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

{{sfp create}}

Potential category counts at over 60 with upmergings.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support -but it might be worthwhile adding a note in the category that it is for buildings in Egypt, not for Ancient Egyptian structures in other countries such as, for example, Sudan. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

{{tl|Switzerland-cycling-bio-stub}} reached 60 speedy. Severo^TC 10:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• As you say, Speedy Waacstats (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Seems to have been a lot of understubbing with Northern Ireland. I've managed to get one more of the remaining two counties up to speediable level:

• {{cl|County Londonderry geography stubs}} - 70 stubs

I'd also like to propose in advance that if I can get {{cl|County Armagh geography stubs}} up to 60 I split that as well (saves on making yet another new header on this page!) It looks likely I will sometime in the next couple of days - it's currently close to 50. Grutness...wha? 02:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support any that reach 60 in your current NI stubbing drive. Severo^TC 15:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

With the cat nearing 800 (presently 734), I suggest splitting it somehow. Normally, I'd suggest a continental split for the usually forgotten South America and Africa, but seeing as the split for Protected areas was shot down, I am at a loss. A potential {{cl|African business biography stubs}} (fed by {{tl|Africa-business-bio-stub}}, {{tl|SouthAfrica-business-bio-stub}} and {{tl|Zimbabwe-business-bio-stub}} is over 60 and could be a start.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Shot down? Whaaaat? Support continental categories. I just don't see the long-term point of continental templates, since they'll inevitably be replaced, creating double-handling, and confusion of expectation if we whimsically create them, and then inconsistently decide to delete them. Alai (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• It makes no sense to create an upmerged {{tl|Tanzania-business-bio-stub}} when there is only one article in {{cl|Tanzanian businesspeople}}. By creating a continental split, we avoid having to make 200 templates for every stub.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• So by "shot down" you meant something more on the lines of "I'm going in a huff about a counter-suggestion", then. BTW, I make that respectively 2 and 50-odd. Where do you suggest the trade-off lies between upfront work and double-handling is concerned? What about when we split out by sub-region, as you going to insist on an {{tl|EAfrica-business-bio-stub}}, say? (Thus eventually introducing treble-handling, even.) Alai (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• I wouldn't exactly call it a huff. When a category is barely over 60, I just don't see a point in over-templatization when the will isn't there. IMO, I'd say a template is needed for a country if they are bi-continental (like Turkey or Israel in sports) or when they reach 20-30 stubs. If an editor has the will to split by country (as I did with {{tl|Africa-politician-stub}}) then I have no problem with them doing so.

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent 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|County Antrim geography stubs}} - 76
• {{cl|County Down geography stubs}} - 68
• {{cl|County Tyrone geography stubs}} - 66

None of the others reached 60, though Co. Londonderry was close (53). Ironically the one that was made unproposed (and which prompted this whole idea) is by far the smallest - Fermanagh only has 24 stubs, and will almost certainly need to be upmerged. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC), updated 02:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Slowly working my way through the Northern Ireland geo-stubs, divvying them up betweenm Belfast and the six counties, and Belfast has reached 60 stubs. Others will probably follow at some point fairly soon. Seems speediable. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Still working through this... there are 75 articles marked with an Oceanian rugby league biography stub template (other than Aus or NZ which already have their own categories), so propose above category. Severo^TC 20:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Should tidy up a few templates. Waacstats (talk) 06:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Irish politician stubs are getting closer to 800 the following splits by party are viable according to catscan

• {{Cl|Fianna Fáil politician stubs}} / {{tl|FiannaFáil-politician-stub}} and redirect {{tl|FiannaFail-politician-stub}}l
• {{Cl|Fine Gael politician stubs}} / {{tl|FineGael-politician-stub}}
• {{Cl|Irish Labour Party politician stubs}} / {{tl|Irishlabour-politician-stub}} or {{Tl|Ireland-labour-politician-stub}}

I have preference on which of the two templates we go for.

Waacstats (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

::whichever of them we use, Labour should have a capital L. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

:I'd somewhat prefer {{tl|IrishLabour-politician-stub}}, with a redirect from {{tl|Ireland-Labour-politician-stub}}. Alai (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Also over 750 are those poish politicians, again according to cat scan the following are viable.

