Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/June 2007#Miscellaneous double-stubbing mashup

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Basidiomycetes stubs}} 148
• {{cl|Ascomycetes stubs}} 97

Oversized parent. Alai 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Aelfthrytha 02:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Million_Moments 08:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Parent's now onto its sixth page. A split by state seems straightforward, with five immediately viable:

• {{cl|Lower Austria geography stubs}} 436
• {{cl|Burgenland geography stubs}} 155
• {{cl|Carinthia geography stubs}} 142
• {{cl|Styria geography stubs}} 68
• {{cl|Tyrol geography stubs}} 61

I suggest templates only for Upper Austria (42), Vorarlberg (39), Salzburg state (37) and Vienna (11), though I wouldn't be surprised if three of those were viable with further sorting of the uncatted rump. Alai 21:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Is that all the states? If not, I'd also support templates for any others. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• That's all. Alai 00:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Aelfthrytha 02:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

I would like to start a Thai Cat stub. There is a Thaikatzen stub, but this cat is different from the Thai Cat as it is related to the Western Siamese and Thailand Wichien-Maat.

I have several articles already posted on my website and people willing to contibuted:

http://www.evineacats.com/thai_cat_history.htm

http://www.evineacats.com/welcome_thai_cat.htm

http://www.evineacats.com/tica_article.htm

Amy Adolph 18:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• This page is not the place to request the creation of stub articles, which is what you seem to be proposing. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

four upmerged templates now have over 60 articles so I propose, from {{Cl|European company stubs}}

• {{Cl|Finnish company stubs}}
• {{Cl|Norwegian company stubs}}
• {{Cl|Swiss company stubs}}

and from {{Cl|Asian company stubs}}

• {{Cl|Malaysian company stubs}}

Waacstats 14:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• No reason these can't be speedied. (Well, unless resolution of nouns v. adjectives for such cases is likely in the next five days.) Alai 14:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

After some manual sorting the upmerged template crept up to 59, so I've speedily given it its own category. Alai 14:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Over 800; I'm guessing we want to split by counties and/or region, say on the lines of the geo-stubs (so likely starting with SoCal). Alai 22:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Parent is at exactly 800, this seems the best candidate at 54 (by permcatting, there may be a couple more someplace). Alai 21:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:Sounds jättebra. Support Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Over 800; precedent would be to split by decade of release. Alai 21:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Just over 800; we could split this up into more specific positions (cornerbacks and safeties), but I'm guessing we more likely want to split by decade of birth, per the recent offensive line re-split. Alai 21:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support decade of birth as per offensive line split and others that have been proposed and yet to be acted upon. Waacstats 12:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

UK orgs are oversized; this looks like a plausible place to start. Alai 23:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

To cover concerts, tours, festivals, etc, of which there are quite a few in music stubs sitting there with nowhere to go. Not sure what the category would be named though. Crystallina 01:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds very plausible to me. As the permcat is {{cl|music events}}, I'll go so far as to suggest {{cl|music event stubs}}. Alai 02:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create Kenya & Namibia, hold off on WI}}

74 articles in {{cl|Namibian cricketers}}, 40 articles in {{cl|Kenyan cricketers}}, over 200 stubs in {{cl|West Indian cricket biography stubs}}, so I propose a template for Kenya (feeding into {{cl|Kenyan sportspeople stubs}}, cat and template for Namibia and a split of the West Indies by country. user:Thomas.macmillan

:Qualified support templates but not categories. Namibia cricketers does have 74 articles but not all are stub articles and unless 60 are stubs I am against a category. As for the split of west indies, it is not yet so large as to be needed and I don't know if this would be the most useful way to split (though it maty help popoulate the relvent island bio-stub categories). Waacstats 22:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

::I actually took the liberty of creating a template for Namibia and 73 of the 74 articles are stubs. For the West Indies, perhaps a national level split that feeds into the current category?--Thomas.macmillan 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes to Namibia and Kenya, but no to the WI split. They play as a unitary side internationally, and splitting them by island is not much different to splitting soccer players by team. I'd prefer a split by bowler/batsman/wicketkeeper/all-0rounder, or by era. I'd strongly advise goiung to the Cricket WikiProject to ask for advice on this one. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

::This hasn't been raised at WT:CRICKET yet (I'll put a note there), but I can confidently predict that the answer will be "no" to splitting the West Indies: in cricket, they're regarded as one country.

::I believe we've previously had this discussion for England, and decided that there was no clear distinction between batsmen, bowlers and all-rounders; and by era has awkward boundaries. In the end, England-cricket-bio-stub has split off England-international-cricket-bio-stub for cricketers who have represented the England national cricket team at Test or One-Day International level. That's probably the way forward for other countries as and when a split is needed.

::Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure there's any need for it, but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to splitting the Windies by nationality: I don't think it's really the same as splitting footballers by team, as cricketers still objectively have nationalities (and generally just one), regardless of the existence of the unified team. (The example of the EU politico who wants to file his nationality off springs to mind.) There's probably a number who're qualify to play, or have played for more than one island, though. If the internationalists are a useful split, following that model seems fair enough; beyond that, we seem to have ended up cutting the era Gordian knot by just binning by decade of birth, which has the advantage of being very simple to implement, and unambiguous. But no cricketer stub types are on the panic list, as far as I know... Alai 13:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

::::As there's currently exactly 200 stubs in the WI type, which is pretty much optimal on the stub category size Goldilocks test, I'd amend this to say there's definitely no need for it, now or in the foreseeable future. Alai 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stephen Turner re West Indies. In terms of international cricket, the various states are combined as a geographical unit. Individually, the state teams are the equivalent of English county teams. Splitting West Indies by state would be artificial and misleading. No problem with Namibia or Kenya if the numbers are increasing. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

:Ok, well, if we aren't going to split the West Indies cricket stub, then we should create sportspeople stubs for Jamaica and Trinidad to begin with.--Thomas.macmillan 03:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

::I can buy that as an option, double-stubbing with the WI-cricket and individual country-sports-bio stubs. Grutness...wha? 06:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Trinidad certainly looks viable as it currently doen't have a footy-bio-stub and I'm guessing atleast some of the players in the world cup only have stub articles and it has a template fot athletics-bios with 40+ so should easy to populate. I don't know about Jamaica as it already has an athletics-bio category. Waacstats 08:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

::Jamaica is well sorted in the sports category, with footy and athletics categories. Most of the exisiting stubs in "Jamaica-bio-stub" are sportspeople and the 70 + cricketers seem to be mostly stubs, so I'd suggest an upmerged stub for now with the likelihood of a category needed in the near future. While I'm here, can someone tell me why cricketer categories are mostly "foo cricketers" not "fooian cricketers"?--Thomas.macmillan 14:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

:::An example should make the reason for that clear - Tony Greig was born in South Africa, but played cricket for England. Therefore he's South African, but an England cricketer. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create by continent}}

Surprisingly, there is no stub for women's basketball players. I am not sure of a name for it, but the US category could use a separate stub, while Europe could probably due with just a template for the time being. It's also probably more useful to sort women's basketball players by sex rather than decade to start with. I am also proposing continental templates ({{tl|Africa-hoops-bio-stub}}, {{tl|Asia-hoops-bio-stub}}, {{tl|SouthAm-hoops-bio-stub}}, {{tl|NorthAm-hoops-bio-stub}}, {{tl|Oceania-hoops-bio-stub}}) for the remaining hoops-bio-stubs, with women's templates as well. Any thoughts on the name of the women's?--Thomas.macmillan 23:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ooops, just discovered {{tl|US-women-hoops-bio-stub}}--Thomas.macmillan 23:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Two more upmerged templates with over 60 articles I propose

• {{Cl|Japanese athletics biography stubs}}
• {{Cl|South African athletics biography stubs}}

Waacstats 13:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Would also seem speediable. Alai 14:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

:Speedy. There is no need to seek approval for the creation of categories, if size is the only reason behind an upmerge. Just my 2 cents. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Brazil-bio-stub stands at over 500 and, surprisingly, there is no {{tl|Brazil-sport-bio-stub}}. It looks like basketball players, swimmers, racecar drivers, and volley ballers could use templates feeding into the category.--Thomas.macmillan 23:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Stitch in time... Alai 01:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Another useful template may be athletics (around 25 articles last time I checked).Waacstats 08:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

StubSense claims there is almost 100 possibilities, suggest creating upmerged template to get exact count and option for category ({{cl|Brazilian musician stubs}}) if count reaches 60. Monni 16:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as revised}}

This has been lingering oversized for a while, and on the basis of categorisation, I see only one feasible axis to break it down further:

• {{cl|2000s United States television program stubs}} 193
• {{cl|1990s United States television program stubs}} 156
• {{cl|1980s United States television program stubs}} 104
• {{cl|1970s United States television program stubs}} 97
• {{cl|1960s United States television program stubs}} 69
• {{cl|1950s United States television program stubs}} 59

(Or alternatively "series" per the permcats, if that's a useful distinction.) Alai 15:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Can we hold off a bit while I slog through and see how much re-sorting I can do? I think a lot of them can be re-sorted by genre, at which point maybe we can make genre-related sub-cats. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• That's fine with me, let us know when you know more... BTW, there might be another db dump soonish, so if people want to add genre-based permcats, that might also help. Alai 18:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• I've dug through about half of the {{tl|US-tv-prog-stub}} articles and found many double-stubbed along with the appropriate genre. I think nearly everything in that category can be re-stubbed by genre. Can you do that voodoo that you do so well, and check to see which genres could use splitting? (since the toolserver is still out of date...) I'm finding a lot of non-fiction tv shows, particularly sports and cooking shows, which might be big enough to split out. Or maybe news shows. Thanks for any help you can give me. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see where I've gone wrong: was crunching from the wrong parent; there are by-genre cats, just not US-specific ones. My bad for missing that in the first instance, sorry.

