Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/November 2006#Cat:Canadian comedian stubs

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|United States television episode stubs}} 556
• {{cl|Children's television episode stubs}} 313
• {{cl|Animated television episode stubs}} 296
• {{cl|Comedy television episode stubs}} 289
• {{cl|United States children's television episode stubs}} 176
• {{cl|Doug episode stubs}} 115
• {{cl|Sitcom episode stubs}} 112
• {{cl|Seinfeld episode stubs}} 84
• {{cl|Drama television episode stubs}} 71

Parent is now over 800. Alai 21:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, especially specific show categories that make 60; the genres are looking pretty large and this is undersorted from {{tl|tv-stub}}. Crystallina 19:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely a good idea. NauticaShades 14:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Drama television character stubs}} 146
• {{cl|Comedy television character stubs}} 91

Parent is now oversized. Alai 17:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support; the parent is probably also undersorted from {{tl|TV-stub}}. Crystallina 20:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good. NauticaShades 14:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Poem stubs}} 236
• {{cl|United Kingdom poem stubs}} 107
• {{cl|Poetry collection stubs}} 63
• {{cl|Years in poetry stubs}} 55

Poetry-stubs are five listings pages (i.e., > 800 articles). If we lump in the by-decade and by-century stubs, the last-mentioned (by some name or other) is more than viable. Alai 17:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

:I'd like to suggest the following as well

:* {{cl|Poetic form stubs}}

:* {{cl|Poetry movement stubs}}

:* {{cl|Poetry award stubs}}

:I'll add in the numbers if I get the time. Stumps 08:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, and if the poetry award stubs don't add up, how about broadening it to {{cl|Literary award stubs}}? Cheers, Her Pegship 04:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. What would the Years in poetry be for, however? NauticaShades 14:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• The numerous stub articles in {{cl|Years in poetry}}, such as 1265 in poetry. Alai 15:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Seemingly we're splitting these by currently-underpopulated decade-they-played types (were these proposed?), but by-country might have some legs, despite clearly massive undercategorisation. DR is at 68, Cuba 32, US at 25 (!), Canada at 21. Alai 13:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create upmerged template}}

This stub template would, obviously, be used for punctuation-related stubs (such as Stet).

I'll try and see if I can find some others that need this tomorrow. {{User:Blast san/signature|11.22.06|2306}}

:Seems unlikely to me that you'd find enough stubs for it, but if you do then it might well be worthwhile. Grutness...wha? 04:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

:The cited example isn't punctuation, it's a proofreading mark. There's an existing {{cl|typography stubs}}; I wouldn't be opposed to an upmerged {{tl|punctuation-stub}} feeding into that category, if people feel the need, and there's some middling number of stubs. I'm almost certain there's not enough in the {{cl|punctuation}} permanent category (and one smallish subcat) for a fullblown type, though. Alai 11:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Although I haven't counted them I'm 100% sure splitting {{tl|Asia-bank-stub}} and {{tl|Euro-bank-stub}} from the 4-page long {{tl|bank-stub}} would be viable.--Carabinieri 22:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|take to SFD}}

Already been created, apologies. Greater than 30 articles within scope, of course. drumguy8800 C T 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:...but no WikiProject, which means it needs 60. Also, since it isn't a subcategory of Worth-stub, it should be FortWorth-stub. If it's needed at all, which I doubt. Given the size of Dallas-stub's category, it would make far more sense to have both in one category. Grutness...wha? 03:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:This is exactly the sort of issue that I was talking about the other day. {{cl|Cities in Texas}} exists, yet has no stub category in it or any of it's sub-categories. {{cl|Dallas stubs}} and now {{cl|Fort Worth stubs}} are sub-categories of {{cl|Texas stubs}}, which itself is a sub-category of {{cl|Texas}}... in other words, it's a mess! Unless i'm missing something, bothe Dallas and this new stub (if indeed neccesary) should be members of a {{cl|Cities in Texas stubs}} shouldn't they? --Ohms law 07:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

::And as I said at the time, we don't want to create all such stub categories, because we don't want several hundred thousand types (as there are permanent categories), and we don't want articles stub-tagged with every possible category they should be in. The qualifier "if necessary" is correct, and key. Alai 09:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

