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

1. Rename of existing {{tl|Cuesport-stub}} to {{tl|Cue-sports-stub}}, in keeping with the rest of the templates relating to this active WikiProject ({{tl|Cue sports project}}, {{tl|Cue sports nav}}, etc., etc. Only the main article at Cue sport uses the singular (because WP art. naming conventions require that), and none of the related articles, categories, etc., uses the term run-together as "cuesport". The naming inconsistency is a real thorn in the side for the active editors.
2. If the -'s in the stub template name are not mandatory (they don't seem to be - I see loads of stub templates without them), leave them out, i.e. {{tl|Cue sports stub}} vs {{tl|Cue-sports-stub}}. We are not generally using dashes like this in template names more generally, so the usage is confusing and hard to remember. Yesterday I was trying to add a stub template to an article, and it took me seven tries (cue sports stub, cuesports stub, cue-sports-stub, etc., etc., until I got it right!)
3. Please don't upmerge the bio stubs into the larger category, or there's no point in having two stubs. The bio stubs are going to continue increasing at a fast pace, and we'd like them in their own new subcat under :Category:Cue sports stubs, i.e. :Category:Cue sports bio stubs
4. Rename :Category:Cue sport stubs (which isn't consistent with the template or the project) to :Category:Cue sports stubs
5. Conforming changes to the snooker sub-project ones, i.e. move templates from hyphenated versions to {{tl|Snooker stub}} and {{tl|Snooker bio stub}}, and have {{tl|Snooker-bio-stub}} feed into its own new :Category:Snooker bio stubs under :Category:Snooker stubs. There are 72 77 snooker biography stubs.

Some of this was discussed w/o any input from me or other WP:CUE participants, at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/December/28#Cue sports mess, because in my case I was travelling, and I guess the others just didn't notice. So this is kind of a renewal/extension of that discussion.

Anyway, this is all part of a larger cleanup of this entire article- and category-space (the next step being the renaming of all the high-level "Billiards something" categories to "Cue sports something" in conformance of the top-level article's move from Billiards to Cue sport, due to the treble ambiguity of the term "billiards"). PS: The snooker stub templates do need to exist and go to their own categories, as the overlap between this pair of topically parent-and-descendant WikiProjects is just about nil; the average WP:CUE member doesn't know enough about snooker to contribute meaningfully to stubs in that topic, and arguably often vice-versa - snooker is its own world. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: If (I really don't spend much time in here...) there really is a genuine consensus that all stub tags should have hyphenated names for some reason, I don't intend to fight that; just ignore those parts. If there is no such consensus, then please don't ignore those parts. ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Refactored to remove moot issues/suggestions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Updated 23:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose of the template renames. You may have a wikiproject naming convention, but so have we: WP:WSS/NG. And as it affects 3000+ such templates. "No spaces" is something we've just about gotten consistent, the last thing we want to do is start making ad hoc exceptions afresh. One could make an argument for {{tl|cuesport-stub}}, {{tl|cuesports-stub}} or {{tl|cue-sports-stub}}, however. (That distinction is subtle enough that a redirect from the others to chosen one might well be a good plan.) Also, this is the wrong venue: you'd want WP:SFD, and to tag them appropriately. You want complete consistency? Move the rest. I'll help.
• On (ahem) {{tl|cuesports-bio-stub}}: what's the current number of these? That's the whole rationale for a separate type, and the one piece of information there's no hint at. (If there's not 60, then... upmerge.)
• Are there enough bios for both a "snooker" and a "cue sports" category, separately? Again, you give no indication. If there's 60 (of both), fair enough, but a better name would be {{cl|snooker player stubs}}, following the permcat, or if you want to be slightly more inclusive, {{cl|snooker biography stubs}}.
• I think {{cl|Cue sport stubs}} is consistent with {{cl|Cue sports}}; it's just avoiding a redundant plural. Is this a "singular of 'sports' is 'sports'" thing? Now admittedly, the overall parent is at {{cl|Sports stubs}}, so I'd have no objection as such. (At SFD.)
• For the previous renamings, the affected templates and categories were appropriately tagged during the discussion period, so if no-one participated (or noticed...). (Now admittedly, I wasn't exactly mega-active that week myself...)
• I'm a bit boggled by the "nil overlap" statement. If "cue sports" isn't supposed to cover snooker, why is it so tortuously named? Where does "English" billiards (I can't quite believe that's where the article has ended up...) fall into this UK/US nice clean split? I'm beginning to wonder if we weren't better off before the first iteration of all this, with separate pool-, billiards- and snooker- types, without the neologising and supposed consolidation... that doesn't actually consolidate anything? At any rate, our objective is to organise things consistent with the permcats and the size criteria, so...
• Why do you have a "stub template" in the wikipedia project space? (Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Template:Cue sports bio stub) It's not transcluded on any articles, but it certainly makes the stub category look strange. Oh, wait, that's the draft, right? Alai 11:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• And lastly... what's with the WP:OWN-fest that is {{tl|CatMaintainPageWP}}? A more standard-looking wikiproject banner would be highly preferable; and such entities really shouldn't be on "permanent" categories at all. (Put them on permcat talk pages if you wish.) But I'm getting a little off-topic... Alai 11:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

:Comments: Yeesh. I'll try to just take all this in turn:

:# If there really is a putsch to make all stub tags use dashes, I've already said that I have no problem with it. Moot point. {{tl|cue-sports-stub}}, {{tl|cue-sports-bio-stub}}. Next.

:# By my count there are 47 id'd WP:CUE bio stubs, but I'm still in the process of going thru the snooker bio stubs and seeing which of them also need WP:CUE stubs (because they are not just snooker players); that seems to be about 1 in 5 or so of every snooker bio stub I look at, and there are LOTS of them. And, see :WP:CUEBIOS; the other most-active participant in WP:CUE is very intent on creating at least stubs for everyone on that list (see also the "New article" section at WP:CUE; a number of them are in fact bios and bio stubs from this list; the process is already ongoing).

:# There appear to be 72 (identified) snooker bio stubs; WP:SNOOKER is pretty prolific.

:# {{cl|Cue sports}} was in fact modelled on {{cl|Sports}}, so, yeah, {{cl|Cue sports stubs}} is what we were after. And they are multiple sports, from a community/organizations/tournaments/rules/history/etc. perspective. So it's not a "singular of sports is sports" issue at all.

:# The holiday period isn't necessarily the best time for big changes. Heh. Anyway, I don't think that prior silence somehow auto-invalidates present activity.

