl|Croatian football biography stubs}} - 55

Asia

• {{tl|Japan-footy-bio-stub}} / {{cl|Japanese football biography stubs}} - 63
• {{tl|Korea-footy-bio-stub}} / {{cl|Korean football biography stubs}} - 69 (68 from South Korea)

South America

• {{tl|Uruguay-footy-bio-stub}} / {{cl|Uruguayan football biography stubs}} - 61

Oceania

• {{tl|NZ-footy-bio-stub}} / {{cl|New Zealand soccer biography stubs}} - 95

I realize that the last two European types don't quite hit 60, but that's only from looking in the European football stubs category, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are more hiding out somewhere else. Besides, the category is getting pretty large (nearly 800 articles, spilling on to 5 pages thanks to the many subcats), so I would think that it'd be reasonable to bend the rules here a little bit. I also won't be offended if someone wants to rescope the Korean stubs - it would stand on its own as just South Korea, but it seems that the convention is to lump them all together. --fuzzy510 02:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support all. 50-60's that "you shouldn't create it, but we won't delete it either" grey area. :) And as you say, there may be more elsewhere. Alai 15:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support all. I just came over here to propose the Japan split myself. Neier 14:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Support all Valentinian ^(talk) 15:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::Since this was mysteriously deleted, I'm reposting this for archival, and creating all. --fuzzy510 23:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:::My fault - and I'm no idea what happened (an editing glitch of some sort). What I was trying to add was my comment, which was "Support all. Very surprised that NZ has reached target; someone must've been busy..." Grutness...wha? 00:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

I counted the countries, so I know this as definite, Myannmar is the only Soth East Asian nation with out stubs. all members of ASEAN who comprise all the nations of SE asia have one except Myannmar. Briaboru

• I've adjusted the header per the usual. Also as per usual, I support a template regardless, and a separate category is there's getting on for 60 stubs. Alai 21:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• I don't know how much this means, but Stub Sense lists 412 non-geo stubs for Myanmar. A lot of these seem to be false positives. By a rough count, about 80 of these would seem to fit Myanmar.--Thomas.macmillan 02:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Looks like at least one culprit category tree branch is {{cl|Myanmar}} → {{cl|History of Myanmar}} → {{cl|British rule in India}} ... There may be others. --CComMack (t•c) 03:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - as I discovered with Central Asian stubs, there are probably plenty of these, but they'll be semi-difficult to dig up because nobody knows what to do with them. Aelfthrytha 04:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:And even Eritrea and Lesotho have broken threshold. Support the template and create the category as soon as it breaks 60. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Created. Aelfthrytha 15:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, bah! I was just looking for this not more than 1/2 hour ago... =) ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

????

trying to create a lasertag catagory, dunno if this is even close to the right place to do so, this is because i'm trying to expand the lasertag section here. k

~whatever~

whatever 19:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• If you're just looking for a category for lasertag, there already is one... with a gap in the name, at {{cl|Laser tag}}. If you mean you want a template and category for stubs relating to lasertag, then this is the place. But I seriously doubt you're going to get anywhere near the 60 articles needed for a stub type to be viable. A wider-scoped stub type relating to all live-action roleplaying-type games might be viable and might cover laser tag, but it would need to be carefully worded to show what was and wasn't covered by it. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

you'd be amazed about how much i know about lasertag... but {{sports:stub}} seems to cover it for the momment thanks.

~whatever~

whatever 03:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

Because of the actions of some members of the "Stubsensor" project, who have removed stub tags from NY route pages which are clearly stubs, I've (speaking on behalf of WP:NYSR) been forced to resort to using {{tl|Sectstub}}. While the usage of this template is fine, it makes finding New York route articles with sections needing expansion difficult because of the massive size of the {{cl|Articles with sections needing expansion}} category. Though only a handful of NYSR articles use Sectstub as we speak, most of the 150 articles in {{cl|New York State Highway stubs}} could use the proposed template if approved. --TMF ^{T - C} 07:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• One problem with the jargon used on WP is that sometimes the same word is used for different things. If an article is fairly large but has a section that needs expanding, then it isn't a stub. And "sectstub" isn't really anything to do with stubs - it's a call to expand one sectin of an article that is beyond stub size ("sectexpand" would be a far better name for it). That's one of the reasons why this WikiProject doesn't usually have anything to do with sectstubs... they're not really stubs at all. Which is another way of saying that (I may be mistaken, but...) I don't think anyone here would object to a specific sectstub template relating to your wikiproject. As to the stubsensor project, the problem with automatically deciding on stubs based solely by length is the reason why stubsensor alone is a ridiculous idea and has been argued against on WP:WSS several times - it completely ignores things like tables. An article with one line of text and 20k or tables is still a stub, even if it registers as being 20.2k in size (I'm referring here to your recent - and IMHO correct - reversion of a stubsensor template removal from New York State Route 28, for example). Grutness...wha? 08:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• I completely agree with Grutness. Sectstub would ideally be renamed, as had often been mooted -- I'd do somthing about it (no, really), there just doesn't seem to be a centralised place for nomming same, and I don't really want to go screwing around unilaterally with a template in such heavy use. Splitting "sect-expands" by topic I'm skeptical about, but just so long as they're not called stub, they're not really our business here. The Bluebot and the Stubsensor people are doubtless doing a lot of useful work, as stub-tags often "linger" on articles longer than they're needed, but if they're working by length, this sort of false-positive is going to happen, and people shouldn't hestitate to revert (and complain more loudly if it happens again on the same article) if a more careful consideration indicates otherwise. Alai 16:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been having problems like this at CA and Wa and Interstate and just about every highway project I've worked with. In all honesty the people "stub-sorting" need to loosen up on highway pages. Short of that, you can create something like {{tl|cleanupcsh}} (does NY have one?) Oh yeah some person tried to TFD that too... you seriously cannot win... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• You should address such problems to be editors concerned, since a) the stub-sorting process is hardly a monolith (though I did comment a little earlier on the "problem with stubs => WSS gets it in the neck syndrome), and b) that's not stub-sorting. Alai 03:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

TV biographical stubs are 8 pages; this is the next one to go. Searches support it. Crystallina 23:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Super strong support with a cherry on top. I was hoping someone would tackle this one, as it seems less than amenable to automated analysis. Alai 23:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create entertainment, defer search engine}}

• {{cl|Entertainment website stubs}} 93
• {{cl|Search engine website stubs}} 79

Another five-pager, these look the most plausible. Alai 03:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support both per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 05:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Entertainment is done. The search engines are a bit of an overcount, since there seem to be several stubs in {{cl|Google}}, {{cl|Yahoo!}}, etc, that aren't to do with web search per se. I think I'll defer this until it's more clearly viable. Alai 18:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

• {{cl|United States rock singer stubs}} 93
• {{cl|United States rhythm and blues singer stubs}} 47
• {{cl|United States country singer stubs}} 42
• {{cl|United States pop singer stubs}} 33

I mention the undersized ones as categorisation by style is rather low (less than half the 5-page stub), so I strongly suspect they'd be viable if someone cared to do a manual search. Alai 03:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create theat-struct, defer all others}}

Theatre stubs are a horrible mess. They have subcategories on about 4 different axes and there isn't much clear-cut agreement on what goes where. Here's what I'm proposing:

Get rid of {{tl|musical-theat-stub}} and {{tl|Broadway-stub}} as they serve little purpose but to confuse things.

Possibly get rid of {{tl|US-theat-stub}} and {{tl|Euro-theat-stub}} as this axis just doesn't seem ideal; see below.

Split theat-stub into the following axes (some are created):

{{tl|theat-bio-stub}} for biographies; this already exists and I am using it.

{{tl|theat-struct-stub}} for actual theatres.

{{tl|play-stub}} for plays and {{tl|musical-play-stub}} for musicals.

If any US or European splits of the above are viable, I'll propose them after they're populated. I'm not trying to stomp on anyone's work or sorting; just trying to make it easier on people browsing the categories and trying to make it easier to find things without searching through multiple categories and without mass multiple stubbing. Crystallina 02:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support the two new stub types if demonstrably viable (which I strongly suspect they are). I suggest we hold off on getting rid {{tl|musical-theat-stub}} and the geographical splits until it's clearer what effect the new ones might have: last thing we need is upmerging to the already-oversized theat-stubs. {{tl|Broadway-stub}} I'd be glad to see the back of at any stage. Alai 03:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, the likely contents of {{tl|musical-theat-stub}} and {{tl|musical-play-stub}} are so similar that that one should go straight to SFD as a rename/rescope: makes no sense to do that by hand. Alai 03:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Right, I had just typed up a reply of that nature. {{tl|musical-theat-stub}} is almost exclusively musicals with the odd bio or two, and {{tl|Broadway-stub}} is about half musicals and half bios. Those two and the main category will take care of musical stubs; theatre structure stubs I'll tally up in a few minutes but a brief glance at the contents of the main category suggests they'll definitely make the threshold. Crystallina 03:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry: one of the unique hazards of a wiki must be getting an edit conflict with someone conducting an argument with themself. :) Alai 16:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of {{tl|musical-theat-stub}}. It was just proposed and created a few weeks ago: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2006/July#.7B.7BMusical-stub.7D.7D_or_.7B.7BMusical-play-stub.7D.7D. It has an associated Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre. --Usgnus 16:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• oppose as per Usgnus Monni 16:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• There seems to be some dispute about said stub type; I'll hold off on doing anything with it for awhile and go ahead and create the theater structure stub, which nobody has objected to. Crystallina 13:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

• {{cl|Psychoactive drug stubs}} 129
• {{cl|Antibiotic stubs}} 90

Five page parent, these two look plausible. Alai 01:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

*{{cl|Winter Olympics medalist stubs}} 233

• {{cl|Olympic bronze medalist stubs}} 152
• {{cl|Olympic silver medalist stubs}} 137
• {{cl|Olympic gold medalist stubs}} 114

The first would suffice to downsize this for now. The next three are obviously more problematic as regards multi-stubbing, though so would every other axis that springs to mind. (In any case I don't see any currently viable splits by Olympiad.) Alai 01:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oops, said first one I already proposed and created as {{cl|Winter Olympic medalist stubs}}. Alai 05:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it make more sense to split by sport than by the colour of the medal, especially since (as you point out) it will mean a lot of multistubbing? Why not things like (as uncounted examples) {{cl|Olympic swimming medalist stubs}}, {{cl|Olympic gymnastics medalist stubs}}, {{cl|Olympic athletics medalist stubs}} +c? Grutness...wha? 05:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Yes it would, now that you mention it... I'd go off and try and count these, but as the parent's no longer oversized, it's less of a hot issue. Alai 05:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as "type"}}

Either:

• {{cl|S-type Main Belt asteroid stubs}}
• {{cl|C-type Main Belt asteroid stubs}}

or

• {{cl|S-group Main Belt asteroid stubs}}
• {{cl|C-group Main Belt asteroid stubs}}

Don't have exact counts of these, due to massive undercategorisation by spectral classes, but these are the most common types, and as the parent is five pages, they're certain to be viable given enough effort to find them; the groups are in each case slightly more inclusive. Alai 22:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support S-type and C-type stub-cats. Asteroid spectral types refers to classification schemes using both "groups" and "types", but it appears that the scheme in general use today is by "type". Also :Category:Asteroid spectral classes only lists "types". --Bruce1ee 07:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create, upmerge districts}}

• {{cl|Pardubice Region geography stubs}} 248
• {{cl|Chrudim District geography stubs}} 111
• {{cl|Pardubice District geography stubs}} 107
• {{cl|Moravian-Silesian Region geography stubs}} 79

Doesn't seem to be much I can do with the Mainland Chinese (undercatting, or too many provinces?), so last of the five page geos to split. Alai 19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for it. It's too big as one giant mass of stubs, and each of the proposed stub categories will have far more than the minimum necessary required stubs in them. --Nishkid64 21:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• I tell a lie about China, it looks as if {{cl|Anhui geography stubs}} would just be viable, at exactly 60. Alai 16:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• For the time being, I've upmerged the above two district-level types; they'd indeed be viable, but it seems excessive to split out districts, when only a couple of the regions have been split out. Alai 05:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

I don't want to sound like a park-obsessive, but this, at 136, or the slightly more specific -state-park- at 134 are the only feasible splits I can find for the five-page FL-geos. Again the issue arises if this are all technically "protected areas": if so, we could split the same stubs, under than name. Alai 19:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'll probably withdrawn the above category in favour of the already-existing {{cl|Florida protected area stubs}}, which seems to be suitable for the "state parks", which as noted is the bulk of these. With or without a separate template, I'm not much bothered. Alai 23:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

There are stubs that cover articles that would be held under this stub but none specifically for marine biology/life articles. Seems this is quite a large topic that, as yet, doesn't have a stub assigned to it. --chris_huh 14:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Cuts across numerous existing stub categories: the biology stubs are organised essentially taxonomically, so this would involve double-stubbing or re-stubbing numerous {{cl|plant stubs}}, {{cl|fish stubs}}, several {{cl|mammal stubs}}, etc. I'd be inclined to try and recast this as splits of (possibly several) existing stub types. I note that the fish-stubs in particular are perilously close to going on the "in urgent need of splitting" list... Alai 15:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Well, I was going to make the point about existing stubs, but Alai beat me to it. Also, the corresponding perm-cat is {{cl|Aquatic organisms}} ({{cl|Marine life}} has a big note redirecting to Aquatic organisms). ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• I notice there is a WikiProject Marine life, but they seem to be happily using/advertising {{tl|Invertebrate-stub}}, {{tl|fish-stub}}, and {{tl|Mollusc-stub}}... Alai 15:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

There are over 350 articles in California stubs, maybe a split is in order to help people looking through the California stubs find stubs about places and things near them. --Daniel Olsen 20:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• FTI, there's a Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California. --Usgnus 20:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Which uses {{tl|California-south-geo-stub}} btw, so a {{tl|California-north-geo-stub}} would be the complement. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• But the proposal's not for a geo stub. I'm dubious about this, as 350's not all that large (admittedly, huge compared to the Ukrainian stubs people are determined to divide six different ways...), Northern California is very vaguely defined, and many of the stubs may not be geographically specific to either. Alai 20:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• You are correct that this isn't a geo proposal. I suppose I was pointing out that the So-Cal WikiProject is using a geo-stub, but not a general stub like {{tl|California-south-stub}} or {{tl|South-California-stub}} or anything like that. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• I oppose this, but that's because there's serious undersorting of California stubs at the moment. There are seven nine geo-stubs in the letter B alone! I think if all the California stubs were sorted using the subcategories it would ease problems considerable. What's more, I'd suggest that splitting along the axis currently being split on would make a bit more sense - i.e., more subdivisions of US-xxx-stubs for California. Looks like a california-struct-stub and california-gov-stub might be viable, for instance. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• I can certainly confirm the likelihood of such a stub type being viable; the list would have to be picked through for copious false positives, but of the above stubs, well over 100 are someplace under {{cl|Buildings and structures}}. Plus there's 58 US-struct-stubs that appear to be under {{cl|California}} -- I feel a proposal coming on! Alai 05:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• oppose Need consistent naming. Monni 16:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create double-catted template}}

I'd Like to create and populate this category so that the Canadian Military History Project can start picking through it. Mike McGregor (Can) 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• That should be {{cl|Canadian military history stubs}}. How many such articles are there? Alai 14:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• And also Canada-mil-hist-stub, not just Can. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• FYI, there is a {{tl|Warof1812-stub}}. --Usgnus 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

:*after looking within some battle stub cats, I've found about 15 stubs, I haven't really checked the US battle stub cat yet... I noted a few within some military equpment cats, and i anticipate finding more within the fortification stub cat. roughly 30 within canadian history stubs at first glance. In addition to this, i'm sure there are many more that have not been marked as stubs and that will be created by the Canadian Military History Task Force. Mike McGregor (Can) 05:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::Seems a bit light, and the parent's are by no means oversized. Why not create the template (as {{tl|Canada-mil-hist-stub}}, per Grutness), "upmerged" to (i.e. categorised into both of) {{cl|Canadian military stubs}} and {{cl|Canadian history stubs}}, and review situation once it grows to 60-ish? While I'd count the "Task Force" as the moral equivalent of a wikiproject, from discussion at MILHIST I gather their scope is in effect all of the existing {{tl|Canada-mil-stub}}, so I wouldn't consider that a pressing reason as such.) Alai 05:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Actually, as it happens I was just checking the mil-stubs for possible new stub types -- what they really need is just resorting, actually -- and I found 60 such in or under {{cl|Military history of Canada}}. List might be false-positive-ridden, would need checking... Alai 04:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Strike that: it's riddled with 'em. This is what comes of looking ten-deep in the category tree? (If you learned that Roman Romanov were in {{cl|Russian people stubs}}, and under {{cl|Nobility}}, and you assumed that meant he was a candidate for retagging into {{cl|Russian nobility stubs}} -- or else that any confusion was related to his imperial-sounding surname -- you might be surprised... Alai 15:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::is that last comment supposed to be in another section? and does this seem to be moving towards the creation of the category or away from it? because i really cant tell... Mike McGregor (Can) 16:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::That was an (admittedly somewhat digressive) complaint about the strangenesses of the categories that lead to said false-positive rate. The two comments pretty leave us back where they were -- I'd still support an upmerged template immediately, so as to facilitate on-going tagging. Alai 17:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::So, is the next step for me to create an "upmerged" template? What is that, and how do I do it? Mike McGregor (Can) 06:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Create the template :Template:Canada-mil-hist-stub and then instead of creating :Category:Canadian military history stubs, add both :Category:Canadian military stubs and :Category:Canadian history stubs to the template. --Usgnus 07:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