• {{Cl|Platforma Obywatelska politician stubs}} / {{Tl|PlatformaObywatelska-politician-stub}}
• {{Cl|Prawo i Sprawiedliwość politician stubs}} / {{Tl|PrawoiSprawiedliwość-politician-stub}} and redirect {{Tl|PrawoiSprawiedliwosc-politician-stub}}

unless anyone knows anything official that is shorter for these two. Waacstats (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Category is geting close to oversized, we already have by state upmerged templates and the following would all have 60+ articles. So speedy propose

• {{Cl|Maryland Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{Cl|Mississippi Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{Cl|North Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{Cl|Washington DC Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{Cl|West Virginia Registered Historic Place stubs}}

Waacstats (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:See Washington D.C. above but support others.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|no category viable yet; do not create}}

we propose split the {{tl|Argentina-university-stub}} on a new stub referred merely to those National Universities state-run institutions given the fact that these are a big lump in number (nearer to 40 institutions, and certainly around 40 articles under construction) and style of education.

By doing so, we propose {{tl|Arg-National University-stub}} as a subcategory of {{tl|Argentina-university-stub}}Carau(talk) 15:47 20 July 2008.

• Very strong oppose. The vote on the deletion of {{tl|Arg-National University-stub}} was only closed yesterday, and that made it clear that universities are split by nation, not by whether universities are private or state run. In any case, given that teher are not even enough stubs marked with Argentina-university-stub for there to be a separate category for them, splitting would be extremely premature 9and if it was done, ti would be by subnatiuonal region, as with other university types worldwide). Grutness...wha? 01:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Who's "we"? You and the anon IP going around tagging clearly-non-stub articles, "double-stubbing" articles with duplicate tag, and generally creating one epic headache to clean this up? Enough already, please. Alai (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Ok I catch it, but by using this country criterion, not should be merged the Canadian and U.S. (and even Mexican) universities stubs into a more globally "North American University stub"?? On the other hand, where could I find information about a threshold needed to build up a new subcategory??. Have a nice day all Carau(talk) 16:47 21 July 2008.(UTC)
• New categories are created when there are 60 articles tagged with a stub template. The US and Canada both have more than 60 articles so have their own categories. Severo^TC 20:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• We're likely to be getting close to that threshold soon, it must be said, though the over-tagging somewhat fuzzifies this. Even if we creep up to 60 stubs specifically from the National University, and 60 others, I think a re-split would be more than a little dubious. (Elsewhere we've simply re-divided by subdivision (or semi-lumped 'region'), at the point that's become necessary, but the 'necessary' watermark is traditionally 800, so we're quite a way off that...) Alai (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• FWIW if and when, luckily Argentina's provinces seem to be usually regarded as being in six "semi-lumped regions". Grutness...wha? 00:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Hi guys, discarding at all splits it into a new National University stub I found this official resource which rise the argentinean university number up to 83 - [http://www.me.gov.ar/spu/Servicios/Autoridades_Universitarias/autoridades_universitarias.html Education Ministry of Argentina]. Can I propose now an Argentinean stub as an independently category (of course once gathered at least 60 sites) from the South America University stub?? Carau (talk)
• Once there are 60 stubs on the subject (assuming they are really stubs, not larger articles) there'd be no problem with proposing a separate category. But it's best to have 60 existing stubs before proposing it. We don't split things up because there may someday be 60 stubs - only when we know that there definitely are 60. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