:# Re: 'boggled by the "nil overlap" statement' - I'm referring strictly to participants in these wikiprojects. By and large the WP:SNOOKER members have no Wikipedian cue sports interest outside snooker, and to date most of the WP:CUE members are interested in pool and carom games amost exclusively and are happy to leave the WP:SNOOKER crowd to their own devices. I think I may be the only person in both of them. WP:SNOOKER is only a descendant wikiproj of WP:CUE in a categorization sense (which is also why some bios are being tagged as stubs under both; a player bio languishing under WP:SNOOKER might get the attention it needs under WP:CUE if the player in question is also a Mosconi Cup nine-ball player).

:# :English billiards does not mean "billliards as played in England"; it is a unique (just unfortunately named) game, that is a hybrid of carom and pocket billiards, with its own unique ruleset, history, tournaments, pros and so on. There really isn't anything else like it anywhere. If you dig deep into the categories, you'll find {{cl|English players of English billiards}}, etc, because "English English billiards players" would just look like a typo. This naming ambiguity resolution method is getting conventionalized as we speak: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_2#Category:American_American_football_players]

:# Neologism? Um, no. See more than adequate sourcing at Talk:Cue sport demonstrating that "cue sports" is in fact international industry-standard terminology, and the only such term that isn't ambiguous. Next.

:# Re: 'Why do you have a "stub template" in the wikipedia project space?' Yes, it's the draft as I already said, stored there for project member comment and editing until such time as it needs to be moved into Template:space. See also the first link I mentioned in the nom, where a regular here suggested we propose it as a real stub template. Please forgive me, but I'm getting the strong impression that I'm just being attacked on every topic you can think of an attack about, whether you've actually looked into their background or not... Which brings us to:

:#{{tl|CatMaintainPageWP}} and {{tl|CatMaintainTalkWP}} are simply less rudimentary versions of {{tl|CatMaintain}} and {{tl|Monitored category}} which have been around a long time; if you disagree with their usage or existence, maybe take it up on their talk pages. The point of them is to direct people to a project before making major changes to categories that affect that project, to discuss it at the project. It's not any more :WP:OWN than WikiProject Stub sorting's assertion of "regulation" of not only stubs but categories relating to stubs, to such an extent that Cfx won't even touch them any longer and sends everyone here. Regardless, yes, it's ugly, and will be replaced (in these particular categories) with {{tl|WikiProject Cue sports}}; just hasn't been a high priority. If someone wants to TfD those CatMaintain* templates and their parents, be my guest. Next.

:# ANYWAY, the gist is: The extant stub cat for WP:CUE is malnamed. The extant stub template is too, in a differerent way (and no I'm not speaking of hyphenation any longer; I conceded that point as totally moot). The new bio tag and cat are aguably justifiable in that there probably definitely really are 60 cue sports bio stubs, some of them just haven't been tagged yet, way more bios are coming, and there are only a handful of genuinely active editors at WP:CUE; it's not like WikiProject History, so anything that helps keep things organized is a boon. If the new bio tag is rejected, I'd still like the have the other two issues dealt with. And as a WP:SNOOKER participant, too, I'd like to see snooker-bio-stub put things in a subcat, because there are over 60 bio stubs and they drown out all other stub work WP:SNOOKER needs to deal with.

:— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

::Update: {{tl|CatMaintainPageWP}} and {{tl|CatMaintainTalkWP}} have been removed from all the relevant cats. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:Comment: Would prefer {{cl|Cue sports bio stubs}} over {{cl|Cue sports biography stubs}} and same for Snooker, since it will parallel the template names better, and these cats are for editors, not readers, so plainest-possible longwinded English isn't really needed. If there is a hard and fast WikiProject Stub sorting rule that "biography" should be spelled out, I have no objection and withdraw this sub-request, and don't need to be flamed by anyone about that either, thank you. :-/ — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

::Comment Howabout Cue sportspeople stubs? Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Comment: Doesn't seem in keeping with the conventions around here. But more importantly, these bio stubs and stubcats are for more than sportspeople, including writers, announcers, notable industry giants, etc. - the people in (and destined to be in; my next article will probably be Robert Byrne (billiards writer)) {{cl|Billiards non-player personalities}} (under CfD as we speak to become {{cl|Cue sports non-player personalities}}), for example. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

::::Comment We've been including more than just the players in other categories in the {{cl|Sportspeople stubs}} hierarchy, so including non-players as well would be not just acceptable, but expected. Possibly {{cl|Cue sports people stubs}} would be more in line. The rule is to generally follow the parent cat as closely as possible, but that's not possible when there are two categories that would be the parent. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::Comment: Then "sportspeople" as a term in those categories is being misused. I'm not sure I see what the debate on this point is really about. I'm not asking for a new naming convention, just consistency. These categories don't exist for encyclopedia readers, but editors, especially WikiProject or otherwise organized, focused ones trying to improve an entire category of stubs into real articles, for whom consistency (i.e. "Cue-sports-bio-stub = Cat:Cue sports bio stubs") is way more useful than encyclopedic longwindedness just for its own sake. If (multiple) people are really, really going to feel strongly about not liking "bio" in the cat. names, fine, call them {{cl|Cue sports biography stubs}} and {{cl|Snooker biography stubs}}, and I'm sure we'll be able to deal with it. But, please, not "sportspeople"; that would be genuinely erroneous. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:Comment: At WP:WSS/NG#xx-xx-stub the "complex/compound" argument there simply doesn't apply; there just are not possibly enough sub-topics of this topic area to ever generate, much less justify, complexity of the sort envisioned there, so running-together of the name (e.g. as cuesport[s]) is not justified, per with that guideline's own counter-examples: "e.g., DC-Comics-stub, Opera-singer-stub" (and actually, given the wide range of conceivable DC Comic subcategorizing, I think that counter-example is very telling!) The stub names requested are also consistent with the '#Hybrid/complex/composite/compound stubs' section in the same guideline; it's a very simply "just tack it on" process. Cf. also: "Preferably, these [stubcat names] should be in a similar form to their non-stub parent categories", '#General form' in same guideline, thus again "cuesport[s]" is contraindicated. Lastly, in #Abbreviations, same guideline, the only examples given are in fact of acronyms, and even the guideline says such constructions are in use in stubcat names and does not condemn them; meanwhile bio is not an acronym, and is in suffiencent use as to have a solid Wiktionary entry; from a usage perspective it is an actual word, as in "do you have the new copy of the executive director's bio ready?", not a simple abbreviation (*bio.); ergo, there is no compelling reason to use the longer word, especially given that stubcats are not intended for readers, but editors. Can we please move on now? The WikiProject Stub sorting guideline (which does not appear to be an actual Wikipedia Guideline in the first place, just an internal WPSS document), largely supports, and nowhere conclusively contraverts, the requests in this nomination. Why all the fussing? I think this is the third time I've asked this question, in one form or another, either here directly or in edit summary, and I've yet to get any answer, much less a compelling one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:Question: At CfD[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_2#Category:Billiards] It has been strongly implied that no action at all will be taken with regard to renaming the {{cl|Cue sport stubs}} category to {{cl|Cue sports subs}} because I somehow did not follow the correct stubs-for-whatever process this WikiProject insists upon. If this is actually the case, I'd appreciate confirmation (from someone other than Alai, who made the assertion in the first place); otherwise, I have better WP things to do, like actually working on articles, than jump through hoops to re-propose a rather obvious cat. maintenance rename. From what I can tell here, and in the real, policy-based XfD processes, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with moving for additional cleanup (renames, etc.) when proposing something related at the appropriate place, as I have done here. Notably, Alai himself has done just that (and I've complied - removal of templates he disagrees with and fixing self-ref WPP categorization in an article category; see "Update" messages at above URL). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:Comment: I do see a lot of "Whatever biography subs" cats — not exclusively, but enough that it suggests a nascent convention — so I won't argue any further for the abbreviation. Current proposal stands at:

:*Template:Cue-sports-stub ⇒ Category:Cue sports stubs

:*Template:Cue-sports-bio-stub ⇒ Category:Cue sports biography stubs

:*Template:Snooker-stub ⇒ Category:Snooker stubs

:*Template:Snooker-bio-stub ⇒ Category:Snooker biography stubs

:Are we all happy now? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

::Comment: Clear and near-identical precedent: {{tl|Water-sports-stub}}, {{cl|Water sports stubs}} — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support as revised so McCandlish can get on with his/her life. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion at stub naming guidelines. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Request Please close this in favor of the revised proposal. Any further discussion of the wider sports/arts/etc. naming issue, and WP:WSS processes, that may or may not arise at the NG's talk page (thus far, I don't see any interest in the topic, though I'm considering proposing an NG clarity revision) should not hold up this proposal any longer - Wikipedia is not a fillibuster as someone else said recently. The proposal is demonstrably supported by the numbers and has no objections to the revised version after 12 days now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:34, 19 February 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.

I raised an eyebrow when I saw "{{cl|People's Republic of China geography stubs}} 7" on the to-do list: it seems that one of the "one China, two entrenched positions" editors has been busy again, not just upmerging China-geo-stub to there (which I favoured, but there was hardly a clear consensus for when we discussed it recently), but also double-catting the HongKong- ones in there too. However, even after undoing the latter, it's still a little oversized, and no single province (or first order division, or thing remarkably like a first order division you'll be talked to death for describing as such) has even 30. Long term way of fixing that is probably to add per-(thingie) cats to all those lacking them: a list! However, that lacks the swift satisfaction of a resolution anytime before, oh, the next db dump or some such time, so I have a quick fix for now: {{South Central China geography stubs}}, which would get about 109 stubs from 6 upmerged templates. Alai 03:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

:Go for it. Perhaps we should write the the Chinese government asking them to restructure their regions to something more suitable for stub sorting ;) Grutness...wha? 04:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree - I did a full (laborious) count of this and found different results. The following provinces have more than thirty: Hebei (30), Heilongjiang (39), Henan (40), Hubei (39), Hunan (40), Jiangsu (33), Shandong (41), Sichuan (41), Yunan (35). I would be in favor of giving these their own upmerged templates because they're close enough. Even if we creat those and upmerge them into your proposed stub also, it would be a good step considering the tendency of stubs to multiply. Less work in the future, and all that. If you want complete count details for all provinces except the urban cities, I can provide that upon request. Aelfthrytha 16:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Upmerged templates is exactly what I proposed. (It's just that upmerging it to the main cat kinda gets us nowhere in terms of it's size in the medium-term...) Alai 18:41, 5 February 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.

I've starting looking at our current largest stub category, and I've quickly come to the conclusion that it needs more sub types if it is going to be brought down to <800. I'm not certain of the counts so I propose starting these as upmerged templates in case my initial perception has played me false. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• {{tl|business-software-stub}} → {{cl|Business software stubs}} → {{cl|Business software}}
• {{tl|simulation-software-stub}} → {{cl|Simulation software stubs}} → {{cl|Simulation software}}
• {{tl|compu-library-stub}} → {{cl|Computer library stubs}} → {{cl|Computer libraries}}

:See also this earlier proposal, also including the business type. Alai 01:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

:I've re-crnched the numbers, and here's the first-level subcats of {{cl|software by domain}} that break 30,

• {{cl|Business software}} 156
• {{cl|Science software}} 128
• {{cl|Text editors}} 77
• {{cl|Music software}} 53
• {{cl|Graphics software}} 50

:The trouble being, that that category hierarchy is lamentably underpopulated: 505 total, out of a 12-page type. On that basis, one might quadruple the counts (with a huge margin for error). Other counts: Statistical software, 26; Utility software, 16; Financial software, 16; Educational software, 16; Credit Collections software, 15; Data compression software, 14; Cryptographic software, 11; Communication software, 10. Alai 22:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

::As for the big 5 you found, here's how I see it. The science software is likely to have severe overlap with simulation software, which would also cover engineering oriented software, and the remainder likely overlaps with educational software so I don't favor that for a first iteration of sorting. As for text editors, I'd prefer creating {{tl|programming-software-stub}} → {{cl|Computer programming tool stubs}} → {{cl|Computer programming tools}} which is a parent of {{cl|Text editors}}. I support a {{tl|music-software-stub}} and we already have a {{tl|graphics-software-stub}}.