• {{cl|Comedy_television_series}} 151
• {{cl|Non-fiction_television_series}} 139
• {{cl|Sitcoms}} 83
• {{cl|Drama_television_series}} 83
• {{cl|News_television_series}} 55
• {{cl|Children's_television_series}} 51
• {{cl|Comedy_television_series_stubs}} 47
• {{cl|Science_fiction_television_series}} 33
• {{cl|Drama_television_series_stubs}} 30
• {{cl|American_children's_television_series}} 27
• {{cl|American_comedy_television_series}} 26
• {{cl|Horror_television_series}} 26
• {{cl|Television_talk_shows}} 23
• {{cl|Game_shows}} 23
• {{cl|The_Outer_Limits_episodes}} 23

So it looks like comedy, non-fiction, drama, news and children's are pretty much gimmes (factoring in some modest degree of undercounting in the latter two cases). Comedy is possibly big enough to consider subcats, though that's not urgent. Alai 01:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Here's how these are ordered:

:*{{cl|Comedy_television_series}} 151

:**{{cl|American_comedy_television_series}} 26

:**{{cl|Comedy_television_series_stubs}} 47

:**{{cl|Sitcoms}} 83

:*{{cl|Non-fiction_television_series}} 139

:**{{cl|News_television_series}} 55

:**{{cl|Television_talk_shows}} 23

:**{{cl|Game_shows}} 23

:*{{cl|Drama_television_series}} 83

:**{{cl|Drama_television_series_stubs}} 30

:*{{cl|Children's_television_series}} 51

:**{{cl|American_children's_television_series}} 27

:*{{cl|Science_fiction_television_series}} 33

:*{{cl|Horror_television_series}} 26

:...so I propose a {{tl|news-tv-prog-stub}} and maybe a {{tl|sport-tv-prog-stub}}, although I don't see that in the list. Maybe upmerged {{tl|talk-tv-prog-stub}} and {{tl|game-tv-prog-stub}}. Any takers? Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

::Me, for one. Sports isn't on the list because I once again didn't pick a general enough route: there's 46 under {{cl|sports television}}, though, so that sounds very plausible, too. Alai 13:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Over 600 articles and the entire first page is either drafts or seasons, don't think that we have enough for a drft-stub but certainly we have enough for a season stub I propose {{Cl|American football season stubs}} with the template called {{Tl|AmericanFootball-season-stub}} or {{Tl|Amfoot-season-stub}}. Waacstats 14:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

:After a recount we do have enough for a {{Cl|American football draft stubs}} again fed by which ever is deemed more acceptable {{Tl|AmericanFootball-draft-stub}} or {{Tl|Amfoot-draft-stub}}

::The main template in the parent is {{tl|Americanfootball-stub}}, so these should follow suit. Strong support on the first, and milder support on the second, BTW. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

I think there needs to be a producer stub, because right now I've noticed that a lot of producers are just listed under stub. I think it would make things a little more organized, if they had their own stub category. Also, from there you can get more specific, like tv-producer-stub or movie-producer-stub. It's just an idea. Anyone have any thoughts on this? kc12286 01:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• comment - We've already got {{tl|film-producer-stub}}, and {{tl|music-producer-stub}}.Crystallina 03:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

: I looked for it. I guess it's listed under films. Well in that case, maye adding a tv-producer-stub would be helpful. kc12286 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• We have just created {{tl|US-tv-producer-stub}}; are there any other nationalities big enough to split? Or enough among the other nationalities to merit a general {{tl|tv-producer-stub}}? Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

{{cl|2000s single stubs}} is oversized; we'd ideally want to split by genre, but isn't the Japanese music scene nigh unto a genre unto itself? There's 120 of these, at any rate. Only other obvious possibility seems to be #1 singles, which it strikes me is unlikely to be of much use, since it smooshes together #1s in completely different countries and charts, which is pretty pointless for almost any editor I can think of. (The singles and songs need either more use of "genre" cats, or else for their by-artists cats to be put in genre categories, as the album-by-artist cats are.) Alai 19:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• As I understand things, the Japanese music scene is separate from that in the United States. I need a new stub category for an article on the A&M single "Reimy - Speed of Light" on which I am still gathering data (some awaiting translation from ja.Wikipedia.org). Recommend, as an alternate, Category:Japanese song stubs. - B.C.Schmerker 04:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• {{cl|Japanese song stubs}} looks sensible (and likely to be over threshold) to me, too. It might require a certain amount of double-stubbing rather than splitting, though. Alai 05:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create cat for SouthAm-singer-stub}}

{{cl|Singer stubs}} is large again, and the biggest unsplit countries by permcat are Brazil and Argentina, with Jamaica and the Dominican Republic in single-digit remainder. Before anyone protests that we split the Americas into "North" and "South"... well, why? That's not how the UN geoscheme works, and we really need to decide whether we're following it, or not. This would be smallish, but Mexico would be an existing subcat, plus there's probably significant undercounting. Alai 16:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, we already have {{tl|SouthAm-singer-stub}} which overlaps. Monni 19:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, I'd missed that, sorry. But that's a) an upmerged template, that doesn't seem to have immediate prospects of categorical viability with that scope, b) at a level that doesn't correspond to any permcat, and c) is at the third level of the UN geoscheme: which indicates to me that it's not the right way of tagging such articles, in any respect. The question remains, do we want to follow the UN geoscheme, or not? (At least in cultural and human geography matters: if this were a geological type, that'd be a different matter.) Alai 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• {{tl|SouthAm-singer-stub}} does have ~50 incoming links, so taking count that not all country-specific permanent categories have been sorted yet, there is chance that remaining ~10 will come eventually. Monni 05:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

{{cl|Non-fiction book stubs}} are still oversized; {{cl|business books}}, {{cl|finance books}} and {{cl|economics books}} seem to disappear up their own fundaments in a category cycle, so pick your take for a suitable category name. Population of 72, by my count. Alai 02:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Works for me. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Surprised we don't have this one already. At any rate, parent is now Officially Big, 141 permcat-based possibilities for this. Alai 05:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

:Support. Aelfthrytha 04:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

BC-geo-stubs are oversized, splitting by regional district seems the obvious thing to do. 40 on the basis of just double-stubbing. Alai 04:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|hold off for now}}

Another reproposal: see here. If people want to actually go ahead with the topic-based fishing expedition, I'll hold off; if not, this looks the only one that's remotely close to being viable on the basis of permcatting. (Sport is about 30, everything else way below.) Alai 15:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'll tackle this later in the week, after I wrestle US-tv-prog-stub to the ground. Thanks for the heads-up. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Have begun with {{tl|bio-documentary-stub}}; more to come. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

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

• See {{tl|firefighting-stub}}. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not it. I mean Sirens, Horns and commercial fire alarms. For ex see notifier—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedjatclubrock (talk • contribs)

• Notifier is a company and would be sorted under some type of company stub. Under {{cl|Fire detection and alarm}} there are only 14 articles; if I go up the hierarchy I only see maybe twice that number under the whole umbrella of {{cl|Fire protection}} and its sub-cats. If there is an associated WikiProject, 30+ stubs is the lowest number at which a stub template is considered; if not, 60+. Until those numbers can be reached I see no need for anything more specific than {{tl|firefighting-stub}}. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Australia stubs are oversized, this looks like the most coherent group to split out, with 58 in the {{cl|sport in Australia}} permcat tree. Alai 03:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.204.52 (talk • contribs)

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

{{sfp create}}

The region cat {{cl|Île-de-France geography stubs}} is oversized now, so time to split into departments. Only this one is clearly over threshold at the moment, at 409 (cough). However, some others are close-ish Val-de-Marne, 49; Yvelines, 41; Seine-Saint-Denis, 40; Essonne, 39; and Val-d'Oise, 37. Paris is only at 32, but when one adds in the {{tl|Streets of Paris-stub}} (see /D), it's also rather close. I'll create templates for all of them, and then see what happens. Alai 03:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

:As I said at /D, I object to adding the streets to that section. Road-stubs aren't listed as geo-stubs for anywhere else, so why Paris? Far better to make a France-road-stub and category for it to upmerge to. As to Seine-et-Marne's category and the other templates, though, that sounds fine. Grutness...wha? 03:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

::I don't especially care in this instance, since one the first one's done it'll be off my to-do list (hopefully for some considerable time), but as I said the previous time you made this objection, I don't see the expansion-oriented logic of lumping urban streets, and articles like Place du Colonel Fabien, in with say A151 autoroute (not marked as a stub, but looks like one to me). Some common sense about when things "must" be sorted by type (as well as when they must not be) would be a plan. Alai 04:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I just don't see why France should be treated any differently to the UK, US, Australia, and Canada - in each of those cases, urban roads are not treated as geo-stubs, they quite logically get road-stub. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