I'll be honest, I didn't go through and count this. However, considering the prevalence of auto racing in the US, and the fact that this category is oversized, I'd eat my shoe if there weren't at least 60 stubs here. --fuzzy510 03:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, it's not oversized: I split out the NASCAR bios a couple of days ago. Bon appetite. :) But IIRC, we also have pre-existing approval of a US- split, and of an F1 split (I just didn't bother actually implementing either). Alai 04:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Here's my list of 418 suspected USians from the parent stub type. Alai 06:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

Not the most exciting-sounding split in the world, but would get rid of 105 geezers from the oversized bus-bios. Alai 01:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• And likewise, {{cl|United States business executive stubs}} (72). Alai 23:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

I realize this is potentially very "overlappy", but it's hard to see many alternatives for down-sizing the US-tv-actors. 107 possibilities. Indeed, I could find zilch, based on the perm-cats. Era is a possibility, but messy. Alai 00:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

Per-topic picking are getting very slim, so I suggest:

• {{cl|United States magazine stubs}} 132
• {{cl|United Kingdom magazine stubs}} 83

Better ideas more than welcome... Alai 00:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

::Remember {{tl|lit-mag-stub}}?? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Indeed! I don't think it's viable, though (and I wish it were, because {{tl|art-mag-stub}} is horribly and excessively broad, as User:Alaibot's talk page illustrates. My initial estimates seem very high, and I'm not at all sure why that was. If you can make it viable, either as well as or instead of the art-mags in general, I'd fully support, otherwise I'd consider the proposal withdrawn, or at least held over pending definitive evidence of a sufficient population. (I'd be happy to re-crunch the numbers in the db dump's time or two if someone reminds me.) Alai 23:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It seems that :Category:Magazine stubs is horribly undersorted. --Usgnus 23:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

The following look plausible, on the basis of counts from the corresponding perm-cats:

• {{cl|Physical chemistry stubs}} 133
• {{cl|Organic chemistry stubs}} 84
• {{cl|Chemical engineering stubs}} 65

Haven't checked for any possible overlap... Alai 06:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create HR class, defer spectral type}}

This was discussed before, but we didn't really come to any definitive conclusion, much less act on it. To get specific:

• For non-single stars, at least one of the following (if only one, the first):
• {{cl|Star system stubs}} 163
• {{cl|Double star stubs}} 135
• Then split out the variables as a class unto themselves:
• {{cl|Variable star stubs}} 112 sorting required, methinks!
• Then, for my personal preference by HR class:
• {{cl|Main sequence star stubs}} 318
• {{cl|Giant star stubs}} 255
• {{cl|Subgiant star stubs}} 111
• Or alternatively, by spectral type.
• {{cl|Type-K star stubs}} 160
• {{cl|Type-A star stubs}} 156
• {{cl|Type-B star stubs}} 140
• {{cl|Type-G star stubs}} 135
• {{cl|Type-F star stubs}} 99
• {{cl|Type-M star stubs}} 62

(But not both the latter groups, before the anti-double-stub police do me over.) Alai 05:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

:I failed to notice that {{cl|Star system stubs}} duplicates {{cl|Multiple star stubs}}, so I've just merged that in. The double-stars are looking more likely to be viable without depleting the triple-plusses (not that it's necessary for size, but it would more closely follow the perms. I went ahead with the HR classes, so unless anyone objects after the fact, I suggest we defer a split by spectral type until the main-star-stubs need to be split, in a Moore or so's time. Alai 07:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

"Sounds painful." The following seem to be viable, on the basis of perm-cats:

• {{cl|Organ system stubs}} 361
• {{cl|Musculoskeletal system stubs}} 215
• {{cl|Head and neck stubs}} 177
• {{cl|Skeletal system stubs}} 139

Of this seven-page category, I note that almost 300 are in {{cl|Animal anatomy}}. If these aren't supposed to be there, as was asserted when I proposed it in the context of splitting the med-stubs, can someone check for mis-sorting? Alai 04:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

Another seven-pager.

• {{cl|Biochemical stubs}} 363
• {{cl|Molecular biology stubs}} 257
• {{cl|Protein stubs}} 165

I know the name of the first is confusing, but it'd correspond to {{cl|biochemicals}}, rather than {{cl|biochemistry}}. Lipids, enzymes and nucleic acids are all in the mid-30s, but maybe there's underclassification... Alai 02:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

In both {{cl|Naval_ship_stubs}} and {{cl|World_War_II_stubs}}, 84 articles; in both {{cl|Australian_military_stubs}} and {{cl|World_War_II_stubs}}, 83. Other possible means of working down the oversized WW2s. Alai 22:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

Art Conservation is a significant field of museum studies, incorporating topics from the physical sciences and art history. At present there are some articles that would qualify for this stub which might attract more encyclopedic entries:

• Glass disease
• Art conservation and restoration
• Photograph conservation
• Print permanence

and I would add more stub articles if the heading was approved. Richardjames444 13:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• I couldn't find a {{cl|Art conservation}}, and the 3rd link you mentioned is too long to be a stub. Are there 60 articles (as per the size guidelines)? If not, then I will have to oppose. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

::the appropriate category currently would be {{cl|museology}}, although you are probably right in noting that there aren't 60 stubs at this time. I'll dig a little deeper and if there isn't, I'll redact the proposal. Richardjames444 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Ah, thanks for the link to {{cl|Museology}}. I'd suggest expanding that category and its related sub-cats and propose the stub again later when you have a larger group. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

::::That perm-cat is suggestive of a much wider scope than the original, though. It's hard to get a reasonable count for a {{tl|museology-stub}} though, as the category includes very broad topics, like archeology and art history, that already have pretty sensible stub types. (Yet more complex category queries required...) I'd be supportive of that type if it's viable, though, in preference to them being shoved into {{tl|museum-stub}}, where they'll get jumbled up with the very large numbers of actual museum buildings. Alai 18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|BJAODN}}

The Ts were formed in 1997, as a bunch of Sydney Technical High School students moved on to university. The members included, Sharbie, Kourathi, Stewart Little, Zungla, Junior, Blago, Skatopouniari, Aleko and Hesti.

Once at uni, the gang took their universities by storm.

More info soon.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kourabie (talk • contribs)

• Strongest possible say what? Alai 05:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• speedy wth Monni 05:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'm thinking of a six-letter acronym beginning with B and ending with N... Grutness...wha? 09:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• does it have a JAO and D in it? :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 11:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Is is possible to speedy a proposal? In any case, BJAODN as per Grutness and BL. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• They've been speedily created before; speeding something to the archive would probably be a first... Alai 14:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Gimme a B, gimme a J, gimme a A, O, D ... ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• The lesser said, the better. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

Briaboru

I'm not sure the number of stubs will be as small as some might think of course no one wants tons of stubs, but the more chances for articles to be expanded upon.

• I've amended the template name, per the naming guidelines. But what's the likely population? Alai 18:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

: Likely very small, the AU (and its predecessor the OAU) haven't done very much that is noteworthy, though the AU has been much better in that regard than its predecessor. Not only that, most potential stubs would likely be double-stubbed with {{tl|Africa-politican-stub}} which isn;'t that large at present anyway. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

:oppose unless there's some explanation for its rationale and some indication that it will pass threshold. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:Oppose per Grutness. I don't think we have 60 non-bio articles about this one. The politicians normally use {{tl|Africa-politician-stub}} + a national template. Valentinian ^(talk) 07:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:strong oppose Monni 21:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm amended the header per the naming guidelines again. Alai 23:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:Oppose. No evidence that category is sufficiently populated or well-scoped. --CComMack (t•c) 23:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

There are game stubs, and scifi stubs, but what about Sci-Fi games?

Troggulus August 5 2006

:Per the usual format, this should be {{tl|sf-game-stub}}, eh? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 20:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

:Agree with Peg on name, but what exactly is the scope of this? CVGs, RPGs and boardgames with an SF theme? Not how we're splitting any of those. Alai 05:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

I could have sworn I'd already proposed some of these, but...

• {{cl|French mathematician stubs}}
• {{cl|German mathematician stubs}}
• {{cl|United Kingdom mathematician stubs}}
• {{cl|United States mathematician stubs}}

All are over threshold. I'm in the process of creating upmerged templates for three of the above, plus Poland- and Russia, in order to populate the previously-proposed euros. So you can use those to scrutinise the future contents of these categories... Alai 03:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

As people are seemingly itching to start splitting the Canadian road stubs, these would seem more logical places to start. Each of these would have ~100 (though the parent is not yet oversized). Alai 17:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

As suggested by User:Grutness here. He thought that there would be around 75 articles. [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/stub_sense?category=Sport+in+Scotland&num_pages=4000&dbname=enwiki Stub Sense] suggests 1039 (about 570 if you exclude all the "bio" stubs). True figure probably somewhere in-between. Parent :Category:Scotland stubs currently at 734 articles. It would be a logical parent for :Category:Scottish sportspeople stubs too. This is a subject area that is just going to grow and grow, because Wikipedia has barely even started to scratch the surface of Scottish sport topics yet. --Mais oui! 14:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• support per my earlier comments. I suspect that 1039 (?!) would include sport-bio-stubs, which probably need some sort of caveat about double-stubbing or (if there are enough) a separate scotland-sport-bio-stub. We're probably better to wait and see how this one looks first, though. Grutness...wha? 23:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I thought we had decided to not go with splitting sport by country. I do support keeping the already existing {{tl|Scotland-sport-bio-stub}} and {{tl|Scotland-footy-bio-stub}} tho, which already have some 450 stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Further comment I've been able to bring Scotland stubs down in size by doing some sorting into existing cats. I've gone thru D and it's already down to 666 stubs from the previously mentioned 734. So size does not seem to be a pressing reason for this stub either.

: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.

Pitcher stubs was always overflowing, but with the recent downsizing of the parent, it's bursting at the seams. This seems like the most logical way to do it. --fuzzy510 00:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. :Category:Baseball pitcher stubs has 6 pages. --Usgnus 21:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• I don't know enough about baseball to yay or nay this... but I will comment that sooner or later, splitting by era is likely to be needed. Grutness...wha? 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• A two-way split of such a large type seems sub-optimal in the extreme: lots of work, to create two categories that are themselves in immediate danger of splitting. To say nothing of the possibility that people start double-stubbing en masse (I assume it's far from rare for pitchers to have filled both roles). Rather than tilt at this particular windmill, I'd much rather see a split by era, or by league, or by something that's more likely to be a longer-term solution. Alai 00:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'd caution against splitting by league, because I think that'd be even less effective than what I proposed. By era would work I think, as long as we made it clear in the category that a player should only go into the era(s) that they predominantly played in. --fuzzy510 01:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, era is inherently fuzzy for non-discrete quantities like careers. Probably something like "decade in which they last played professionally (or otherwise at a "notable" level) would be the most "definable" way to go. Alai 00:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Mmmm. I don't think it will be too much of a problem, even without specifying it too much. Most sportspeople are associated primarily with one or at most two decades. Any which played in three will have almost certainly played at the tail end of one, all of a second, and the start of a third, in which case the second is the most logical template to use. After all, how many players play for over 20 years? I doubt we'll get huge amounts of multi-stubbing. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, no-one hit me, but the following would all appear to be technically viable...

• {{cl|Cincinnati Reds pitcher stubs}} 125
• {{cl|New York Yankees pitcher stubs}} 124
• {{cl|Cleveland Indians pitcher stubs}} 118
• {{cl|Detroit Tigers pitcher stubs}} 111
• {{cl|Chicago Cubs pitcher stubs}} 110
• {{cl|St. Louis Cardinals pitcher stubs}} 107
• {{cl|Boston Red Sox pitcher stubs}} 106
• {{cl|Pittsburgh Pirates pitcher stubs}} 104
• {{cl|San Francisco Giants pitcher stubs}} 102
• {{cl|Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher stubs}} 96
• {{cl|Chicago White Sox pitcher stubs}} 93
• {{cl|Philadelphia Phillies pitcher stubs}} 91
• {{cl|Kansas City Royals pitcher stubs}} 90
• {{cl|New York Mets pitcher stubs}} 87
• {{cl|Texas Rangers pitcher stubs}} 82
• {{cl|Oakland Athletics pitcher stubs}} 80
• {{cl|Baltimore Orioles pitcher stubs}} 79
• {{cl|Toronto Blue Jays pitcher stubs}} 75
• {{cl|Montreal Expos pitcher stubs}} 73
• {{cl|Atlanta Braves pitcher stubs}} 72
• {{cl|Milwaukee Brewers pitcher stubs}} 70
• {{cl|Tampa Bay Devil Rays pitcher stubs}} 66
• {{cl|Seattle Mariners pitcher stubs}} 66
• {{cl|San Diego Padres pitcher stubs}} 64
• {{cl|Houston Astros pitcher stubs}} 64
• {{cl|Colorado Rockies pitcher stubs}} 60

Whether or not this is a sensible axis is another matter... Alai 23:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

:Technically viable, yes, but if you look there are some pitchers who've played for 6, 7 or 8 teams. I'd think that the majority of them were playing for one or two teams at most, but if you do the math, it works out to an average of a little more than two stub tags per article. I realize that double-stubbing isn't a bad thing, but considering the amount of work that would have to go into this and the possible result, I really don't think, like you said, it's sensible. --fuzzy510 03:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

:Eww. I'm now convinced, it's time to knuckle(ball) under and split by decade. --CComMack (t•c) 06:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

There is a lot of stubs for television, and I think we could split it into the following:

{{tl|reality-tv-stub}} - There's a big brother stub, so why not reality. Many new reality shows are stubs, especially the ones that are cancelled right away.

{{tl|tv-drama-stub}}

{{tl|sitcom-stub}}

{{tl|tv-dating-stub}}

{{tl|children-tv-stub}}

and there are others too. --andrew 21:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

:There shouldn't be a Big Brother stub, and I'll work on fixing that right now. In the mean time, how many is "a lot"? 60 is the traditional threshold. --fuzzy510 20:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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

This is for a stub that would include orchestras and other classical ensembles. I don't really want to do the work for it, but this stub would be very useful. There is already a {{tl|US-orchestra-stub}} for US based orchestras and other classical ensembles, but not for any other country. There probably are not enough stubs in each individual country to be able to add it as a sub category to each already existing stub category, but the 'by nationality' approach already seems to be in full swing. Any thoughts? --Amazzing5 19:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Given the existing sub-cat-to-be, I'd support this if it's within even hailing distance of 60. Alai 19:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• According to stubsense, it looks like about 80 pages under :Category:Classical music groups are stubbed with band stubs other than {{tl|US-orchestra-stub}}. So, would these then be double stubbed (with for instance the orchestra-stub and the australia-band-stub)? --Amazzing5 20:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'd think that would be the best course, yes. Alai 20:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --Bruce1ee 05:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Another question, if anyone is interested: why would this (and the previous US stub) be called 'orchestra' when the parent category is :Category:Classical music groups? -Amazzing5 03:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• That is indeed a good question. Which you ask now, after creating and part-populating it? :) To be fair, there is indeed a {{cl|Orchestras}} too. But making the parent the "classical groups" would be more inclusive, so on the whole it seems like a good plan. I'd suggest we keep the templates, as {{tl|US-classical-group-stub}} is a tad less intuitive, and upmerge to {{cl|Classical musical group stubs}} and "United States" same (adding additional template too, possibly). Alai 04:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Well, first, I never claimed to be intelligent, and second, I was just following precedent. So, let me see if I am understanding you. As I understand, you are suggesting changing the category names to the more generic form, but keeping the stub-templates with the shorter and less accurate names. Is that correct?--Amazzing5 22:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Partly. I'm suggesting the old templates be kept, to be used on actual orchestras, as well as a more generic template as above. Presumably we'd split this in future into {{tl|US-string-quartet-stub}}, {{tl|US-chamber-ensemble-stub}}, etc, if size permitted (or required), so I'm just suggesting we keep existing templatisation that's consistent with that. Alai 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I am currently trying to sort out the British people stubs, but have discovered that some people can't be easily categorised. I therefore propose the following stubs, all of which can hold at least twenty people each from what I've already seen and I suspect many more:

Edited for 2nd time, following comments below:

• {{tl|UK-LGBT-bio-stub}}
• {{tl|UK-spouse-bio-stub}} (for people who are famous, but their main claim to fame is who they are married to)
• {{tl|UK-activist-stub}}
• {{tl|UK-magician-stub}}

Dev920 13:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

: Oppose unless you can find a lot more for each category. Monni 13:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

::I undoubtedly will when I stubsort some more. Dev920 13:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

:No opinion, but if created, the "UK" should be capitalized. ♥ [[User:Pegship|Her

Pegship]]♥ 15:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

:Per above. Please find at least sixty of each, and capitalise UK. Also I'd suggest a serious rethink about those that there's no non-UK stub parent for, and consider merging the scope of some of these. For example, civil servants should surely be in the -gov- hierarchy, and the LGBT type should surely only be applied to LGBT activists, and thus should be included in that grouping. Alai 17:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why we're bothering with bio templates instead of stub templates, but we do already have {{tl|UK-historian-stub}} and {{tl|UK-comedian-stub}}. I spent a good long time sorting out the UK-bio-stubs a month or two ago. There are certainly enough for a {{tl|UK-gov-bio-stub}} for the civil servants and colonial administrators. (We don't have a {{tl|gov-bio-stub}} yet for non-political government functionaies, but I think we should. The spouses could mostly go into a {{tl|UK-poli-bio-stub}} which would also include political parents and children. I'm uncertain about the numbers for a {{tl|UK-activist-stub}}, but I doubt if there are enough for either a {{tl|UK-magician-stub}} or a {{tl|UK-herald-stub}}, especially since the latter should already be in {{tl|UK-historian-stub}} as genealogists and that stub type has less than 120 stubs at present. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

:Those stubs you mentioned are not currently on the British People category page. Hence I did not know about them. The comedian one, however, simply adds a comedian category and a british person category, NOT a british comedian category. not sure why that is. However, a UK-gov-bio seems a better idea than the ones I suggested; I have no doubt it would result in your required 60 stubs.