::Net result add:

::* {{tl|programming-software-stub}} → {{cl|Computer programming tool stubs}} → {{cl|Computer programming tools}}

::* {{tl|music-software-stub}} → {{cl|Music software stubs}} → {{cl|Music software}} (speediable on the basis of the earlier proposal)

::to my original proposal. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

:::In the db dump, the "science software" and the "simulation software" (of which there were... 4) don't overlap at all. Unless your recattings have changed things rapidly... Biggest groups are computational chemistry software, physics software, the aforementioned statistical software... Alai 08:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

::::My opinion is based on inspection of the first 50 or so stubs, and I'd prefer to not have to look at each article twice and have keep track of it on the first go around. Since my perception might play me false, that's why I'm suggesting they start as upmerged templates and expand to have cats if my intuition proves true (despite being of the wrong gender for effective intuition). Hand stubbing is not fun, but in a case like this where there is undercategorization, it's essential. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:32, 5 February 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.

All the countries listed below need templates, but not categories (yet): Mozambique, Chad, Guinea, and Benin. They have between 40 and 53 bio-stubs.

Namibia needs its own bio-template and category (59 by hand count).--Thomas.macmillan 19:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support templates. Categories when 60. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support templates, it is much easier to have them - when you're in stubbing mode - than to not have them. Goldenrowley 02:56, 8 February 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.

When I was doing a stub sort for a new article(Lansing River Trail, I noticed that there are no stub types (that I can find at least) about hiking/ATV/snowmobile/ski/etc. trails. They are categorized according to location using {{location-geo-stub}} which only shows that the subject of the article exists in a geographic location. There may not be quite enough articles to warrant the creation of {{location-trail-stubs}} but look at a list like List of rail trails which is mostly stubs and redlinks(future stubs) shows that there should be at least 40-60 stubs. Mr.Z-mantalk 21:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

:As long as they remain double-stubbed with their location-geo-stub, I don't see much of a problem if there are 60. There may well be, there are quite a few related to tramping tracks in other parts of the world (I know there are several New Zealand ones). There may even be a few misclassified as road stubs. The difficulty might be classifying where road stubs stop and trail stubs start. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

PS - Here are a few of them (I've started with NZ, since it's the one I know best - I've since added the Aussie ones) - feel free to add to this list, since I'm not convinced that stubsense would be able to help us find them all given their current categorisation. if we can find 60... Grutness...wha? 00:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

1. East Cape to Cape Egmont Traverse
2. New Zealand tramping tracks
3. New Zealand Great Walks
4. Te Araroa Trail
5. Abel Tasman Inland Track
6. St James Walkway
7. Routeburn Track
8. Rakiura Track
9. Australian Alps Walking Track
10. Great Ocean Walk
11. Warburton Trail
12. Heysen Trail
13. Strzelecki Track
14. List of Bush walking tracks of Tasmania
15. South Coast and Port Davey Tracks
16. Hume and Hovell Track
17. Katoomba to Mittagong Trail
18. Tops to Myall Heritage Trail

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

Well over 150 stubs on actors and actresses for Argentina -this is far less than 1/10th of what will eventually be covered. Argentina has a major film industry of its own and many many notable actors. Although Category:South American actor stubs exists which has 88 not many people know about it and argentine actor articles usually have argentina-bio-stub and actor stub to which both categories have a HUGE amount and need sorting. The stub category would use the same film picture as :Category:Argentine film stubs. Trust me on this soon enough there will be hundreds and hundreds and Brazil has a major film industry too!!. I remember the debate over :Category:Argentine film stubs because there were only 43 -6 weeks ago -well now there are well over 225!! There are a number of other editors working on Argentine actors so this a must

Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

:support StubSense verifies there is enough existing stubs. Monni 20:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The category is not overly large but, from taking a look around the category, I can tell there are more than enough people stubs. Also, the category is extremely poorly sorted.--Thomas.macmillan 03:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

:Comment: How many is "more than enough"? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

:More than the 60 which is the norm. I just haven't done a precise hand count or sorted the category properly yet.--Thomas.macmillan 06:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

::Comment. I did a hand count and partial sort of the category and found between 70 and 80 potential bio stubs.--Thomas.macmillan 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

:Sounds good. Support Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:48, 11 February 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.

I propose a stub for articles relating to string theory. There are at present 84 articles in the string theory category, many of which are stubs. The other point is that articles on string theory are expected to increase. MP (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support, on the basis of need (physics-stub is oversized), clear scope, and [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/stub_sense?category=string+theory&num_pages=4000&dbname=enwiki&list=Physicist-stub what stubsense says]. I'm concerned, though, that not all of those might be appropriately taggable, especially the various bios. Alai 21:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

::Support. Very popular topic being expanded at the moment due to the shows on TV lately. Goldenrowley 02:37, 8 February 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.

This template has existed for quite some time and deliniate a major section of fantasy literature. Currently it redirects to {{t1|fantasy-book-stub}}. It is long overdue that it should take a life of it's own and should support the well over 250 articles that use the template. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support; I'm surprised this hasn't been formally proposed already. Alai 16:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, assuming that {{tl|fantasy-book-stub}} would be for non-fiction books about fantasy, like the {{tl|sf-book-stub}}? Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• And short-story collections and such like, right? Alai 17:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support well known topic in the real world. Goldenrowley 02:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• I was going to propose {{tl|fantasy-story-stub}} / {{cl|fantasy story stubs}} and {{tl|fantasy-story-coll-stub}} / {{cl|fantasy story collection stubs}} later but if these are agreed here we can go for them. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment / Question: But, uh, what is a "fantasy book" that is not a "fantasy novel", and are there so many of them that this disambiguation is necessary? It's not computing for me. All I can think of in the way of "non-novel fantasy books" is "support" books in the quasi-non-fiction category, like The Languages of Tolkien's Middle-earth and The Atlas of Middle-earth. Are there so many notable instances of those that they are being drowned out by fantasy novels? Or am I missing something crucial here? (It's been known to happen...) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

::Ok, those items are the main ones that are "books" but don't forget "novels" are not strictly speaking "books" any way they are just normally delivered that way. Anyhow, that asside don't forget all the short stories, anthologies and short story collections there are. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

:::To second Kevin, yes, books about the fantasy genre, as well as short stories, are what we're talking about, and there are plenty. Take a look at {{cl|Science fiction books}} for a parallel example. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:27, 9 February 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.