::*That's fine, but we seem to be in the habit of creating our own category trees within the "{whatever} stubs" categories that we do create. This is my primary critisizm here. In this particular instance, my opinion would be to sfd both {{cl|Dallas stubs}} and {{cl|Fort Worth stubs}} (and by extension, to sfd this {{tl|Fort-Worth-stub}} template). Then, the articles in the current {{cl|Dallas stubs}} category, as well as those that would be in the {{cl|Fort Worth stubs}} should go into a {{cl|Cities in Texas stubs}} category. So, I guess what i'm saying is that this proposal should be changed to be a proposal for a Cities in Texas stubs category and template, for the reasons stated. --Ohms law 09:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

::::I don't follow what you mean by "our own category trees". Every stub type is in the (permanent) category tree, and the considerable majority of them have a direct "permanent parent". I really don't for the life of me see why you're saying that {{cl|Fort Worth, Texas}} shouldn't have a corresponding stub-cat, but that {{cl|Cities in Texas stubs}} should -- the former might be marginal, but the latter doesn't make any sense at all, sorry. Are you objecting to "skipping a level" in the hierarchy... or what? If you're simply looking for a broader scope, wouldn't that of {{cl|Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex}} or {{cl|Tarrant County, Texas}} make more sense? Alai 10:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:Look at it this way. The category :Category:Beaches of Monaco exists. it contains the one article on a Monegasque beach that exists in wikipedia, and - given the country has a coastline of 4100 metres - mch of which is harbour - it is hardly likely we will get many more. Let's say there are two more beaches in monaco worthy of articles. That would leave a {{cl|Monaco beach stubs}} with at most three articles, and likely no articles at all. There is a very good reason why we have a minimum threshold for stub categories: to stop editors needing to check dozens of categories to find articles they can expand. it is likely, for example, that anyone who can edit articles on beaches in Monaco knows enough about the country to edit articles about Monaco in general. Thus, we have only {{cl|Monaco stubs}}. In exactly the same way, it makes little sense to have two small categories for Dallas and for Forth Worth since the twin-city conurbation is likely to attract the same set of editors. As has been pointed out, at a rough estimate, 100,000,000,000,000,000,000^100,000,000 times before, having "City stubs" categories and the like is an extraordinarily bad idea. As, in general, is the idea of trying to in any way create stub categories to represent an identical hierarchy to the permcats. They don't perform the same job, as my example above points out. Trying to shoehorn the same category structure on categories designed for readers and for editors simply will not work, and if attempted would pretty much stuff all the work which we've been doing in stub sorting for the last few years. I'm not saying I'm against this in any way, but I will say that it is one of the least sensible ideas I've heard regarding stub sorting, and if anyone tries to make such categories I will speedily delete them out of hand, and I don't care if I get banned for doing so. Grutness...wha? 10:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• ok, ok, hang on. I basically agree with everything that you've said above. Either i'm not being clear in what I am saying, or it's being misinterpreted. In instances where the categories are already established, and an actual need for a stubs subcategory exists under the current guidelines, I see no reason that stub categories should form their own separate tree. Your example is an extreme instance, and I highly doubt that such an occurance would come up. I find myself thinking that your attitue(s) are becoming entrenched in a "shout down the new guy" mentality. If you do not wish to consider changes to the system regardless of opinions, please let me know now so I don't waste my time. Thanks. --Ohms law 10:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• I have to say I think you're not being clear in what you're saying, or at least, Grutness and I are both having similar interpretation difficulties. We're not creating separate trees, as I've tried to explain. If you agree with Grutness, and aren't suggesting changing the existing guidelines, I don't see why you feel you're the victim of "entrenched attitudes". As I, after repeated attempts, don't understand what you wish to change (or not change? not even that's clear, to be honest), I think you're more of a vuctim of "total confusion". Alai 10:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• This is going OT to what began this section, so I will reply on the talk page. In regards to this topic, I would supoprt an sfd for {{cl|Fort Worth stubs}}. --Ohms law 11:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