I think we could use a trade sub to take care of any pages that deal with trade or international trade. I counted 45 articles(that had trade in the title) in {{tl|Econ-stub}} that could use the a trade stub. There are 285 articles in :Category:International trade and probably a fair amount of them could use this stub. Thanks --Patrick (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:There are over 60 articles marked {{tl|econ-stub}} in the recursive {{cl|International trade}}, so support, either as {{tl|trade-stub}}/{{cl|Trade stubs}} or maybe {{tl|international-trade-stub}}/{{cl|International trade stubs}} to match the perm cat. {{cl|Economics and finance stubs}} is very oversized, do you see any other obvious splits? Severo^TC 11:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks. There a slight difference between trade and international trade, trade would be more inclusive of articles that deal with trade within a country. I was thinking that it might be useful to create a category with trade and then have international trade as a sub-category. In terms of other stubs, maybe economic theory and economic/financial policies. I think it might be useful to expand this discussion by posting it on WikiProject Economics and WikiProject Business and Economics. I will post it. --Patrick (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the outreach to the WikiProjects. The only thing I have with that is it doesn't match what the perm cats are right now, since there is no {{cl|Trade}}. I think it's often best to follow the perm cats. That said, I see no real reason why there should not be such a general trade perm category. I wouldn't be surprised if created it met the criteria for it's own stub template as well! On to additional splits of this category, I propose:

:::*{{tl|econ-policy-stub}}/{{cl|Economic policy stubs}} (87)

:::*{{tl|econ-theory-stub}}/{{cl|Economic theory stubs}} (62)

:::*{{tl|econ-problem-stub}}/{{cl|Economic problem stubs}} (259)

:::Severo^TC 19:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

::::In case it helps, {{tl|econ-policy-stub}} and several other econ types are listed for creation on the to-do list. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::::Ok, sounds great. Should we add in a stub for trade too. I don't mind going around tagging some pages with :Category:Trade. Also, what type of articles do you think would in the problem stub? Cheers --Patrick (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::Cheers Peg, didn't see them. {{tl|econ-problem-stub}} would cover stub articles in the recursive {{cl|Economic problems}}. Severo^TC 07:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::Ooo, new-category smell. Good call. Support any and all of these if they fly numerically, and help with the econostuberg. Severo, pardon me if I'm being dense, over-literal, or some combination of the two, but in what way are {{cl|economic problems}} and {{cl|international trade}} recursive? They don't look it to me... Alai (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Thatb would be the "economics stub mountain" ("stub lake"?), I think :) Support any that seem viable, per above. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Sorry I'm using AWB speak where recursive means "category and all sub-categories and all their sub-categories etc". Severo^TC 09:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::In stubspeak it usually means that the stub template has been erroneously transcluded into the category, meaning that the category becomes a subcategory of itself. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that {{cl|Trade}} has been created, support {{tl|trade-stub}}/{{cl|Trade stubs}} including international trade articles. Severo^TC 09:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So I'm a bit confused about what happens next. Can I create the stubs myself or does somebody else do it? This is my first stub creation discussion. Thanks. --Patrick (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

:It's been more than five days so you can create them yourself, or if not I'll be back home tomorrow evening and will do them. Severo^TC 01:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, I created them but can you look at them to see if i did it correctly. Thanks so much --Patrick (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

:::The templates were fine, I've tweaked the categories to normal stub standards. BTW, I see theat one of the permcats is at {{cl|Economic theories}} (plural), which might have a slightly different meaning. That may need resolution elsewhere (it's not a stub problem, but should be noted). Grutness...wha? 00:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

::::Thanks! Good point on economic theories, I'll propose that it gets moved. Thanks --Patrick (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

This one's not strictly necessary, since {{cl|Horse racing stubs}} has only around 220 stubs, but of those some 108 - almost exactly half - are racecourses. Might be worthwhile to split them out, since they'd be a natural child type of sports venue stubs, too. Grutness...wha? 13:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

:Support and propose further, {{tl|UK-horseracing-venue-stub}} upmerged as 53 marked stubs are about UK racecourses. Severo^TC 11:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:: Support both Grutness and Severo. Waacstats (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Speedy the following as they both have upmerged templates with 60+ articles

• {{Cl|Bolivian football biography stubs}}
• {{Cl|Ecuadorian football biography stubs}}

Waacstats (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as revised}}

Over 60 articles so speedy propose it's category {{Cl|Washington, DC building and structure stubs}}.Waacstats (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:Make that D.C. per {{cl|Buildings and structures in Washington, D.C.}} and you've got yourself a speedy--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

::A good example of why even simple categories should be proposed. change to {{Cl|Washington, D.C. building and structure stubs}}. Waacstats (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