Slightly small (at 59), and rather broad... best-looking split I can find from the non-fict-books (still oversized). Alai 20:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:I may have an alternative to this annoyingly-broad category. Stay tuned. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

::(later that same day) How about {{cl|Sports book stubs}} (41), {{cl|Travel book stubs}} (53), or {{cl|Art book stubs}} (39)? Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Oppose popular culture due to the trouble and POV of defining a "popular culture". Support the stubs counter-suggested by Pegship as bookstore type categories. Goldenrowley 02:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

:::O./S. precisely per Goldenrowley. The Pegship-narrowed categories are so obvious I can't believe the don't exist already. Only caveat would be that "art books" is likely to want to split into "Books of photographs", "Books about photography" (painting, etc., ad infinitum.) Eventually needed anyway, just saying "expect it". But "popular culture" books isn't cutting it (makes me think "Hunter S. Thompson", heh). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

::OK, shall I create {{tl|travel-book-stub}} & {{cl|Travel book stubs}}, and upmerged templates for the others? Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:18, 11 February 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.

Five off hitting their fifth page, these subtypes seem viable:

• {{cl|Figure skater stubs}} 641
• {{cl|United States figure skater stubs}} 149
• {{cl|Russian figure skater stubs}} 104
• {{cl|Canadian figure skater stubs}} 85
• and/or:
• {{cl|Ice dancer stubs}} 77
• {{cl|Speed skater stubs}} 110

I had a feeling the speedsters had been proposed before, but no link to the above cat, at least. Alai 07:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:Support. Aelfthrytha

:Support, with qualm: The numbers back it. I really hope, though, that the parent stub template isn't really called "skate"; I thought this was about skateboarding when I saw that; too ambiguous. No qualms about the cat. names proposed here, including the and/or's, just to be clear (but assuming there is a cognizable difference between a figure skater and an ice dancer; I don't know enough about the sport(s) to offer an opinion myself. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

::I was imprecise in my choice of header; the template corresponding to the parent is {{tl|skating-bio-stub}}. For most of them, {{tl|skater-stub}} would be applicable, the broader descriptor presumably be to take in coaches and any other such related people. A "figure skater" are a type of "ice skater", and an "ice dancer" is a type of figure skater, as I was trying to indicate with the bulletting. Alai 14:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

:Question: Is there a reason they are "figure skater" instead of "ice skater"? Just for brevity, the latter seems preferable to me. If these are industry terms of art or something I have no issues with it. Whatever the sports mavens watching this topic want, really. (I labelled this "question" rather than even "comment" for a reason; disregard it for even a hint of consensus-guage purposes, please.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

::My guess would be to distinguish these skaters from, say, speed skaters. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:56, 10 February 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.

This is now oversized, having grown spectacularly recently (it was <400 at the last db dump!). I suggest per-county templates, upmerged to suitable regions... though I'm not quite clear what those are. There's a couple of metro. areas, and the article Extreme Northwest Ohio certainly defines a crisp-sounding region as a list of counties, but I confess my geographic knowledge of the state isn't the best. I'll ask for more input at the appropriate WPJ. Alai 06:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:Sounds reasonable - IIRC California-geo-stub is split by counties. I'm leaving the sub-state level geo-splits to our 'merkin editors. If it's smaller than state-sized I figure someone else is likely to be in a far better position to know what's right. Grutness...wha? 06:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:::As far as official splits on anything other than a county basis is concerned, I don't know. I suspect a lot of these new stubs are the work of WikiProject Ohio townships since there are over 1300 of them, of which a fair number have articles. If so, this means there likely are few if any of Ohio's 88 counties that have over 60 stubs since the ~1000 stubs will be fairly evenly split with an average of 12 stubs each. Perhaps a separate stub type for the Wikiproject? Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

::::I'd made a similar calculation as regards per county cats. I didn't know about the wikiproject: I've left them a message, too. It seems they're actually almost all the work of one editor (or at least, the "new growth" is). Alai 07:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::It has 5 members listed, tho I have no idea how active they all are. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm the editor who created all of those new township articles, although I was unaware of a townships wikiproject. I respectfully disagree with the idea of regionally-based stub categories, since we don't have any specific geographical boundaries in Ohio that can easily be defined by counties. I'm from Logan County, Ohio, barely half an hour from Allen County (mentioned in the Extreme Northwest article), and I've never heard of an "Extreme Northwest Ohio" region being specifically delineated nor see why Allen County, for example, would fit therein. If we have a basis (such as census) for such boundaries, that's different, but I'm not aware of such a thing. As the Northwest Ohio article says, "Just like any other region, there is no universally agreed-upon line for NW Ohio, as the entire area is defined differently by the opinions of multiple people." Since several of the regions on the {{tl|Ohio}} template extend over multiple states, and since none of them (except the uncertain Northwest, and possibly the Black Swamp) claim to include specific counties, I can't see how we could determine these regional boundaries in a NPOV manner.

Instead, I would propose a {{tl|Ohio-twp-stub}} stub, since a large number of these stubs are townships (witness the ones that I've done). I think such would break down the backlog in the geo stub without the inherent subjectivity of a regionally-divided set of stubs, and there really isn't much that can be done to increase the list of township stubs once all township articles are created (over sixty of the eighty-eight counties have articles on all their townships). Since some township articles are developed past stub status, such as the ones for Logan County, I can't see a reason that the rest couldn't gradually be developed in the same manner. Nyttend 14:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

:I don't really see the point of a separate township type, either a) from the point of view of the stub-sorting project, if we just end up with an over-large "Ohio townships" type, rather than an over-large "places in Ohio" type; or b) from the point of view of Ohio editors, unless they happen to have a systematic preference for editing articles about townships vs. non-township places, as against places they're familiar with on a geographic basis. Your argument against the particular Extreme Northwest type is admittedly fairly compelling, though, and makes me wonder about the bona fides of that article -- possibly a POV split about definition of "Northwest Ohio"? But surely we can use USCB's definitions of metropolitan and statistical areas? At least the latter are supposedly defined in terms of numbers of whole counties, and where they cross state lines, we can just consider the portion within each separately (or ignore them, if what that leaves is too titchy). (I don't think NPOV is a huge worry, since these categories are there for editorial convenience, rather than as encyclopaedic statements per se (just so long as they don't cause actual offence or start brushfire edit wars over them). For example, the USCB define Greater Cleveland as five counties, so I'd suggest using them as the basis of a {{cl|Greater Cleveland geography stubs}}, or a {{cl|Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor geography stubs}} if one wants to use their terminology (or {{cl|Cleveland-Akron-Elyria geography stubs}} if one uses the broader CSA. Alai 16:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

