Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/August 2007

{{sfp create}}

Upmerged template now used on 60 articles. I suggest speedy but I thought it better to relist this one, given that I accidentally mentioned a nonstandard name last time I brought this one up, see the section for Laos below. The name suggested here matches with the name of the permcat. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy. Waacstats 23:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

This template now has over 60 articles and should be deupmerged. Speedy? Waacstats 22:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:Impressive. Speedy. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create upmerged templates}}

The purpose of creating these would be to place them on the state route articles of the different states. Stubs already exist for the other states, US Highways and Interstate Highways.

• {{tl|Idaho-road-stub}}
• {{tl|Louisiana-road-stub}}
• {{tl|Maine-road-stub}}
• {{tl|Mississippi-road-stub}}
• {{tl|Montana-road-stub}}
• {{tl|New-Mexico-road-stub}} {{tl|NewMexico-road-stub}}
• {{tl|North-Dakota-road-stub}} {{tl|NorthDakota-road-stub}}
• {{tl|South-Dakota-road-stub}} {{tl|SouthDakota-road-stub}}
• {{tl|Tennessee-road-stub}}

--Son 14:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, from what I see, none of these have over 30 articles in which they would be used on and, thus, are unnecessary. I'd also rather see the stubs use "road-stub" than "State-Highway/Route-stub", as using the state highway names restricts how wide-reaching the stub cat can be. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I forgot about the possibility of creating only upmerged templates earlier. Must've slipped my mind. In any case, support upmerged templates, oppose separate categories until the minimum threshold is reached. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm suggesting the creation of these to help organize a task force that would govern the remaining states that don't have state level task forces or WikiProjects. See User:Son/State Route task force (which is an early work in progress). I plan on working state-by-state (and hopefully with the help of others) to create more road articles. --Son 18:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, I agree with TMF. I would rather see quality articles be written outright rather than go stub-crazy here. master son^{T - C} 18:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:*Support to upmerge - Seeing the purpose of them, I can see the templates being created master son^{T - C} 22:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support as upmerged templates only. There's clearly no need for separate categories as yet, but there's no problem with making the templates now - though they should be in line with the naming conventions (hence I have altered the original proposal slightly - hope you don;'t mind, Son!). Grutness...wha? 01:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

{{Cl|Indian film stubs}} is on the oversize list. 2 upmerged templates with over 60 articles exist

• {{Cl|Kannada-language film stubs}} fed by {{Tl|Kannada-film-stub}}
• {{Cl|Telugu-language film stubs}} fed by {{Tl|Telugu-film-stub}}

also suggest a new upmerged template

• {{Tl|Malayalam-film-stub}}

Waacstats 22:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Suggest speedying the first two. I think the third might be viable in its own right: my count says there's 88 in the corresponding permcat, but a large number seems to be in other languages too, so it's a judgement call as to whether double-stubbing would be appropriate. Alai 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Proposal is to create a stub for the subject of water supply. :Category:Water supply and its sub-categories like :Category:Drinking water and :Category:Water treatment together have many stub-class articles whose expansion would be helped by being better organized into a common stub type. The following are 70 appropriate articles. This new stub would be recommended to be a child of :Category:Health stubs and :Category:Urban studies and planning stubs. Please note that Template:Water-stub is already being used for :Category:Water transport stubs.

--Kurieeto 15:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support the stub type - BTW, there are lots of dams and reservoirs in the struct-stubs and geo-stubs which could potentially be double-stubbed with this one, too (keeping the geo/struct type as a second template). I have some concerns about the name, though. You're right that water-stub is already in use, which is the main problem, since it isn't a good name for water transport. But if we moved it, a lot of people would think that water-stub would still be in use for it, so if we gave this water-stub, there'd be considerable mis-sorting. Watersupply-stub would be a little more in keeping with stub naming, I think, since we don't have a supply-stub. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

:Great, I've gone ahead and created {{tl|watersupply-stub}} and will begin populating it. Kurieeto 00:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create upmerged templates}}

In the school stubs category there are a lot of schools in Central or South America. Therefore I'm proposing a new stub category for Central and South American schools. If there are a lot of these stubs then it might be necessary to split them into 2 stub cats (one for Central, one for South). I've listed them separately for now in case that happens.

I am sorting these stubs into Central and South according to the Wikipedia entry for the country each school is in. Sorry if any of them are wrong. KZF 09:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

{{tl|Central-South-America-Schools-stub}} (43 stubs)

• The coding would most likely be

{{tl|CentralAm-school-stub}} and {{tl|SouthAm-school-stub}}, but it looks like we're nowhere near the number of articles needed for CentralAm. Is there a WikiProject for either of these areas? If so, support SouthAm for now. If not, upmerge template for SouthAm. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• We don't generally scope things as South-and-Central-together (or as Latin America, etc), though the reasons for not doing so could stand some examination, in my view. At the very least, an upmerged template for both would seem appropriate. Alai 21:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks, those shortened versions are much better! What about an overall Americas category, with North and South American schools as subcats (Central when there are enough articles to justify it)? KZF 10:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Now that, we have done on occasion. But again, due to numbers, it would be upmerged templates, rather than subcats. Alai 17:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Ok, sorry to be a pain but I've tried to figure out for myself what upmerged templates are and had no luck :$ can someone point me towards a handy explanation? KZF ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• I went ahead and created the templates; articles tagged with them will currently fall into {{cl|School stubs}}, which is what "upmerging" means. Once we get 60+ articles tagged with either template we can create a separate category for them. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you! KZF ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• We don't group the Americas as one unit in other context, and we don't normally group Central and South America together. No problem with upmerged templates for either region ({{tl|CentralAm-school-stub}} and {{tl|SouthAm-school-stub}} respectively) but oppose the other suggestions. Valentinian ^{T / C} 12:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

User:Darwinek has been busy moving articles to the new upmerged Czech regional geo-stub templates, and at least two are now at the stage where they can be de-upmerged:

• {{tl|CentralBohemia-geo-stub}} - {{cl|Central Bohemian Region geography stubs}} (about 80 stubs)
• {{tl|SouthBohemia-geo-stub}} - {{cl|South Bohemian Region geography stubs}} (about 80 stubs)

There are still quite a few stubs in the main Czech geo-stub category to sort, and it's possible that several other regions will also reach threshold. The following are getting close:

• {{tl|HradecKrálové-geo-stub}} - 55 stubs ({{cl|Hradec Králové Region geography stubs}})
• {{tl|ÚstíNadLabem-geo-stub}} - 50 stubs
• {{tl|SouthMoravia-geo-stub}} - 48 stubs
• {{tl|Vysočina-geo-stub}} - 47 stubs
• {{tl|Olomouc-geo-stub}} - 46 stubs

We'll need to keep an eye on these as the sorting continues, but for now, I'd suggest speedying the first two, and possibly doing the same for Hradec Králové. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Oversize category, the following should help

• {{Cl|Canadian film director stubs}} / {{Tl|Canada-film-director-stub}}
• {{Cl|French film director stubs}} / {{Tl|France-film-director-stub}}
• {{Cl|Indian film director stubs}} / {{Tl|India-film-director-stub}}
• {{Cl|Japanese film director stubs}} / {{Tl|Japan-film-director-stub}}
• {{Cl|Asian film director stubs}} / {{Tl|Asia-film-director-stub}}
• {{Cl|European film director stubs}} / {{Tl|Europe-film-director-stub}}
• {{Cl|South American film director stubs}} / {{Tl|SouthAm-film-director-stub}} and {{Tl|Argentina-film-director-stub}}

Waacstats 21:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Good plan, support. For the continental ones, I suggest as many upmerged by-country templates as people have the patience to create. Alai 17:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create Cincinnati-stub only for now}}

Hello. I am looking to speedy create a Cincinnati stub for WP:CINCINNATI. There are 100s of articles that could use this. Thanks. (Mind meal 14:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

• Oppose speedying, past experience with city-specific stub types is much too mixed. These 100s of articles, are they of places? Buildings? There's the issue of cutting across existing types. Alai 17:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:Cincinnati is one of the largest cities in Ohio, and is home to both a professional baseball and football team. It is a major U.S. city, like Chicago. "Hundreds" was mighty conservative, as this will eventually reach the thousands I am sure. Yes, of course, they are buildings, townships, companies, and even noteworthy persons from my hometown. I would not ask if there was not a need. (Mind meal 18:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