An upmerged template, which would help bring the number of entries in {{cl|Norwegian politician, 18th century birth stubs}} to 70-80. Punkmorten (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support, per discussion at WP:SFD. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Virginia-geos are still very large, remaining counties seem to be bubbling under. A well-defined region seems to be the Middle Peninsula, which would also be comfortably populable. I'm going to speedy this, on the basis that the by-county templates are totally standard, and if necessary the regional lumping can be tweaked later. Alai (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

:Support - on the assumption this is a category only, fed by county-specific templates. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

:To which add {{cl|Shenandoah Valley, Virginia geography stubs}}, {{cl|Northern Neck geography stubs}}, and whatever else we have a reasonably-scoped article for, and that passes 60. Alai (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

3 templates have passed 60, speedy propose the relevant categories.

• {{Tl|IsleofMan-politician-stub}} - {{Cl|Manx politician stubs}}
• {{Tl|Georgia-politician-stub}} - {{Cl|Georgian (country) politician stubs}}
• {{Tl|Slovakia-politician-stub}} - {{Cl|Slovak politician stubs}}

Waacstats (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:Support categorise away. I must admit to being surprised by the Manx one, but we may have active editors in Ramsay or Peel :) Grutness...wha? 23:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

I daily trawl {{cl|New Zealand geography stubs}} looking for stubs needing further sorting, and I've noticed that of the 80-odd stubs which normally reside in that category, over 40 are from the New Zealand Outlying Islands. It would be a good idea, IMO, to have a separate template for them, since it seems likely they will eventually reach the 60 necessary for a split (indeed, I might make a few of the remaining stubs myself). As such, I'd like to propose an upmerged template for them - trouble is, what to call it? Personally, I'd favour {{tl|OutlyingNZ-geo-stub}}, but I'm open to suggestions. Grutness...wha? 02:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

:I'm making it at {{OutlyingNZ..., with a redirect from the other name. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Going though {{tl|econ-stub}} and I've noticed that some articles could use {{tl|Business-term-stub}} and {{tl|Economic-term-stub}}. There is a {{cl|Business terms}} and {{cl|Economics terminology}}. Cheers --Patrick (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

:Oops - spotted too late! That should be {{tl|Econ-term-stub}} - I've moved it and left the original name as a redirect. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create with correct County caps}}

Category is slightly oversized (1155). Unfortunatly permcat is of no use in splitting this but there are lists of... by county so I propose splitting by county. The following templates and categories if over 60

• {{tl|BarnstableMA-NHRP-stub}} / {{cl|Barnstaple county, Massachusetts Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{tl|BerkshireMA-NHRP-stub}} / {{cl|Berkshire county, Massachusetts Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{tl|BristolMA-NHRP-stub}} / {{cl|Bristol county, Massachusetts Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{tl|DukesMA-NHRP-stub}} / {{cl|Dukes county, Massachusetts Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{tl|EssexMA-NHRP-stub}} / {{cl|Essex county, Massachusetts Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{tl|FranklinMA-NHRP-stub}} / {{cl|Franklin county, Massachusetts Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{tl|HampdenMA-NHRP-stub}} / {{cl|Hampden county, Massachusetts Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{tl|HampshireMA-NHRP-stub}} / {{cl|Hampshire county, Massachusetts Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{tl|MiddlesexMA-NHRP-stub}} / {{cl|Middlesex county, Massachusetts Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{tl|NantucketMA-NHRP-stub}} / {{cl|Nantucket county, Massachusetts Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{tl|NorfolkMA-NHRP-stub}} / {{cl|Norfolk county, Massachusetts Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{tl|PlymouthMA-NHRP-stub}} / {{cl|Plymouth county, Massachusetts Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{tl|SuffolkMA-NHRP-stub}} / {{cl|Suffolk county, Massachusetts Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{tl|WorcesterMA-NHRP-stub}} / {{cl|Worcester county, Massachusetts Registered Historic Place stubs}}

Waacstats (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:Shouldn't all those "county" instances be "County" instead? - Dravecky (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as revised}}