::The problem with using the Census bureau's MSA's or CSA's is (as you pointed out that some of them such as Cincinnati's cross state borders. Worse, they're not static and are adjusted every decade. The latter problem is merely irritating, but the former is a problem as using MSA's for the next level of organization would mean that a {{tl|Cincinnati-geo-stub}} would need to be a child of Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. There is one region that can be easily defined in a non POV manner, the Western Reserve. Unfortunately, it's only easily defined at the township level, not the county level. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

:::My whole point is that I knew of no official divisions of Ohio by any agency other than the 88 counties established by state law. Aside from the problems Caerwine notes, I would say that the MSAs or CSAs would be a perfect way to divide, except that ones such as the Bellefontaine micropolitan area and many others likewise are just one county. As far as NPOV, I'm simply thinking that it wouldn't be good to have arbitrary divisions if possible; I'm not worried about having people getting angry over whether their county is in one region or another :-) But yeah, I'm sure that any fixed and sensible official divisions would be a good idea. Nyttend 19:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

::::I worried about this when we split various US types into the four large USCB regions, but aside from some grumbling at one point about Delaware not really being in the South, it seems to have been relatively rage-free. ("Don't blame us, blame your Evil Federal Government" is my standby retort.) I don't like the multiple-parent MSA/CSA solution; for the case you mention, I'd suggest having separate Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky stubs, as children of their respective states, only (ignoring the odd Indiana county), making the precise definition explicit on the category pages, rather than necessarily trying to encode it in the stub type name. Alai 02:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

:I'd strongly oppose a -twp-stub (surprise surprise), especially if (as suggested) most of the stubs are townships - in which case splitting them out wouldn't really help much. Perhaps separate upmerged county templates would be the answer, and if at least some of the substate regions are uncontroversial then splitting those out would be a reasonable move. At least that would reduce the main category some. Grutness...wha? 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

::Forgive me if I'm being too picky or argumentative or something. I'm well aware that I'm not familiar with stub sorting, so maybe my ideals are rather different from those of most of you :-) I just figure that, by their nature, the township articles can easily be destubbed. Virtually every village and city in the country has a basic structure with name, county, geographical location, and demographic statistics (for a completely random example, see Dighton, Kansas) and isn't a stub. According to something on the Ohio townships wikiproject page, by using a bot, one could take information from a specific website and put such information onto any Ohio township. I'm just thinking that, unlike generic "locations", there are a specific and limited number of townships in Ohio, and therefore that they could be just put in their own stub category and left for the category gradually to be cut down. Nyttend 23:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Normally I'd oppose a {{tl|Ohio-township-stub}}, but since in this case it does have an associated WikiProject, I see it as a good idea as I see it more as a WikiProject template than as the precedent for a whole series of {{tl|*-township-stub}}s. (It's a strange idea for a WikiProject to my mind, but there are those who think we stub sorters are strange too.) Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

::::I'm not as radically opposed to "by type" splits as (ahem-hem) some, but I still struggle to see the benefit in this case. There seems more likely to be a benefit for, say, mountains, which are very possibly likely to be expanded by peak-bagger who'd ignore mere flat human geography, and such like, as against one form of local government entity or another. I also think there's a limit to the extend that we should defer to other wikiprojects in determining the precise scope of stub types, as the tortuous structure and naming of the US-road subtypes illustrates quite nicely. Alai 02:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

:::It does seem far more of a candidate for WP-specific talk page templates than actual stub templates. And it does set a nasty little precedent. The main question that really should be asked is whether an average editor would be more likely to look for articles to expand based on type of feature in Ohio or location within Ohio. I'd still think it more likely that someone in, say southwest Ohio is more likely to know about features of all sorts in that part of the state that features of a particular kind statewide. Understandably, a Wikiproject dedicated to one type of feature is likely to have different goals to that, and anyone associated with that wikiproject is likely to fall into the opposite type of editorship to the one I described. But given that, a stub type - as used by editors across the board, would more logically suit the subregion approach, whereas a talk page template for a specific wikiproject can target just those features dealt with by that project. Grutness...wha? 04:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

::Well, it's certainly not a bad idea, as long as we can decide on a basis for organising them systematically. How shall we do that? I'm not sure, so I hope you have better ideas than I do :-) At any rate, I hope that we can resolve this fast; I've been waiting on creating new articles for some days, instead systemetising others' work, but there's not too much of that left. Should I continue waiting, or should I just go ahead and create new articles and hope that somebody will come up with a bot to tag them? Nyttend 07:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

right

:::Here's perhaps a way to divide the state, as seen on the map (forgive me if my colors are off; I'm partly colorblind):

• Cincinnati CSA-Dayton metro: red
• Cleveland CSA: green
• Columbus CSA: yellow
• Toledo metro: purple
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ohio_River_counties Ohio River counties]: orange
• Appalachian Ohio: dark pink (?)
• Western Ohio: blue

Ashland and Richland counties are up for grabs, since they're on the line between the metro areas. I've used the CSAs and merged Cincinnati and Dayton so as to get the widest areas possible and to keep the southeast and the northwest from joining, to prevent more anomalies such as Ashland and Richland counties. Nyttend 14:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

::::Looks perfect to me. I suggest as a first step that we create per-county templates, so that you can tag future articles with them (although bot-tagging isn't likely to present any real difficulty, as far as I can see). If you let me know which counties you're working on, or about to start working on, I can help creating those in some sort of priority order. Then as I second step, I suggest we upmerge to categories corresponding to the regions you've identified, or in the case of "spare" counties, ones it's not possible to assign to a region, or where the region would be too small, just upmerge to the parent. Alai 15:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

::All counties now have templates except for Franklin (Columbus) and the counties bordering it. I'm looking to create articles on townships for other counties without all township articles: Clermont, Preble, Montgomery, Greene, Fayette, Knox, Muskingum, Coshocton, Holmes, Tuscarawas, Carroll, Jefferson, Columbiana, and Mahoning. In response to an idea of Alai, I filled out the Brown County townships and made all of them {{tl|BrownOH-geo-stub}}. What do you think? Nyttend 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

:::I created the above template, and fed it into {{cl|Greater Cincinnati geography stubs}}, which I'll now create the remaining templates for. If anyone has any divergent views on the category name, I'm personally pretty flexible on that... Alai 15:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