::Which is why I didn't ask about any of that. Would you might addressing what I actually did? Alai 06:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Lets just keep it friendly here. I thought I did answer your question on what it will be used for. What else did you want to know? Please explain "cutting across existing types". If by this you mean inclusion of counties and townships, I have stated below that I would not use it for that purpose. See :Category:WikiProject Cincinnati for an idea of how many articles we potentially are talking about here. Mind you, there are many more yet to appear there. I can't imagine a stub like this being so controversial. Can anyone explain this "controversy" to me. Seems straightforward enough to me.(Mind meal 16:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

Oppose the speedying bit as other similar proposals have been controversial in the past. That said, *{{cl|Ohio building and structure stubs}} does seem to have quite a large number of articles relating to Cincinnati, so we're certainly over the 30 article mark. Provided that such a template were approved, the relevant articles should still be tagged with the Ohio- templates to avoid messing up the system. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:Oh, and the relevant permcat would be {{cl|Cincinnati, Ohio}} (just in case I'm not the only European unfamiliar with the U.S. practice of including state names). :) Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's not speediable, but is potentially useful... as long as it's remembered that standard stub parctice would be not to include geographical items in there. Buildings (double-stubbed with ohio-struct-stub), okay, items about the city's history, sports teams, radio stations etc, fine (again double-stubbed where necessary, but neighborhoods and the like would get whichever county geo-stub already exists, assuming ohio has been split by county (ISTR that it has). Articles on individual people shouldn't really be given this stubtype either (long-standing reassons involving the fact that people tend to m,ove from place to place). If there are still a reasonable number of stubs withot that (weith a specific WP, that would be only 30 stubs), I don't see too much of a problem. As V implies, the releant stub cat should be called {{cl|Cincinnati, Ohio stubs}}. Grutness...wha? 01:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Ohio geography is indeed already split by county/*SA combination, including a Greater Cincinnati category fed from a Hamilton County template and several others. Hence my comment about cross-catting. Alai 06:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::Sorry for my confusion! I can definitely adhere to common practice as outlined by Grutness, and I'll add such language at the project, also. Is it possible I could create some more Cincinnati-related stubs? If the following is not plausible, perhaps those familiar with this process could nominate more "doable" stubs for Cincinnati. I just want the project to have everything it needs from the start. Here are further proposals:

• {{tl|Cincinnati-bio-stub}}
• {{tl|Cincinnati-hist-stub}}

Thanks again. (Mind meal 02:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

:::{{tl|Cincinnati-bio-stub}} is likely to be problematic for the usual reason that it'd be susceptible to "scope creep" from "people whose notability relates primarily to " to was born in/went to university at/some other tangential connection to . Tag them with a Wikiproject talk-page template if you really must keep tabs on people on such a basis. -hist- I'd want to see a more useful indication of likely size in terms of current stub articles on, not vague prognostications on what a lot of history Cincinnati has (or else for it to be created upmerged). For what's likely to be sensible in the first instance, look at the existing subcats of {{cl|Ohio stubs}}, to take the most obviously related type. Alai 06:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I'd agree that a bio-stub is likely to be a problem (for reasons I've already mentioned above). A better idea might be to start with just a Cincinnati-stub and see how you go with that. If there look like there are likely to be enough stubs for a second stub type come back here with a definite proposal for a specific type (although be aware that the threshold of 30 stubs for a wikiproject only relates to a first basic WP stub type - you'd need 60 for a second type). Other than that, Peg's comments below are possibly a better soluton still - with a talk-page assessment template (cf. {{tl|WPBeatles}}) you can mark all Cincinnati related articles, not just stubs (why do I keep wanting to add a second T in Cincinnati?). Grutness...wha? 01:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose stub type but support the talk page WP:C template. There are 72 items under {{cl|Cincinnati, Ohio}} and its immediate sub-cats which are stub-size, but nearly every one can be (and is) tagged with a current template, such as US-writer-stub, US-baseball-bio-stub, or a variety of building & structure stubs. Stub types are created after a significant number of applicable articles are created...not in anticipation of them. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:I just want all the tools other projects are privy to, such as WP:CHICAGO. This sort of stub is certainly not without prior precedent, and I'd really appreciate being able to have such a stub to only add to the number of options future project members will have. (Mind meal 02:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

:In fact, WP:CHICAGO has only one stub template: {{tl|Chicago-stub}}. Support a generic {{tl|Cincinnati-stub}}, Oppose a -bio template. People move around a lot more than they used to, and we don't use such templates for similar material. Weak oppose to a -hist template. Such a template will be very narrow in scope and it might be a problem to keep it well "fed" with new material. I might be swayed though provided that this material shows a lot of growth. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

::There is also a {{tl|Chicago-geo-stub}}, it must be said, as well as a separate one for the containing MSA. However, given the modest size of {{cl|Greater Cincinnati geography stubs}}, an analogue for Cincinnati proper would seem less than needed at present. (Upmerged, I'd have no objection to.) Alai 06:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

:So is that a go for {{tl|Cincinnati-stub}}? The discussion has been dead for a while and nobody has closed the discussion. It seems that the majority have no objection to {{tl|Cincinnati-stub}}. (Mind meal 21:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

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

{{sfp create}}

While looking at cutting down the Italy bio category I found a large number of Lugers, looking further a field I want to propose the following categories

• {{Cl|Luge biography stub}} {{Tl|Luge-bio-stub}}
• {{Cl|Italian winter sports biography stubs}} {{Tl|Italy-wintersport-bio-stub}}
• {{Cl|Italian luge biography stubs}} {{Tl|Italy-luge-bio-stub}}
• {{Cl|German winter sports biography stubs}} {{Tl|Germany-wintersport-bio-stub}}
• {{Cl|German luge biography stubs}} {{Tl|Germany-luge-bio-stub}}
• {{Cl|Austrian luge biography stubs}} {{Tl|Austria-luge-bio-stub}}
• {{Cl|Bobsleigh biography stub}} {{Tl|bobsleigh-bio-stub}}
• {{Cl|Swiss bobsleigh biography stub}} {{Tl|Switzerland-bobsleigh-bio-stub}}
• {{Tl|US-bobsleigh-bio-stub}}
• {{Tl|Germany-bobsleigh-bio-stub}}

All categories should have atleast 60 articles. Waacstats 14:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create upmerged template}}

{{tl|model-rail-stub}} (29 stubs) Zabdiel 15:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

:You might have missed a few, but it looks touch and go to make it to 60. But this merits at least an upmerged template, certainly; the existing taggings (generally "rail-stub" or "toy-stub") aren't really satisfactory. Alai 17:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• A separate template is certainly a good idea - as a former OO and OO-9 buff, I'd agree that the current category scheme isn't ideal, but that's not a large number opf stubs. A template will allow us to shift things more easily if and when it gets closer to 60 stubs. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• PS - there are quite a few more stubs in things like {{cl|Manufacturing company stubs}}: Accurail Inc., Athearn, Bowser Manufacturing, Broadway Limited Imports, HAG, Penn Line Manufacturing, Rokal, and Varney Scale Models - that takes us to 37.... Grutness...wha? 23:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Stylommatophora stubs}} 371
• {{cl|Mesogastropoda stubs}} 192
• {{cl|Pulmonata stubs}} 108
• {{cl|Heterobranchia stubs}} 81
• {{cl|Sorbeoconcha stubs}} 68

Oversized, and getting moreso as we speak. (No prizes for guessing of what.) I'll update with additional order-based counts (or finer-grained same) as things progress. Alai 02:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

:Certainly a busy bot. Support Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

::Don't even get me started... Alai 06:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Updated counts, at the order level:

• 1502 Stylommatophora
• 784 Mesogastropoda
• 108 Pulmonata
• 72 Basommatophora
• 68 Sorbeoconcha
• 58 Archaeogastropoda

and for families:

• 344 Hydrobiidae
• 166 Camaenidae
• 163 Charopidae
• 119 Hygromiidae
• 108 Achatinellidae
• 90 Pleuroceridae
• 89 Pupillidae
• 84 Partulidae
• 76 Thiaridae
• 71 Orthalicidae
• 67 Planorbidae
• 66 Helicarionidae
• 63 Streptaxidae
• 60 Helicidae

It's not impossible some nuancing with infraorders and superfamilies, and the like, might be required or advisable in places too. Alai 07:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Plant articles in this category have no where else to be except under the large umbrella {{tl|plant-stub}}. An intersection of {{cl|Saxifragales}} (and its subcats) and {{cl|plant stubs}} found 51 pages. More may not be tagged with {{plant-stub}} or not categorized. --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:

:You could probably divide by family, many might fall into Crassulaceae and Saxifragaceae, leaving the remainder in Saxifragales if it is handy. Will most general Wikipedia editors know what to do with stub situations like this, though, rather than asking plant editors in particular? The question on the Asteraceae stubs got no non-plant responses here simply because the taxonomy is not in the general knowledge of non-plant editors. You might find more useful responses asking plant editors, as there are a couple at least who work with Crassulaceae. I don't generally know anything about stub sorting, either, and questions on the plant page would have indicated I should have been adding stub tags to articles that I have not been adding. In this case, I think creating at least two families, maybe even one, would be useful. KP Botany 03:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

::Well, the stub categories for families in Saxifragales wouldn't be large enough to maintain a viable stub category, I suspect. See Alai's suggestion above about an upmerged template. I think that idea works the best. --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I can't even find the Saxifragales stubs--this is red-linked. Can you link to the category you're talking about? Upmerging is fine if that's convenient, but I'm not sure what you're saying above. I thought the issue was they had no place but "under the large umbrella," which seems to be saying they need a more specific place, not a less specific one. KP Botany 16:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::Category:Saxifragales stubs doesn't exist yet. What I believe Alai was saying above is that a template {{tl|Saxifragales-stub}} could be created that would place articles that are tagged with that template in the main :Category:Plant stubs. At least that's what I think "upmerged template" means! Is there a glossary around here of terms for newbies to this page? --Rkitko ^(talk) 17:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::If you find one, pop it on my talk page. No, there's no glossary and Wikipedia is jargon-laden, and difficult to navigate through to find information. I thought you were the one who posted the Saxifragales stubs issue? If there isn't one, there are enough articles to create one, it seems. These need to be discussed on WP:Plants, anyhow, as there are more knowledgable folks about this, there. KP Botany 17:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::Indeed. That was my proposal that we create one for those stubs. I located at least 51 articles that would fit in that category. Sorry if that wasn't clear. --Rkitko ^(talk) 18:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Oh, yes, create one please. KP Botany 18:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Yes, that's exactly what's meant by an "upmerged template". I believe there is a glossary entry for that... somewhere. I'd have no objection to templates at the family level, if there's an anticipation of significant future use, but strictly speaking they'd all end up upmerged to {{cl|plant stubs}}, at present. (Though 51 is likely to be in the "you'd get away with a category if you created it" zone, to be honest.) Alai 23:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::An incomplete quick run through the articles in the Saxifragales found 10-15 more articles that would fit this stub category, some that were categorized in {{cl|tree stubs}}. --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::Yay. I suggest a stub type with that scope, then, and as many upmerged by-family categories as the plantistos reckon would be useful in the longer term, and/or that you have the inclination to create. Alai 01:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::Done. 92 articles in stub category. Found more than I thought! --Rkitko ^(talk) 15:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

There are currently 61 such stubs, and increasing. Deupmerge to {{cl|Luxembourgian sportspeople stubs}} in stubcats {{cl|Luxembourgian people stubs}}, {{cl|Sportspeople stubs by nationality}}, {{cl|European sportspeople stubs}}. Bastin 20:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

:Speaking personally, I think this is a) speediable, and b) pretty astonishing... Alai 00:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

::I've gone ahead and speedily created it. As for astonishing, I can only say that I wish I had a resource like Polbot's. That never ceases to amaze me. Bastin 12:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:::The Polbot comparison gives me a distinct sinking feeling. Is the implication that you'd use it to create an article for every person in Luxembourg? :) Alai 23:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Hehe. Fortunately not (although the fact that there are probably almost as many species in that database as there are people in Luxembourg is somewhat scary...). Having said that, I would like to be able to have articles on as many domestic athletics, cycling, and swimming champions as possible, which would number in the hundreds altogether. Bastin 09:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as revised}}

This category is over 700 and filled with all sorts of things that probably shouldn't be in there so I propose the following to try and clear some of these out

• {{Cl|Motorcycle racing stubs}} {{Tl|Motorcycle-racing-stub}}

for articles relating to the variuos sports involving racing motorcycles

• {{Cl|Motorclce racing biography stubs}} {{Tl|Motorcycle-racing-bio-stub}}

for biographical articles relating to racing motorcycles.

I'm not to sure on the names or the templates so any suggested improvements are welcome, also any suggestions as to the text on the template would also be appreciated.Waacstats 15:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• The main article and permcat are at motorcycle sport and {{cl|motorcycle sport}}, so I'd suggest that as the name and scope, and {{tl|motorcycle-sport-stub}} as the template. I'd suggest a bog-standard template text around that article-link scope, unless I'm missing some subtlety. Otherwise, support. Alai 02:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support change to -sport- rather than -racing- to match permcat. waacstats 12:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Category currently over 700. The only single country I can find with enough articles for a stub type is England so i propose

• {{Cl|English football competition stubs}} {{Tl|England-footy-competition-stub}}

after that i propose templates by governing body as per split of biography with categories for those that reach 60 so

• {{tl|Africa-footy-competition-stub}} {{Cl|African football competition stubs}}
• {{tl|Asia-footy-competition-stub}} {{Cl|Asian football competition stubs}}
• {{tl|Euro-footy-competition-stub}} {{Cl|European football competition stubs}}
• {{tl|NorthAm-footy-competition-stub}} {{Cl|North American football (soccer) competition stubs}}
• {{tl|Oceania-footy-competition-stub}} {{Cl|Oceanian football (soccer) competition stubs}}
• {{tl|SouthAm-footy-competition-stub}} {{Cl|South American football competition stubs}}

note names are chosen to match biography stubs that is why NorthAm and Oceania cats are different, also with split by governing body most of Central America and the Caribbean goes into NorthAm and Australia goes into Asia.

Waacstats 14:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support the idea, but not the template names! Remember that many - probably most - competitions are not leagues, but are knockout cup competitions (the FA Cup being the best known). Unless you want two templates for each category (X-footy-league-stub and X-footy-cup-stub) we need better names. Oh, and there's no need to capitalise soccer in the cat names, either. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• good point about the capital Soccer/soccer I have changed that. Regarding the templates, when I looked at the category it was showing as -league-, 12hrs later User:Alai came along and changed it to -competition- so I have changed the proposal to match (It appears that -competition is the official template and not -league-).Waacstats 12:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Which I did after noticing this discussion, of course. :) (The template'd been moved long ago, but the category remained referring to the redirect.) Alai 23:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create upmerged template}}

While I haven't counted, I'm estimate that there are enough articles in :Category:Cuisine stubs to justify a template (see Nigeria#Cuisine for a good amount of articles, and those are only Nigerian ones). Picaroon (t) 17:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• To clarify, this would he replacing {{tl|cuisine-stub}} on articles in :Category:Cuisine stubs. Picaroon (t) 00:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, that's standard practice, since "cuisine" is part of the new stub. Usual procedure in nthis case would be to make the template upmerged (i.e., pointing at the general Cuisine stubs and Africa stubs categories) and start using it - once we know for sure there are 60 stubs using it, then we can just re-point it to a new separate subcategory. I can't recall how we split cuisine stubs, but by continent or nation seems reasonable - mind you, for some reason we have a Japan-food-stub, with the Japan-cuisine-stub as a redirect. I'd like someone who knows more about the way they've been split in the past to comment here before giving a definite yay or nay. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• My vague impression is that this is somewhat a case of, "ZOMG, the stubs are oversized, let's split them by country", as against systematically planned decisions as to whether "food" or "cuisine" made the most sense at the country level. If we were to start to try to regularise them after the fact, presumbably "cuisine" would be current norm -- though equally one might argue that "food" was the more inclusive. Oh well. One does wonder if the distinction between the two is really clear and critical enough to be worth the candle in the first place... Alai 04:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• :I think by the whole continent is the best in this case, with the possibility of further splitting down by region eventually. I doubt we'd have enough stubs to split this proposed template down by country for quite a while. Picaroon (t) 01:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, I though that too - but the point about X-cuisine-stub vs X-food-stub still applies. Grutness...wha? 02:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• The Japanese category seems to be the odd one out, everything else is cuisine. Shall I create {{tl|Africa-cuisine-stub}}, without a category (for now), soon? Picaroon (t) 03:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• That would seem to be the general trend of the discussion, so yes. Alai 03:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Same as below with Saxifragales. Bryophyte articles include plenty of existing articles with a lot of potential creation of stubs in the future to fill in the non-vascular land plants. An intersection of {{cl|Bryophytes}} (and its subcats) and {{cl|plant stubs}} located 65 articles. More are not tagged or categorized. --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:

Please don't post post mechanically-generated lists of articles here: the page gets plenty big, plenty quickly, as things stand. A link would suffice. Indeed, just a number generally does so. This one I'll happily support; for the Saxifragales, since the plant-stubs are currently at a very manageable size, and they're below theshold, perhaps just an upmerged template. Alai 04:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:Ah, sorry about that; I didn't know not to post lists. I'd agree with you on the Saxifragales, then. I just started weeding through the plant stubs category and found a large number of Saxifragales along the way. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Would like to propose creating this stub type and category. An intersection of {{cl|Algae}} and its subcats with {{cl|plant stubs}} + {{cl|protist stubs}} found 64 articles. This category would be categorizing the stubs more specifically while removing some articles from the near-oversized protist stubs category and the plants category (green algae). --Rkitko ^(talk) 18:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. There's some potential taxonomic headaches in here, but this aligns with the permcat, and seems highly useful on the basis of likely differential editing. Alai 21:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|not a WPSS issue; commented on user's talk page}}

Proposal to create/keep the stub Economics of education. Pardon my creating of the stub before its suggestion. It has been called for deletion, as such I propose that it remain; or, if that it is deleted that the stub be created. The article would be classed high priority for both economics and education. --Kenneth M Burke 23:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• As I have noted on the user's talk page, there was some confusion; this was an article nominated for deletion and thus not relevant to this discussion. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|not a WPSS issue; note left on nominator's talk page.}}

I believe that there needs to be a stub created for Christopher Scott, a professional photographer from Jackson, Mississippi. He has made his way from 'up and coming freelancer' to 'phenomenal professional', having photographed several celebrities, bands, and models, as well as maintaining a high profile clientele. His website can be viewed at [http://www.myspace.com/christopherscottgallery Christopher Scott Gallery]. He deserves to be on Wikipedia since he is catching the Art and Fashion industry by storm.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecuador234 (talk • contribs)

:This page is only for the approval of templates and categories, not for articles. I've left a note on your talk page. Valentinian ^{T / C} 14:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Some time ago, User:Thomas.macmillan sorted the entire material relating to African politicians by country, creating templates for next to all of these countries (if I remember correctly, Western Sahara is missing due to its status as a disputed territory and so are a few minor French islands near Africa), and South and Central America only lack three templates to be split off the same way as well (Suriname, Guyana and Belize). I've been thinking about creating upmerged -politician-stub templates for the Asian nations since {{cl|Asian politician stubs}} is at 500+ and rather unwieldy given the large number of countries. Trouble is that I haven't done a proper count of this material for quite a while. Should I do a count for each of them and list them all on here or is this too bureaucratic? My guess would be that {{tl|Palestine-politician-stub}} would be only template that might cause problems, but on the other hand, we already have both {{tl|Palestine-stub}} and {{tl|Palestine-bio-stub}}, so I think even this one will be in the clear. Thoughts? Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:Sounds sensible to me - in fact it sounds very much like what I've been doing with the geo-stubs - in Africa the only missing ones are the politically problematical Western Sahara and the "how to name it" problem of British Indian Ocean Territories. Virtually every nation/territory/whatever now has a Foo-geo-stub, and it's probably worth having Foo-bio-stub, Foo-stub, and Foo-politician-stub for them too, upmerged wherever necessary. Grutness...wha? 12:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

::A lot of things will get easier once we have the most common templates in place for all nations. I was considering upmerged templates for the European politicians as well (except for the usual problematic cases: Kosovo, Moldova/Transnistria and Cyprus). Valentinian ^{T / C} 13:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:::On the subject of which, I've just speedied a new version of TRNC-geo-stub and protected it :( Hmmm. I wonder if the articles in {{cl|Pope stubs}} should get {{tl|Vatican-politician-stub}}... :) Grutness...wha? 13:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Well, if we'd had a {{tl|Cardinal-stub}} it might have made a nice redirect. (grin). Valentinian ^{T / C} 13:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:I don't think we need counts or size thresholds for upmerged templates at all, and I'd certainly support all these. Anything "countryish" enough for a general or -geo- stub type (or even template) should be fine to also have -politician- template. (For -bios, there's admittedly the possible difficulty with disputed regions of whether they fall foul of the 'subregion' issues of identification and "movement".) Alai 01:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

::In that case, I'll more or less interpret this as a general go-ahead for creating upmerged -politician templates. My first priority is to create templates for the missing entries in Asia and Europe. The Caribbean and Oceania aren't that urgent, but then again, we might as well get it done. Speaking of Europe, I'm not sure what to do with Cyprus and Moldova. Cypriot -bio and -footy-bio templates have previously been approved on this page but they've never been created. What do we do? Ignore the island or create the three missing templates and lock them down right away? In the case of Moldova, the -politician template shouldn't be that much of a problem, except that I have a feeling I'll hear no end of **, if I add it to material relating to items east of a certain river. I still consider it to be advertisement for a secessionist regime to have {{tl|Transnistria-stub}} around. Btw, unless I hear any massive protests, I'll remove the sesessionist flag from this template. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I would in fact strongly urge removal of said flag. Such rationale as we might have for a Transnistria-stub would be that it's either a state-of-sorts, or it's a subdivision of Moldova, and we could have a stub type for either of those. Iconifying it thusly nails things down to the former in an acceptable POV way, I believe. The disputed regions aren't necessarily covered by the above suggestion: it depends rather whether they exist because there's some sort of consensus to have them, or because of a mere absence of a consensus them. If they're in the latter state, feel free to ignore them as regards being any sort of precedent. Alai 23:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Flag removed. That leaves us with the Cypriot problem. It would make sense to me if an admin created the three missing upmerged templates (-bio, -footy-bio, and -politician) and locked them down afterwards. Valentinian ^{T / C} 06:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

As I've mentioned here and at other stub process pages several times recently, I've been going through the remaining "countries" adding upmerged geo-stub templates, with the aim of having a specific geo-stub template name for every country, territory, or other "country-like entity". All but a handful now have, the remainder being - no offense intended by this comment - the "dregs" of the sorting: several tiny states which have problems relating to their naming or status which makes a straightforward templating less straightforward. The following few are all straightforward enough in terms of political status, but have naming concerns, so I'm bringing them here for discussion before creating templates for them - any suggestions regarding the names are welcome:

• British Indian Ocean Territory: possible names -

::{{tl|UK-IndianOcean-geo-stub}}

::{{tl|BIOT-geo-stub}}

::{{tl|BritishIndianOcean-geo-stub}}

::{{tl|BritishIndianOceanTerritory-geo-stub}}

::{{tl|Chagos-geo-stub}} (BIOT is also called the Chagos Archipelago, though this name is a little less obvious for a template)

• British Virgin Islands

::{{tl|BritishVirgins-geo-stub}}

::{{tl|UK-Virgins-geo-stub}}

• United States Virgin Islands

::{{tl|UnitedStatesVirgins-geo-stub}}

::{{tl|USVirgins-geo-stub}}

::{{tl|US-Virgins-geo-stub}}

• Turks and Caicos Islands

::{{tl|Turks-geo-stub}} (to parallel Trinidad-geo-stub, Antigua-geo-stub, etc)

::{{tl|TurksandCaicos-geo-stub}}

::{{tl|TurksCaicos-geo-stub}} (To parallel SaintKittsNevis-geo-stub)

::{{tl|Turks&Caicos-geo-stub}}

Whatever is decided for the Turks and Caicos Islands would also hopefully be usable as a model for Wallis and Futuna and for Saint Pierre and Miquelon.