::::I don't recall suggesting it be treated differently. I'm suggesting they all be treated as above: we've had this same conversation about some of those very instances. Your assertion about what's "logical" I've already disputed, and your claim as to how they are actually treated seems dubious to me: care for a wager as to how many 'urban neighbourhood articles with "street" or similar in the title' are actually currently tagged with -geo-stubs? This is probably butting heads to little short term purpose, however, since as I say Paris-geo-stub isn't going to be a priority for me, and I'm not holding my breath regarding France-road-stub. Alai 01:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::If they are stubbed that way they shouldn't be - and I can guarantee that only a very small percentage are. {{cl|Road stubs}} isn';t even a subcat of {{cl|Geography stubs}}, and neither is {{cl|Rail stubs}}, for exactly the same reason. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::My point is that if your argument is "facts on the ground", then you might in theory want to determine and take account of what said facts are, as opposed to replying on some internal model of what they "ought" to be. It doesn't matter what the categorisation of road-stubs is: the point is, are these road stubs, in any useful sense? Looks to me like a "no" on that one. Alai 04:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Strange - looks to me like a "yes" on that one. They are articles about roads. Those articles are stubs. It doesn't matter whether those roads are called streets, or that they are in Paris or anywhere else - the fact is that they are, by definition, road stubs. Grutness...wha? 08:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Strange indeed. Have you actually looked at the contents of those articles, or are you just taking it as axiomatic that anything with (in this case), "Avenue", "Boulevard", "Passage", "Place", "Quai" or "Rue" in the title must be a "road transport" article, most usefully expanded by "roadfan" types, and horribly mis-sorted if tagged alongside "neighbourhoods of Paris" types of article (to say nothing of other things that tend to get tagged with -geo-, especially when there's no other regional type to be had). Or is the error mine in assuming that there's some chance of you taking utility into account (kinda why we're bothering to do this in the first place), as opposed to essentially vacuous ontological arguments? Alai 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Different shaped ball same solution by decade of birth split Defender and Midifelders are over 700 and strikers are just shy of 600 (stitch in time) nb goalkeepers are way off at less than 300 and not worth splitting yet.Waacstats 23:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

There is an Electronic sports category ({{cl|Electronic sports}}) but no stub. I think it would be a good idea to create one for a bunch of Electronic sports articles that may begin to arise as esports hits national TV. One such is the Complexity Gaming article. Digx 08:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:oppose need enough existing stub articles. Monni 04:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

::Carolina Core, Dallas Venom, LA Complexity, San Francisco Optx, Chicago Chimera, 3D.NY, NiP, Major League Gaming, there are plenty more. Digx 12:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• What Monni is saying is that in order for a stub template to be necessary (or useful), there should be at least 60 articles that would be tagged with it. (Per the stub guidelines, which seems to be the best-kept secret on WP.) Stub templates aren't created just to draw attention to a topic. I would suggest you use {{tl|videogame-stub}} until {{cl|Electronic sports}} sub-cat has enough stub articles in it. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 14:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Ah, I understand much better now. Thank you. Yeah it does seem to be kept too big a secret! Maybe it should be more obvious somewhere? Digx 20:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• I recently added a Big Old Link at the top of every WPSS page. *sigh* Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Upmerged template with over 60 articles. Suggest speedy create cat.Waacstats 11:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with suggestion. Alai 14:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|tectonics stubs}} 107
• {{cl|geochronology stubs}} 122
• {{cl|volcanology stubs}} 63

Parent is oversized; these look to be viable, and not to overlap too much, if I'm understanding the category structure correctly. Alai 02:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:Fully support split & willing to help populate as time permits. Vsmith 02:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:Support; good idea. Avenue 03:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:Support - will sit nicely along glaciology-stub. With the usual caveat about volcanology (vulanology?) not being for actual volcanoes, of course. Grutness...wha? 06:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:Support. Makes sense to me with the assumption that all these stubs will be under the roof of Geology project. Solarapex 10:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

::They'll all be subcats of {{cl|geology stubs}}, and a project link or banner on the category page wouldn't seem amiss. Alai 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:What is the outcome of this proposal? Or is it waiting someone to create templates? Solarapex 15:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

::Basically was just in the Not Done Yet file. (Actual closure isn't really necessary here (just very handy for housekeeping purposes), since no admin action is required, and the process isn't supposed to the that formal (I think most people feel, at least).) OK, I've created these, and bot-populated them to the degree that seems reasonably safe. Please review those, and add to as seems good to you. (I can run another number-crunch after the next db dump to see what the biggest unsplit remainder is, with a view to further sub-types, but the dump cycle seems to have gone flakey in the extreme, so I can't really say when that'll be.) Alai 22:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Iowa school stubs}} 73
• {{cl|Nebraska school stubs}} 71
• {{cl|Alabama school stubs}} 69
• {{cl|Utah school stubs}} 65
• {{cl|South Carolina school stubs}} 64

Similar deal to below. Alai 21:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• third time Speedy support. Waacstats 21:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy support for the first four. I'm not happy with lumping the Carolinas together, though. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Hey, it's good enough for the NFL... That was a typo, fixed. (If one really had to lump the two, I think "Carolinas" would be more usual, though the USCB defines also smaller component regions of the South.) Alai 01:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• "Nothing could be finah than to be in Carolinah in the moooooooorning..." (and the song never says which one)...Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• ...and I always thought that referred to someone's name :) Grutness...wha? 00:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• :O !! :P Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Pennsylvania radio station stubs}} 131
• {{cl|Florida radio station stubs}} 115
• {{cl|North Carolina radio station stubs}} 110
• {{cl|New York radio station stubs}} 92
• {{cl|South Carolina radio station stubs}} 84
• {{cl|Illinois radio station stubs}} 64
• {{cl|Indiana radio station stubs}} 60
• {{cl|Minnesota radio station stubs}} 59

All are currently populated from double-upmerged templates, so again I'm inclined to speedy these. Alai 20:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Again Speedy Support. Waacstats 21:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

I've been creating a number of upmerged stub templates for European actors, but two of them are now at exactly 60, so no longer need to be: {{tl|Denmark-actor-stub}} and {{tl|Spain-actor-stub}}. I propose to create cats fairly speedily. Alai 18:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy support. Waacstats 21:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

This one may need a little brainstorming from the WP:WSS regulars. During discussion with User: Apcbg about the unproposed discovery Ancient-Thrace-bio-stub, it occurred to me that a stub covering biographies of ancient Europeans not covered by the Roman or Greek stub types would probably be very useful and would almost certainly reach 60 stubs, with Thracians, Spartans, Celts, Teutons and the like. IIRC we recently had a similar call for an Etruscan-bio-stub, which this would also cover. It does face a couple of problems, however: defining "Ancient" and defining "Europe". Personally, I'd define Ancient as being the same as BC and would be lenient on Europe to include Phoenicians, Trojans and Carthaginians - none of whom could accuately be described as European. And if that was to be the coverage, it might need a better name ("Classical-bio-stub"?). Any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 05:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

:::That would be a satisfactory solution I believe. Just one suggestion: Could we please illustrate the new Ancient-Euro-bio-stub with the picture used in Ancient-Thrace-bio-stub? It's the golden mask of a Thracian king, and reputedly the Thracians upheld the earliest cultural tradition in Europe (including the abovementioned 'peri-European' peoples too); as you possibly know the world's oldest gold (dated 46th century BC) was found near Varna. Apcbg 12:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

::Sounds reasonable - the only other thoughts I had were the statue of Boudicca in Westminster, UK, and the statue of the dying Gaul - neither of which would be easily recognisable at that size. Discussing the stub icon's a bit like putting the cart before the horse, though - I'd prefer to get the actual name and scope of the thing sorted out first! Grutness...wha? 23:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm not an expert on stub-template names, but 'Ancient-Europe-bio-stub' seems better to me; with 'Ancient-Euro-bio-stub' one would expect to see an 'Ancient-Dollar-bio-stub' too :-) Apcbg 08:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

::Heh. "Euro-" is used as a standard for Europe-related stub templates. Perhaps it should be the full word, but it would require a hell of a lot of work to get them all changed over to Europe. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Just fine with me. Apcbg 05:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Support per nom and the image of the Thracian gold mask is fine. I presume the category name (when we have 60 stubs) will be {{cl|Ancient European people stubs}} ? Valentinian ^{T / C} 07:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

::::In the meantime, the 'Ancient-Thrace-bio-stub' seems to have been transformed by User:Amalas into 'Ancient-Thrace-stub' (displaying however the former text "Ancient Thracians biographical article"); subject closed or what? Apcbg 19:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as revised}}

We've been around this one before, but hopefully we might get a bit more traction this time. Parent is of course enormous. I hope I'm on solid ground with at least the first one, as it was already suggested at the corresponding WPJ (at which I'm about to drop a note about this). I wonder if a still broader {{cl|anime and manga biography stubs}} would also be handy.

1. {{cl|Manga artist stubs}} 186
2. {{cl|Anime OVA stubs}} 139
3. {{cl|Anime film stubs}} 97
4. {{cl|Science fiction anime stubs}} 144
5. {{cl|Shōjo stubs}} 108
6. {{cl|Mecha anime stubs}} 76
7. {{cl|Fantasy anime stubs}} 71

As to the others, I'm easy either way on whether it makes more sense to split by medium, or by genre.