:If heralds can go in historians (which still seems slightly odd to me) I shall go and put them there in the next day or two, as well as adding the link to the page. Dev920 10:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:Comment: Classifying heralds/officers of arms with uk-historian-stub seems not quite right to me as well. I noticed this happening in some of the pages on my watchlist when Caerwine was stub sorting a month or two ago. After looking through the categories I eventually reconstructed the logic alluded to above (heralds are also genealogists, aka family historians which is a subset of historians, therefore give them uk-historian-stub). However when I see This article about a British historian is a stub at the bottom of the bio of a herald, this makes me think that the person had something to do with history, i.e. studied it, wrote books/papers etc, (rather than genealogy), when for the most part this is not the case. uk-genealogist-stub or heraldry-bio-stub (if such were to exist) would seem to me a better fit for heralds, but I defer to those with more experience with stubs. Dr pda 11:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

::I thought so. Maybe a herald subesection of historians someday soon then. Dev920 12:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Another possible solution is to change the text to read This article about a British historian or genealogist is a stub. --Usgnus 15:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

::I've tweaked the comedians category so 1)it actually forms a category and 2) it's listed in british people stubs. Onward...Dev920 11:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Actually, the fact that it fed 2 separate categories was deliberate. Now :Category:British comedian stubs has 39 stubs, :Category:Comedian stubs has about 400, :Category:British people stubs has 423 stubs. --Usgnus 15:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::British comedians will no doubt grow after the Edinburgh fringe, I wouldn't worry about it. I just don't see the point of making a template and then not creating a category for it. You know, like WP:STUB says to, if we're going to stick so tightly to the rules.Dev920 00:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Perhaps a separate template, with canned text making the heraldic nature of their notability explicit, feeding into the same category, for the time being? Also, can you tweak the proposal some more, so that they all start with "UK-" and end with "-stub", one way or another? (e.g. {{tl|UK-gov-bio-stub}}, {{tl|UK-activist-stub}}, etc). Alai 14:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. :Category:British magicians has 34 articles (stub and non-stub) total. Perhaps :Category:British entertainer stubs? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals#Entertainers by country --Usgnus 15:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Please do, where the category name proposed is {{cl|United Kingdom entertainer stubs}}, for scoping clarity. Support upmerging the prematurely created comedians category there too. (Dev, please don't just "tweak" such cases when they're the way they were for a reason, to wit being clearly undersized, without consensus to do so.) I'm amazed that the the "British" parent has come down so dramatically: the behemoth is slain, well done everybody. (Long live the other behemoths...) Alai 15:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

::It's taken me an entire damn day, but it's mostly gone. My edit count has jumped 300 in 2 days...Dev920 00:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

These have been proposed before, to stiff opposition from the NZ quarter, but they continue to grow (7 pages now), and these continue to be the only viable splits based on existing perm-cats.

• {{cl|United States college athletics venue stubs}} 624
• {{cl|United States indoor arena stubs}} 566
• {{cl|United States basketball venue stubs}} 361
• {{cl|United States ice hockey venue stubs}} 185

I find we can assume the first two at least don't overlap a great deal; the others I can check, if that factors into anyone's decision-making process. Alai 03:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I for one would like to see how much overlap occurs between the last two, and between each of them and the second. I'm resigned to this split happening in a way that includes double-stubbing, but would like to avoid too much of that. --CComMack (t•c) 03:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• 37 in common between the last two (so not even enough for a combo-type). The overlap between the second and third is obviously utter and complete: if both were created (which I'm not necessarily suggesting: I had in mind by sport, or by form of venue), #3 would essentially be a subtype of #2, and in no way should the two be double-stubbed with both. Alai 04:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• ....right. Note to self, don't edit Wikipedia when tired enough to ask silly questions. Support. --CComMack (t•c) 12:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I still don't like this on the basis that too many of these will be properly double- or triple-stubbed into the new categories, completely defeating the purpose. If someone can show me numbers that prove me wrong, I'll support this. Otherwise, I don't think this is a truly viable way to split them. --fuzzy510 05:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• The "purpose" would be to reduce the size of the parent (from north of 1400, let me remind you), which this manifestly would do. Do explain to me why 37 double-stubbings (at worst -- I'd be happy to leave those in the parent, personally) "completely defeats" the purpose of getting rid of 600 excess articles from an oversized stub type. (And incidentally, compared to the actors and musicians, this is a double-stubbing cakewalk.) Alai 04:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• First off, my apologies for not signing my original comment. Secondly, I'm saying that it wouldn't work because, without seeing the numbers of double-stubbings, the 1400+ stubs would not really be reduced by that many when they were double- or triple-tagged. Instead, we could be left with multiple large categories to contend with. Please also consider that I made those comments without knowing that you were proposing one pair or another; I thought you were proposing all four categories, which would be rather cumbersome. Also know that I commented before I knew that there were 37 double-stubbings - knowing this, I'd support a split by sport.
  What I would caution against, however, is using the first two categories. I went through and sorted into that category many moons ago, and found that a LOT of the indoor venues were college basketball arenas or field houses. Again, I don't have the numbers, but I have a feeling that there would be a lot of double-stubbing there, which would be rather bothersome. --fuzzy510 05:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Where? I think you lost me a couple of permutations back. Indeed, it's a question of degree: if one ends up splitting a type two ways, and half of them end up double-stubbed with both, one is essentially treading water in the long run: and more extreme situations are possible. It's surely not beyond the wit of man to devise a split that actually improves the situation, though. I'm proposing all four as possibilities, but I'll take whatever I can get, approval-wise. If we go with several of the above, then certainly we have to consider their interaction. "Indoor basketball arena" is, as I say, tautological at least in practice, so double-stubbing there would be completely redundant. (I can always de-double-stub them by bot if it someone insists on doing it anyway...) The first two overlap more than I'd have thought, but a {{cl|United States indoor college athletics arena stubs}} type would take care of that. Alai 06:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• I think I've managed to confuse us both here, so I'm just going to make this simple and end this part of the discussion - support sorting by sport. --fuzzy510 08:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• I hate to say this, but I still think a state-by-state split is more useful than a by-code split. The US may be unusual in this regard, but almost all stadia I've ever seen both here and overseas are multi-use. Even if a by-sport split makes some sense for the US, it would be useless for other countries, and splitting one country one way and the rest another makes little sense. Doubly so since it's very likely that other structures will be better split by location, and we're moving towards the stage of that happening with US structures overall, I think. In any case, splitting out categories that are so big that they would quickly need resplitting seems a bit pointless to me. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Not only does my flip-flopping mind agree with this, but I agree with it so much that I will single-handedly create and populate all 50 (or however many) categories if/when it's passed! Of course, my mind could change four more times in the next 24 hours, so don't hold me too strictly to this one...... --fuzzy510 03:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Currently that'd be zero, on the basis of my counts of per-state viability. A split by region would be the closest one could do at present, which personally I think is taking the vagueness to excess. ("It's someplace in the left half of the U.S., and they play some sort of sport there.") Personnally I think splitting by form of venue (does it have a large grass pitch; a running track; a roof; a hard floor: tricky and existential stuff like that) should have been a slam-dunk about three proposals ago, but... Alai 04:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I have added a few lacrosse-related pages, and plan to add more. There are already a bunch of player pages with minimal information that should be expanded. --MrBoo 02:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Would said bunch be 60-ish, at all...? Incidentally, I notice that a couple of users have expressed an interest in a Wikiproject Lacrosse... Alai 03:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• On the List of professional lacrosse players page, there are currently about 40 players with pages, and many more without pages, some of which I plan on adding in the near future. There are also pages on other lacrosse tournaments and events that could use expanding. Thanks for the info on Wikiproject Lacrosse; I have expressed my interest. MrBoo 03:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Sounds like you're there or thereabouts; were there a wikiproject, you'd certainly be over the minumum of 30 that generally applies in that case (hint, hint). Alai 04:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• When counting, don't forget to look in :Category:Sports team stubs to find some in there that would also use the tag. --fuzzy510 06:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I propose {{tl|Japan-education-stub}}. I've counted about 65 candidates for inclusion in this stub category, gathered from the current :Category:Japan stubs and the many subcategories of :Category:Education in Japan. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• comment How about {{tl|Japan-edu-stub}}... Would be consistent with parent stub ({{tl|edu-stub}}) and sister stubs. Monni 10:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'm sure that would be fine. I suggested the other name because I'm always using {{tl|Education-stub}}. Is that a duplicate? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• AFAIK {{tl|Education-stub}} is redirect to {{tl|edu-stub}}. Monni 16:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, and agree with Monni on the name. By all means create the proposed template as a redirect. Alai 16:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Well, it's certainly faster to type. I support the shorter stub title, too. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - when creating this, I'm concerned that {{tl|Asia-school-stub}} will be removed from these articles. I don't think that should be done, because there could be a future separate {{tl|Japan-school-stub}}. If you create and sort it, please leave the school stub on the articles. Aelfthrytha 16:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• You could forestall this now, perhaps, by creating the above template, double-catted into both {{cl|Asian school stubs}} and {{cl|Japanese education stubs}}. (Anyone who suggests {{cl|Japan education stubs}} will be sent to the back of the class.) Alai 16:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• The same problem is likely 9and solution is possible) with {{tl|Asia-university-stub}}/{{tl|japan-university-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Ah - skip that - I didn't realise it already existed. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what's worse, frustrating redlinks one thinks exist, or embarrassing bluelinks one just thought of suggesting. :) Alai 01:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

I've just noticed that the above category is at 730 stubs. Without doing any counts whatsoever, I think a {{tl|surname-stub}} and {{tl|forename-stub}}. The corresponding main categories are :Category:Surnames and :Category:Given names, so the {{tl|forename-stub}} might need a rename. --TheParanoidOne 22:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• I already proposed this under names echoing the permcats -- with counts, even. I didn't go ahead and create it mainly as I realized it wasn't actually oversized, so wasn't really on my priority list... (I think in the first instance I'd somehow mixed up {{cl|name stubs}} and {{cl|linguistics stubs}}.) Alai 23:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Ah, I knew the proposal sounded familiar but I just couldn't find it. That would be because we've both used categories and templates in such a way that the two proposals can't be linked via WhatLinksHere which is quite amusing. I guess we can scratch this one then, as redundant. --TheParanoidOne 05:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Created as {{tl|surname-stub}} / {{cl|Surname stubs}} and {{tl|given-name-stub}} / {{cl|Given name stubs}}. Just need populating now. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

There's at least 231 and 146 of these, respectively. Wasn't this proposed already? Incidently, there's also 78 articles which are double-stubbed with both linguistics-stub and name-stub, which isn't a great plan, as both are oversized. Unless anyone is aware of a deep reason for this, I'll remove the former from all of these. Alai 22:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not sure what the permcat parents' names are, but I'd suggest that {{cl|Family name stubs}} and {{cl|Given name stubs}} might be better, even if only to parallel each other. Grutness...wha? 06:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

::Proposal follows the permcats. Alai 18:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

Most major countries have their own Musical group stubs. I want this for 3 Sud Est to try to attract the right editor to this article. BlueValour 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose StubSense reports only 10 articles in {{cl|Romanian musical groups}} [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/stub_sense?category=Romanian+musical+groups&num_pages=4000&dbname=enwiki] ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:*Comment - the point of a stub type is to attract editors to improve an article. If this stub is not created then the chances of getting the attention of an editor knowlegeable on the Romanian scene will be much reduced. BlueValour 22:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose a separate category; just double-stub them, or if you must, create a template only, feeding into both categories. When there are so few articles on a topic, it's a strong indication that it'd be a "road less travelled" if farmed out into a separate category, and liable to be even more neglected. A better bet is to attract editors familiar with "Romanian topics" or with "European bands", and hope for the best, at least until such time as coverage increases significantly. Alai 22:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• strong oppose not even enough non-stub articles. Monni 11:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

This stub is to further split the {{t1|India-singer-stub}}. It is to include Indian singers that have their origins in Maharashtra, India. Other stubs could also be state-wise. Example:

• {{tl|Goa-singer-stub}} / {{cl|Goan singer stubs}}
• {{tl|Maharashtra-singer-stub}} / {{cl|Maharashtrian singer stubs}}
• {{tl|Karnataka-singer-stub}} / {{cl|Karnataka singer stubs}}
• {{tl|Andhra Pradesh-singer-stub}} / {{cl|Andhra Pradesh singer stubs}}
• {{tl|Kashmir-singer-stub}} / {{cl|Kashmiri singer stubs}}

and so one (one per each state}

and even language singer stubs

• {{t1|Marathi-singer-stub}} / {{cl|Marathi singer stubs}}
• {{t1|Hindi-singer-stub}} / {{cl|Hindi singer stubs}}
• {{t1|Tamil-singer-stub}} / {{cl|Tamil singer stubs}}
• {{t1|Malayalam-singer-stub}} / {{cl|Malayalam singer stubs}}
• {{t1|Kannada-singer-stub}} / {{cl|Kannada singer stubs}}

and so on (one for each language). The purpose is to make it easy for regional groups to find and refine on regional singers.

-- Mayuresh 16:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• comment how many per template? Monni 16:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Mindbogglingly strong oppose. The parent has 107 articles: any possible split will be undersized, and/or leave the parent undersized. "Unnecessary" would be putting it mildly. Province is also a bad axis for the split, even were a split indicated. Alai 17:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Alai. 107 is not even remotely close enough for a split. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. At most, one of these would be viable, and like Alai said, this is not a good axis to split on. --fuzzy510 20:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

Somehow, there seems to be no "Category:Washington, D.C. school stubs". Stubs with this tag instead link to Category:Washington, D.C. stubs, Category:Southern United States school stubs, and (where applicable) Category:High schools in the District of Columbia. (Example: Cardozo High School (Washington, D.C.).) I am not sure exactly how to fix this... I would just change Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types to create a new category, but it says to discuss changes. Could someone please help out? Perhaps I am not even posting in the right place... I feel a bit out of my element. Dar-Ape 21:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:This setup was created on purpose to allow for a suitable number of Washington DC school stubs to accumulate. When there are a good number, whoever's monitoring this will create the category and change the stubtag to go to it. I'm not keeping track of it personally, but if you feel like there are an appropriate number - at least 65 - let me know and I'll take a look at changing it. Aelfthrytha 21:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:You're in the right place, but as Aelfthrytha says there's a reason for the current setup. The template {{tl|WashingtonDC-stub}} is used on fewer than ten articles, which if you refer to WP:STUB, you'll note is much too small for a separate category. If there are stray articles this could be be applied to, please do so, and this can be revisited in due course. Alai 22:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks fof the quick responses. It would still make sense to me to change the High School category to a general school category so as to be more inclusive, but I suppose since there are so few DC school stubs at this point it may not be worth worrying about. You know better than me, and congratulations on your new barnstar, Aelfthrytha. Dar-Ape 22:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:::As far as I know, the stub categories are all scoped to include any and all schools, whether primary or secondary (or any of the flavours in between). If you mean {{cl|High schools in the District of Columbia}}, then renaming or scoping that would be a matter for WP:CFR. Alai 22:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

A good chunk of the nearly 700 cricket stubs would seem to go here. Also, please correct me if it's a cricket club and not a cricket team - most of us over here don't know of cricket as anything besides a bug. --fuzzy510 11:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:It's a good idea, but the name is a bit problematical. Cricket club would be better, but that wouldn't include national sides. Perhaps cricket-club-stub (with a redirect at cricket-team-stub) leading into {{cl|Cricket club and team stubs}} might solve the problem. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::If the difference lies in that national teams are teams, whereas everything else is a club, let me go and see the possibility of splitting the national teams out separately, a la football. --fuzzy510 16:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I doubt there would be enough countries that play the game. Sure there are 60-80 countries that play cricket, but the bigger ones won't have stubs and the smaller ones might not have organised national sides. Mind you, there are probably national age-group and women's teams in the stub pile, too, so it might work. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

{{sheep-stub}}

I didn't know that you had to request a catergory before you created the template. Anyway, I created a Sheep related stub template. If it does not comply with guidlines, please delete it. Fneep 07:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think you'll find enough articles (at least 60) to put into that category. If you can give reason why you think it's possible, then I think it's a good idea. Eli Falk 09:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::Well, there ARE a lot of breeds of sheep. I used to work on an urban farm with a rare breeds programme. Adam Cuerden 10:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::: If you look at the List of Sheep Breeds page, there are many potential stubs. Plus I made the template so that is all sheep related articles. Wool and fictional sheep articles can go in it too. Fneep 07:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:If you want to write several good stubs about sheep, that can help. I said that if there are enough (60 if there is no project for it, 30 if there is), then it's a good idea. Having created {{tl|even-toed-ungulate-stub}}, I did go through all the mammal stubs and I think there may be 30 right now, but not 60. Eli Falk 16:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

There's a wikiproject, getting on for 30 stubs, and an existing {{tl|Vermont-road-stub}}, which I just edited to move the wikiproject link to the category page... before realizing there was no category page. I also double-catted the template, thereby worsening the ever-growing state of {{cl|United States road stubs}}, oops. Alai 02:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

:Oops, I just created it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

(Have prepared a rough draft of it: Template:G&S-Stub)

Scope: Articles within the remit of Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan

Reason for Need: We are a fairly active project, but, at the moment, we are somewhat being forced to forego stubs because that would cause some confusion as to what needs done. A way of grouping stubs would make expansion easier. Current articles that would usefully have the stub category include The Mountebanks (opera) (It's not, perhaps, as empty as it could be, but it lacks half the features needed for a full-fledged opera article), and many of the actors and performers, many of which have articles of about this detail: Alan_Styler. Not the worst you could get, but having this template would no doubt allow a lot more stubs to be made to fill in the gaps. Adam Cuerden 21:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've taken the liberty of moving this to {{tl|G&S-stub}}, per the naming guidelines, and deleting the redirect at the above name (and at {{tl|G}}). G&S passes the ambiguity test, so that's just about OK, if a little terse, so my only real remaining question is: are there 30 stub article that are primarily notable in connection with G&S? If not, this is either going to be infeasibly small, or result in a lot of double-stubbing with whatever-we're-calling-the-musical-theatre-stub-types-this-week. Or both. Alai 21:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

::Since it is part of a large and active project, and given most of the actors related to G&S are almost entirely known for that reason, I'd say yes. The Victorian English Theatre is... Well... Let's just put it this way. Gibert, German-Reed, and a few others are largely accredited with saving the Victorian theatre from a period of extreme awfulness and degredation - see some of George Bernard Shaw's descriptions of the time, Jessie Bond's biography, and several other such things - and so, Gilbert is connected to almost everyone notable of the time, and Sullivan worked with most of the other half. Alfred Cellier, Sydney Grundy, Frederic Clay, Thomas German-Reed Oscar Wilde (Importance of Being Earnest was inspired by Gilbert's Engaged). So,w e have a situation where a G&S tag would be appropriate for almost everyone notable in that period of theatre, because almost everyone of importance save Elgar and Wilde, are almost entirely notable for being part of this revolution of which Gilbert and his friends are the prime movers. Not to mention Gilbert wrote something like 20, 30 operas and musical entertainments away from Sullivan, and around a hundred plays, huge amounts of poetry, a large number of song lyrics (only a few now notable, mind), and a great number of short stories. (There are a few books, but they're either collections of the above or reworkings of a more famous work).