My own preferences would be for BritishIndianOceanTerritory-geo-stub, BritishVirgins-geo-stub, USVirgins-geo-stub and Turks-geo-stub (and therefore Wallis-geo-stub and SaintPierre-geo-stub). Input would be very welcome!

Grutness...wha? 12:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:Just to be 100% clear, are you proposing categories, per the header, or upmerged templates? Name-wise I'd have the same preference as yourself, with a slight caveat about Turks-geo-stub: might that not be slightly ambiguous-sounding? I'm possibly marginally leaning towards TurksCaicos-geo-stub. Alai 12:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

::My fault - yeah, just upmerged templates. None of these have over about 20 stubs. Turks is perhaps a tad ambiguous, which is one of the reasons I brought it here - SaintKittsNevis-geo-stub is an anomaly, largely because there's a big seperatist sentiment in Nevis (IIRC there was even a vote on independence not that long ago), so the name was designed to keep everyone as happy as possible. Grutness...wha? 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

::Just to avoid any fun remarks when we begin creating generic templates for the BVI and the USVI, how about names that contain "VirginIslands" one way or the other? Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Yeah I suppose so, though all other island groups avoid the word "{islands" in their templates. Still, redirects could keep the "island-less" form consistent. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

::::My hunch on the naming business would be {{tl|TurksCaicos-geo-stub}}, {{tl|BritishIndianOcean-geo-stub}}, {{tl|USVirginIslands-geo-stub}} and {{tl|BritishVirginIslands-geo-stub}}. I normally hate redirects but perhaps {{tl|BVI-geo-stub}} and {{tl|USVI-geo-stub}} might make sensible redirects. Valentinian ^{T / C} 14:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Looks like redirects will be useful here, so I'll go with

• {{tl|BritishIndianOcean-geo-stub}} (redirect from {{tl|BritishIndianOceanTerritory-geo-stub}})
• {{tl|BritishVirginIslands-geo-stub}} (redirects from {{tl|BritishVirgins-geo-stub}} and {{tl|BVI-geo-stub}})
• {{tl|USVirginIslands-geo-stub}} (redirects from {{tl|USVirgins-geo-stub}} and {{tl|USVI-geo-stub}})
• {{tl|TurksCaicos-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|WallisFutuna-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|SaintPierreMiquelon-geo-stub}}

Grutness...wha? 01:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

The following templates have all passed 60 articles so propose the accompaning catagories

• {{Tl|DominicanRepublic-bio-stub}} / {{Cl|People of the Dominican Republic stubs}}
• {{Tl|Nicaragua-politician-stub}} / {{Cl|Nicaraguan politician stubs}}
• {{Tl|Zimbabwe-politician-stub}} / {{Cl|Zimbabwean politician stubs}}
• {{Tl|Honduras-politician-stub}} / {{Cl|Honduran politician stubs}}
• {{Tl|Croatia-politician-stub}} / {{Cl|Croatian politician stubs}}

the following have passed 60 when added together

• {{Tl|Madagascar-bio-stub}} and {{Tl|Madagascar-politician-stub}} / {{Cl|Malagasy people stubs}}
• {{Tl|Mongolia-bio-stub}} and {{Tl|Mongolia-politician-stub}} / {{Cl|Mongolian people stubs}}
• {{Tl|Kiribati-stub}}, {{Tl|Kiribati-geo-stub}} and {{Tl|Kiribati-bio-stub}} / {{Cl|Kiribati stubs}}

Waacstats 22:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• As you say, speedy 'em. Alai 22:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy. Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

upmerged template has over 60 articles ready for a speeddily created category? Waacstats 10:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

:Looks like it. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

:Speedy. Alai 18:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Gentianales stubs}} 389
• {{cl|Solanales stubs}} 160
• {{cl|Ericales stubs}} 144
• {{cl|Asterales stubs}} 114
• 103 Lecythidales-labelled articles, which according to that article, should really be Ericales
• 66 Campanulales articles; on the same basis, should be either Asterales or Solanales
• {{cl|Dipsacales stubs}} 60

Alai 00:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Myrtales stubs}} 379
• {{cl|Malvales stubs}} 339
• {{cl|Brassicales stubs}} 94

Parent oversized; no immediately obvious problems with these, according to the corresponding articles. Alai 00:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

:This list looks good to me. I was going to propose the first two myself, but was beaten to it. --EncycloPetey 16:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Dipterocarpaceae stubs}} 345
• {{cl|Clusiaceae stubs}} 186 (seems OK)
• {{cl|Flacourtiaceae stubs}} 121 (Cronquist dustbin issues)
• {{cl|Theaceae stubs}} 94 (according to the article, not a Malpighiales family at all, but in the Ericales order)

Parent is oversized, of course. Alai 00:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

{{cl|North Yorkshire geography stubs}} is oversized, and of the upmerged UA templates, {{tl|Redcar-geo-stub}} is the largest, in the mid-50s. An alternative would be to split out the large North Yorkshire county council (from the existing North Yorkshire ceremonial county), but I suspect that would be somewhat confusing -- witness the fact that there's not even a separate article on it. Alai 22:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Speedy Creation - S1 - the creation of a category for which an approved upmerged template already exists and is now in use on more than 60 articles.

The approval of the upmerged template is here

{{tl|model-rail-stub}} (61 stubs) Zabdiel 09:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• (List snipped, per the existence of whatlinkshere...) Support, nifty. Alai 11:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Thought it wouldn't be long. Good work. Go for it. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Done --Zabdiel 11:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

The US road stub cat is currently at 300 stubs. Although not terribly massive, I believe that the time has come to create the remaining three regional categories and templates. This idea was initially brought up at the Utah state highway task force regarding the Western US road stub; the southern one already exists and there's plenty of articles to feed the potential midwestern and northeastern cats. Namely, the categories/templates to be made are:

• {{cat|Northeastern United States road stubs}} - {{tl|US-northeast-road-stub}}
• {{cat|Western United States road stubs}} - {{tl|US-west-road-stub}}
• {{cat|Midwestern United States road stubs}} - {{tl|US-midwest-road-stub}}

The template names are a guess after glancing over existing stub types. Of course, if that is the NC, then the southern US road stub template needs to be renamed as well... --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 09:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Actually it was originally brought up at the same time as I created the first one, so technically this is "speediable". At any rate, support cats, at any desired speed. However, my preference would be for categories only, with upmerged per-state templates (I'm not sure how many of these are still "missing). I'm assuming there's unlikely to be many stubs that'd require multiple by-state tags. Regional templates would probably just end up being progressively replaced and eventually deleted. Alai 04:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Regarding the templates, I thought about that scenario last night, especially in the northeast, where I believe every state but Maine has a per-state template. So leaving the templates as red-links is fine. As for the southern US road stub template, I guess once every area (state/district) in the region has a per-area stub, then we can delete it instead of worrying about the convention. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• An upmerged {{tl|Maine-road-stub}} was created recently, and there's a long-standing {{tl|RhodeIsland-road-stub}}, so that's the full set for the NE. I've completed the "South" templates, though I'm a bit disappointed to see that the regional template (which IMO there was little point in creating in the first place) is actually in fairly heavy use. Hopefully once all by-state templates are in place, and now that the names are nice and symmetric, people will get used to using those on a more systematic basis. Alai 05:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• I went ahead and made the remaining by-state stub templates and the two missing regional cats. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 07:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Excellent. I've re-sorted the US-road-stubs for those candidates pertaining to one (or a couple of) state(s), and it's down to around 40 bona fide articles. Alai 17:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

{

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

{{sfp create}}

Polbot is at it again! I propose the following stub categories to split the overstuffed (or soon-to-be-overstuffed) {{cl|asterid stubs}}, {{cl|rosid stubs}}, and {{cl|monocot stubs}} by order:

• Asterid stubs
• {{cl|Ericales stubs}} - at least 277 stubs
• {{cl|Gentianales stubs}} - at least 194 stubs
• {{cl|Solanales stubs}} - at least 75 stubs
• Rosid stubs
• {{cl|Brassicales stubs}} - at least 131 stubs
• {{cl|Malvales stubs}} - at least 253 stubs
• {{cl|Myrtales stubs}} - at least 277 stubs
• {{cl|Magnoliid stubs}} - at least 65 stubs, though we may have to eventually split off {{cl|Magnoliales stubs}} and {{cl|Piperales stubs}} as Polbot continues. Upmerged templates would be fine for those orders until such time.
• {{cl|Laurales stubs}} - at least 64 stubs
• Monocot stubs
• {{cl|Alismatales stubs}} - at least 165 stubs
• {{cl|Asparagales stubs}} - at least 211 stubs
• {{cl|Liliales stubs}} - at least 68 stubs

This follows this discussions with WP:PLANTS. Thoughts? --Rkitko ^(talk) 16:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Possible speedy, given long-standing precedent for taxon-based stub types, and in the hopes of heading Polbot off at the pass. Alai 23:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's some counts at the order -- or, alleged order -- level:

• 135 Magnoliales
• 115 Rubiales
• 100 Scrophulariales
• 84 Laurales
• 73 Urticales
• 56 Primulales

Some of these look less than completely current, it must be said... Alai 04:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

:Indeed, the IUCN uses an older taxonomy circumscription. Scrophulariales is largely now Lamiales, which we already have a stub category for; Rubiales is Gentianales, proposed above; Urticales is now in the Rosales, which is already another stub type, and Primulales are in the Ericales, proposed above. That's mostly work done by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group. Problem is that every taxonomy circumscription is an opinion and it's difficult for Wikipedia to be consistent in that respect, though we have tried to explain the differences on the article pages. But for the sake of categorization, it's been difficult to maintain order when there are so many competing taxonomic systems. Most of those orders were used in the Cronquist system, which was by far the most popular plant taxonomy circumscription until the APG II system. To finally make my point: The stub types already in place align themselves with the APG II system (e.g. rosids, asterids) so we should probably continue to do so and make a note of it in the stub categories. Rkitko ^(talk) 12:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

::Oh well. Evidently we need not just a species creation bot, but a (cleaning up after the first bot) bot, and then a stub-sorting bot. As against, oh, just a modicum of care and communication to get it all done in the first place as to obviate the need for the followup work. Or indeed, just rolling out this ludicrous number of articles on this sort of pace, at all. Alai 17:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Further counts; by order:

• 549 Myrtales
• 549 Magnoliales
• 490 Rubiales
• 383 Ebenales
• 289 Laurales
• 226 Celastrales
• 146 Piperales
• 127 Primulales
• 112 Cycadales
• 107 Fagales

and by family:

• 490 Rubiaceae
• 317 Sapotaceae
• 261 Melastomataceae
• 248 Annonaceae
• 246 Lauraceae
• 228 Myristicaceae
• 193 Myrtaceae
• 126 Myrsinaceae
• 120 Piperaceae
• 110 Zamiaceae
• 97 Fagaceae
• 97 Celastraceae
• 95 Aquifoliaceae
• 62 Magnoliaceae

I'll ask for further input at the plant project, and otherwise attempt to do something about any taxons flagged as dustbins, polyphyletic, or otherwise deprecated. Alai 23:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

:So, are we able to create some of these stub categories, then? The proposal that you have above didn't re-mention some of these. Especially thinking of Piperales, Laurales, the monocots split. --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

::Yes, I think we can go ahead with any and all of these that aren't "problem taxons". I didn't actually intentionally re-list any, I assumed they'd be more or less disjoint, if the existing stub types were being used consistently. Though thinking about it now, it does seem more than a little suspicious that the rosids and asterids had only grown somewhat, and the "plants" so massively, so obviously, they're not. Alai 04:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

:One note on the net effect of the above, in combination: between those tagged with plant-stub, and with rosid-stub, the {{cl|Myrtales stubs}} look as if they themselves will be oversized. So family-level instead (or, as well as?) seems the better option in that case. Alai 01:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

::Perhaps I didn't read through thoroughly enough, but I couldn't find how many stubs is too many in a category. When does one become oversized? {{cl|Magnoliales stubs}} will have over 500 when BotanyBot finishes stub sorting. --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Family level as well as where necessary. The articles themselves aren't bound by APG II, and if it is the existing stub sorting system, it's probably useful. Just create lower level ones as needed. PolBot can and will stub tag them as dictated by us. I greatly appreciate Quadell's work getting these plant stubs up. Rkitko, as far as I am concerned however you choose to go about it, is fine. Alai has been some great help actually creating the categories also. KP Botany 03:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

:::We don't have an "official" definition of "too many", but for purposes of the project "to-do list", it's set at 800 stubs. (It's been suggested that 600 would be a better number, but it would be a large task to get anywhere close to that for the foreseeable future, so I suggest we burn that bridge when we come to it.) As far as actual utility is concerned, it becomes "too many" when people working on those articles start to find it onerous to trawl through a category to find an article they're able/willing/interested in expanding, as distinct from the various somewhat-related ones. Given that for species, we're in some cases creating stub types for higher taxons that're themselves stubs -- or in extreme cases redlinks at time of type creation -- I'd guess we're if anything more in the opposite danger, i.e. of creating types so narrow (but nonetheless heavily-populated, largely by bot-created nano-stubs) that they don't attract subject-specialists at all. So in short, if a type is someplace between 60 and 800 articles, it's "off WSS's radar" as far as size concerns go; within that, we'd be glad of input from domain experts as to what's a reasonable granularity. Alai 04:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

::::If you're talking about categories tied to articles that are red-linked, I can put up quick stubs on most plant taxa. Let me know on my user page, if htis is the issue. KP Botany 02:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::I haven't come across it for any plant taxon yet, IIRC it was a batch of fish taxa. But I'll let you know if I do, thanks for the offer. (Plant-stubs are down to just under a page, so the immediate hair-rending may be close to being at an end.) Alai 07:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

As we seem to have ongoing work at creating geo and politician templates for all countries I thought I would work on the same for bio templates. On this I propose the following templates:

User:waacstats/bios (list of approx 35 templates placed on user page to save space here)

This would give every UN member state a bio template. I have taken the nation part from the geo stubs and the only one I am not sure on is the Marshall Islands. Waacstats 15:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like a grand plan, throughout. Support. Alai 16:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

:Support naturally. May I suggest that you add the future category name in comment form the same way as I do with the politician templates (e.g. {{tl|Albania-politician-stub}}) ? Just in case you haven't drawn up the list already :) I compiled a list of category names that would match the permcats some time ago, see: User:Valentinian/Country stub templates. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

::Support from me, too. I must make a similar list to V's for the geo-stubs (at least at national level), since they're probably the most nearly complete of any of these Foo-x-stub splits. Grutness...wha? 00:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Good idea, G. It will also make it easier to check that we use consistent template names. Valentinian ^{T / C} 08:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

::I've made a start at User:Grutness/Geo-stub list - I'll complete it during the next few days. Grutness...wha? 02:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create by decade}}

Yes, I realize it only seems like ten minutes ago that this was created, but now it's oversized. We could split by genre, or by decade. Any preferences? Alai 03:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

:By decade would probably be more clear-cut, since genres are, almost by definition, pretty blurry-edged. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Pretty much any article with metro tag on it, that's related to the UK, and any article withing WP: Streetcars that's UK related, and any project within WP:Trains thats UK related.