• Support {{cl|Manga artist stubs}}, Oppose all other as it give WP:ANIME too many stubs to juggle. Genre stubs are a particularly bad idea as most anime and manga belong to multiple genres and choosing the best stub won't be easy and a constant source of greif. --Farix (Talk) 19:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• I numbered them for easier reference. I support all but {{cl|Shōjo stubs}}. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support {{cl|Manga artist stubs}}, as most manga artist articles are stubs. Glad you took it up, I never got around listing all eligible articles (there are so many!). Not sure about the other cats though, as this would mean you could apply multiple stub cats on one article (a mecha-sci fi-fantasy OVA for instance), it could get confusing. Ninja neko 08:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• I imagine we'd (at most) want to do either the form/medium axis, or the genre axis, but not both. Since the "series" are in theory already split (that is, the type exists, but isn't significantly sorted to), and since it would presumably lead to less overlap, maybe the former makes more sense. Alai 12:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support {{cl|Manga artist stubs}}, As for OVA and films, I have opposed a stub type for anime-series before because its purpose is far outweighed by the maintenance needed to separate them from other anime/mange stub types. Basically all of what Farix said I agree with. --Squilibob 07:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Given the ever-increasing size of the parent stub type, can someone explain to me exactly what "maintaining" of this the anime WPJ is doing at present? From a stub-sorting point of view, it's not acceptable for this just to grow endlessly, and I can't believe it's very useful for anyone else (supposedly) working on these, either, at least as regards the chances of these articles ever being "unstubbed". Is the project going to agree to any way of sorting the remainder of these? (Note "agree to", not "actually do".) Alai 13:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

::*Comment: There are 1847 stub anime and manga articles. If you split OVAs and films off then that would removed only 236 of the 1847 still leaving over 1600 stubs left in the one category, but some OVAs have film adaptions and vice versa. And science fiction/mecha/fantasy would have even more overlap. --Squilibob 05:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

:::*Well, for one thing you're using the wrong numbers: this has nothing to do with the "stub class articles", which would remain as-is. The overlap is actually pretty small: around 25 of the above. There's about 1200 A&M-stubs per se, and sorting 200 of them would be an excellent first step, in my book. Also bear in mind that these numbers are on the basis of existing categorisation, and are probably considerable underestimates (I'll compile a list of the A&M stubs with no other category, in the vague hopes someone might actually categorise them). If someone else has a better idea as to how to split these up I'm all ears, but if the project is just going to say "no" to everything... Alai 22:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Alternatively, if the films and OVAs are especially apt to overlap (or not an especially interesting distinction for editorial purposes in the first place), we could have a combined "film and OVA stubs" category, which would at least serve to separate them out from wholly different media. Would that be a more attractive option? Alai 17:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• We don't have any film stub types that use release format (i.e. direct to video); I think just {{tl|anime-film-stub}} would work for our current purposes -- if necessary. There are only 2 pages of {{cl|Anime films}}. Any OVA can be given the category of {{cl|Direct-to-video films}} as well. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• I've gone ahead and done this, with an initial bot-population on as conservative a basis as I could manage. Alai 04:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|do not create; see further proposals at the end of June}}

{{cl|Plant disease stubs}} is now huge: over 1300. The only trouble with a "fungal" subtype is that it look like it would be huge, too: hundreds of articles were double-stubbed with fungus-stub at the time of the last db dump a week ago, and there's been a lot more created since. Broadly speaking I'd imagine we'd want to split further by either taxonomy of the infective agent, or else by taxonomy of effected species. Alai 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:I don't know what the solution is - perhaps I should stop creating all these stubs, and in fact, I'm pretty well done - I wanted to create stubs for all of the pathogens listed in the various disease lists. However, the issue is not really just restricted to 'stubs'. The 'Plant pathogens and diseases' category is now also very large. How could it be better organized? I noticed that the fungi category includes subcategories such as Ascomycetes and Basidiomycetes. Most of the plant disease stubs are for Ascomycetes, however, very few have so far been added to this category. If they were, the category would also be large. There also some subcategories for specific genera. I don't know if we want to start creating genera specific stubs (e.g Fusarium pathogen stub, ...) or crop specific stubs (Canola disease stub ..), although the taxonomic approach seems to be one that has been used for the organization of plant species - although I'm not sure if this is also reflected in the plant stubs.Somanypeople 01:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

::That's really out of our brief. Perhaps the best solution would be for you to find whatever WikiProject is most involved with this subject and work out how to subdivide the main parent category - Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology perhaps, or maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi or even Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology. That would make our job easier, too, since we can then divide the stub cats along whatever line the permcats are divided. If the stub category isn't going to grow much larger any time soon (and you did say you've more or less finished what you're doing), then we can hold off any split for a short while, at least. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

::: Well as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi I have been adding fungal plant diseases to their coverage but its quiet a small wikiproject. The majority of plant diseases are fungal, so the creation of a fungal plant disease catergory would, your correct, be huge. It may be best to divivde them by their hosts then. I suggest cereal disease stub, tree disease stub ect and I also suggest a general plant virus stub due to the number of viral family stub articles where all the members of that family are plant pathogens. Viruses also have a very large host range so it'd be harder to classify them that way. Million_Moments 11:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

::On permcats (though as G. says, this isn't strictly on-topic for this page, but what the hey) I'd image one would want categorisation by both organism and by host. Say, cat: or cat: plant diseases, plus something along the lines of cat:diseases of (or cat: diseases). Whether one wants "intersection categories" between the two is a judgement call. Once those are in place, then it becomes just a matter of which of the two (or which combination) is the most useful for editors expanding them. BTW, notice also this proposal to split up the fungi per se, which presumably will overlap a great deal with this. Alai 14:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Assuming this would be {{tl|fungus-disease-stub}}/{{cl|Category:Fungal plant pathogen and disease stubs}}, would this help diminish the humongous {{tl|fungus-stub}}s? Or are they currently all for fungi & not diseases? Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Not very much, since the trouble is they're almost all fungal plant diseases, so it'd be instantly oversized itself. Alai 16:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create by continent}}

Mil-stub is 5 pages and needs a split. {{tl|Asia-mil-stub}}, {{tl|Africa-mil-stub}}, {{tl|SouthAm-mil-stub}} would be a good beginning and could also be the parent cat's to the existing x-mil-stub. Also, a {{tl|country-mil-stub}} would be useful.--Thomas.macmillan 21:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support the continent splits (plus, if deemed useful, simular for Oceania, CentralAm, Caribbean and MEast). Not so sure about the country-mil-stub, though - what would that be used for? If simply "Military of Foo"-type articles, wouldn't they be better simply given their respective continental-mil-stub? Grutness...wha? 23:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Bigger than ever, but categorisation seems to have improved, so the following all look to be plausible now:

• {{cl|monoclonal antibody stubs}} 153
• {{cl|antimicrobial stubs}} 119
• {{cl|analgesic stubs}} 74
• {{cl|sedative stubs}} 70
• {{cl|anticonvulsant stubs}} 66
• {{cl|antihypertensive agent stubs}} 62

:Support. Monoclonal antibodies in particular would benefit from subsorting. I presume {{tl|antimicrobial-stub}} would apply to antifungals, antiparasitics etc. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

Oversized, here's two possibilities:

• {{cl|Defunct United States railroad companies stubs}} 187

or:

• {{cl|Class I United States railroad stubs}} 144

Anyone have a preference? Alai 19:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

: Can't we do the old split into 50 templates and upmerge to the 4 regions. Otherwise no preference (both?) Waacstats 21:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

::Trouble with that is there'll be a lot of multi-stubbing, as most railroads seem to cover more than one state, and in some cases a large number of states. I'll see if I can get some numbers of that, though... Alai 22:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

:What about splitting out locomotives and/or trains? Would that reduce the burden any? Grutness...wha? 10:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

::Hrm, not a bad plan... It's a little swamped in the numbers by the mass of railway operating companies, but if we smoosh together the contents of the {{cl|trains}} and {{cl|rolling stock}} (I'd have thought one would be a subcat of the other, but seemingly I'd have been wrong), there's around 80. It's a somewhat broad church, but at least it would separate them from the above. Alai 14:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

:::It would be especially useful to split out the paper railroads since I imagine that they are most likely to remain stubby and provide the worst inflation to the numbers. Mangoe 16:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

::::That'd be OK with me if it works, but there's no {{cl|paper railroads}}, or any other permcat with that scope that I can see, so I can neither count nor bot-sort those. If anyone wants to take care of those by hand... Alai 02:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Touch and go at 58, but much needed, as the China-bios are still growing: almost at 1000. Alai 03:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

:Support. Aelfthrytha 04:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create United States state government stubs}}

{{cl|United States government stubs}} is oversized, this would take care of it for the time being: there's 69 of these. Alternatively, could broaden this out to {{cl|United States official document stubs}}, of which there'd be 82 (including the above, which is a subcat). Alai 00:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

:Except that strictly speaking the Federalist papers, for all that they are used to interpret the founders' intent with respect to the Constitution, they aren't official. Indeed they're a subcat of a different cat, United States historical documents. Given the brevity of these papers (after all, each was in origin a newspaper editorial) I'm hard-pressed to see where a lot of these will ever be more than short articles serving as a bridge between articles on Supreme Court cases that cited them and the relevant Wikisource entry. That said I could live with a {{cl|United States Constitution stubs}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