I've just merged the Ancient-Rome-town-stubs in here, but of course, the fate of this type is itself... under question, at best. The creator didn't repropose this one, which I think is marginal, but potentially sensible, so I'll float it here to get some clarity one way or the other. (If kept, I suggest a rename to {{cl|Ancient Roman geography stubs}}.) Alai 09:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. All geo-stubs are sorted by present day country. Unless Ancient Rome has suddenly made a reappearance as a modern country, I don't see any point in this one at all, especially since every stub which could be marked with it is better double-stubbed with present location and a plain Ancient-Rome-stub. If we allow an Ancient-Rome-geo-stub, then it is an unhealthy precedent which is very likely to see the creation of similar stubs for ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Thrace, Kievian Rus, the Ottoman Empire, Ancient Ghana, Ancient Zimbabwe, Nubia, the Incan Empire, Mesopotamia... I for one do not want to suddenly discover CeltoLigurian-geo-stub or Seleucid-geo-stub and then have to re-sport all the stubs marked with them back into their present day countries where most editors would be more likely to expect to find them. Then you've got the added problem of significant multistubbing of places with long histories. Lincoln, for example, might get Ancient-Rome-geo-stub, Danelaw-geo-stub, Mercia-geo-stub and Lincolnshire-geo-stub, even assuming it wasn't around during pre-Roman Britain. It may seem trivial in some cases (would anyone logically think of Lincoln as Ancient-Roman? Probably not), but not in others (how about Colchester or York?). On the whole, I think the whole idea is a bad one. Grutness...wha? 10:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• So you think that Assyria (Roman province) and Carinae and Alsium are better off in modern-day-country categories? We may have the luxury for the time being of just chucking them back into {{cl|Ancient Rome stubs}}, (where they came from, btw, rather than being defected country-geo-stubs) but won't we be telling each other what a great idea this is in several hundred stubs' time? Alai 10:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• No, I'm certain we'll be fighting to be the first to take it to SFD. If you look at most of the stubs relating to Roman provinces, they are in current-day geo-stub categories, as should be the Assyria, Carinae, and Alsium ones. The fact that they aren't in current day geo-stub categories illustrates clearly that stubs which would normally be marked with a present-day-country geo-stub are not being marked as such because they are in this category. Grutness...wha? 11:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• That latter is rather convoluted logic: these were all until recently in the "Ancient Roman" parent, and none of the ones I looked at ever had a (different) -geo-stub, despite having existed for quite a while. (I hardly think you can blame this type for these not being sorted as you'd wish -- you must have a very different estimate of how many of the bazillions of stubs are in any sense "optimally sorted" than I do, I suppose.) And on the former, you didn't really address the point: once there's 1000 Ancient-Rome-stubs, and some large chunk of them are "places": would you really oppose a "much needed split" on that basis, and, well, why? Granted we're a long way short of that happening, but I hate having to undo work that there's every prospect of having to redo later. "Risk of failure to properly double-stub" is inherent to about, oh, at least 100,000 stub articles, I'd guess, and for articles that are only meaningful in a Roman historical context, like the above, if I had to ditch one, I'd certainly ditch the modern-day one, on the basis of primary notability, which I think is in distinct danger of being thrown out with the bathwater here. Alai 11:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• all of this is a corollary point to what I have been saying. {{cl|Ancient Rome geographic stubs}} is currently a child of {{cl|Ancient Rome stubs}} and {{cl|Geography stubs}}, but has no permanent category parent. If the need exists, there should be a {{cl|Ancient Roman geography stubs}} category that is a child of {{cl|Ancient Roman geography}}. In this case such a stubs category could also be a child of {{cl|Ancient Rome stubs}}, in order to support the perm cat structure of {{cl|Ancient Roman geography}} being a child of {{cl|Ancient Rome}}. Again, another instance of us creating our own separate categorisation system that contradicts the guidelines establised at WP:CAT --Ohms law 12:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Everything seems to be a corollary to this point, that unfortunately you're not making in the least clear. This is an unproposed stub type -- how is its current structure in any way the responsibility, or characteristic of some systematic failing in, the stub guidelines or the stub sorting project? Given that the permanent parent does exist (but was just never added to the category page), I really, truly don't understand what you're getting at. A missing parent does not constitute a "separate system". And in what way are we contradicting WP:CAT? Alai 16:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not sure how to be more clear. What is not clear? We should not be making tree structures out of stub categories. A stub category should be required to have a normal category as at least one of it's parents, if indeed more that one category is required. Why? read below. As for how we are contradicting WP:CAT, that is how. I point you in the direction of WP:CAT for further explanation of how. --Ohms law 17:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not sure how to be more clear about what's not clear. If I understand your position on this particular category, it's exactly the same as mine. I don't see how it relates to your more general poiint, but that might be because I have no idea what your more general point is. I have not the slightest ides what you mean by "We should not be making tree structures out of stub categories", and nor do I understand how that relates to your earlier interventions, either. Are you suggesting that stub categories should whenever possible have permanent parents? As I've said, that's already the case. (Don't blame "the locals" for what other people do in particular instances. It seems a little pointless to add it now in this instance, since it seems highly likely to be either renamed (i.e., deleted and recreated elsewhere), or deleted outright.) Are you suggesting that stub categories should always have permanent parents? That's not always possible, sometimes there's nothing suitable available (such as the drama-films-by-decade, for example). Are you suggesting that stub categories should not (also) have stub type parents? Clearly they should, per normal categorisation practice, and given that it follows that the stub categories will form a tree (well, a directed acyclic graph...). That does not make them "separate". On "that is how"? Sorry, but what is how? If you can't tell me that category "X" breaks clause "Y" of the categorisation policy, I fear I'm not going to be much helped by just linking to that page (not being able to find it wasn't the problem, believe me). Alai 18:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Let be be sure that I understand the current debate correctly. {{cl|Ancient Rome geographic stubs}} is being nominated as a stubs category. It is already created by someone who aparently created it without first proposing it, so ultimately this current debate is whether or not to keep the category or rename it. This particular thread of the debate is saying Strong oppose due to the fact that geo-stubs are sorted according to the current day country that the article would be about.