Bluegoblin7 16:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm a bit concerned about the likely size of this, the need (or lack), and the possible cross-tagging, given the existence of {{tl|UK-metro-stub}}, and at least one 'regional transport' stub type (for London). We could very quickly end up with inconsistent and/or multiple tagging into all sorts of very small stub types. Perhaps a wider discussion on whether to sort primarily by location or by mode of transport would be useful. Alai 20:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• The problem with the metro one is that it relates to metros and trams, not just trams, thus the error there. Bluegoblin7 09:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• It includes trams. Thus the above comments (and lack of error therein); please address. Alai 16:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• I dont care any more ive left wikipedia Bluegoblin7 16:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC) ive returned, and i wish to put up a fight once more.
• yes, it includes trams, but its not exclusively for trams. why not have one for metros, and one for trams? give other people a chance. metros and trams are completely different, otherwise, wouldnt they be classified together a lot more? its a popular misconception that they are the same thing. Bluegoblin7 18:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• and please remove the banners until a solution has been come up with.
• I can see the benefit of this stub type. The current :Category:United Kingdom metro stubs contains 120+ pages which, I suspect, could be divided roughly equally between tram systems, which involve a substantial degree of on-street running, and metro systems, which don't. Both would come under the same 'rapid transit'/'rapid transport' parent, and both would (just about?) meet the required thresholds. The creation of this stub type would also allow the correct classification of articles about the many historical tram systems in the UK, none of which could be described as 'rapid' (!), were almost exculsively street-running based, and existed (and ceased to exist!) long before the terms 'rapid transit' and 'metro' were coined. -- EdJogg 10:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• The main discussion can be found here, after it was proposed to be deleted. But, I think it should remain, for reasons listed there. Bluegoblin7 18:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

The Marshall Islands have just passed the 60-stub mark. Time for a category? Grutness...wha? 11:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:Done. Grutness...wha? 02:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|unclear on the concept}}

For example: Pronunciation:Artist Names

:I don't really see that as having anything to do with stubs, which is what this page is for... Perhaps Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) would be a better place to suggest this? Grutness...wha? 00:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as revised (with redirects), keep umbrella category}}

Hi all. For a long time now we've kept Korean stubs together in one place rather than separating them into North and South. While that makes a lot of sense for hostiry stubs and a reasonable amount of sense for bio-stubs, it makes very little sense for geo-stubs, since the border's been pretty much fixed for half a century or more. I'd therefore like to propose splitting {{cl|Korea geography stubs}} into two categories, one each for north and south:

• {{tl|SouthKorea-geo-stub}} - {{cl|South Korea geography stubs}}
• {{tl|NorthKorea-geo-stub}} - {{cl|North Korea geography stubs}}

This would allow us also to delete {{cl|Korea geography stubs}}, redirecting the general-purpose {{tl|Korea-geo-stub}} to {{cl|Asia geography stubs}}, with a "now deprecated" note similar to that on {{tl|CentralAm-geo-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:Support new types, on the basis of it being the "usual and expected" way to scope geos. Not 100% sure about deletion; there's a {{cl|Geography of Korea}} permcat, so it's not too silly to have that as a parent. I don't know if overlap/double-stubbing is much of a consideration. Alai 03:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:: Support the new types, but keep the existing template and cat, as there are some stub articles of physical and historical geography that span both countries and {{cl|Geography of Korea}} isn't ever going to be deleted unless the region gets a name change. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support new items; keep umbrella category per Caerwine. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support the new items, but let's keep the original umbrella ones. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Might want to include redirects from RKorea and DPRKorea to correspond with the RCongo and DRCongo stub families. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Good idea. Grutness...wha? 02:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Some time ago, User:Thomas.macmillan sorted the entire material relating to African politicians by country, creating templates for next to all of these countries (if I remember correctly, Western Sahara is missing due to its status as a disputed territory and so are a few minor French islands near Africa), and South and Central America only lack three templates to be split off the same way as well (Suriname, Guyana and Belize). I've been thinking about creating upmerged -politician-stub templates for the Asian nations since {{cl|Asian politician stubs}} is at 500+ and rather unwieldy given the large number of countries. Trouble is that I haven't done a proper count of this material for quite a while. Should I do a count for each of them and list them all on here or is this too bureaucratic? My guess would be that {{tl|Palestine-politician-stub}} would be only template that might cause problems, but on the other hand, we already have both {{tl|Palestine-stub}} and {{tl|Palestine-bio-stub}}, so I think even this one will be in the clear. Thoughts? Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:Sounds sensible to me - in fact it sounds very much like what I've been doing with the geo-stubs - in Africa the only missing ones are the politically problematical Western Sahara and the "how to name it" problem of British Indian Ocean Territories. Virtually every nation/territory/whatever now has a Foo-geo-stub, and it's probably worth having Foo-bio-stub, Foo-stub, and Foo-politician-stub for them too, upmerged wherever necessary. Grutness...wha? 12:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

::A lot of things will get easier once we have the most common templates in place for all nations. I was considering upmerged templates for the European politicians as well (except for the usual problematic cases: Kosovo, Moldova/Transnistria and Cyprus). Valentinian ^{T / C} 13:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:::On the subject of which, I've just speedied a new version of TRNC-geo-stub and protected it :( Hmmm. I wonder if the articles in {{cl|Pope stubs}} should get {{tl|Vatican-politician-stub}}... :) Grutness...wha? 13:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Well, if we'd had a {{tl|Cardinal-stub}} it might have made a nice redirect. (grin). Valentinian ^{T / C} 13:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:I don't think we need counts or size thresholds for upmerged templates at all, and I'd certainly support all these. Anything "countryish" enough for a general or -geo- stub type (or even template) should be fine to also have -politician- template. (For -bios, there's admittedly the possible difficulty with disputed regions of whether they fall foul of the 'subregion' issues of identification and "movement".) Alai 01:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

::In that case, I'll more or less interpret this as a general go-ahead for creating upmerged -politician templates. My first priority is to create templates for the missing entries in Asia and Europe. The Caribbean and Oceania aren't that urgent, but then again, we might as well get it done. Speaking of Europe, I'm not sure what to do with Cyprus and Moldova. Cypriot -bio and -footy-bio templates have previously been approved on this page but they've never been created. What do we do? Ignore the island or create the three missing templates and lock them down right away? In the case of Moldova, the -politician template shouldn't be that much of a problem, except that I have a feeling I'll hear no end of **, if I add it to material relating to items east of a certain river. I still consider it to be advertisement for a secessionist regime to have {{tl|Transnistria-stub}} around. Btw, unless I hear any massive protests, I'll remove the sesessionist flag from this template. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I would in fact strongly urge removal of said flag. Such rationale as we might have for a Transnistria-stub would be that it's either a state-of-sorts, or it's a subdivision of Moldova, and we could have a stub type for either of those. Iconifying it thusly nails things down to the former in an acceptable POV way, I believe. The disputed regions aren't necessarily covered by the above suggestion: it depends rather whether they exist because there's some sort of consensus to have them, or because of a mere absence of a consensus them. If they're in the latter state, feel free to ignore them as regards being any sort of precedent. Alai 23:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Flag removed. That leaves us with the Cypriot problem. It would make sense to me if an admin created the three missing upmerged templates (-bio, -footy-bio, and -politician) and locked them down afterwards. Valentinian ^{T / C} 06:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

{{cl|Cichlidae stubs}} is the latest to be hugely overfull of bot-created articles. There's two aspects to this: firstly, there's over 900 actual cichlids, from which it would seem to be sensible to split out subfamilies and genera, as viable. Secondly, there's even more non-cichlids (around 1300) that have been mis-tagged into here, that would in any case have oversized the fish-stub parent (itself getting on for 800 at present), which can be split by order and family. Some other existing stub types would be "spilled into", complicating getting any sort of sensible count. I'll update as things become clearer... Alai 07:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, first of all, the orders:

• {{cl|Perciformes stubs}} 1498
• {{cl|Cyprinodontiformes stubs}} 200
• {{cl|Rajiformes stubs}} 179
• {{cl|Siluriformes stubs}} 148
• {{cl|Atheriniformes stubs}} 131
• {{cl|Salmoniformes stubs}} 78
• {{cl|Scorpaeniformes stubs}} 63

Don't be too alarmed at the size of the Perciformes: that includes the Cichlidae (at least according to the taxonomy the infoboxes are using), so the parent won't itself be oversized. Alai 07:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And to start to deal with the actual cichlids, one genus is clearly viable: {{cl|Haplochromis stubs}}, at 120. The rest might have to be arranged into tribes and subfamilies, which will require better information than I have to hand... Alai 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Update: the mis-sorted seem to have been largely fixed, otherwise situation is still as above, with both the fish-stubs and the cichlid-stubs oversized. At the cichlid tribe level, it looks as if the following would work:
• {{cl|Tilapiini stubs}} 67
• {{cl|Lamprologini stubs}} 64
• The tribe Haplochromini would be "over-viable" at 500-odd. (Note we have articles on none of these taxons at present: I'm using [http://ctd.mdibl.org/detail.go?type=taxon&acc=8113#tree8113 this site] as a reference.) Alai 01:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as revised}}