::That's not the subcatting route I'm referring to (since it's not in the government subtree), but rather, {{cl|Federalist Papers}} being in {{cl|United States Constitution}}, which is indeed in {{cl|Official documents of the United States}}. Some Chinese whispers at work, perhaps. By permcat, {{cl|United States Constitution stubs}} would contain the 69 Federalist Papers, and exactly one other. (Usual undercatting caveats.) Alai 03:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Its a case where A being a subcat of B and B a subcat of C both make sense despite A not being a subcat of C in any way shape or form. That happens with cats. Since there won't ever be any more Federalist papers written, I'm dubious about a stub type for them. It probably would be more profitable to go with {{tl|US-federal-gov-stub}} / {{cl|United States Government stubs}} (note the capitalization of Government) with parent {{cl|Government of the United States}} and move the existing {{tl|US-gov-stub}} / {{cl|United States government stubs}} up in parentage to {{cl|Government in the United States}} as there are a number of State and local government stubs in United States government stubs that strictly speaking shouldn't be under the current scope. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

::::That's what I meant by the "Chinese whispers" effect, and yes, it happens with cats: an annoying amount. I agree that the FPs aren't the most obvious stub cat scope, but if these are "permastubs", at least they're not cluttering up the parents, and if they do get expanded, they can be upmerged. However, I'd certainly also be in favour of splitting up these on fed/state/local grounds, whether with one, two or three such local categories. It also looks to me that {{cl|United States state government stubs}} would be viable, with 74 articles at the most conservative estimates. (i.e. current US-govs in the immediate subcats of {{cl|State governments of the United States}}). I'd also agree with your re-parenting suggestion (what an entirely inobvious and opaque distinction in category names!). Alai 15:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Oversized parent, 64 of them are in the "children's writers" tree, and no other "by genre" cat. Alai 19:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

a stub for Wikiproject Nyeusigrube. it would feed into the catt Nyeusigrube stubs. --munkee_madnesstalk 08:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• As there are fewer than 20 articles in the entire {{cl|Nyeusigrube}}, I think this is not necessary yet. Please use {{tl|ya-novel-stub}} and {{tl|lit-char-stub}} until there are more than 30 stub articles that would apply (per the much-neglected stub guidelines). Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Or if there's an anticipated greater future need, create an upmerged template for now, and see how it goes. Alai 00:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|keep}}

This was created out-of-process back in January, and now that we have a related project I'd like to make it official. It's already populated with more than 60 articles. In addition, I believe every article in {{cl|Toshiyori}} should be here as well. Properly speaking this should be a subcat of {{cl|Sumo stubs}}, but I have no experience with this process so I'm not certain it ought to be created at this point even though it would be a great convenience for the project. What do people who know what they're doing here think? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Certainly at 65 stubs sumo-bio-stub is viable now, irrespective of whether there's a wikiproject. As far as sumo-stub is concerned, how many stubs are there likely to be about sumo that aren't biographies? Given that there's a wikiproject and this would be its primary stub, if there are 30 it seems a good idea. Even if there are slightly fewer than that, given that it's got a ready-made subcategory. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• If the numbers are utterly paltry, there's the option of creating it and upmerging the sumo-bios to "make up the numbers", for now. But if there's anything like a worthwhile number, I think 10-20+WPJ+subcat would be OK. Alai 00:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

Is there a stub on Musical equiptment? Such as speakers/mixers etc. Can this stub apply to companys such as denon.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedjatclubrock (talk • contribs)

:{{tl|tech-company-stub}} would work for Denon. For musical instruments try {{tl|musical-instrument-stub}}. BTW, there is an exhaustive list of stub types you can browse or search at WP:STUBS. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Jazz musician stubs}} 474
• {{cl|Jazz pianist stubs}} 117
• {{cl|Jazz saxophonist stubs}} 82
• {{cl|United Kingdom jazz musician stubs}} 63
• {{cl|United States jazz pianist stubs}} 56

{{cl|Jazz stubs}} is now oversized, and somewhat weirdly so, since lots of them are bios. Undersorting to {{cl|United States jazz musician stubs}} is inflating the above numbers somewhat, but even so... Alai 05:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as GreatBritain-MP-stub}}

:Moved from WP:SFD Grutness...wha? 00:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Propose creation of new stub template, and associated category, plus renaming of another related stub category.
The existing {{tl|UK-MP-stub}} is designed for Members of Parliament for the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which was only created in 1801 after the Acts of Union 1800. However, {{tl|UK-MP-stub}} is also being being used for members of the predecessor Parliament of Great Britain (1707-1800), members of which should be categorised separately.
The proposed structure can be summarised as:

• Parliament of Great Britain → :Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain → {{tl|GB-MP-stub}} / :Category:Great Britain MP stubs (1707-1800)
• Parliament of the United Kingdom → :Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament → {{tl|UK-MP-stub}} / :Category:British MP stubs (should be renamed to :Category:United Kingdom MP stubs)

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• How is this for numbers - are there currently 60+ stubs which could do with this? If not, certainly an upmerged template is a good option until such time as there are. I agree about the change in the name of the category if a split is warranted. Not entirely convinced by the name GB-MP-stub, but I can't think of a better one... Grutness...wha? 00:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• I don't have tools to allow an easy count, but I am currently running :Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain through AWB to split it into English, Scottish and Welsh sub-categories, and I reckon that there are well over a hundred stub articles for which {{tl|GB-MP-stub}} would be useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• New cat would get 108, though there's the complication that 25 would have to be double-stubbed, so this isn't exactly what you'd call a "clean split". Also bear in mind that there's existing subcats by a) party, and b) constituent nation, as well as c) currency. Given that this is somewhat in the spirit of the third axis, whose permcat was deleted ({{cl|Current British MP stubs}}, {{cl|current British MPs}}), I wonder if we shouldn't save ourselves some work by waiting until the permcats stop to-ing and fro-ing, and then come up with a consistent scheme. Oh, and if this does go ahead, I'd favour {{tl|Britain-MP-stub}} for the template. Alai 14:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Alai, the main categories are quite stable, and I haven't seen any toing and froing: I have seen no interest from any quarter in merging :Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain with the later :Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament (mercifully, because it would be historically inaccurate). Using the {{tl|UK-MP-stub}} for the MPs from before the UK was created just causes confusion amongst editors who may assume that there has only been one Parliament at Westminster (rather than three), which may explain why I have found a dozen articles miscategorised as "UK" when they should have been GB. Delaying the stub split will merely increase the incidence of that error, and make for more work unravelling it.
  As to the name of the template, I am wary of "Britain", because the name of the country concerned was "The Kingdom of Great Britain", whereas "Britain" is a more vague term used in several difft ways. I suggested the abbreviation because {{tl|UK-MP-stub}} uses an abbreviation, but if you prefer to avoid that, I'd be happy with {{tl|Great-Britain-MP-stub}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• That a parent of one of the existing stub cats was just deleted does not fit my criteria for "stable". It doesn't follow from the distinct(ish)ness of the UK and GB parliaments, and the reasonable distinction in permcats that there should also be a distinction in stub cats: they're not there for the same purpose, and if we were to create every possible stub cat on a one-for-one basis with permcats, the situation would become very unmanageable. (As opposed to just fairly unmanageable, as at present.) Especially if as I say, the stub cats are already split every which way. I don't really buy the idiot-proofing argument either: you assume that people are making this error because of the stub types, and not because it's a pretty subtle error in the grand scheme of things (just ask the average Brits what the distinction is, much less article-categorisers from hither and yon); and that making the change will suddenly lead to it getting fixed, while what seems more likely is that it'll just lead to more articles being mis-stub-tagged in the first instance, which if the stub cat is reworded the rescope, could increase rather than decrease mispermcatting as a second-order effect. I'm not arguing for "delay": if it's the right thing to do, it should be done as soon as possible. However, having the same stubs split three different ways or so is fairly clearly not the right thing to do: if we're going to split in this dimension, we need to take the others into account. Incidentally, I notice that at least one of the by-party splits is itself very nearly "officially oversized", so will need to be itself split in due course, so we'll have to consider whether to split regionally, or by finer-grained era (say, DoB, or by first or last year elected (or served)); as well as or instead of by-party. Just not all of them at once, for pity's sakes. I won't argue that Britain is entirely free from possible confusion, just that it beats GB on the overall clarity and ambiguity stakes. I'd also be happy with {{tl|GreatBritain-MP-stub}} (with no hyphen in the first component, per the NGs) (assuming I can be rendered content with the category, which currently I'm far from). Alai 16:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Alai, I think that a few different issues are getting conflated here. The first thing is that your comment about "the same stubs split three different ways" is misguided: these are not the same stubs. The Parliament of Great Britain and the Parliament of the United Kingdom are not the same thing: the former was abolished before the creation of the latter, and they are separate bodies.
  My main reason for proposing this stub split is that {{tl|UK-MP-stub}} is being applied to articles to which it does not relate, namely to Parliamentarians from the Parliament of Great Britain, who are separately categorised (for an illustration of the misleading effect, see the text in {{tl|UK-MP-stub}} as applied to Hugo Meynell or Lord John Cavendish). Fixing that is not of course a panacea, but having the "UK" stub tag attached to 100 MPs who were not members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is misleading and cases inaccurate information to be appended to the articles. Sure, there may still be errors in applying it, or errors in applying {{tl|GreatBritain-MP-stub}}, but once the split is done, those errors can be easily picked up and fixed in an AWB run; and since my proposal is for the new {{tl|GreatBritain-MP-stub}} to add a category :Category:Great Britain MP stubs (1707-1800), misuse of the new stub will be fairly visible to editors. The current situation of labelling them all as "UK MPs" is, as you rightly point out, not the only source on confusion, but it does increase to it; if the split was done, {{tl|UK-MP-stub}} could be reworded to make it clearer that is only for MPs from 1801 onwards. Current practice is for {{tl|UK-MP-stub}} should not be added to members of the Parliament of Great Britain, but that is simply wrong and should be removed from those articles; the issue at stake is whether we have an accurate stub-type to replace it, and whatever other decisions are made, I can see no benefit in having no stub tag for the nearly 500 articles in :Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain and its subcats.
  The second point is that I don't see the other stub types for MPs affect relate to this issue. None of the by-party stub tags apply to the Parliament of Great Britain, because the parties concerned all all 19th- or 20th-century creations.
  Thirdly, I suggest that we have a separate discussion about {{tl|UK-current-MP-stub}}; it does not overlap with {{tl|GreatBritain-MP-stub}}, and I can see a fairly simple solution to its lack of a permanent parent category. Whatever decisions are made about its fate do not affect this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• We have a problem which needs a solution. I am concerned that this discussion seems to have stalled, because there is currently no appropriate stub type for articles in :Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain.
  I have tried to address Alai's concerns, but Alai has suggested no alternative, and we do need some solution to the basic problem here: that without an appropriate stub type, editors are applying {{tl|UK-MP-stub}}. That stub tag is simply wrong for these articles, because it labels the articles as being about "Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom", which is not true. Please can we find some solution here, before someone removes the inaccurate stub tags from these articles? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: to try to involve more editors, I have left neutrally-worded notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Stub-sorting MPs and on the talk pages of {{user|Galloglass}} and {{user|Warofdreams}}, both of whom regularly contribute to article on MPs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• While I am in general quite doubtful of the value of stub categorisation, this seems a very logical split of a large stub category. I agree with BrownHairedGirl that there is no reason for it to create confusion, as the exact text of the stub note can make it clear which period the particular Parliament was existence for. There will be some MPs from the Parliament of Great Britain who also served in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but a large majority of politicians will have served in only one. In addition, the by-party split is less useful for the period of the Parliament of Great Britain, as many politicians were non-aligned, and those groupings which did exist were generally much looser than those of the late nineteenth century, let alone the present day. I support {{tl|GreatBritain-MP-stub}} as a logical subdivision. Warofdreams talk 21:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• :Category:Great Britain MP stubs (1707-1800) and {{tl|GreatBritain-MP-stub}} now created. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Birds are oversized, though at least not as much as they seemed to be last time. Despite my earlier guesswork, it's actually a yet different bird order that breaks 60; Charadriiformes and Procellariiformes are also very close. However, given the seemingly generally accepted pattern, I'm inclined to speedy this. Alai 03:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