::::OK, I've created about half or so of the by-county templates (all of the formOH-geo-stub), covering all of the central and west. I've deviated somewhat from Nyttend's map in and around Cleveland, as it doesn't seem to quite match up with the statistical areas; Dayton takes in some of that, as a separate CSA, which I've created as a subcat, as it passes 60. Toledo doesn't yet seem to, so I've just lumped that in with the "Northwest", which seems to be a reasonably natural region; being at least vaguely defined in the Northwest Ohio article, and being fairly clearly delineated by the four CSAs. The eastern part of the state I've yet to tackle; depending on how good a source there is for the Ohio River and Appalachian regions I'd be happy with those, or else just a generic "eastern" one. Alai 21:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::Thanks! All Ohio townships (as of this morning) have articles now, so there should be plenty of such stubs :-) I didn't intend to announce that the Ohio River counties are an official region by anybody's standards; I simply grouped all counties (other than in the Cincinnati area) that have a line on the Ohio River, and anything else southeast of the Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland corridor went into the Appalachian area. I guess you could say that my "source" is the boundaries of those metros and the line of the Ohio River :-) Nyttend 16:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

::::::Thanks for the image update: we can use that on the various category pages. It's now off the triage priority list, and if it's not longer rapidly growing might remain that way for a while. Still, if people have ideas on either how to subdivide the southern and eastern/Appalachian/Ohio River counties, or simply what to call that as a single subcat... Alai 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

::::: Here's the new color codes for the map for putting on the category pages:

• {{cl|Greater Cincinnati geography stubs}}: red
• {{cl|Cleveland-Akron-Elyria geography stubs}}: green
• {{cl|Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe geography stubs}}: yellow
• {{cl|Dayton-Springfield-Greenville geography stubs}}: purple
• {{cl|Northwest Ohio geography stubs}}: blue
• Remainder ("Southeast Ohio", or "Ohio River" and "Appalachia", or whatever): white, until it's decided what to do with the region

Nyttend 18:26, 12 February 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.

Something like this:

50px This West Virginia-related article is a stub, you can help Wikipedia by expanding it. - Patricknoddy 20:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

:Never mind. - Patricknoddy 20:59, 14 February 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.

Last April, most of the {{cl|Japan geography stubs}} were sorted. Four prefectures did not have enough to warrant their own category, but templates were made anyway. Now, two of the four are above 60, with the other two in the 50-60 range.

: {{cl|Fukui geography stubs}} (currently 70)

: {{cl|Ishikawa geography stubs}} (currently 64)

: {{cl|Kagawa geography stubs}} (currently 52)

: {{cl|Tottori geography stubs}} (currently 57)

I propose to make all four categories, for completeness. I don't think that there is any disagreement for the first two... Neier 07:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support all four: what the heck. The first two are probably speediable. Alai 13:35, 12 February 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.

Similar to the film bios below, I also noticed several figures from WWII (and WWI) with stubs. GHits for "Japanese biographical article is a stub" + "world war" yields 82. History is not my strong suit, but, that seems to be a logical split of the Japan biography stubs. Neier 10:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

:Doubtful {{tl|Japan-mil-bio-stub}} / {{cl|Japanese military personnel stubs}} would be the appropriate stub for people in the Japanese military and a glance at {{cl|Asian military personnel stubs}} shows that unless there's some severe missorting going on there aren't enough for a Japanese military stub yet. You probably hit a bunch of false positives for people who had a significant event in their life happen during a war but who are not notable because of war. Caerwine Caer’s whines 15:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

::I'm not sure of the current level of mis-sorting. Of the first four hits I found in :Category:Japanese people stubs, only one is sorted into the Asia military bio stub category. I'll add the Asia military tag to the Japanese articles, and, see what the count looks like after that. Neier 23:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

:This doesn't look good to me, either. We do have a WW2-bio-type, which eventually we might have to split off the Japanese from, but I think lumping world wars together isn't a good idea. (Even if Niall Ferguson would approve.) Alai 15:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

After running through the Japan bio stubs, there were 46 articles that I was able to add to :Category:Asian military personnel stubs. Rough count of Japanese members in that category is now 68. The Asian military category is not so large as it needs subdivided, but, it would help to get those articles out of the Japan biography stubs (>750). Neier 02:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

::I should add that I'd support this under the -mil-bio- scope, as suggested by CW. Alai 03:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

::Support Japan-mil-bio-stub. As someone that handsorted around 500 of the military personnel stubs, it would be quite useful!--Thomas.macmillan 03:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

:The {{tl|Japan-mil-bio-stub}} / {{cl|Japanese military personnel stubs}} suggestion is fine with me. I didn't mean to break a naming convention. Neier 04:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

::I thought you had in mind a different scope, too... Wires crossed, no problem. Alai 06:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Support Since my only concerns were about the name/scope and whether there would be enough, and both points have been addressed. You know, this is an example of everything this proposals page is supposed to do, and for once it did it! Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

:Support concept, per Neier's numbers; don't care what it gets called as long as it makes sense compared to Chinese, Botswanan, American, Chilean, etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:21, 9 February 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.

A few Japanese prefectures were earlier created, due to volume (:Category:Miyagi Prefecture railway station stubs, etc); a few were templated and up-merged, {{tl|kanagawa-rail-station-stub}}, etc). There are now >80 stations in :Category:Tokyo geography stubs, and that number will likely grow, as I sort through :Category:Japanese rail stubs. :Category:Japanese railway station stubs is at ~500 articles, and will also grow per the above. At this point, :Category:Tokyo railway station stubs and :Category:Kanagawa Prefecture railway station stubs are required (around 80 transclusions of the Kanagawa template right now). The other prefectures have varying amounts, so, I don't know if now is the time to make all forty-odd templates (for each prefecture) or not. I'll leave that point for discussion. Neier 03:43, 8 February 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.

An inordinate amount of producers and directors in :Category:Japanese people stubs. There are 143 GHits for "director" + "Japanese biographical article is a stub", and there are others (producer, screenwriter) which would fall through that particular search. It would also be a child of :Category:Film biography stubs, or perhaps the proposed {{cl|Asian film biography stubs}} below. Neier 09:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

:As some of the "director"s were of video games, I appended "movie" to the google search: 96. Neier 09:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

:Support: Seems well justified even by the culled bio-count figure, and the relief from the bio-swamping of the general stubcat ought to be conducive to identifying non-bio articles that need work. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:34, 12 February 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.

There are over 120 Georgia State Route articles currently using the less specific {{South-US-road-stub}} template and more will be added as the WikiProject progresses.--HowardSF-U­-T-C- 14:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support, but please make the template {{tl|GeorgiaUS-road-stub}}, to follow the naming guidelines (no spaces) and conform to the other Georgia stub templates (such as {{tl|GeorgiaUS-geo-stub}}). And the category name {{cl|Georgia (U.S. state) road stubs}}, of course. Alai 16:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Alai's amendments. Grutness...wha? 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Alai. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Citing 5 days, and concensus support, I have created the stub and category based on amendments by Alai.--HowardSF-U­-T-C- 17:14, 9 February 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.