::That said, there is a valid objection: Things tend to leave stub category fast. Mountebanks, which I mentioned above, is now a much bulkier article than it was when I first referenced it. As well, the very short stubs seen elsewhere tend not to appear, with articles tending to start off with at least a quick synopsis. However, I would hope that the creation of a stub tag - or perhaps another, more appropriate G&S-related tag - would make it easier to quickly throw together very short articles on all the remaining, unarticled work, without fear that we'd be concealing what needs to be done by doing so. Having some way to shift off all unfinished work into a to-do folder is useful in a project. Adam Cuerden 00:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Your examples are more than a little worrying: so far, three non-stubs, a redlink, and an opera singer that'd have to remain double-stubbed in any event, for a total of one actual stub, not in any need (or danger) of re-sorting as such. Currently I suspect you'd be better off with a "to do" list locally at the wikiproject, or at the the outside an upmerged stub template (only) feeding into the musical theatre category, to be split into a separate category if the antipated stub explosion even does actually appear. Alai 00:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

:I've just had a look at the mock-up at {{tl|G&S-stub}} and... well, it's pretty appalling, to be frank. Huge (a no-no), with a box (a no-no), and a coloured background (a no-no), and links to the wikiproject (generally discouraged - they belong in the category, or via a separate template on the talk page). I've overhauled it to make it more stub-like. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

::Adam's version looked sufficiently unlike a stub template I didn't quite register it as such. (I cogdissed it as a category template, perhaps.) Your version is merely horrible. :) I've tweaked it some more... But any thoughts on the actual proposal, at all? Alai 02:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

::It seems worryingly thin on stubs. It might have an eventual use, but I don't really see its usefulness yet. I think that a better solution for the WikiProject would be an "Article part of the WikiPoject" type template for use on article talk pages, similar to {{tl|WPBeatles}} - that would allow the project much more information about articles than simply using a stub template, too. Grutness...wha? 22:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

:::We already have one of those. Adam Cuerden 12:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to concede lack of need. Articles simply expand too quickly for it to be useful. Adam Cuerden 10:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:That's one of the main reasons we have a threshold. If there are only a few stubs and a couple of dedicated editors a stub category can empty very quickly. You'll probably find that the talk page template does everything you want a stub template to do and more if used well. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

there are a lot of chicken based foods on the other food lists Qrc2006 20:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm more doubtful about this one. Do we really want to split by "main ingredient"? Think of all the Chinese-style chicken double-stubbing! :/ For the record, just how many of them? Alai 21:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. --Usgnus 03:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Tastes like a bad idea. --fuzzy510 17:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as revised.}}

There are currently 78 items that qualify; this would be a child of {{cl|Reference works}}. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds plausible to me, especially if it'll thin out {{cl|Non-fiction book stubs}}, which is now oversized (though less than they were, it appears...). Alai 20:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• I think {{tl|ref-book-stub}} might be the best name.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 00:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Currently it's true that all the items in this cat are books, but I was thinking of conforming to the perm-cat terminology. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 20:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• The category name should, but I'd tend to agree with Carabinieri on making the template as regular/guessable as possible. At the very least, create a redirect from that name, or vice versa. Alai 22:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Criminal law is also a major subtopic of crime, as well as {{tl|law}}, with 100+ stub articles found using stub sense. [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/stub_sense?category=Criminal+law&num_pages=500&dbname=enwiki]. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds good: per the naming guidelines I've changed the proposal to use a hyphen, not a space (hope that's OK). Alai 22:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

As with forensics, a great deal of work is needed on law enforcement-related articles. Using stub sense, I have found 100+ stub articles [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/stub_sense?category=Law+enforcement&num_pages=500&dbname=enwiki] that would fit this category. By having a subcategory, it would help in stub sorting through {{tl|crime}}, and other categories. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• As above. Alai 22:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Funnily enough, I came here to propose this myself. Definite support. -- Necrothesp 22:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Wikipedia coverage of forensics is poor, with numerous stubs. Basic topics such as cold case, crime reconstruction, crime scene, FBI Laboratory. forensic pathology, trace evidence, vehicular accident reconstruction (just created) are still short stubs, yet alone more in-depth forensics topics, such as greiss test, serology (also stubs), and others that don't have articles yet. A stub category would help to sort through crime-stub articles, and take stock of forensics articles, and see what needs to be done. --Aude (talk contribs) 18:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• If the stubs are numerous to the tune of at least 60, per the size guidelines, I'd support this as a full-fledged stub type. (Less if there's a wikiproject on this topic.) If not, an upmerged template pointing back to {{cl|Crime stubs}} to allow on-going tagging and sorting might be a plan. Alai 19:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• With ~600 crime stubs, these need to be sorted into subcategories, with the existing subcategories inadequate. Basically, I'm the wikiproject for the topic. I don't think anyone else is working on these topics. (though if people join me in helping, all the better) I don't have a count for the number of forensics stubs, but the number may approach or exceed 60. There's also the legal aspect of forensics, with articles such as Brady v. Maryland, Frye v. United States, Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, ... And, there should be subarticles on the various DNA analysis methods, such as mitochondrial analysis. --Aude (talk contribs) 19:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• As I say, the size guidelines imply waiting until there's at least 60 such, unless matters are pretty desparate one way or the other. (600 in the parent is largish, but quite yet "officially" oversized, much less the worst such, though granted it'll get there soon enough if nothing's done.) I realize that it's annoying and difficult to judge that before doing the sorting, hence my suggestion of creating the template now to facilitate that, and the category later. Alai 19:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'm also working on criminal justice, criminal law, law enforcement, and criminology topics, which like forensics, there is a dearth of coverage on Wikipedia. I'm sure there are numerous untagged, unsorted stubs, and many articles not yet created. Having proper subcategories of {{tl|crime-stub}} would be the best way to work through these topics and the stubs. Without proper subcategories, I won't bother tagging the articles (like vehicular accident reconstruction) as stubs, as adding to {{tl|crime-stub}} only exacerbates the situation. (and some forensics topics, e.g. vehicular accident reconstruction, and mass casualty victim identification aren't always crime topics) Anyway, with stub sense, I have found 100+ existing forensics stubs. [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/stub_sense?category=Forensics&num_pages=500&dbname=enwiki] --Aude (talk contribs) 21:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Fully support, then. Alai 22:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

CatScan gives me about 70, but glancing through the parent category I'd bet that there's more than that. In any case, the parent is close to spilling onto 5 pages. --fuzzy510 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support, I'm betting on "much more". Alai 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create at least Morocco}}

I'll preface this by saying that none of these quite hit 60, but there's been no splitting of the category thusfar, and they're all very close. With that said:

• {{tl|Cameroon-footy-bio-stub}} / {{cl|Cameroonian football biography stubs}} - 55
• {{tl|Morocco-footy-bio-stub}} / {{cl|Moroccan football biography stubs}} - 59
• {{tl|Tunisia-footy-bio-stub}} / {{cl|Tunisian football biography stubs}} - 58

I'd be willing to bet that these will fill out shortly with articles pulled in from elsewhere. --fuzzy510 08:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:Neutral but leaning toward support - If they're all so close, would you be willing to poke around in the bio-stubs or stubs of the related countries and see if you can turn up a few more? The category will need splitting soon as it moves toward four full pages, so I would lean toward support, but at the same time we've been approving more and more templates which don't threshold yet. Aelfthrytha 16:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::From a little bit of cursory searching, I can't find anything else. However, that doesn't worry me too much - I looked through these about 3 weeks ago and these were all at lesser levels than they are now. I'd be willing to bet that within a short period of time, these would hit 60. Besides, like you said, the category will soon need splitting. --fuzzy510 19:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::From just scratching the surface of the Moroccan footballers category, I found 4 more bios that were under sorted. Support Morocco at the very least, more likely all 3.--Thomas.macmillan 19:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

This one's getting close to spilling onto a fifth page:

• {{tl|Canada-icehockey-team-stub}} / {{cl|Canadian ice hockey team stubs}} - 374 total (126 with Ontario category)
• {{tl|Ontario-icehockey-team-stub}} / {{cl|Ontario ice hockey team stubs}} - 248
• {{tl|Euro-icehockey-team-stub}} / {{cl|European ice hockey team stubs}} - 124
• {{tl|US-icehockey-team-stub}} / {{cl|United States ice hockey team stubs}} - 195

I'm not sure if the Ontario split is something that we necessarily want to do, but I thought I'd mention it anyway, since by province seems like the most logical split if the parent ever did become oversized. None of the other provinces are quite ready to follow suit, with Quebec being next with 39 teams. --fuzzy510 01:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest going ahead with the Ontarios, at the least as an upmerged template (and maybe Quebec on that basis, only). 374 is pretty large for a stub category to "debut" at. So that's a support all. Alai 01:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support all. --Usgnus 04:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Eli Falk 11:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

{{tl|Africa-school-stub}} and {{cl|African school stubs}} would help to further reduce the {{tl|school-stub}} grouping. There are 145 of them, so it's definitely viable. Aelfthrytha 16:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:Support. {{tl|SouthAfrica-school-stub}} (55 stubs) would be a good idea, even if it fed {{cl|African school stubs}} initially. --Usgnus 16:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::I agree - revising of proposal - {{tl|SouthAfrica-school-stub}} will also be created but will feed into {{cl|African school stubs}}. I expect it to top out soon, so this should save future work. Aelfthrytha 19:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:Seems a good idea for symmetry, as much as anything else. Any idea about the SoAmericans? Alai 17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::I'm not prepared to propose {{tl|SouthAm-school-stub}} at this time as a separate category because there are only 34 of them. It could be fed into the general school stub category for the present time, because I expect it to increase. This afternoon I'll see if there are more untagged ones and give an updated count. Aelfthrytha 19:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Another category that's getting a little pudgy......

• {{tl|Australia-swimming-bio-stub}} / {{cl|Australian swimming biography stubs}} - 92
• {{tl|Euro-swimming-bio-stub}} / {{cl|European swimming biography stubs}} - 217
• {{tl|Netherlands-swimming-bio-stub}} / {{cl|Dutch swimming biography stubs}} - 65 (not included above)
• {{tl|US-swimming-bio-stub}} / {{cl|United States swimming biography stubs}} - 73

Thoughts? --fuzzy510 14:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:Support. Assuming those numbers above are correct, I think it's a good idea. The Dutch is a bit close, but if it's at least 60 - then I think it's a good idea. Eli Falk 16:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:Support all. Alai 17:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:Support all, including Dutch. --Usgnus 04:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

There are currently 42 churches/cathedrals/chapels/abbeys and 38 bridges in the main UK-struct-stub category, plus over 50 and over 30 respectively in subcategories of it (there's also a fair bit of undersorting of castles...). May well be worth adding a {{tl|UK-church-stub}} and a {{tl|UK-bridge-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 07:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• See also my suggestion on the July subpage for a {{tl|UK-RC-church-stub}}. Alai 07:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• It should be {{tl|UK-bridge-struct-stub}} to stay consistent with {{tl|US-bridge-struct-stub}} and {{tl|bridge-struct-stub}}.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 11:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• {{cl|Queensland national park stubs}} 285
• {{cl|Far North Queensland geography stubs}} 104

Again with the parks, I know! And/or, one seemingly viable region. Alai 19:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Support. --Nishkid64 21:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• As below, {{cl|Queensland protected area stubs}} may be a more useful scope than the former, given existing stub types, and the associated wikiproject. Alai 23:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

There are dozens of articles at WikiProject CVG that cannot be categorised into any existing CVG stub, because they are either rhythm/music games, or articles related to computer game music. Since the former have to be "clunkily" given an "action-cvg-stub" tag or simply left with "cvg-stub," there's some need for a new stub for these two groups of articles. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 11:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:Support: I can see the need for this tag. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:Support: Seems like a good idea. Ajaxfan 13:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:Would that be >= 5 "dozens", or would this be a wikiproject about to foist another undersized stub type on us? (Though at least it got a mention here...) Alai 14:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:Support: Fills a big hole in cvg stubs, and yes Alai, since it can be used for cvg music and albums, not just games, definately >5 dozens. --PresN 17:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

::The distinction escapes me, but if there really are 60 articles, per the stub creation size guidelines, then fair enough. Alai 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I assume that :Category:Computer and video game musician stubs (153 stubs) would be a sub-category (even if it remains a direct descendant of :Category:Computer and video game stubs). --Usgnus 18:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:Support per above. --SevereTireDamage 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support NCurse 16px _work 06:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm being bold and creating this stub type now, since this appears to be an instance of WP:SNOW. Hope this doesn't cause any problems. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 05:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Seems like more of an instance of WP:WTF. Why's this been created at a name not even mentioned prior to this point, to wit {{tl|Music-cvg-stub}}? Nor does the text of the stub type appear to correspond to the proposal: whatever happened to the "computer game music" aspect? Alai 06:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create template, upmerge cat}}

Many many articles are found in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian_culture_stubs India-culture-stub]. Infact, the majority are Indian food stubs. Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• If there's at least 60, then I support, especially as there really ought not to be an {{tl|India-culture-stub}} by any reasonable criterion; "culture" is far too broad, and there's been not consensus to create such types on the occasions they've been proposed -- this one included. Of course, it got created anyway... Alai 03:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oh: should be {{tl|India-food-stub}}, given the naming guidelines. Alai 03:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

: So if I change the name to {{tl|India-food-stub}}, I have the go ahead?Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

::Can you confirm there's 60? You should wait seven days for any other input on this, though. (At least until such time we acclaim a Stub Approval Group Moderator Director For Life -- this wikiproject's no fun, why don't we have any big important titles?) Alai 04:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

:: There's about 30-40 at the moment, but with this being placed as a priority on the Bangal Wikiproject, the Bengali cuisine stubs and Indian cuisine stubs will probably bolster the number.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::For choice, then, create just the template, populate, and create a separate category once there's 60. Alai 01:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Ok. This stub category was much needed. I cannot tell if there are 60 articles. However, there are many! And will be more. --Dwaipayan (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I've speedied {{cl|India food stubs}}, which I have no idea what it thought it was doing. Come to that, {{cl|Indian food stubs}} has all of 20 articles (rather than 30-40, or "many": much less 60), and was created after two days, rather than seven. Yes, WP:STUB is "only a guideline", but the last time I checked, "guideline" did not mean "swan along paying it no regard whatsoever". Alai 15:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

At the momment the category for stubs marked {{tl|Geographer-stub}} is under the earth scientist stubs category meaning that human geographer stubs are being placed in an inappropriate place (or not marked at all) and also making it difficult to find the geographers from the earth scientists and develop them to more than stubs. Also looking through the :category:geographers there seems to be few, therefore to prevent the earth scientist stubs getting crowded I think that a category for geographer stubs should be created. AlexD 16:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• The template's really not seeing that much use: there's <40 of 'em, and the threshold for stub category creation is 60. Nor do I see anything inappropriate, or unmanageable about the current structure; it reflects the way the permanent categories are organised ({{cl|human geography}} as a sub-sub-sub-cat of {{cl|earth sciences}}, and the category listing is less than one page. In fact, at 131 stubs, splitting it in such a way and to not make one or other undersized would have to be pretty precise. If you can find a large clump of untagged geographers (human or otherwise), then fair enough, otherwise this is neither viable, nor necessary. Alai 16:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is relevant, but I've been searching around wiki and found a few more stub articles on geographers and I think the stub now has more than 60. AlexD 17:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, that was quick: there's now over 100, by the looks of it, so I'm happy to support this without qualification. Alai 18:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::Impressive. Support naturally. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 19:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create template, upmerge cat}}