The upmerged {{tl|art-book-stub}} is closing in on threshold, and of course the parent ({{cl|non-fiction book stubs}}) remains oversized. I suggest de-upmerging, to the usual de-prepositionalising "minimal mangling" of the permcat parent, {{cl|books about visual art}}. Alai 03:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Heartily concur as one who has been scrounging for enough to reach threshold. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• The thought did occur that they hadn't been sorting themselves. :) Very well scrounged, there. BTW, I notice that {{cl|books about film}} has 35 direct usages among the nonfics, so {{tl|film-book-stub}} might be a good candidate for another upmerged template (and possible further scrounging exercise). Alai 05:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• And double strong support on that one too. Keeps me off the streets and out of the bars...! Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• OK, it's a done deal. Alai 07:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Parent oversized -- indeed, just about double-oversized -- 91 in the corresponding permcat hierarchy. Alai 03:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Already listed with 3 or 4 others on the to do list . Waacstats 11:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• D'oh. Forgot to check for redlink-links... Alai 14:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Both are over 700, propose split by decade of birth as per precedent set by other position splits. Waacstats 23:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support this and below, per prodigious quantity of precedents (and all bot-populable, to boot). Alai 00:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:*I'd be very grateful if someone could popoulate these by bot, my knowledge of that side of things is poor, I will go through and try to pick up anything the bot misses, otherwise it will be a long hard slog. Waacstats 11:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

{{cl|politics stubs}} is another large and murky type, but this looks like a viable subcat. Alai 16:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

:Do you have a good template name in mind? Valentinian ^{T / C} 01:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

::I'd suggest paralleling geo-term-stub and the like, and making it {{tl|poli-term-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 02:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

AKA the Oomycetes, AKA the Oomycota, this rogue phylum seems to be currently sorted with the humungous fungus-stubs, which according to the article, they're not, which seems a bit of a problem. I've no strong feelings about the name, though it seems a little bass-ackwards that the article's at the taxonomic name, and the category at the common name. Alai 06:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Anatomy, oversized again. 68 of 'em are categorised (directly) with {{cl|ligaments}}, which I'm hoping means they're all indeed something to do with ligaments (but one never knows, given categorisation). Alai 04:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:Any such stibs should be marked with {{tl|musculoskeletal-stub}} not {{tl|anatomy-stub}}, but with those numbers, if you want to create a ligament-stub, I'd have no complaints. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

::I'd forgotten about those... and I'm a little boggled to see they're over 600 already. (Medics are evidently very good at starting stubs.) Doubtless we'll be splitting those further soon enough. Alai 03:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create Vojvodina t/c, hold off on Kosovo for now}}

{{cl|Serbia geography stubs}}. Discuss. Alai 07:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:The words "Kosovo" and "can of worms" spring to mind. It would have been nice if the UN had decided what to do with that area by now... I suppose logically splitting out Kosovo and Vojvodina would mae sense, there's just the problems with the previous edit-war on the (since deleted) Kosovo template. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::Indeed, though the worms are long since out the can, it's just a matter of how to re-dissect 'em. (BTW, you redirected it rather than deleting it, and it's been retranscluded on a number of articles since the last db dump, so actually Serbia would seem to be slightly over 800 if those were being present categorised as "Serbian" rather than "European".) Somewhat oddly, there's more Vojvodina articles than anywhere else ("Central" Serbia included), so splitting just those out would solve the numeric issue at a stroke, though it might look like shady dealing to split out one "autonomous province" (from the Serbian POV) and not the other. My feeling is presently that the least worst option would be to split both, but protetct both the template and the category -- in the latter case so that the edit wars don't simply move to supercatting, though that's possibly less disruptive in itself. (On which topic, it may be that it should be dual-supercatted with both "Europe" and "Serbia".) Alai 01:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• We did have a consensus for a {{tl|Vojvodina-stub}} and I think a {{tl|Vojvodina-geo-stub}} at some point. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Ah, here it is. Support Alai's proposal for creation & protection. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Just to be clear, I don't think we'd have to protect the Vojvodina type. Alai 06:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• I created {{tl|Vojvodina-stub}}; should I hold off on {{tl|Vojvodina-geo-stub}} or would that not be viable yet? Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• There's plenty for Vojvodina-geo- -- over 400, so probably won't be long before we're re-splitting them, come to that. But I've no idea about the "generals", though it sounds plausible if it also had the geos and a child. (I certainly wouldn't want to end up double-tagging that geos with Serbia-geo-stub and Vojvodina; that'd be really painful.) Alai 01:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Buenos Aires Province geography stubs}} 216
• {{cl|Santa Fe Province geography stubs}} 64

Parent also north of 700. Alai 08:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Oversized parent, this would help somewhat. Alai 07:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support also suggest that templates for Japan and possibly china may be useful. Waacstats 15:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• I was planning only upmerged per-country templates. Alai 17:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• I agree to a point but are you suggesting creating a template for each asian country, I would suggest that they would be useful for the larger/better covered countries but for the small poorly covered countries it may be better to have an asia template, are we really going to need a burma-academic or yeman-academic templates for 1 or 2 people as an example. Waacstats 07:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that it gets to be diminishing returns after a certain point. Though other than the effort of creating them, I don't think there's much of a downside. Alai 04:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Geologic formation stubs}} 57
• {{cl|Petrology stubs}} 56

I held off on these earlier since I wasn't quite clear how they might overlap with the first three, but evidently there's at least the above numbers remaining, by direct categorisation alone. Alai 06:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

This looks to be be viable, and will help somewhat with the (rather vast) plant disease stubs. Much as I'd like to propose numerous other such subcats, the trouble is that for most of these articles, there's no information at all as to what it is they infect -- not by category, not in an infobox, not in the text. Until such time as a subject-knowledgeable editor adds such... Alai 17:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

You wouldn't think it now, but this'll be oversized by the time {{cl|fungus stubs}} is re-sorted it will be; so better, I think, to create subcats now. In the first instance, I suggest by class, though even some of those will be pretty large, so into orders wouldn't be out of order, either. Alai 06:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create by genre}}