Approaching oversized with absolutely no subcats or upmerged templates, I really have no suggestions for splitting other than national template feeding into continental categories. I don't forsee any country needing it's own category, as the country with the most Olympic medalists in Judo (Japan) only has 71 articles in {{cl|Japanese judoka}}. I'd suggest someone get going on it because it is going to expand quickly with the forthcoming Olympics. Anybody know anything about Judo?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

:Only 10 of the articles relate to Japanese Judoka (according to catscan) the largest seem to be Germany 51, France 50, Russia 43, Georgia 34, UK 29, Netherlands 23, Brazil 17. I would suggest categories for Europe and Asia with a continental template and any national templates people want to make at this moment or at any time in the future.Waacstats (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

::Support Waacstats' suggestion. Severo^TC 11:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Syunik geography stubs}} 145
• {{cl|Shirak geography stubs}} 119
• {{cl|Lori geography stubs}} 117
• {{cl|Aragatsotn geography stubs}} 112
• {{cl|Gegharkunik geography stubs}} 99
• {{cl|Ararat (province) geography stubs}} 99
• {{cl|Tavush geography stubs}} 74
• {{cl|Armavir (province) geography stubs}} 72
• {{cl|Kotayk geography stubs}} 63

Parent is oversized, provincial split looks straightforwardly feasible. Alai (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:Straightforward Support. Waacstats (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Oversized. Split by primary subdiv looks perfectly feasible, starting with:

• {{cl|Barisal Division geography stubs}} 241
• {{cl|Chittagong Division geography stubs}} 88

The lop-sided distribution suggests to me that someone's engaged in populating this at the moment, so upmerged templates would be timely. Alai (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:Support categories and templates. Upto 1111 by the way. Waacstats (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

71 items would qualify; I'm trying to keep {{cl|history book stubs}} from getting too big for its britches. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as compu-algorithm-stub}}

Hundreds of algorithm stubs exist throughout {{cl|Computer stubs}} and {{cl|Computer science stubs}}, both of which are Overpopulated stub categories. — Skittleys (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support, but I'd suggest making it compu-algorithm-stub or similar - algorithms aren't automatically computer-related, and the parent category {{cl|Algorithms}} looks quite messy and in need of a shake-up soon. Grutness...wha? 09:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

There are tens, if not hundreds, of these guys hanging out in the enormously overpopulated {{cl|Biochemistry stubs}} and {{cl|Protein stubs}} and their children. To me, the wording sounds a little awkward, but it follows from {{cl|Receptors}}. — Skittleys (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• There's a {{cl|Transmembrane receptor stubs}} which already owns 747 articles (gulp!). Are the hundreds you mention of any particular type of receptor? Do we need to create something more specific? Her Pegship (tis herself) 06:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Both {{cl|Biochemistry stubs}} and {{cl|Protein stubs}} are near the top of the "oversized stub categories" list. Sifting through them, I can already see potential for this category. It would include not only methods but lab materials (e.g., growth environments—like the stub Bismuth sulfite agar—and synthetic and/or exogenous enzymes used for lab purposes would go here). Category name also matches the "real" category {{cl|Biochemistry methods}}. {{cl|Protein methods}} also exists, which may warrant {{tl|Protein-method-stub}} in the future, but I don't think there's enough to justify splitting biochem methods right now. — Skittleys (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as upemrged Africa-Amfoot-bio-stub & Nigeria-Amfoot-bio-stub}}

Feel free to suggest a different name, but I think an upmerged stub for American football players from African countries (such as Patrick Kabongo, Ashton Youboty, B. J. Tucker and Iheanyi Uwaezuoke). It would be upmerged to {{cl|African sportspeople stubs}}, with the possibility of a {{tl|Nigeria-AmFoot-bio-stub}} because of the large number of Nigerians playing American football.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - with the proviso that these are -Amfoot-, not -AmFoot- , as per {{tl|Amfoot-bio-stub}}. It's only weak support because of the info in the top of the main Amfoot-bio category re: using scountry-bio-stub, but I suspect it would simply be delaying the inevitable to oppose. Grutness...wha? 23:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

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