This stub is required as currently a lot of Northern Irish biography stubs are just tagged with {{NI-stub}}. There is a {{Ireland-bio-stub}}, but there are different stubs for Ireland and Northern Ireland. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 21:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• A rough estimate of the likely population would be good before creating a separate category, but such a template at a minimum seems a good idea. Alai 02:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

Topic Partridge Green Football Club is under research and needs expanding. msabag 21:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not convinced you know the purpose of this page. If you simply want tohe article expanded, stick an {{tl|expand}} template on it. Grutness...wha? 22:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|European socialist party stubs}} 89
• {{cl|United Kingdom political party stubs}} 65

Another five-page parent. Alai 00:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:65 in the United Kingdom, I thought the British system was known for the low number of political parties ????? (On the other hand, Burkina Faso was split off as well recently :) Support per nom. Valentinian ^(talk) 14:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create by region}}

All that I can find in the (8 page) US-structs that's immediately viable is {{cl|United States skyscraper stubs}}. Beyond that, if we want to do anything immediately, by region is probably the only way to go. Alai 03:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

:I proposed a geographic split by region back in April, and it got support (albeit lukewarm), but was never acted on, nor marked in the archive as either approved or rejected. --CComMack (t•c) 04:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

::Looked approved to me, so I assume the archival thing is just an oversight. Certainly that's not binding on what you should do... (Let's face it, in the opinion of many, the very use of this page, the waiting period, and half a dozen people yelling "noooooooo!" aren't actually binding, either...). Alai 04:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'd definitely support a split by region (and state for NY and CF and any others that reach threshold). See also my suggestion about US-mast-stub above. Grutness...wha? 06:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

I meant to propose this several days ago. I actually thought I had. No worries though. Stub sense lists over 80 of these.--Thomas.macmillan 17:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support, naturally. It would make sense at this point to create templates for all remaining countries lacking same, upmerging where appropriate. Alai 18:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed, whole heartedly. Equatorial Guinea is listed at 51, which, if i am not mistaken, is the only other African nation without a stub of its own. Note that I also added Equatorial Guinea to the proposal--Thomas.macmillan 21:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed, with the usual proviso about double-stubbing geo-, bio-, etc with their regional categories (at last count they had 34 and 29 geo-stubs respectively, BTW). Grutness...wha? 23:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Add Cape Verde to Equatorial Guinea. Stub sense lists 48 non-geo stubs. Now I think this is definitely the last African nation to get a stub. Hopefully.--Thomas.macmillan 12:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• That one already has a geo-stub. That still leaves a potential mayotte-stub and reunion-stub... Grutness...wha? 06:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:Support By the same token, we might as well begin considering templates for Turkmenistan, Bahrain, Oman, and Qatar (and perhaps also East Timor), since this will cover Asia as well. Agree with the double-stubbing with -geo, -politician or similar, but I for one don't really find the -bio template to be very useful. IMHO, there is no need to have a massively sized {{cl|African people stubs}} if all countries already have national templates,. It will only clutter the article pages up to tag a page with both a national template, an {{tl|Africa-bio-stub}} and a template showing the person's profession. It will be pretty easy determining whenever the national categories can split off a -bio child and I generally don't like stubbing pages with three templates or more. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 16:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::You of course don't necessarily need to double-tag the articles, you could create a template, feeding into both stub categories... Alai 16:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Well, that would certainly make the articles look less awkward. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 18:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Hopefully it might also increase the consistency of stub-catting, rather than some being tagged into {{cl|African people stubs}} only, some by country, and others with both. (Though obviously it won't enure it, since there's no guarantee the template will actually be used.) Alai 18:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

:Category:Museum stubs is at 5 pages.

• {{tl|Art-museum-stub}} 189 museum stubs in :Category:Art museums and galleries
• {{tl|Science-museum-stub}} 62 museum stubs in :Category:Science museums

Or perhaps split by country?

• {{tl|US-museum-stub}} 285 museum stubs in :Category:Museums in the United States
• {{tl|UK-museum-stub}} 139 museum stubs in :Category:Museums in the United Kingdom

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Usgnus (talk • contribs) {{{2|}}}.

• I note a lot of double-stubbing with art-org-stub, so I'd be inclined to go with that axis. (Not really the case with the scis, though.) Both sound sensible, though, so support either. Alai 19:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'm leaning toward the former. There's also {{tl|Zoo-stub}} with 140 stubs in :Category:Zoos (including some false positives). --Usgnus 19:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• False-poses don't look likely to be massive, unless I'm missing something, so I'll support that too. Alai 19:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• That's right. I looked over the list and there were well over 100 zoo articles with museum-stub. --Usgnus 19:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• {{tl|Railway-museum-stub}} 194 stub articles in :Category:Railway museums, but if you exclude :Category:Heritage railways, it comes down to 59. --Usgnus 19:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Do the latter tend to be tagged as museums at present? If not, maybe a more specific stub type would be preferable. Alai 19:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• I guess {{tl|Rail-museum-stub}} would be more consistent. Of the 194 stubs, 52 are tagged with museum-stub. I get 7 more because there are 176 stubs in :Category:Heritage railways, 41 that are tagged museum-stub. 194 - 176 = 18. 18 + 41 = 59. --Usgnus 19:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• I just realized there was another category to be partially excluded. We should go with 52. --Usgnus 19:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• So does this nullify my suggestion of US-museum below? Crystallina 21:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oops, sorry about that. What do you think about sorting by type instead of region? --Usgnus 21:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Either way is fine, don't think I was suggesting it wasn't. I just wanted to know whether to go ahead and create it or hold off. Crystallina 13:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Technically you could go on ahead, no-one has objected to the US- scheme, either there or here. My own preference for the per-type scheme is fairly weak, and I wouldn't rule out splitting both ways (though that might be overkill). OTOH, hanging on a day or two to see if there's further illuminating input might be an idea, too. (But speak up soon if you have a {{tl|hangabout!}}, folks.) Alai 14:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• buil;dings are usualy split first by place so id prefer the US/UK splits. whats all this about a zoo-stub? when was that proposed? zoos are usualy split as geo-stubs! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• (1) :Category:Zoos is a subcategory of :Category:Museums. (2) Not all museums are in buildings. --Usgnus 04:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• I think BL's point is that zoo-stub was never proposed here. Zoos are usually split by location as geo-stubs, and (as someone heavily involved in geo-stub sorting) she was surprised it exists. As someone else heavily involved in geo-stub sorting, so am I. The other point is valid too - whether museums are buildings or not, splitting them by their location has a lot of merit. New Zealanders are perhaps more likely to know about Dunedin Public Art Gallery than are art experts (as a New Zealand artist and arts reviewer, I can vouch for knowing more about local museums than art galleries worldwide, BTW). Grutness...wha? 23:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Ah - I see it doesn't exist. I'd gathered from what BL said that it did. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• oops yes i misread it and thought it had too - sorry! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 11:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as revised by Carabinieri.}}

1. I would propose splitting {{tl|Euro-company-stub}}, {{tl|Asia-company-stub}}, {{tl|SouthAm-company-stub}}, and {{tl|Africa-company-stub}}; I'm sure all of those will be viable.

2.The following countries have more than sixty company-stubs according to StubSense, so I would propose stub templates and cats for them:

• China (1335; surely too many, most of them are video games, but there are also 24 auto companies, 15 airlines, etc)
• Denmark (81)
• Finland (90)
• France (362)
• Germany (600; same as China, but I'm sure its viable)
• Italy (180)
• Netherlands (102)
• New Zealand (64)
• Poland (70)
• Russia (108)
• Spain (78)
• Sweden (192)
• Switzerland (115)
• Philippines (62)

3. The following countries have 30-60 company-stubs so I would propose templates but no cats for them; they will feed into their respective continent-company categories:

• Austria (35)
• Brazil (58)
• Ireland (30)
• Malaysia (51)
• Norway (52)
• Pakistan (40)
• Puerto Rico (32; would feed into {{tl|US-company-stub}})
• Saudi Arabia (36)
• Singapore (52)
• Ukraine (40)

4. The following company types are also viable:

• Law firms (98 stubs; either {{tl|law-company-stub}} (naming would be consistant) or {{tl|law-firm-stub}})
• Internet Service Providers (95 stubs)

--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 12:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• oppose redirecting Puerto Rico to {{tl|US-company-stub}}. Monni 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• It's not a redirect, from what I understand. The template {{tl|PuertoRico-company-stub}} would feed into the category {{cl|United States company stubs}}. It wouldn't have it's own category, so it feeds into its parent, which is US in this case. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Puerto Rico has an agreement with United States, but it is not part of it. Some people might claim it is but unless that information is changed in Puerto Rico article, I object making any new controversial redirects. Monni 16:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• It's not controversial (see {{cl|Insular areas of the United States}}), and per both of the above, it's not (to be) a redirect, it's (to be) an "upmerged" template.) Alai 18:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• United Nations still says Puerto Rico is separate entity, so my vote stays... It doesn't even get close to 50 which could be considered borderline case. Monni 20:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Some points to ponder:
• This is a discussion, not a vote;
• Upmerged templates have no specific size requirement, and 32 is well within the typical range for such;
• A broad aim of WSS is to have the stub categories follow the structure of the permanent categories (squished down and occasionally sideways as required). As I mentioned above, PR is in a sub-cat (of a sub-cat of a subcat) of {{cl|United States}}. Is that also "controversial"? Is the repeated statement "unincorporated territory of the United States" in the article-space controversial? That's in the PR article, and elsewhere -- what needs to be changed to reflect this? It appears to me that on the contrary, rather sweeping changes would need to occur to affirm the opposite point of view.
• Reference for the UN deciding that PR is (rather than should be) an independent, self-governing country? It's certainly not the situation in PR law, US federal law, or the de facto situation.
• The company stubs are horrendously oversized, which should be our primary order of business here, rather than political sensibilities. If some some reason (that I've yet to hear) they can't be upmerged to the US type, upmerge them to a Caribbean category. Alai 21:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Well... It sure looks like it is too narrow and wider scope could be better... Like everyone seems to be pointing out, it's not even a country, so why should we group it like it would be one. I've never fully supported any work of WSS or any other WikiProject because I'm all against WikiProjects. That however doesn't stop me from contributing to Wikipedia. I've changed a few stubs to wider (and better) scoping already and will continue to participate in all efforts to make the stub system more logical. Monni 21:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• I was trying to appeal to the logic of the category (and consequently, stub category) system, rather than suggesting that #3 above was a WSS credo of some sort. Mind you, while {{cl|Puerto Rico}} is a subcat of {{cl|United States}}, in a fairly intuively reasonable manner (... unlike some such...), {{cl|Companies of Puerto Rico}} is currently not a subcat of {{cl|Companies of the United States}}. Which just goes to show how consistent the category system is(n't). Oh well... Alai 22:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe we should propose addendum to WP:IAR, something like "Ignore All Logic"... Then we could just pretend that Puerto Rico is independent country and forget that we don't have 60 stubs for it and create own template and own category. If someone complains, we can just say that the system was in fault and we needed to use common sense to get things sorted ;). Monni 22:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Many invokers of IAR seems to be pretty much of that school of thought already: Ignore All Rationality, perhaps, or at any rate, Do What Thou Wilt. If we found another 26 stub the point would largely be moot, I suppose (in the tradition of "making things worse before they get better"). Alai 23:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• I too object to the Puerto Rico suggestion, but support all the others. Puerto Rico is usually grouped in other stub-sorting with Caribbean, not US, and I suspect that a caribbean-company-stub would be more than viable. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Well... Geological split I could agree with... Especially if it is consistent with other categories related with Puerto Rico. Monni 06:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'd broadly support all of the above. Several of these are probably already creatable, as they appear to partly coincide with this earlier proposal. Alai 16:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• I support all of the above, including the proposed Puerto Rico upmerger, which makes even more sense for corporations than in the generic case, as companies incorporated in Puerto Rico are subject to United States federal law. --CComMack (t•c) 06:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Actually I was just looking through some of the StubSense searches and I noticed that in all lists there were plenty of false hits. In order to avoid having a lot of tiny stub cats I would propose raising the bar to 80 StubSense hits for a cat and 50 for template; which would also make the discussion about PR superfluous.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 11:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not sure the "even if he's a liar, he's John the Baptist" principle applies here, it very much depends on the structure (or lack thereof) of the categories in question. For example, if you go by {{cl|California}}, you'll find a large number of Las Vegas stubs -- in fact, in theory all of them -- but {{cl|albums by year}} seems to be batting 1000. Alai 03:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Good point. So I've now gone through all of the proposed stub types again with StubSense. Since China, Germany, and France had so many hits, I just briefly looked through the hits and found that they will all definately reach threshhold. I then looked through the hits of the rest of them. The following countries will definately get 60 or more company-stubs: Denmark (70 stubs; these numbers are all estimates based on counting every fifth hit), Italy (65), New Zealand (60), Russia (85), Spain (60), Sweden (135). The following countries with 30-60 company-stubs would get a template but no category: Finland (45), Netherlands (45), Poland (30), Switzerland (45), Brazil (40), Malaysia (50), Norway (50), Pakistan (35), Saudi Arabia (30), Singapore (50), Ukraine (30). The Philippines (20), Austria (25), Puerto Rico (20), and Ireland (20) did not even reach 30 stubs. So here's are a recap of the proposal:
• {{tl|Africa-company-stub}}/{{cl|African company stubs}}
• {{tl|Asia-company-stub}}/{{cl|Asian company stubs}}
• {{tl|Euro-company-stub}}/{{cl|European company stubs}}
• {{tl|SouthAm-company-stub}}/{{cl|South American company stubs}}
• {{tl|Denmark-company-stub}}/{{cl|Danish company stubs}}
• {{tl|Italy-company-stub}}/{{cl|Italian company stubs}}
• {{tl|NZ-company-stub}}/{{cl|New Zealand company stubs}}
• {{tl|Russia-company-stub}}/{{cl|Russian company stubs}}
• {{tl|Spain-company-stub}}/{{cl|Spanish company stubs}}
• {{tl|Sweden-company-stub}}/{{cl|Swedish company stubs}}
• {{tl|Finland-company-stub}}/feeds into {{cl|European company stubs}} and {{cl|Finland stubs}}
• {{tl|Netherlands-company-stub}}/feeds into {{cl|European company stubs}} and {{cl|Netherlands stubs}}
• {{tl|Poland-company-stub}}/feeds into {{cl|European company stubs}} and {{cl|Poland stubs}}
• {{tl|Switzerland-company-stub}}/feeds into {{cl|European company stubs}} and {{cl|Switzerland stubs}}
• {{tl|Brazil-company-stub}}/feeds into {{cl|South American company stubs}} and {{cl|Brazil stubs}}
• {{tl|Malaysia-company-stub}}/feeds into {{cl|Asian company stubs}} and {{cl|Malaysia stubs}}
• {{tl|Norway-company-stub}}/feeds into {{cl|European company stubs}} and {{cl|Norway stubs}}
• {{tl|Pakistan-company-stub}}/feeds into {{cl|Asian company stubs}} and {{cl|Pakistan stubs}}
• {{tl|SaudiArabia-company-stub}}/feeds into {{cl|Asian company stubs}} and {{cl|Saudi Arabia stubs}}
• {{tl|Singapore-company-stub}}/feeds into {{cl|Asian company stubs}} and {{cl|Singapore stubs}}
• {{tl|Ukraine-company-stub}}/feeds into {{cl|European company stubs}} and {{cl|Ukraine stubs}}

--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 20:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nicely done, Carabinieri. Very impressive. Fully support ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Very nice work, Carabinieri. Support all. --CComMack (t•c) 03:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create Asia-, Japan-, NorthAm-, and SouthAm-}}

NOTE:THIS LIST HAS BEEN UPDATED ON AUGUST 17, 2006 22:18 UTC!

The first two votes by Alai and Usgnus were for the previous proposal which was just Canadian, Asian, South American. I have now expanded the list. Some of them you may not approve of, so I have moved the proposal back to the top so more people will take a look at it. I don't know if Australian or Middle Eastern stubs will be approved, but I'd just like to see what people will think.

While I was doing some stub-sorting in the {{cl|Composer stubs}}, I came upon a bunch of Asian, Canadian and South American composers, and I felt if we have specific stubs for European composers (continent) and from composers from individual countries, we should then definitely have the following:

NOTE2: THIS IS PART OF WIKIPROJECT COMPOSERS (SO 30 IS A GOOD AMOUNT FOR SIZE OF STUB CATEGORY.

• {{cl|Asian composer stubs}} (not including Japanese)-55
• {{cl|Japanese composer stubs}}-64
• {{cl|Latin American composer stubs}}-70
• {{cl|Canadian composer stubs}}-34
• {{cl|Russian composer stubs}}-38
• {{cl|Australian composer stubs}}-24
• {{cl|Middle Eastern composer stubs}}-27 (not sure if I should merge into Asian composer stubs instead; will be 80 there if it is decided that we should)
• {{cl|Polish composer stubs}}-39
• {{cl|Austrian composer stubs}}-32
• {{cl|Czech composer stubs}}-34
• {{cl|Spanish composer stubs}}-29 (if I made it into Iberian composer stubs, it'd be over 35)
• {{cl|Hungary composer stubs}}-28
• {{cl|Scandinavian composer stubs}}-68
• {{cl|Balkan composer stubs}}-53 (this includes 20 from Greece, which is geographically a part of the Balkans. I can rephrase the stub to be Southeastern European composer stubs)

The second proposal is that we just make a separate Eastern European Composer stubs category which would include Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russia and Ukraine and would probably total over 200 easily.