On the plus side, I've just sorted {{cl|electronic album stubs}} down from over 800, to 50 (including to a new 80s cat, which I speedied on the basis of the existing 90s and 00s). On the minus, {{cl|2000s electronic album stubs}} is now itself spilling onto a fifth page -- d'oh. It looks like {{cl|2000s DJ mix album stubs}} would be clearly viable at over 100. After that, Techno, Indietronica, House, Trip hop, Trance and Ambient all look in the just-about-viable range. There's also the inevitable overlap with hip hop, dance, rock (indie and otherwise), and experimental, so there's also the option of "2000s electronic album stubs", but that seems a little too ad hoc without corresponding permcats. Alai 05:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:I don't suppose splitting by country of origin would help - UK-2000... US-2000... Euro-2000... Japan-2000...? Grutness...wha? 00:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::Albums don't seem to generally be categorised on that basis, and I'm a bit skeptical about whether it'd be of much use (though some markets do seem to be more distinct than others, it must be said). Alai 06:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Mmmm. And I suppose there's also be the possiible confusion of Euro-2000-techno with a stub for Eurodisco music. Sigh. Any other possibilities? Grutness...wha? 00:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

::::There's been some support over at the WPJ for some-or-other sub-genre sub-cats, plus talk of tag-vetting and possible merging. I'll see if I can find the least-worst option as far as sub-genre overlap is concern. Alai 01:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create France-church-stub}}

{{tl|France-struct-stub}} contains 253 articles, of which 144+ would fit into the proposed. HeartofaDog 22:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

:Would it be easier to simply remove the churches with a France-church-stub? Chances are most of the reli-structs would be churches. Mind you, 253 isn't really a high priority split (600+ would be). Grutness...wha? 01:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

::France-reli-struct-stub seems more effective because it also covers the religious houses properly (16 at the moment but due to rise, as I am planning some additions), whereas they don't fit accurately under France-church-stub - which would not stop people trying to add it anyway. So a France-reli-struct-stub would avoid some future mess. Sorry if I have asked for it too early - I happened to be doing stuff in that area and it struck me as useful.HeartofaDog 22:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Don't mind about the "too early" aspect: I didn't give G. a hard time about wanting to split the Portuguese geos before they became "officially" oversized, after all. :) I'd tend to agree about the church-stub, though: wouldn't that help more with existing double-stubbing, and be a bit more focussed? Alai 00:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::That's a bit unfair... Portugal has about 700 geo-stubs excluding the one subtype already split out, so it is officially oversized. And splitting out the other six regions would give an average of 115 stubs per region. Grutness...wha? 23:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::<800 in any one category isn't oversized, for the (admittedly arbitrary) definition that's in use at /T (and if there's some other definition, no-one's ever made it clear to me). And my point is that you're conflating "viability" with "priority" (and some more, immediately above). It might be a reason to wonder "why are you bothering?", but not to oppose on those grounds alone. Alai 01:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::Strange - I've always used<600, and I was pretty sure that was the standard definition used here, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned Portugal in the first place. And it's not really a conflation, just an added extra reason for splitting. Given an (assumed) overpopulation, it would have priority. And given that it could be split into categories of 100+, it would have viability. So it would have had both priority and viability, whereas the French structure one would only have viability but not priority. But we're digressing from the point of this discussion... Grutness...wha? 01:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::We digressed some time ago, but I think we're largely agreeing past each other, give or take. I do hope we don't decide it is/was/should be 600 for the foreseeable future, since that'd be another two hundred categories on the "to-do" list at a stroke. (Always assuming anyone is paying any attention to that in the first place, of course, about which I'm now seriously wondering.) ::::::One might well argue that anything over a listing page is to some extent sub-optimal, and everything's a sliding scale thereafter. Alai 03:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Church-stub is great for churches, but not for monasteries - which are reli-structs but not churches. It is true that there aren't great numbers of monastery stub articles involved at the moment, but I am hoping to add a quantity soon, to which reli-struct could also apply - otherwise they still have to be double-stubbed. However, to be fair, the great majority of the existing articles are cathedrals, and the church-stub would be v useful for those. HeartofaDog 10:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::But is it necessary to "get" those in the same stub type? Making the scope wider potentially dilutes the (alleged) benefit of getting more specialist editors on the case. Now, if there's a Wikiproject Religious Buildings out there... And as I say, you have the double-stubbing issue either way, and double-stubbing with church-stub and France-reli-struct-stub looks the more tortuous to me. Alai 01:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::(Sorry - my attention wandered slightly when you started discussing stats...) No, that wasn't what I meant. I am suggesting one stub only - "France-reli-struct-stub" - that can apply to churches, monasteries and any other kind of religious building. This wd have the effect of dividing the French building stubs into two parts, religious and secular, which is a useful split (even if, as appears from the above, a bit premature). This looks better to me because there can be no arguments about whether or not it fits, whereas with a church-stub there are always some who insist on trying to slap it onto monasteries and other non-church religious buildings as well. (My other point, whihc seems to have caused some misunderstanding, was simply that if we end up with a church-stub instead, which you seem to favour, well, there are a lot of churches, so it will not be wasted - but it won't be as useful). HeartofaDog 10:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::That's what I thought you meant, I'm just not entirely convinced of the merits. Firstly, it'll mean that all the actual French churches will, strictly speaking, have to be double-stubbed (with {{tl|France-reli-struct-stub}} and with {{tl|church-stub}}). Secondly, it assumes that there's a significant group of editors that work on "all religious buildings" (and/or, "all secular buildings"), whereas my intution would be that that's unreasonably broad. (And as a minor third consideration, it think it's less likely that the average stub-sorter would think of there being a France-reli-struct- if they happen across a French church article.) Alai 17:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Oh, OK - thanks for explaining it a bit more. (As a matter of fact I DO think and edit in terms of religious and secular buildings as groups, but I got used long ago on Wikipedia to being a minority of one). I'm happy to settle for France-church-stub. HeartofaDog 22:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::I won't claim to have done a survey, so you could have told me the opposite, and I'd have been none the wiser. :) Perhaps create a category for the churches, and a double-upmerged stub template for the "misc. religious", until they're large enough for a parent? Alai 01:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|created as revised}}

Now actually oversized; I'm guessing we probably want to split by decade (or century) of birth, per several other such cases. Alai 04:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I support the proposal but wonder as we already have stub categories for England and Scotland politicians would it be an idea to split this along those lines first i.e Scotland-conservative-MP-stub and its English equivalent. Waacstats 07:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

:*I'm not sure about splitting by date of birth, because it leads to some rather arbitrary divides, but if it is to be done I suggest that it would be better to split by century of birth rather than by decade (can anyone come up with any figures on how that divide would look?).
I think that a split by nation would in some ways be simpler, but note that splitting out the Scottish Conservative MPs is more complicated than it sounds, because the Conservative Party was not actually active in Scotland from 1912–1965, when it merged with its ally, the Unionist Party (Scotland). The starting point should really be to recategorise into :Category:Scottish Unionist Party MPs the hundreds of pre-1965 Scottish MPs who are currently miscatgorised in :Category:Conservative MPs (UK), and then apply to them a new {{tl|Scottish-Unionist-MP-stub}} ... but please read Unionist Party (Scotland) to see the complcated history involved, particularly with reagrd to the flexibility and fuzziness of party labels in that period and the fact that some Unionist Party candidates described themselves Liberal Unionists even after 1912.
I suggest that it would be simplest to start by splitting out the stub articles on English Conservative MPs, using the intersect between :Category:Conservative MPs (UK) and :Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies. I don't think that a bot-driven relabelling of Scottish Conservatives is workable; a manual approach would be needed to avoid inaccuracies.
In all of this, it's important to note that the more we subdivide the MP stubs, the more we create overlaps, because many MPs repesented both Scottish and English constitiuencies in the course of their careers, and changes of party allegiance used to be much more frequent than they are today. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

::*Which is a singular advantage of splitting by DoB, since whatever doubts one might have about the proverbial legitimacy of MPs, I'm fairly sure they were all only born once. I'm not opposed to splitting by home nation, though I suspect giving the Unionists their own cat would be overkill for likely utility for distinct populations of "consuming" editors. (I'm fully prepared for the Scottish Unionist Task Force to show up and prove me wrong.) I think better would be a {{cl|Scottish Conservative and Unionist MP stubs}}, scoped to include the separate tory and unionist parties, as well as the 'merged' party of that name, which one can explain at (moderate) length on the category page. (Separate upmerged templates would be fine.) We're likely to be back relatively soon to re-split the English, though, if that's all we do at this point, but a little progress is still progress.