::::::This sort of thinking is what I am arguing against, and the funny thing is that I beleave that you are as well Alai. Gruntness said earlier that "If we allow an Ancient-Rome-geo-stub, then it is an unhealthy precedent which is very likely to see the creation of similar stubs for ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Thrace, Kievian Rus, the Ottoman Empire, Ancient Ghana, Ancient Zimbabwe, Nubia, the Incan Empire, Mesopotamia...", which is what caused me to reply to this thread. In my view, the goal of what we are doing in this project should be putting stub articles closest to those who can ultimately make the article in question complete enough to no longer be considered stub class.

::::::There already exists a categorisation system that we should be placing articles into (in addition to placing stub tags on them) in order to facilitate the ultimate goal of making wikipedia more complete. Personally, I want to make a stub article visible to those who can ultimately help the article. I believe that the best result that we could hope for is to be able to say that a category of stubs needs to be deleted because all of the stub articles in it have been improved to the point that they are no longer stubs. We should not be sorting articles to places where the people that can help those articles will not see the articles at all! I do not see the utility in only creating stubs categories that can be filled with a certain amount of articles, as that can contradict the ultimate goal of marking an article as a stub. What I am saying boils down to this: if a stub class article is created that falls into a "permanent category", it should be placed into a stub category that matches it's "permanent category" regardless of the number of other articles in that category there may be. I do not understand what the hang up is in saying that "there is only one article in this stubs category". If a stubs category has 0 articles, then we as wikipedians have won the fight in moving any articles of stub class to be full articles. However, if there is even one article that can be placed in a specific category, what is the harm in creating a matching "(insert category name) stubs" category to hold that article and therby call attention to it? Why are we in the buisness of recreating the work of the WP:CAT guideline, especially when we don't seem to be using the same criteria that they are? Not every single category should have a corresponding stubs category, as that is completely unnessesary and is patently silly. However, a stubs category should be allowed to be created for any category where it's obviously usefull. The categories themselves are created by people who know the subjects that are being put into that category, and I find this process's willingness to ignore that work and create our own structures to be counter productive. If the need exists, there should be a {{cl|Ancient Roman geography stubs}} category that is a child of {{cl|Ancient Roman geography}}. since there are currently 34 articles in {{cl|Ancient Rome geographic stubs}}, I would think that the need for such a category would be obvious. To say that it's unnessesary because "all geo-stubs are supposed to be in their modern day name category" is rediculous, since those who can help move the articles in an Ancient Roman geography stubs category would be the same people that look for articles in the Ancient Roman geography category. A worse result is to create sub-categories out of existing stub categories, simply to make the original stub category smaller. If the sub categories that are being created are children of existing categories, then that's great because it puts the article closer to those who can help it. If however the sub category being created has no matching permanent category (or is simply not matched to a permanent category), then that bad as it places the article in a place where it may not be seen.

::::::There is no need for us to argue about what categories should exist, here. If anyone wishes to do that, there's a WP:CFD procedure that can be followed. If the category exists that an article should be in, then the article should be placed into that category. There then should be a corresponding stubs category that can easily be created as required, without controversy or question.