--Nishkid64 00:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (fixed up on 22:15 17 August 2006 (UTC))

• Sounds like an excellent plan, then. Alai 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --Usgnus 13:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC) (Copied from separate proposal, struck out here by Alai.) --Usgnus 03:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose those in the 30ish range. Just because there's a wikiproject does not mean that 30 is a "good amount" (contrary to NOTE2) for an indefinite number of repeatedly split stub sub-types, it justifies one such. To construe otherwise would be to reduce the threshold to 30 for every stub type (whereafter people would be complaining about their types with 12 stubs being deleted, as it'd be "sure to grow to 30 sooner or later"), since every stub type can ultimately be connected to some wikiproject or another. Oppose the Iberian, Scandinavian, Balkan and East European categories: these aren't standard categories (for stubs or otherwise), and if we start dividing stubs up on aribitrary subdivisions, we'll have one almighty mess. The Hungarians and Czechs would probably object to your classification, for example. Also Latin American crosses the usual continental split: would support South American composers if they're viable as such. Having both would be an especially bad idea. By all means create per-country templates (only), upmerged to {{cl|composer stubs}}, {{cl|European composer stubs}} or {{cl|Asian composer stubs}}, until such time as they hit 60. Anything between 60 and 800 is an acceptable size for a stub type, there's no need to go to tortuous lengths to stay at the bottom end of that range (much less below). It's not necessary to move a proposal to around in the page, and it would result in chaos if everyone did it: just post the new proposal separately, linking back to the first if you want to be scrupulously helpful. If people repeatedly moved their proposals to the top of the page "so more people will take a look at it", we'd have (even more) chaos. And above all, please under no circumstances copy and paste people's signed comments from one place to another: I'm sure it's by no means what you intended, but it could be construed as misrepresenting people's opinion on matters which they have not in fact expressed a view, and whose actual views are actually quite different (as for example mine are, in this case). (Seriously, that's the sort of thing that has factored into ArbCom cases in the past.) Alai 23:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Support Asia, and Japan and Latin America, no problems there. Oppose the suggestions below 55 and strong oppose Iberia, Scandinavia, Balkan and Eastern Europe as they are not standard units and some of them poorly defined (see e.g. Talk:Scandinavia where a minor conflict is going on regarding the proper borders of this entity. I'd hate to see this problem spread.) The borders of the Balkans are not defined properly either. In the interwar years, Romania officially protested if foreign media labelled them as a Balkan country. Let's stay clear of problems like these. Valentinian ^(talk) 08:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

::Sorry, I just realised I'd read Latin America as South America. The standard way to split is normally: Caribbean, Central America (everything south of Mexico) and South America. If we have enough material for any of those (c. 60 articles) I'll gladly support it. I presume that means that North America = Canada + the U.S. + Mexico. Does anybody have more information? Valentinian ^(talk) 16:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

::*So sorry about that, guys, but thanks for telling me for future reference =). I had seen that 30ish was a good number, supposedly, but I wasn't sure if people would approve. Also, Latin America is defined as the area of South America, Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean islands. Ideally, I would think this would be a better category compared to just a South American composer stub. However, if people really think having a South American composer stub is necessary, what about having a North American composer stub, which would combine Canada, the islands in the Caribbean, and Mexico, and would probably easily have over 70 composers. Okay, so at the moment, the stubs in favor are Japanese composer stubs, Asian composer stubs, and Latin American composer stubs. With my new proposal, we could make a separate North American composer stub (with United States as a sub-category), and have a separate South American composer stub. I'm only proposing this because I hate to leave Canada out of the sync even though it has like 34 composer stubs, and Mexico has around 20ish, and with the inclusion of composers from the Caribbean, that stub would easily hold over 70 composers. Tell me what you guys think. --Nishkid64 13:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

:::*Future reference is good. :) Not Latin America, but both South America should be fine, and so would North America as you've just described -- support that one too. Alai 16:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

::::*Okay, so right now this is what has been supported so far: North American composer stubs which would include Canada, Mexico, Central America and Caribbean islands according to the map on the North America page. The subcat for this category would be US composer stubs. Next we have South America which just includes the whole South American continent. Then we have Asian composer stubs and the subcat to be formed would be Japanese composer stubs. Just wanted to update everyone who may see this. --Nishkid64 21:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support Asia and Japanese... support South American if it also reaches 55-60 or so. I have some doubts about a North America stub which includes both Central America and the Caribbean, neither of which is in North America, so I'm neutral leaning towards oppose on that one. Regretfully oppose others for now, though do see good points in some of the other suggestions, especially the Eastern Europe one. Also I'd suggest that the Australia one would get a bit closer to target if it was for Oceania rather than just Oz. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:Well, I don't think Oceania would even make it that much closer to target. I encounter less than 5 other composers from the areas of Oceania (all from New Zealand). --Nishkid64 01:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, there may be a case to be made for splitting up European into sub-regions. It does seem to arise semi-often that {{tl|Euro-blah-stub}} becomes oversized, with no actual country being splittable (or after the first few have been, and no more are) -- witness now large the athletes are, shortly after being created. However, if we do this, we should make very sure we scope the split by some standard, agreed and clearly-defined basis: I'd suggest we use UN subregions, as has been mooted elsewhere. OTOH, they're still not super-meaningful, so my preference would be to only do this where it's the only feasible way to split an already oversized stub type, and that we do so via per-country upmerged templates. Alai 17:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create by party}}

This one is oversized and a scoping mess: the template and category both specify the (post-1801) United Kingdom, while the category name says simply British, which could stretch the scope back to 1707 or even earlier (or exclude Irish MPs from 1801-1922). What the scope of this category is (or is decided to be here) affects what the most useful split is. While a split by century is tempting, I would be more inclined to split by era (1707-1801, 1801-1922, 1922-), as it divides by specific Parliaments, and aligns with the permcats. Other alternatives include a geographic split by constituency, but this gets very sticky very quickly. --CComMack (t•c) 03:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I was looking around for splits on this too, and not finding them. A split by party should be viable, but there's something deeply wonky about the data, so I can't give you solid evidence on that. Alai 04:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• IIRC Scottish MPs are already split off, so splitting off Wales, NI/Ireland and England would make sense, but beyond that splitting by era is possibly the best way to go (partyhopping makes splitting by party too messy and some parties would probably need further resplitting by era anyway). Grutness...wha? 23:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• You surely jest about partyhopping. Just what rate of double-stubbing is acceptable these days, anyway? Alai 00:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Here we go, I npw have some less duff data to work with. Pesky lack of built-in SQL transitive closure...
• {{cl|Labour MP (UK) stubs}} 485
• {{cl|Conservative MP (UK) stubs}} 429
• {{cl|Wales MP stubs}} 75
• Echoing the language of the perm-parent in each case (e.g. Wales rather than Welsh, given that it's the constituency we want to split by, not the nationality of the parlicritter), but I'm open to offers on that. There also seems to be undersorting of the Scottish constituencies. NIs aren't viable yet, it seems. Alai 01:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Which seems to suggest that I'm almost right that some are close to splitting if worked by party. I'm still more inclined towards era, and it might solve the problem with the current SFD of {{tl|UK-current-MP-stub}}. I like your three proposed eras, but suspect the 1922- one might still be too big - perhaps subdividing that one more would be useful, though I can't think of any big constitutional change that it could be tied to (other than Sc/Wa/NI devolution, which is far too recent). Grutness...wha? 23:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note also that the originally proposed split does not really align with the permcats: while there's a {{cl|Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Irish constituencies (1801-1922)}} (20 stubs) and a {{cl|Members of the pre-1707 English Parliament}} (15 stubs) (and a corresponding Scottish cat, with 0 stubs found in this stub type), there's no category for the UK&I parliament for the UK as a whole, for GB, or for E, S, W, or NI. Nor are there any cats at all specific to post-1922 parliaments. (I'm surprising there are none for specific parliments, either.) So I'm going to oppose the pre-1707 type as too small, and the post-1922 one as almost certainly much too large. (Certainly much larger than the above cats Grutness thinks biggish, I'll bet you any money for obvious reasons.) I might be persuadable as to middle one, but I'm not enthused, and I'd like to see some data (that due to the lack of a suitable perm-cat, I can't provide myself...). Alai 00:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• As for the permcats, I was going by {{cl|History of Great Britain}} and {{cl|History of the United Kingdom}}, which are explicitly scoped with an 1801 boundary. That said, as mentioned in the related SFD discussion, there is a currently running CFD which could remove a lot of headaches for us, so let's put this proposal on hold until that CFD has run. With luck, some consensus will emerge. --CComMack (t•c) 10:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• OK, but there's no categorisation of the MPs on that basis. And indeed, obviously no precipitous action on this until some time after the conclusion of the related CFD (and then SFD). Alai 16:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• OK, so the CFD ended as a delete (go figure). That disinclines me from the "era" option, and I'm still not wild about "current", so I'd be back to favouring by party. Alai 23:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

311 of these, only viable split I can immediately see to deal with 5-page parent. Alai 18:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Not sure what split is being proposed, but the logical split seems to me to be to start with the nations (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Ireland-1801-1922). Then maybe regionalise England a bit, if needed, but regionalisation is complex because there is no widely-accepted-and-understood system of English regions. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::These would be coming from {{cl|United Kingdom constituency stubs}} and {{cl|United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies (historic)}}, if that aspect was unclear. The latter four would not currently be feasible according to my numbers, and nor even would the English regions be -- {{cl|Parliamentary constituencies in the North West}} is the largest at 55, {{cl|Parliamentary constituencies in Scotland (Westminster)}} a mere 42. Admittedly we could "split" those in {{cl|Parliamentary constituencies in England}} (422), but that would be a very big-endian way of doing things. Alai 21:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

We really, really need tags for Central and South American natives. We've already got

• {{tl|NorthAm-native-stub}}, so
• {{tl|CentAm-native-stub}} and
• {{tl|SouthAm-native-stub}} just seem like a logical extension. Right now I'm tagging them by country, but many people interested in native culture won't be from or interested in the modern countries where the tribes are now. Dybryd 02:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• I've changed your cl's to tl's, which is what I think was wanted. I think the NorthAm tag is supposed to cover central america too; I'd certainly support a SouthAm type if there are 60 articles, otherwise upmerge to whatevertheheck the parent category for the variously named -ethno-, -native- etc types. (We should try and get these more consistent at some point.) Alai 02:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - but with the middle one as "CentralAm", not "CentAm", to be in line with other similar template names, and assuming there are enough stubs. Lumping in the North and Central ones was alway a bit dubious - there's not much connection between the Iroquois and Mixtec. Grutness...wha? 09:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• I've been recently sorting American Native articles and my understanding as follows: The stub for North America Natives does NOT in the title include Central American natives. However stubs already exist as follows --- mesoamerica-stub is for Central American Natives and pre-columbian-stub is for South American Natives. Goldenrowley 01:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as revised by Alai}}

I would like to create a stub tag for stubs related to animal rights, as part of the new Animal rights WikiProject. We have quite a few such stubs and growing all the time. Currently, they're being tagged as British writer or American organization, or whatever. It would be useful to have them all tagged as animal rights so we can see what needs expanding. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strangely, I can only find one stub under {{cl|animal rights}}, but if the scope is more like {{cl|animal liberation movement}}, this would seem to be just-about-viable at [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/stub_sense?category=Animal+liberation+movement&num_pages=4000&dbname=enwiki exactly 30] reported by stubsense (usual caveats about that being either an under-count or an over-count apply). Support this on the provisos that however it's scoped it turns up at least a roughly similar number, and that the name and scoping statement make this as clear as possible (as the perm cats don't, really). Alai 16:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• How about {{tl|animal-rights-activism-stub}}?--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 00:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• I was thinking of a straightforward {{tl|AR-stub}} because they won't always have to do with activism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Regardless of scope, please don't call it {{tl|AR-stub}}; that'd be well into cryptic and ambiguous territory. {{tl|animal-rights-stub}} or {{tl|animal-lib-stub}} would seem reasonable. Alai 02:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Okay, will do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

This is our behemoth du jour (or du mois, given the frequency of the database dumps...). I float the following possibilities for your perusal:

• By continent:
• {{cl|European company stubs}} 347
• {{cl|Asian company stubs}} 101
• By area of business:
• {{cl|Media company stubs}} 189
• {{cl|Technology company stubs}} 177
• {{cl|Internet company stubs}} 105
• {{cl|Entertainment company stubs}} 97
• {{cl|Computer company stubs}} 73
• {{cl|Electronics company stubs}} 67
• And US companies, by area of business:
• {{cl|United States media company stubs}} 122
• {{cl|United States internet company stubs}} 94
• {{cl|United States telecommunications company stubs}} 92
• {{cl|United States entertainment company stubs}} 86

I'm fairly sure there's significant undersorting to existing types, however: I was going to propose another four possibilities, with a potential population in the hundreds, only to find they already exist... Alai 23:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• support matching third group items as children of second group items ;) Monni 09:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

A child of {{tl|health-stub}} {{cl|Health stubs}} and would be new parent for {{tl|psych-stub}} and {{cl|Psychology stubs}}.

• 67 stubs reclassified from {{tl|psych-stub}}
• 1 stub reclassified from {{tl|med-stub}}
• 2 articles that have not yet been classified or tagged as stubs

(I have made a full list and saved it on my computer. If this passes, I will tag these 70 stubs/articles with the new classification – If I need to put the list on here, could someone tell me how to do it)

This was brought to my attention when editing my newly made Mental health professional article. Before that page was made, mental health professions were thrown all over the place, some linking to each other, some not, some contradicting, and no one had a universal place to go. The same thing goes with mental health related topics, esp mental health stubs (the articles needing the most attention by Wikipedia users).

My little Mini-Mental Health Stub FAQ :)-

1. How will we classify a stub as psychology, mental health or medical? -Psychology would be something dealing specifically with psychological research -Mental health would be something dealing with identification or treatment of mental health/illness symptoms or individuals working in mental health (i.e. psychiatrists) -medical if something is health based and not dealing with MENTAL health.

2. Why not just classify everything as psychology? -If you are unfamiliar about the differences in psychiatrics and psychology, visit the article Mental health professional or [Psychiatry]] or Psychology or Clinical Psychology. Right now there are several psychiatric articles and articles touching on subjects of psychiatrics AND psychology. i.e. classifying a psychiatrist in a psychologist stub would probably make them turn in their grave :), they are two different specialties, but the term "mental health" covers both and more professions and fields.

3. Why classify psychology as a child of mental health? -see definition of psychology and clinical psychology in Wikipedia.

4. So if there is a psychology stub, and there would be a mental health stub, why not create a psychiatric or psychiatry stub? -I'm not counting that out BUT, psychiatrists ONLY deal with mental health. That's why they exist. Anything categorized under mental health stub would most likely deal with psychiatry. Psychology is a little different because although psychology is a study of mental health and more importantly behavior, they don't all specialize in the treatment of illness, etc. (clinical psychologists do, but psychologist professors wouldn't). If something has to do with psychology research and/or behavioral information, it should probably be classified as psychology. If it has to do with illness or state-of-being it should probably be mental health.

Basically I feel like this stub is badly needed. There are already a lot of (70) mental health stubs that I found in the short time I looked. Not to mention the psychology and psychiatry related topics on Wikipedia are growing rapidly, meaning there will be a lot of future new stubs in this category. Thanks for your help, I look forward to your opinions. Chupper 15:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Seems like a good plan to me. The pysch-stubs are oversized, so this seems preferable to rescoping to include -iatry as well as -ology, though the scope for confusion between the two remains due to the abbreviation. (Perhaps we should expand this once the psychiatries are weeded out.) Alai 16:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'd tend to agree. Psych-stub is splittable, and this seems a logical way of doing it. If we're going to split this stub fully sometime, I'd suggest dev-psych-stub, cogni-psych-stub, percep-psych-stub, behav-psych-stub, clin-psych-stub, neuro-psych-stub and pharm-psych-stub (with better names, of course) would be worth considering as other subtypes. Grutness...wha? 23:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (MSc in percep-psych ;)

: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.