::*The DoB-based numbers are roughly: 19thC, ~250, 20thC, 500+. (So again, just going by century is a recipe for repeat business.) Each decade between the 1890s and the 1940s is over threshold as a separate cat. Alai 22:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestion: it would be a good idea to create a stub type for :Category:Tory MPs (pre 1834). Possibly under-populated at the moment, because many of the MPs are miscategorised as Conservatives, but since it goes back into 18th century, it shoukd fill up rapidly as things are properly categorised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Doesn't seem at all like a good idea to me, I'm afraid, both on likely size, and of the principle of the scope. If the parent under discussion is anything to go by, it would be very under-populated (I'm assuming you're not proposing to lump the GB parliamentarians back in); and it's Yet Another Axis of Split, not even being congruent with the "other" time based ones. BTW, if you create any more stub categories, can you at least ensure they end in "stubs"? Alai 21:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• The Scots Tories come up somewhat short, but I went ahead and created that anyway. (There may be undercategorisation, leading me to me missing some.) Wales is pretty small, and NI obviously nonexistent, so we'll be back dealing with the large English "rump" before too long. (It seems so large that populating a {{tl|Conservative-England-MP-stub}} before we've finalised how to re-split would be a little pointless.) Alai 02:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• I'm afraid that was a bad idea, Alai, particularly the bot-driven population of the category. This has led to the likes of Henry Douglas-Scott-Montagu and William Murray being labelled as "Scottish Conservative and Unionist" MPs, even though they both died 60 years before the foundation of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. Did you see my comment above about the limitations of the category? "Consevative" as a label applied to Scottish MPs may means one of three different parties. Please could you undo the bot-driven tagging? I know that you meant well, but it has unfortunately added false information to too many articles; and the stub name is too vague for it to be reliably used pecisely. Overpopulation of a stub category is not a good reason for creating sub-categories which are so ambiguous as to lead to even their creator misapplying them. {{tl|Scottish-Unionist-MP-stub}} {{tl|Scottish-Conservative-MP-stub}} should be either renamed or deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:Typo corrected in above commentL I meant to say that {{tl|Conservative-Scotland-MP-stub-MP-stub}} should be either renamed or deleted, but that it might be useful to create a {{tl|Scottish-Unionist-MP-stub}} and populate it properly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have had no reply to this for over a week, so I have made a compromise edit: I have changed both [{{tl|Conservative-Scotland-MP-stub}} and {{cl|Scottish Conservative and Unionist MP stubs}} to include both the Unionist Party (Scotland) and the Conservative Party. That allows the category to include Conservative and/or Unionist MPs since the Unionist Party (Scotland) was founded in 1912, but not those from before. Still not ideal, because it omits a century of Scottish Conservative MPs, but at least it's a bit better than before. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create upmerged templates as revised}}

There are now very close to 700 portugal geo-stubs, even excluding those for the Azores, which have long been split out. Portugal seems to have two different systems for dividing itself administratively, 18 districts, plus Madeira and the Azores or 7 regions (including those two), which seem to parallel England's ceremonial an administrative counties to some extent, if I read things correctly. Given that the regions seem to be coming into more prominence, and there is a likelihood of most if not all of them reaching threshold, I'd suggest templates (at least) for the other six:

• {{tl|Madeira-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|Algarve-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|Alentejo-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|Lisboa-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|CentroPT-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|NortePT-geo-stub}} see below

If someone prefers the districts to the regions, then that's just as good, but 700/20 doesn't really guarantee categories. Grutness...wha? 01:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

:Update - I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portuguese geography about this. Hopefully someone there will be able to advise us about regions vs districts. Grutness...wha? 23:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::Further update - what little comment there has been there suggests that districts would be better that regions, even though that would mean less categories. The regions seem like a new concent that is still having its rough edges smoothed off. {{tl|Madeira-geo-stub}} is still a reasonable split by itself, leaving 18 other templates, probably mostly upmerged:

::*{{tl|Lisboa-geo-stub}} (w/redirect at {{Lisbon-geo-stub}} or vice versa)

::*{{tl|Leiria-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|Santarem-geo-stub}} (w/redirect at {{Santarém-geo-stub}} or vice versa)

::*{{tl|Setubal-geo-stub}} (w/redirect at {{Setúbal-geo-stub}} or vice versa)

::*{{tl|Beja-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|Faro-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|Evora-geo-stub}} (w/redirect at {{Évora-geo-stub}} or vice versa)

::*{{tl|Portalegre-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|CasteloBranco-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|Guarda-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|Coimbra-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|Aveiro-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|Viseu-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|Braganca-geo-stub}} (w/redirect at {{Bragança-geo-stub}} or vice versa)

::*{{tl|VilaReal-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|Porto-geo-stub}} (w/redirect at {{tl|Oporto-geo-stub}} or vice versa)

::*{{tl|Braga-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|VianadoCastelo-geo-stub}} (or {{tl|VianaDoCastelo-geo-stub}})

::Grutness...wha? 01:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Good plan on the redirects. :) It'd be an option to upmerge to regional categories for a number of these, right? (I realize this goes seriously wonky in a couple of cases, like Santarém, which we'd have to leave feeding into the parent.) It's neither fish nor foul, but... Alai 01:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

::Possibly, but the borders don't seem to match up very well, unfortunately. Let's see whether any get to 60 by themselves first - we can always change the pointing on the templates afterwards. As for the redirects, yeah,w ell, otherwise we'd have the usual arguments :). BTW, before making these it'll be worthwhile checking that these names are unique and that we don't run into a region of Brazil called Vila Real or similar problem. Grutness...wha? 09:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I wouldn't go so far as to say they match up well, but they seem to do so enough for at least some upmerging, and my guess is to the point of numerical viability. But no hurry. On uniqueness, I just generally go by what's camped out on the permcat name first (or article name, if there's no permcat). If that's not been disambiguated, then it may not be necessary (or it may be we have wacky permcats -- it's been known to happen...). Alai 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create all except UK-hospital-stub}}

The following all have double-stubbings of more than 80, where one of the types is in the 600..800 range.

• {{cl|Pittsburgh geography stubs}} 81
• {{cl|New York City geography stubs}} 85
• {{cl|United Kingdom hospital stubs}} 80
• {{cl|American biologist stubs}} 75
• {{cl|Zimbabwean sculptor stubs}} 72
• {{cl|Canadian lacrosse biography stubs}} 68
• {{cl|Hungarian Olympic medalist stubs}} 69
• {{cl|Malaysian building and structure stubs}} 67
• {{cl|Australian poet stubs}} 65
• {{cl|United Kingdom publishing company stubs}} 65

Most of the parentages should be obvious; two that are less so are Hospital_stubs+United_Kingdom_medical_organisation_stubs and Asian_building_and_structure_stubs+Malaysia_geography_stubs (the latter perhaps being food for thought as to what -geo- stubs are actually used for, "on the ground".) Alai 21:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Malaysia's been long overdue for its own struct stub template at least, and now a category seems a good move - and like similar struct stubs, its parents should be {{cl|Asian building and structure stubs}} and {{cl|Malaysia stubs}} (not {{cl|Malaysia geography stubs}}, since buildings aren't normally grouped in with geo-stubs). I'd be inclined to put the UK hospitals in {{cl|Hospital stubs}}, {{cl|United Kingdom medical organisation stubs}} and {{cl|United Kingdom building and structure stubs}}, since the articles are likely to be at least in part about the buildings themselves, much like with theatre stubs and museum stubs. Yes to all the others (72 Zimbabwean sculptor stubs? Whoda thought...?), though I'd ask whether the NYC and Pittsburgh geo-stubs are likely to affect the way the rest of the state-geo-stubs are likely to be split in future... will it make for problems with Penn and NYState later? Grutness...wha? 00:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• I forgot the ob. whoda thought?: thanks for correcting that omission. :) I shouldn't have said "parentage", I really meant "constituents of the double-stubbing" (though in most cases they're the same thing). I don't think splitting by city is going to be a problem; elsewhere we've split by county, but then we tend to end up upmerging them to μSAs, MSAs, CSAs, unofficial regions with articles defining their scope, or totally made up ones. Cities of significant size will invariably correspond to (the population centres of) *SAs, so they can just be made a subcat. (Chicago and Chicagoland are already done this way, for example.) Alai 01:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

I don't have an exact count for this (though I suspect it's close to threshold just from the UK), but surely we should have this given the two existing national D&P stub types. Alai 20:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

At least 90 of them; parent is of course very oversized. Existing subcat {{cl|Latin legal stubs}} (should be "phrases"). Alai 18:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

This looks viable as a subcat of {{cl|order, decoration, and medal stubs}}, and more to the point will help get rid of a few from {{cl|military stubs}}, which despite some recent shrinkage is still oversized. Alai 22:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

The {{cl|education stubs}} are long-standing oversized, and the corresponding permcats hurt my eyes and brain. But this looks a clear-cut case: 70 of these. I wonder if we shouldn't also consider an {{tl|edu-bio-stub}}; the number don't look tremendous, but it'd also be a parent to existing cats (some of which I can't help but wonder if there's over-sorting to). Alai 15:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support both per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Oversized parent, 54 of these on the basis of catting; shouldn't be hard to find a few more. Alai 06:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

'00s drama films is oversized, this looks like the most promising possible new subcat... but only 43 are catted that way. Anyone think they can drag up another 17? (I could start with populating an upmerged template if that would help.) Alai 01:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Seems to be 60-odd of these. The opera singers aren't in urgent need of being split, but the US-singer-stubs are, and this would take care of a handful of them, at least. Alai 22:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create Arena Football League stubs (cat) and/or ArenaFootballLeague-bio-stub as needed}}

I don't know if this counts as a proposal but, I would like to propose we do something with {{Tl|ArenaFootballLeague-stub}}. It was nominated for discussion a while back and was kept upmerged to {{Cl|American football stubs}}. Having looked at the what links here for the template and the discussion it appears that it is to be used on players. I propose this is upmerged to {{Cl|American football biography stubs}} or as it has over 30 articles and a wikiproject given its own category. I have to admit not knowing much about this sport so I don't know which would be best. If this needs posting elsewhere let me know and i will move it. Waacstats 15:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Own category is probably the best option. You could also create a separate -bio- template... Alai 15:48, 11 June 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.