I've created upmerged templates for these, the former already over 60, the latter in the 50s. That's just populating from the US-tv-progs, which are oversized. Alai 23:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

:I love you; you love me; we're a happy family! Support. Aelfthrytha 16:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:Support if only to remove The Purple One from my sight...Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:19, 5 February 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.

No countries have got past threshold for new categories, but two more Caribbean nations are up to the 30+ mark where upmerged templates looks reasonable:

• {{tl|SaintKittsNevis-geo-stub}} (upmerged into {{cl|Caribbean geography stubs}})
• {{tl|SaintLucia-geo-stub}} (upmerged into {{cl|Caribbean geography stubs}})

Grutness...wha? 01:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

:Class-action support. Alai 01:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

:Per nom Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:37, 2 February 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.

This category too also needs some new stub types. I recommend the following, again, starting out as upmerged templates.

• {{tl|digestive-stub}} → {{cl|Digestive system stubs}} → {{cl|Digestive system}}
• {{tl|musculoskeletal-stub}} → {{cl|Musculoskeletal system stubs}} → {{cl|Musculoskeletal system}}
• {{tl|respiratory-stub}} → {{cl|Respiratory system stubs}} → {{cl|Respiratory system}}

I chose the name pattern established by {{tl|circulatory-stub}} and while there might be other potential splits, such as reproductive, endocrine, and urinary, but a first glance didn't convince me that there would 60 in any others, though I wouldn't mind doing upmergerd templates for them as well if there is support. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• The first two of these would seem to be speediable: see here and here. (The second is marked as NC, but that looks like an oversight.) Spot the lack of enthusiasm on my part for following through on these proposals, but I completely support such a split, if anyone's going to do the slog... Alai 01:12, 2 February 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.

UK schools are 2 off being at 800, again; these are at 73 from the various bits and bobs of Yorkshire "proper", but for consistency with previous splits, the English region seems the better category to go with, from ceremonial county templates. Alai 06:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:Support. Aelfthrytha 16:10, 5 February 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.

We just started "manuscript stubs" and its off to a flying start (?) and full enough to allow a split off of illuminated manuscripts (hand-illustrated books), apart from the all the other many codex. I've identified 60 to 90 under that category. The parent article will be illuminated manuscript and I would place it under "art history" and "manuscripts" as subcategories of those two stub categories. Goldenrowley 05:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - although as I've bored some of you all today by saying, the trouble is most of the category are stubs, and likely to remain so for a good time! Anyway, thanks for listening Johnbod 05:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• That's not a problem as such, unless they're "very short article of which it's claimed they're not really stubs at all" (which seems to be something of a theme at present). If they're the latter, is merger a feasible option? Alai 16:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Not really - many important manuscripts actually only have a few illuminated pages, and there is a limit to what can be said, outside a thesis. Even very short articles may well be the most complete source of information outside a full academic library - which of course will delay any improvement. Especially if they have a picture, they can be much more comprehensive (relatively) than much longer articles on bigger topics. So far I haven't disagreed with any stub/not-stub calls I've seen, that I can remember. Merging would be unhelpful. Johnbod 16:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Although they are not lenghthy more could be said on each of the ones I've seen, a good art editor might for instance expand on the art style, and anything original found in the manuscript, as well the historical importance of each. Most were already stubbed just not identified as art ^I mean as illustrated books^ before.Goldenrowley 02:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Coming as I do from a family with connections in the illuminated manuscript business, I'd say support :) Grutness...wha? 04:45, 8 February 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.

I can't beleive we don't have this one yet. Anyway it can be filled and alleviate some of bio stubs and artist stubs hopefully. Goldenrowley 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

:Seems a tad broad, no? Alai 20:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

::I was thinking we need to start with having a top level designer stub, and index it under {{cl|design stubs}}. If the bio calls them a designer we can tag them designer. Later if the set gets large we can identify the communication designers from the engineers and such.Goldenrowley 20:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Seems exactly like something we don't "need" at all. Who'd this type be of use to, that would lump together {{cl|game designers}}, {{cl|interior designers}} and {{cl|muppet designers}}? I think these are much better located under categories relating to that-which-is-being-designed. Alai 20:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

::::This is a tough call. The design disciplines that clearly fall under a specific field or industry with their own categories wouldn't need to be included. However, there are newer broad disciplines that cross industries and specialties such as information design that belong in the broad category. Currently, there isn't an information designer article or stub yet, but there may be in the near future. On the other hand, much of the design"er" material will be included in and redirected to the design"ing" article, since those articles are only relevant to the designers of those disciplines, as is the case with interface design and interface designer. Either way, I don't see why It would hurt to have the stub. Oicumayberight 20:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

:::I must admit I have the same concerns as Alai. Any stub type which could suit Vivienne Westwood, Lawrence Llewellyn-Bowen and Ferdinand Porsche is just a bit too vague. Grutness...wha? 22:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

:::: Well I have viable count on Graphic designers but to be inclusive hoped to identify the communication designers (as they can be cross trained to do all at the same time - web, print and media). Option B I can propose {{tl|comm-designer-stub}} / {{cl|communications designer stubs}} which will do this and keep the muppet designers and engineers safely out of it. Option C even narrower is propose {{tl|graphic-designer-stub}} / {{cl|graphic designer stubs}} which is the narrowest but still large enough to start the stub category with. Goldenrowley 23:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::Suggest we start with {{tl|graphic-designer-stub}} per Goldenrowley. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::OK by me. Goldenrowley 23:25, 13 February 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.

It looks like the group was leaning in this direction when I braught up designer idea last week. Graphic designers have many viable candidates inside the {{cl|Graphic designers}} categories. The only potential downfall I see is that "art directors" want to be known as "art directors" not merely graphic designers, and the art directors are potentially the more notable and powerful people. So I'd like to say the stub is for "graphic designers and art directors" in its definition line. This will alleviate some of generic bio stubs and artist stubs... hopefully. Goldenrowley 01:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support per nom and previous discussion. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, complete with caveat on the template wording if it makes the Precious Dears feel better. :) (Judging by the category structure, it's technically redundant...) Alai 01:39, 19 February 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.