{{sfp top|create templates, upmerge cats appropriately}}

Following the creation of {{tl|Orkney-stub}} and {{cl|Orkney stubs}} today I propose that we complete the set of the 32 council areas of Scotland, with:

• {{tl|Glasgow-stub}} / {{cl|Glasgow stubs}} ([http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/stub_sense?category=Glasgow&num_pages=4000&dbname=enwiki Stub Sense] finds 562, excluding {{cl|Glasgow geography stubs}})
• {{tl|Edinburgh-stub}} / {{cl|Edinburgh stubs}} ([http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/stub_sense?category=Edinburgh&num_pages=4000&dbname=enwiki Stub Sense] finds 484, excluding {{cl|Edinburgh geography stubs}} and {{cl|Members of the Scottish Parliament stubs}})
• {{tl|Aberdeen-stub}} / {{cl|Aberdeen stubs}} ([http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/stub_sense?category=Aberdeen&num_pages=4000&dbname=enwiki Stub Sense] finds 139, excluding geo stubs)
• {{tl|Dundee-stub}} / {{cl|Dundee stubs}} ([http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/stub_sense?category=Dundee&num_pages=4000&dbname=enwiki Stub Sense] finds 185, excluding geo stubs)
• {{tl|Aberdeenshire-stub}}
• {{tl|Angus-stub}}
• {{tl|ArgyllBute-stub}}
• {{tl|Borders-stub}}
• {{tl|Clackmannanshire-stub}}
• {{tl|DumfriesGalloway-stub}}
• {{tl|EastAyrshire-stub}}
• {{tl|EastDunbartonshire-stub}}
• {{tl|EastLothian-stub}}
• {{tl|EastRenfrewshire-stub}}
• {{tl|Falkirk-stub}}
• {{tl|Fife-stub}}
• {{tl|Highland-stub}}
• {{tl|Inverclyde-stub}}
• {{tl|Midlothian-stub}}
• {{tl|Moray-stub}}
• {{tl|NorthAyrshire-stub}}
• {{tl|NorthLanarkshire-stub}}
• {{tl|PerthKinross-stub}}
• {{tl|Renfrewshire-stub}}
• {{tl|Shetland-stub}}
• {{tl|SouthAyrshire-stub}}
• {{tl|SouthLanarkshire-stub}}
• {{tl|Stirling-stub}}
• {{tl|WestDunbartonshire-stub}}
• {{tl|WestLothian-stub}}
• {{tl|WesternIsles-stub}}

Most of the proposed templates will not be big enough yet for their own category, but we can create dedicated cats as and when the need arises. --Mais oui! 09:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• OK. Alai 22:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

48 of the former, on double-stubbing alone; or else as a contribution towards the latter (UN def., I assume). Alai 03:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Assuming we use {{cl|Regions of Africa}}, we get the following.
• {{cl|Western African politician stubs}} 348
• {{cl|East African politician stubs}} 263
• {{cl|Southern African politician stubs}} 204
• {{cl|Central African politician stubs}} 202
• {{cl|North African politician stubs}} 131

This has been mooted in the abstract for a while, so unless there any speedy holdons or objections... Alai 02:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create US & classical}}

The musician and US- types are both huge. Some resorting to existing sub-types would help, as would:

• {{cl|United States rock musicians}} 79
• {{cl|European musician stubs}} 211
• {{cl|Classical musician stubs}} 201

Splitting by genre, instrument and by country is obviously going to lead to either lots of triple-stubbing (or more), or lots of inconsistent sorting, but we've already started on all three, so... Alai 02:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

: comment I could support splitting by genre as I've already started sorting hip hop related musicians and bands from around 20 different categories. Sorting by country or region, or by instrument is harder but it depends on which one gives more articles per sub-category. Monni 03:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

::As I say, all three axes already exist, so I'm just going with the flow, numbers-wise. Alai 04:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

:::support first and third for now. weak support second as parent for more specific stubs. Monni 10:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create by region}}

Sounds like a narrow topic? 582 stubs, and pretty much unto themselves responsible for the BC-geos being six pages. (Which is just as well, as I can't find any other viable splits (though keep an eye on them BC-mountain-stubs...)) Many of them seem to be half-line nano-stubs, it must be said. Alai 22:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

:How about splitting by regional district? (BTW, :Category:Greater Vancouver Regional District stubs exists; it's associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver). --Usgnus 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

::That's what I was expecting to find, but I didn't. I think I may have some dodgy data... The parks would take care of the current oversizedness, though, so I'm inclined just to do those in the short term. (I know it's itself a rather large type, but I'm guessing someone has mass-produced these from a list, so they're possibly exhaustive.) Alai 22:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Well, there are 852 provincial parks in BC (42 parks created in the last five years). Plus there are regional parks, city/municipality parks and the handful of National Parks. --Usgnus 22:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Ah. OK then, a couple of hundred to go then, perhaps... (These seems to be almost entirely provincial.) I've re-run the analysis, but I'm not getting anything above threshold on the districts: must be very little categorisation by those. Which isn't to say it's not possible and sensible, just not that it's at all easy. Alai 23:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'd definitely prefer going by region rather than landform type. Mind you, remember we also have protected area stubs, and the idea of a British Columbia-protected-area-stub (or whatever the form would be) might alleviate the problem without having to resort to mountain-stubs and river-stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::I don't know if they are technically protected areas: I'll ask WP:PA. I think it's clearly in the realm of "axis of split people evidently edit along", going by the WPJ and the aforementioned mass-production alone, though. Alai 01:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Protected areas of Canada seems to vaguely imply that they are such, so if the WPJ confirms, I'd be equally happy with G's suggestion. Alai 01:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

No one faint: I'm going to suggest the we split a non-oversized stub category. (And no, not because I'm running out of those...) But I notice that this is at 3 1/2 pages, and (until I simplified it) had a very tortuous template, using the US and Canadian terminology, as well as the overarching language of the category name. So if we re-categorise those that fall "neatly" within one or the other, we may be archieving both terminological as well as geographical precision and clarity, for all the obvious pitfalls of a split by modern states. Categorised (only) under {{cl|First Nations}} I count 99, and (only) under {{cl|Native American}}, I count 365, so those would both be viable. I suggest we try and make the template names more standard too (with redirects, doubtless): {{tl|Canada-ethno-stub}} and {{tl|US-ethno-stub}}. Alai 05:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oh: the first is already on the approved-and-todo list! D'oh. Alai 05:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• I have been sorting the native stubs and I'd have to say the category page has a ghastly long name ( {{cl|Indigenous peoples of North America stubs}} ) I'd like to see it renamed more in line with the stub itself as {{cl|North American Natives stubs}} (to go with {{cl|NorthAm-native-stub}}). I would not split it into {{tl|Canada-ethno-stub}} and {{tl|US-ethno-stub}} for 2 reasons - we have tons of ethnic groups in America, this stub is for the Native people specifically, and Splitting USA from Canada would be a problem for The Innuit, the Plains Indians, and other wanderer-travelles, who are in both USA and Canada that would be straddling the fence. Goldenrowley 19:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• You'll notice I said specifically that these would be (more than) populable on the basis of membership in one and only one of the above two hierarchies. The fence-straddlers we can leave in the parent. (Under whatever name, but note that the permanent parent is at {{cl|Indigenous peoples of North America}}, and renaming a category to suit a template (that's not itself at all systematically named) is not standard practice. The template names I'm somewhat flexible on, but some degree of horizontal consistency would be highly desirable. I'm in no particular hurry to move on this, but in a couple of hundred stub's time the matter will be more pressing, so unless another axis suggests itself... Alai 03:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Instead of USA and Canada as a splitting point, I'd personally understand Native subcategories based on cultural-natural boundaries as follows: Innuit*, Eastern, Atlantic, Plains & Mesas, Rocky Mountains, Western Pacific, and Mesoamerica*. maybe Hawaii. Maybe Carribean. Goldenrowley 03:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Then you'd want to start with the permanent categories, which as I mentioned above, are organised by modern statist boundaries, hence my proposal that we follow the same for the stubs. Had there been viable perm-cat-based splits along the lines you mention, I'd certainly have mentioned them. It's well known that you can't win around here on relationship between stub and permanent categories, but you really can't win, can you? Alai 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• ? I am just opposed to the original proposal to split {{cl|Indigenous peoples of North America stubs}} category in half. Because I think North America Native category is perfect as the main category, I can use it all the time, and it can grow by holding sub categories rather than splitting. Otherwise, I might be unclear what you meant to propose this week and just repeating your minor points in my own words? Goldenrowley 19:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• "Holding sub categories rather than splitting": I think one or more of us is confused at this point. By "split" I mean precisely (and explicitly), as I said above, the creation of addition stub types as sub-categories, not replacing it (else this would be at SFD). You've suggested that they instead be split (in the above sense) on different lines, which I pointed out was not how the permanent categories were arranged. If by the time this category is oversized, and re-proposed by splitting, the permanent categories are still organised on those lines (and only those lines), I'm highly likely to go ahead with such a split. But since it isn't currently oversized, I'm willing to wait. Alai 22:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Yes I got confused sorry, there's lots of tribes on the table here. Thanks for taking time to explain to a new person. I agree with making up some sub-categories! Goldenrowley
• OK I've been looking at the big picture and see if this makes sense to you Alai: the word "native" in the subcategories stub can be replaced with a more specific name of the native or tribe, they still all fall under north america, there's no redirects to ethnic then back to natives its a smooth change: I.e. some of the {{tl|NorthAm-native-stub}}} can be recategorized (and I volunteer to help) to smaller subcategories such as {{tl|NorthAm-wintun-stub}} another {{tl|NorthAm-Inuit-stub}} with corresponding category pages like: {{cl|North American Wintun Stubs}} and {{cl|North American Inuit People stubs}}. Of course only do one or two right now. If you like should we make a new proposal with this specific idea>? Goldenrowley 01:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• My earlier opinion on a scheme of this sort stands; see above. Alai 21:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

there are a lot of chinese food stubs, and also on the food/drink, cuisine subtubs Qrc2006 20:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Plausible; do you have a rough idea of how many such? Alai 21:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Stubsense indicates 55 {{tl|cuisine-stub}}s and 23 {{tl|food-stub}}s in :Category:Chinese cuisine out of 155 total. --Usgnus 04:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

In case i missed it i did not find any Republic of Ireland stubs Briaboru

• {{tl|Ireland-stub}} / {{cl|Ireland stubs}} should have this scope. (And that would be "-stub" and " stubs", respectively.) Alai 04:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• There's a really bad joke in there about the land of stubs related to Ireland, but I'm too tired to make it work. On topic......yeah, there's already a proper category. --fuzzy510 05:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note I say should. It actually links to Ireland, not Republic of Ireland, and I'll bet there's many escapees that strictly should be in a "British" (sic) stub type. Alai 05:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• There shouldn't be - Ireland-stub is for the RoI. {{tl|NI-stub}} is for any of the...erm...British ones. The reason for the link to Ireland is that ireland-stub also covers any stubs covering the whole island. Grutness...wha? 06:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• I see: both fowl and fish! Wouldn't it be better to clarify this is for RoI specifically, and double-stub with {{tl|NI-stub}} where appropriate? Alai 00:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• To which add (I must stop replying to myself, it's the th sign of madness), that {{cl|Northern Ireland stubs}} has been a subcat of {{cl|Ireland stubs}} for quite some time. See also the explicit scopes of {{cl|Republic of Ireland}} and {{cl|Ireland}}, and their eponymous articles. Maybe this needs to be SFR'd. Alai 00:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

Not especially needed, and indeed I'm not sure it's even viable, but would at least house the seemingly soon to be evicted {{cl|Major League Soccer stubs}}, be a caring parent to {{cl|United States soccer biography stubs}} and {{cl|United States soccer club stubs}}, and otherwise plug something of a hole in the hierarchy. Plus there seem to be 27 assorted {{cl|Football (soccer) stubs}} that are also somewhere or other in the {{cl|United States}} hierarchy, so it might be worth a punt. Alai 05:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. We don't have categories for any other countries, and there's not anywhere near enough in {{cl|Major League Soccer stubs}} to prompt creation of another stub type. After all, that's one reason why it's (likely) getting deleted, no? I would be interested, however, in seeing the viability of other countries for a similar stub type. In any case though, this doesn't seem like a good way to start. --fuzzy510 05:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• That's 27 plus what's in MLS, plus two subcats. Whatchawant, blood? :) (There's other reasons besides size why MLS-stub's (likely) getting deleted.) If this is the structure we want, the subcats and 40ish stubs make the type worthwhile (IMO)... if it isn't, why do you want counts for other countries? Alai 05:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Because if there are other countries that would contain the requisite number, I'd say that it was a worthwhile structure, and therefore more open to the idea of creating this one, along with all of the other ones to fully create the structure. If there aren't, I'd say that it wouldn't be the best of ideas to create a slightly undersized stub type for a structure that might not really be viable. See, there is actually a method to my madness. ;-) --fuzzy510 03:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• You're just saying that to entice me to look for these... And it seems to have worked! At any rate, under {{cl|Football in the United Kingdom}} there's 257, most of which are also under {{cl|Football in England}} (242). Have to check for false positives, of course... Alai 04:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, and without looking myself, I'd be willing to bet that there are a lot of bio stubs that come up as false positives. --fuzzy510 03:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

I believe that there are enough of stubs which are about Warhammer Fantasy and that Wargames-stub is not enough. The majority of articles in Wargames-stub are already about warhammer fantasy. I think it is time to create a Warhammer-Fantasy-Stub. Arctic-Editor 11:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Unless it is a subcategory of {{tl|Fantasy-stub}} (which it very well may be), it should be {{tl|WarhammerFantasy-stub}} per convention, and based on July's discussion, the template is approved already (feeding either {{cl|Wargame stubs}} as now, or feeding a new {{cl|Warhammer stubs}} that also would contain {{tl|Warhammer-40,000-stub}}s). The category {{cl|Warhammer Fantasy stubs}}, however, should wait until there are 60+ stubs. --Usgnus 12:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This was already discussed back in July. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Professional association stubs}} 82
• {{cl|Philanthropic organization stubs}} 78

The latter is on discoveries (well, a badly-named template with a redlink is, at least), and may overlap with {{tl|charity-org-stub}}, but would in theory have a wider scope. If they're not viable separately (though they very well might be) I'd be inclined to create this anyway, and then upmerge the charities. Alai 02:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Support as per requirement in Chartered Institute of Wastes Management, International Solid Waste Association and Solid Waste Association of North America --Alex 13:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• How about {{tl|prof-assoc-stub}} and {{tl|good-deed-doer-stub}} - uh, I mean, {{tl|philanthropy-org-stub}}? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 04:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create those specified by Alai}}

I haven't checked the counts for these stub types, but it seems to me like there might be a lot here. Keep in mind that there are a lot of bird stubs, and these are categories which have a lot of articles, probably including a lot of stubs:

• {{tl|Anseriformes-stub}}
• {{tl|Falconiformes-stub}}
• {{tl|Coraciiformes-stub}}

Eli Falk 11:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:This looks plausible given that the parent is at about 600 - 700; however, without an estimate for each of the templates it's hard to give support or opposition. Could you get estimates please? Aelfthrytha 16:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::Here's what I have:

::*{{cl|Galliformes stubs}} 68

::*{{cl|Anseriformes stubs}} 60

::*{{cl|Anatidae stubs}} 58

::*{{cl|Birds of prey stubs}} 51

::*{{cl|Seabird stubs}} 47

::Given that {{cl|Birds by classification}} is underpopulated at 466, there's a strong chance the above five would be viable, so I'll support those if anyone is willing to go on a hunt. The Falconiformes at 34, and the Coraciiformes at 33 may be a little light, so I'm not prepared to support them at present. Alai 19:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Probably only a minor point, but when the England geo-stubs were split into ceremonial counties, East Sussex and west Sussex (two separate CCs) were left in one category with one overall sussex-geo-stub template. There are now clearly enough stubs (300 in total) for these to be broken out into their two separate categories and templates - {{tl|EastSussex-geo-stub}} and {{tl|WestSussex-geo-stub}} - with the deletion of the current single template (as happened with yorkshire-geo-stub early on in the England split. (Brighton and Hove, listed separately in {{cl|England geography stubs}} for no readily apparent reason, is officially in East Sussex, BTW). Grutness...wha? 00:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to assume you're not going to propose another delete-the-template-and-keep-the-category exercise, and on the proposal itself, support, of course. Alai 01:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Of course not. This time, it would be a delete for both the category and the template, since there's no point of having a template and a category for something that doesn't exist as an individual item. Yorkshire-geo-stub and its associated category were deleted with absolutely no problems, absolutely no complaints, and absolutely no confusion. There's no reason to suppose this should be any different. And it's already pretty well-known among those who use more than the cruder country-level splits that we're splitting by ceremonial county, anyway. Grutness...wha? 09:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as revised}}

There's easily 60 in {{cl|Winter sports biography stubs}}, which is starting to get up there in size. (I cannot, however, think of a name for the template that makes any sense, so suggestions here gladly accepted). --fuzzy510 06:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Can I just finessing the issue by scoping it as {{cl|skiing biography stubs}}, thereby being consistent with the existing {{cl|skiing stubs}}? Alai 06:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• That'd be fine by me, but depending on the count (I got too lazy to hand-sort all of them), it might be viable in the near future to further split that category into cross-country and alpine skiing. That would be better though, since the majority of the winter sports bios are some type of skiing (XC, alpine, jumping, nordic combined) --fuzzy510 11:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• I shouldn't be too surprised by that, as the skaters and hockey players are long since split. {{tl|nordic-skiing-bio-stub}} and {{tl|alpine-skiing-bio-stub}} spring to mind, though the former would perhaps imply a slightly wider scope that would {{tl|crosscountry-skiing-bio-stub}}. If you want to be more precise, but still more terse, {{tl|XC-skiing-bio-stub}} is pretty unambiguous, though a little cryptic for the uninitiated. Alai 15:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create by position}}

After sorting the ice hockey bios, Canada's category is left with a massive 8 pages. I'm honestly not too sure how to split this one. My first instinct says to go by position, since that's seemingly the default split in such a situation. However, I think that might be somewhat problematic. As I envision it, we'd need to work it something like the baseball bios, with a category for forwards and then individual tags for centers and wingers that served as children. However, there are a lot of articles that don't have the position indicated. In addition, there aren't any permcat splits by position, so it'd be problematic to figure out the viability.

I think that the best solution is to take advantage of the fact that there are far fewer Canadian provinces than U.S. states, and split by province. There are categories for different provincial sportspeople, and while the stubs are not all completely categorized, it'd give an idea of the viability.

I don't really care one way or another, because I'm not certain what would be the best split, but I do know that it should be split. So, opinions? --fuzzy510 05:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

From July...