Category very nearly oversized suggest the following splits:

• {{Tl|US-winter-Olympic-medalist-stub}} / {{Cl|United States winter Olympic medalist stub}} / (95)
• {{Tl|Germany-winter-Olympic-medalist-stub}} / {{Cl|German winter Olympic medalist stub}} / (166)
• {{Tl|Switzerland-winter-Olympic-medalist-stub}} / {{Cl|Swiss winter Olympic medalist stub}} / (74)
• {{Tl|Italy-winter-Olympic-medalist-stub}} / {{Cl|Italian winter Olympic medalist stub}} / (54)
• {{Tl|Austria-winter-Olympic-medalist-stub}} / {{Cl|Austrian winter Olympic medalist stub}} / (52)
• {{Tl|Russia-winter-Olympic-medalist-stub}} / {{Cl|Russian winter Olympic medalist stub}} / (45)
• {{Tl|Canada-winter-Olympic-medalist-stub}} / {{Cl|Canadian winter Olympic medalist stub}} / (38)

The last 4 are currently short of requiring a cat but I prefer to propose them with these but only create upmerged templates unless I find 60 articles then I don't need to come back for a speedy proposal. Please can some one else check I have the capitalisation correct. Waacstats 10:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Should be capital Ws. Alai 18:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Acanthaceae stubs}} 188
• {{cl|Lamiaceae stubs}} 161
• {{cl|Verbenaceae stubs}} 84
• {{cl|Scrophulariaceae stubs}} 74
• {{cl|Gesneriaceae stubs}} 70
• {{cl|Lentibulariaceae stubs}} 68

These all look OK, on the basis of the corresponding articles. Alai 00:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

:Looks good to me. I'm responsible for a good bit of those Lentibulariaceae stubs and more are on the way (to total about 200 or so, mostly in the genus Utricularia). Good work proposing all these. --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as AncientRome-politician-stub}}

• This one should have been included in my last proposal for creating upmerged -politician templates for various countries, but I forgot to mention it back then. The name conforms with the other templates for Ancient Rome, and it would make sense given that it would cover at least 15 articles with a little more sorting, and quite a few more if the consuls are included. I must also admit that part of my motivation is that I find it very inappropriate to see the EU flag on articles like Gaius Pomponius Graecinus but apparently some editors have concluded that the 12 stars isn't predominantly an EU symbol. I still plan to create upmerged -politician templates for all remaining countries in Europe (give or take one or two of the usual headaches). Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Seems fair enough, support. On the template name, I remain dubious about the hyphen for this group: not only do we not have a {{tl|Rome-politician-stub}}, if we did, it'd not be a supertype of this stub. The latter consideration is also true of the other "Ancient-Rome-" types. I'd suggest a redirect-preserving move of all. Alai 02:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• I chose the name simply to get consistency with the other templates relating to Ancient Rome. Wouldn't mind if we change the format for the entire lot, though. Technically speaking, we don't have a Rome-politician-stub, but we do have {{tl|Pope-stub}} and {{tl|Bishop-stub}}. Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as petcare-stub}}

{{cat|Pet care stubs}} - {{tl|pet-care-stub}}

I'll list 60 articles here, which I have found throughout the site in different stub categories that would be better served here:

Alpo (pet food),

American Rabbit Breeders' Association,

Aquarium fish feeder,

Aquarium furniture,

Artemis (pet food),

Australian Companion Rabbit Society,

Beggin' Strips,

British Rabbit Council,

Cat Fancy (magazine),

Cat tree,

Cavapoo,

Chew toy,

Chuck Wagon (dog food),

Diamond Pet Foods,

Doane Pet Care,

Dog Bakery,

Dog bone,

Dog Chow,

Dog Fancy,

Dog toy,

Doggie door,

Dogs in Canada,

Elizabethan collar,

Eukanuba,

Fish medicine,

Flemish Giant,

French Lop,

Freshwater And Marine Aquarium,

Gravy Train (dog food),

Hairball,

Hamster wheel,

Happidog,

Heat rock,

Herman (rabbit),

Hypoallergenic dog breeds,

Koi (magazine),

Lap dog,

Lassie's Pet Vet,

Litter robot,

Martingale (collar),

Meow Mix,

Mutt Mitt,

ONE (Purina),

Organic pet food,

Pinnacle (pet food),

Pot-bellied pig,

Pounce (cat treats),

Practical Fishkeeping,

Puppy BASICS,

Rug (animal covering),

Science Diet,

Sheba (cat food),

Sipper water bottle,

Solid Gold (pet food),

Tender Vittles,

The Blue Buffalo Company,

The GoodLife Recipe,

Tropical Fish Hobbyist,

Undertank heater,

Worming

--Procrastinatrix 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds good, though I'd like some debate on the template name - we don't have a "care-stub", so pet-care-stub doesn't seem right. perhaps {{tl|petcare-stub}} would be more NG-standard? Grutness...wha? 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Why not the somewhat broader-sounder and simpler {{tl|pet-stub}} / {{cl|pet stubs}}? Many of the above seem only vaguely related to "care", and more like "pets in general". Alai 04:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

:* Hey, {{tl|pet-stub}} works for me. At least it's better than finding some of these articles in stub categories for animals (too general) and agriculture (misleading!). I can't even begin to go through all the animal stubs to see which rodents, birds, reptiles, etc. are actually pet stubs, and not general animal stubs. That area needs a huge overhaul, but that's a project for another day and another Wikipedian. ;-) --Procrastinatrix 20:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why not? Because it would imply that it's going to be used for the animals themselves, which it isn't. This isn't a stub for pets, it's one for pet care. I'd oppose that name for that reason. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• That'd be the stub analogue of {{cl|animals kept as pets}}, and what I'm suggesting is the analogue to the permcat {{cl|pets}}, which is inclusive of {{cl|pet care and training writers}}, {{cl|pet equipment}}, et al, as well as that category. What we once upon a time would have called {{cl|pet-related stubs}}, and no longer do for all the well-rehearsed reaons. (BTW, there's no {{cl|pet care}}.) The template name one could make a case either way about, but I'd not be opposed to additional upmerged templates, on a belt and braces basis. (Though petcare-stub is hardly a model of obviousness, if one hadn't just looked it up, or remembered it existing in that form.) Alai 01:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Decapoda stubs}} 469
• {{cl|Amphipoda stubs}} 171
• {{cl|Calanoida stubs}} 106
• {{cl|Isopoda stubs}} 77

Usual deal, in any number of respects. Alai 20:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Oversized, usual reason. Quick and not-too-dirty fix here would be to un-upmerge {{tl|dragonfly-stub}} and {{tl|damselfly-stub}} to suborder-based subcategories. An alternative would be split out some of the larger families. Alai 01:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

In the latest "blindsided by Polbot" episode, these are now oversized. It looks as if by 'tribe' is the most likely basis on which to split; I can't give you much in the way of exact counts, since many of the tribe articles are redlinks, and the new articles seem to generally lack any information as to tribe. Doubtless something will come out in the wash. Failing tribe, we could split by subfamily. Alai 00:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:I'd like to go with subfamilies split into tribes according to Panero and Funk 2002. I'll put my proposal on WP:Plants, though, and you can bring it back here as necessary, as I don't know if there will be enough input here as to subfamilies versus tribes. KP Botany 20:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Bats are significantly oversized; I suggest the generic split-by-taxon approach, in this case, family seeming to do the job:

• {{cl|Vespertilionidae stubs}} 359
• {{cl|Phyllostomidae stubs}} 179
• {{cl|Pteropodidae stubs}} 176
• {{cl|Molossidae stubs}} 100
• {{cl|Hipposideridae stubs}} 82
• {{cl|Rhinolophidae stubs}} 74

One might also throw in the Emballonuridae, at 54; after that, it falls off dramatically. (Two catch-all suborder cats would also be a possibility.) Alai 06:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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