• {{tl|Canada-icehockey-coach-stub}}
• {{tl|Canada-icehockey-player-stub}}
• {{tl|Canada-icehockey-centre-stub}}
• {{tl|Canada-icehockey-winger-stub}}
• {{tl|Canada-icehockey-defenceman-stub}}
• {{tl|Canada-icehockey-goaltender-stub}}

See :Category:Ice hockey personnel --Usgnus 06:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

--Usgnus 06:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• (ec)And which do you think people (and especially professional sportspeople) change more often, their sporting role, or their physical location? I think by province is a horrible idea, for the reasons it is for almost all biographies, sorry. I'd rather see by team, by position, by decade, by league, or really, almost anything else. Unfortunately, and as you say, existing permanent categorisation doesn't seem to be great. Numerous per-team splits would be viable on that basis, but very little else. (However, the stub type has grown significantly since the last dump, so this will have to be redone after the next one -- whenever that is, it's 18 days since the last complete dump, and the process is currently idle for some unknown reason.) Surely there's a wikiproject or two we can draft in on this, though? Alai 06:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Like Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey :-) --Usgnus 06:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Again, I'm not really trying to campaign here, but by province isn't viable when used as a reference for place of birth? I mean, isn't that what we do for the different biography splits by country? --fuzzy510 11:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• That's not very intuitive, and doesn't correlate at all well to "who is likely to expand this article?", if a player is born in one province, grows up in a second, goes to college in a third, and played hockey in a further three. What we do with country-based splits is a little fuzzy as to the exact criterion, but works at least somewhat in practice on the "who's heard of this person?" principle. Alai 16:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that province - and also team - aren't particularly good ways to split this. Players tend to move from team to team, and also from province to province. I'd favour position first, then decade - it's unlikely a player will play in more than a couple of general positions within a team, and also uunlikely that a player's career would span more than a couple of decades at the top level. it's quite feasible for them to play in several teams during that time, though, in several different provinces or states. Grutness...wha? 09:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create template, upmerge cat}}

Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Chicago Board of Trade, Eurex, International Monetary Market, New York Mercantile Exchange, BIFFEX ...

or simply go to the category Commodities Exchanges for a partial list. There are others “out there” for which no page yet exists at Wikipedia.

(At some point I may suggest changing the name of the category from Commodities to Futures Exchanges. More inclusive.)

This stub category can easily cover commodities exchanges and options exchanges, most of which seem destined to merge as the industry consolidates.

A category separate from the Stockexchange-stub is desirable, as their markets differ significantly.

Further, all of the futures exchange Wiki pages I have seen so far qualify only as stubs. – RayBirks 07:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Do you think there are currently 50-60 stubs for this? If not, a possible option (no pun intended) would be to rescope the Stock exchange stubs category to cover both types of exchange and have two separate stub templates feed into it, one for each. that way it could be easily split out later if and when there are enough. Grutness...wha? 07:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:* I can imagine a FinancialExchange stub that could cover all of these. There are not quite 50 stubs for the futures exchanges, but I think that is just a gap in the Wikipedia universe for now. I'm new enough that I don't quite understand about "stub templates feeding in to it" but may grasp it after sleeping on it. (It's 3 am in my time zone.) Your pointers are welcome. -- RayBirks 08:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Given the size of the {{cl|Financial services company stubs}} (see also my own suggestion), it would certainly be handy if this were feasible. Unfortunately the {{cl|stock exchanges}} seems to be largely polluted by {{cl|Companies by stock exchange}}, and 'futures' don't really appear to figure in my analysis of that category, at least. What Grutness is suggesting is that a template -- {{tl|exchange-stub}}, or {{tl|financial-exchange-stub}}, let us say -- be created, but not a separate category for the time being. Instead, they'd stay in the parent category, but once a thresholdish number is reached, they can easily be reclassified just with a token node of approval, and a template edit. Alai 00:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Ah-hah: we already have a {{tl|stockexchange-stub}}, hence the lack of those in the parent (that isn't -- I suppose not all of these are companies per se). Maybe this could be rescoped... the futures don't look likely to be viable on their own, given the size of {{cl|futures exchanges}}. Alai 00:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

:::* I will have to research the parent/child relationship, stub vs. category relationship, and the template mechanics. These are still unclear to me. Pointers to pages for tutoring appreciated, one and all. -- Another possibility for a new stub could be FuturesIndustryStub. This would pull in the exchanges, plus all those other related folks and firms lingering in the general finance & economics categories. -- RayBirks 04:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

::::*To put it simply, stub categories should bear at least a passing resemblance to non-stub ("permanent") categories. But because of the purposes stub categories have foir editors, they're only really useful if there are a reasonable number of articles for them (which is why we use a threshold of about 50-60 articles). These articles would get a stub template which automatically puts them in a connected stub category. While we're unsure that there would be 50 stubs for a separate futures exchange stub category, we could make a template for futures exchange stubs which would put the articles into the same category as stock exchange stubs. If we later find there are 50 stubs with the new template, it would be very simple to redirect the template to a new separate category, thereby moving all the articles that have that template into the new category. Hope that helps :) Grutness...wha? 06:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

This is a topic on which my ignorance is much more extensive than my bank balance, so I shall present counts based on the top level subcats of {{cl|economics}} and of {{cl|finance}}, and hoping someone else can sort out what makes sense as a stun type, and what doesn't.

Economics:

• {{cl|Macroeconomics and monetary economics stubs}} 542
• {{cl|Economic policy stubs}} 504
• {{cl|Financial economics stubs}} 500
• {{cl|Economic systems stubs}} 401
• {{cl|Microeconomics stubs}} 367
• {{cl|Health, education, and welfare economics stubs}} 340
• {{cl|Business administration and business economics; marketing; accounting stubs}} 320
• {{cl|Labor and demographic economics stubs}} 216
• {{cl|Agricultural and natural resource economics; environmental and ecological economics stubs}} 170
• {{cl|International economics stubs}} 169
• {{cl|Economics lists stubs}} 163
• {{cl|Schools of economic thought and methodology stubs}} 142
• {{cl|Political economy stubs}} 134
• {{cl|Urban, rural, and regional economics stubs}} 96
• {{cl|Law and economics stubs}} 86
• {{cl|Mathematical and quantitative methods (economics) stubs}} {{cl|Econometrics stubs}} 71
• {{cl|Public economics stubs}} 69

Finance:

• {{cl|Financial market stubs}} 163
• {{cl|Financial institutions and services stubs}} 154
• {{cl|Financial service stubs}} 154
• {{cl|Stock market stubs}} 130
• {{cl|Financial institution stubs}} 124
• {{cl|Banking stubs}} 93
• {{cl|Investment stubs}} 71

Doubtless overlap will mean that not all of these are simultaneously sensible, so feel free to cherry-pick. Names are also provisional, and and based directly on those of the permcats. (I'd be dubious about the one with the semicolons, at the least.) Alai 05:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not sure about {{cl|Mathematical and quantitative methods (economics) stubs}}. I think that a better idea would be having a {{cl|Econometrics stubs}} to cover quantitative methods, which is strongly needed. Theoretical models do not need a separate mathematics category, they can go straight into the respective subjects' categories, i.e. macroeconomics, financial market etc.

:Also, IMO {{cl|Financial institutions and services stubs}} would suffice, rendering {{cl|Financial service stubs}} and {{cl|Financial institution stubs}} useless AdamSmithee 08:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for the input: I didn't dig quite deep enough to get to the econometrics (the list was getting very long and false-possish, so I stopped quite "shallow"), but it looks like it would catch 71, too (I assume exactly the same ones, indeed), so I'm happy to substitute that one. I'll likewise avoid the others you mention, and if there are no countervailing opinions, make candidate lists for the remainder before populating them (or leave popoulating them to some willing volunteer, indeed...). Alai 08:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Unified Modeling Language stubs}} 174
• {{cl|Microsoft software stubs}} 152
• {{cl|IBM software stubs}} 145
• {{cl|Windows software stubs}} 101
• {{cl|Business software stubs}} 82
• {{cl|Science software stubs}} 79
• {{cl|Text editors stubs}} 73
• {{cl|Music software stubs}} 67
• {{cl|Multimedia stubs}} 60

This is a nightmarishly large stub type (12 pages), and is likely to be a pretty tangly one too. The above counts are based off the top two levels of sub-cats of {{cl|software}}, but could be prone to much overlap and false-possing, so take with a pinch of salt until verified. There also seems to be a huge amount of undersorting to {{cl|Network software stubs}} (199 stubs, seemingly) and {{cl|Unix stubs}} (64). Alai 04:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. --Bruce1ee 06:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Partial support - I've been working my way through all the stubs in :Category:Software stubs (up to the T's now!) and maintaining a list to help identify possible splits. Given my observations, I think Multimedia software stubs is definitely viable and I was actually getting ready to suggest that. Music, Text Editors, Science and Business might also be viable as I've seen a reasonable number of them. I'm not convinced of the others though. Where have these numbers come from? I'm particularly interested in the UML number as I haven't seen evidence of anywhere near this number of stubs in Software stubs so far. I'm also not sure what you mean by "There also seems to be a huge amount of undersorting to {{cl|Network software stubs}} (199 stubs, seemingly)". Finally, software by company or OS would cut across the existing split by software type, so I would only do that as a last resort. --TheParanoidOne 18:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• The numbers are based on membership of perm-cat subtrees rooted at {{cl|text editors}}, {{cl|business software}}, etc, calculated from the db as dumped on the 10th. This is obviously liable to both false positives and false negatives, so if you have more accurate counts, I'm happy to defer to those. The UML ones look to be especially inaccurate, as seemingly {{cl|Microsoft}} is a subcat of {{cl|Unified Modeling Language}} -- d'oh. If you wish, I can generate and upload lists of any particular candidate you might find potentially useful (with or without tagging by the associated category they're included on the basis of). Alai 04:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I tell a lie, I can find some apparently viable splits in here:

• {{cl|Television journalist stubs}} 135
• {{cl|Television producer stubs}} 96
• {{cl|United States television journalist stubs}} 88
• {{cl|Television writer stubs}} 65

I also detect what seems to be significant undersorting to US-tv-bio-stub, and to TV-actor-stub. Alai 01:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Five-page parent, this looks like the most promising avenue of split (133 possibilities). Alai 04:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

{{sfp top|create as revised.}}

• {{cl|Biochemical stubs}} 150
• {{cl|Aromatic compound stubs}} 138
• {{cl|Organic acid stubs}} 99
• {{cl|Hydrocarbon stubs}} 90
• {{cl|Ester stubs}} 86
• {{cl|Alcohol stubs}} 85
• {{cl|Heterocyclic compound stubs}} 71
• {{cl|Salts and esters of carboxylic acid stubs}} 71
• {{cl|Amine stubs}} 60

May be some overlap, but shouldn't be massive in any instance I can think of. Alai 03:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Nice setup, but I am not sure, where do I find sulfides, disulfides, nitriles, alkanes, etc. Does the above list contain all the stubs (hmm .. about, miss 31 to my counting, not considering duplicate grouping (850 vs. 881)).

One could also consider the following sectioning:

• {{cl|Alkane subs}}
• {{cl|Organohalide stubs}}
• {{cl|Organochalcogenide stubs}}
• {{cl|Organopnictogenide stubs}}
• {{cl|Organoboron compound stubs}}
• {{cl|Organosilicon, germanium and tin compound stubs}}

Of course this gives the same problem as above, compounds belonging in more groups (though, one could put it in one or two, and making a supercat (keep {{cl|organic compound stubs}}) for compounds that contain more than 2 functional groups).

Advantages of the first method is that people specialised in amines could just pick an amine stub, of the second is, that it is easy to extend this to the inorganic compounds:

• {{cl|Inorganic group 3 compound stubs}}
• {{cl|Inorganic group 4 compound stubs}}

etc. Which for the larger stub-groups can be split even further in:

• {{cl|Organometallic group n compound stubs}} and
• {{cl|Inorganic group 4 compound stubs}}

etc. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input, Dirk. The above makes no attempt to be comprehensive, it's just every permanent category (including descendants) with 60 or more org-comp-stubs, filtered for anything that appeared to me to be too obviously mutually exclusive, duplicative, or tangential to primary notability. Some duplication and omission is very likely (I could uploads the lists if you wish). I didn't do the same for the inorganics simply because they're not oversized, but I could do if it's of interest. Alai 19:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:And you, thank you for this counting work! Quite a job to put things into groups!

:OK, as I said, for me the first list makes sense, in that it is recognisable what is in it. And there will indeed not be many disulfide-stubs. I just counted the pages in {{cl|inorganic compound stubs}}: 595. Seems also quite big, but for that a completely different approach may be needed. You could consider making also a cat for medicinal/pharmaceutical compound stubs (may not be big at the moment, but I am encountering quite some pharmaceuticals at the moment in my current AWB run, which are stubby, but do not carry a link/stub-mark to organic chemistry/compounds, while I expect also there to be knowledge about these.

:I'll keep an eye on this, lets hear what others think of this. And drop me a line on my talk-page when I you need help taking these edits through an AWB run. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::Note that not only is there already a {{cl|Pharmacology stubs}} and a {{cl|Medical treatment stubs}}, the former is already oversized: see a split proposal for that, elsewhere on this page. I can only hope that the people tagging these as one as opposed to the other aren't working too much at cross-purposes... 595 is indeed quite big, and if the inorgs can be split now, it'd spare it becoming "urgent" later. However, I can't find anything feasible at the moment: closest I can see, again based on perm-cat hierarchies, would be {{cl|inorganic carbon compound stubs}} (43), {{cl|metal halide stubs}} (42) and {{cl|chloride stubs}} (35). If there's undercategorisation these may be undercounts, of course, though it may simply be that there are no perm-cats that are sufficiently broad, and they'd have to be "lumped" by hand. I'd certainly be supportive of upmerged templates for undersized-but-plausible sub-types if anyone is keen to make a start on these. Alai 00:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I know the {{cl|Pharmacology stubs}} and the {{cl|Medical treatment stubs}}, but these are from the medical point of view. They contain a lot of molecules (mainly organic), but it does not make sense to make these descendants of {{cl|organic compound stubs}} (because there is much, much more in them), therefore I would like a stub-sort that is inbetween these two.

:::For metals, inorganic chemists have often a metal-based speciality, i.e., people working with titanium often do not know a lot (practically) about palladium. I guess a division made by metal-grouping makes more sense there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

::::I don't think I understand the intended scope then. Organic compunds with a pharmaceutical application, as a subtype of both the above? Wouldn't that be extremely large? Ideally we want somewhat smaller stub types than said ~1000 cats. :) Alai 07:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::The pharm-stub group contains many molecules, but also many not-molecules (groups of medicine types, like antiinflammatory etc.), I think that it should be possible for chemists to find these molecules (they make many of the molecules that are used as medicine). I'll try and have a look into the group, and see if I can estimate how many of the articles in that stub-group are actual molecules. So it would end up as that the three supercats {{cl|organic compound stubs}}, {{cl|inorganic compound stubs}}, and {{cl|pharma stubs}} have a descendant which is {{cl|pharmaceutical compound stub}}. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

::Oppose split: The current category is certainly large, but is it too large to find stubs which are worth working on? I think not. Physchim62 (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create all but historical figure}}

• {{cl|Canadian historical figure stubs}} 139
• {{cl|Canadian entertainer stubs}} 98
• {{cl|Canadian television personality stubs}} 80
• {{cl|Canadian clergy stubs}} 63

Six-page parent. Alai 01:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose historical figure. Support others. --Usgnus 02:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Indian academic stubs}} 80
• {{cl|Indian businesspeople stubs}} 64

Another six-page parent. Alai 01:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Indian businesspeople stubs are already created: {{cl|Indian business biography stubs}} to follow the naming convention of parent {{cl|Business biography stubs}}. Crystallina 13:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks, I really meant to check for that type of thing. (We should probably rename 'em all along those lines, mind you.) Alai 15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment, not consistent naming with possible parent category, {{cl|Academic biography stubs}}. Monni 15:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• I was following the permanent (possible) parent, {{cl|Academics}}. However, the "biography" might be wise in this case, lest the the intended scope be confused with (what we'd in theory actually call) {{cl|Academia stubs}}. Alai 16:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Australian Labor Party politician stubs}} 131
• {{cl|Liberal Party of Australia politician stubs}} 88

YA6PP. Alai 01:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

:Whatever we decide as to UK politician splits (party or era), this should probably go the same way. I'm a little concerned if there are six pages overall but only about 200 of them are from the main two parties! What about just an {{tl|Australia-MP-stub}} and an {{tl|Australia-senator-stub}}? Would those reduce things enough not to have to worry about a party-or-era split for now? Grutness...wha? 07:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::Probably significant undercategorisation -- which is not entirely reasonable, after all, if there were no completeness or structural problems with these articles, they wouldn't be stubs! Under {{cl|Members_of_the_Australian_House_of_Representatives}} I count 63, and under {{cl|Members_of_the_Australian_Senate}}, 42: once again, one would have to suspect significant undercatting. So probably both viable, but less useful in the short term. (Isn't that also highly prone to double-stubbing?) Alai 15:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Australian television personality stubs}} 105
• {{cl|Australian artist stubs}} 64

Guess how big this parent is? Alai 01:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• As of right now...5 pages! (Oh, and support.) Crystallina 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Also in this case, if we were to follow the existing stub parent, the first would be {{cl|Australian television biography stubs}}, which would imply a somewhat wider scope. Alai 16:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

While I'm undecided about whether these articles should even be in Wikipedia, there are enough of them to consider splitting the category. There are about 500 mast stubs, the vast majority of which could be split between two large groups:

• {{tl|US-mast-stub}}
• {{tl|euro-mast-stub}}

It's not in the "urgent" category yet, but it would make sense to start looking at these fairly soon. Grutness...wha? 06:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

These currently lurk in a single 7 page category. If all else fails we could split into {{cl|anime stubs}} and {{cl|manga stubs}}, but as those are each likely to be huge, perhaps the following might be viable as sub-cats (or alternative splits in their own right).

• {{cl|Anime series stubs}} 259
• {{cl|Manga series stubs}} 203
• {{cl|Manga distributors stubs}} 76
• {{cl|Science fiction anime stubs}} 69
• {{cl|Anime companies stubs}} 64

I haven't double-checked the perm-cats corresponding to these to see if these are likely to be false-pos-ridden. Alai 02:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I am suprised anime and manga weren't split before.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  08:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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