::::::Ultimately, you can mark me down in the Strong support camp, with the caveat that the rename should occur. --Ohms law 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::If I'm understand you correctly, we agree in this particular instance, but on the general principle of "create a stub category for everything there exists 60 stubs for", which is what you appear to be saying here (correct me if I'm wrong), I disagree strongly, for the reasons I've tried to articulate several times already (when you previously appeared to be suggesting something to that general effect). Just to be clear, that has nothing to do with the categorisation policy, which in no way implies doing such a thing, nothing to do with "separate stub trees" (which does not correctly describe what we do), and is contrary to the existing stub guidelines (where we expressly say to avoid cutting across existing stub categories, again for the reasons that we don't want hundreds of thousands of stub categories, and we don't want dozens of stub categories (much less actual tags) used per article). If I'm missing some details in your reply, please excuse me, in a rush, may not be able to get back to this before Monday. Alai 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::*Change: "create a stub category for everything there exists 60 stubs for" to say something like "create a stub category any time that there is a stub article in a category". The only real criticism that I can recall to this is there being a problem with articles ending up in a theoretical "1954 Births stubs" category, which I can't anyone ever finding the need to create. It is usually fairly obvious, based on content of the article itself and the articles that it is (or should be) placed with whether or not a category is actually something that people would naturally browse through. I don't know many experts on "1954 births", but if the person is a politician or an actor, there are certainly experts on those topics who will browse through those categories. The point that I am making is simply that there's really no need for us to be proposing stub categories and arguing about each, then proposing again and arguing again, etc... ad nausium. Put articles in categories. If the article is a stub, place it in an exactly matching stubs category. done, end of story. Once the stubs category is empty (if ever), it can be deleted. Why are the existance of stubs categories even an issue? Are we afraid of having too many? --Ohms law 21:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I don't think it'll create this rash of other sorted-by-civilization ones that you're so paranoid about. This is a one-off, and articles would just be sorted into this one and their present-country one, and NO OTHERS.

User|Neddyseagoon 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see how you can guarantee that this is a one-off, and that we won't suddenly get an Ancient-Greece-geo-stub for places stretching through Alexander's conquests, or an Inca-geo-stub for pre-Columbian South America. We've seen one stub type used as a precedent for others only too often here at WP:WSS in the past, and I'm not happy to open the door to yet more such. Grutness...wha? 11:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• You seem to keep the door shut pretty well to me. You still don't seem to have answered why you could not run such geo-stubs in parallel to the existing, 'current country' system, - giving any stub a modern country or modern country and ancient country, but never solely an ancient country as in your nightmare scenario - rather than the latter making the former an impossibility. Previous historical subdivisions inevitably cut across modern borders and include multiple modern countries, in some cases (empires) more than others. So if such a parallel system was set up (and you don't seem to be short of people to police it), historian wikipedia writers could home in on Roman empire cities, rather than having to trawl two-dozen modern country ones, and de-stub them with greater ease, speed and efficiency. Thus it makes sense from a historian's perspective even if not from a WPS police perspective that some (not me) might see as draconian or even blinkered.

• I'm sorry if that comes across strong, but there does seem to be little understanding of any perspectives on this issue other than the zealously-defended perspectives of the WPS set - perhaps a sub-group of historian/stub police is needed.User|Neddyseagoon

• I'm not sure how helpful it is to make sweeping generalisations about the WSS "set" 'zealously-defending' something, especially given that of the long-standing regulars, exactly two have chimed in, and between us we seem to have exactly two, diametrically opposed opinions. (I could have saved myself both effort, and seemingly grief from both 'sides' if I'd just gone ahead and deleted this -- it's been sitting on the to-be-deleted queue for a fortnight.) But bear in mind the "nightmare scenario" is exactly what's in place at present. Not because they were sorted and then de-sorted, as G. assumes, but because they were never sorted by location in the first place. And you may think there's a lot of WSS "manpower", but have you seen the size of our backlog? I don't agree this is sufficient reason to extirpate such stub types, but I do sympathise with his point. Alai 18:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, sorry, that was completely unfair, heat of the moment stuff. User|Neddyseagoon 18:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, as Alai points out above, several of the articles are no longer being sorted into the present-day country-geo-stub categories where they should be, presumably at least in part because this category is being regarded as an alternative rather than as a complementary stub type. Grutness...wha? 11:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

::Well, that's just because its true use as complementary hasn't become established yet.User|Neddyseagoon 15:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So many cities are Roman in Europe that this would hardly be an underpopulated stub-category, certainly. User|Neddyseagoon 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not arguing that it would be underpopulated - that is the least of my concerns. Grutness...wha? 11:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:Oppose per Grutness. Otherwise we'll end up labelling an article about Paphlagonia with both "Ancient Rome", "Ancient Greece", "Hittites", "Byzantine Empire", "Ottoman Empire", "Seljuk Empire" and "Turkey". Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

::I think that misses the point (and ignores primary notability as a criterion). Where there's an article about a Roman province, or a town that existed only during Roman times, or where there's a separate article for the Roman incarnation thereof, is it really most usefully sorted by modern political division? Alai 01:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

I propose to create stub template similar to {{tl|socio-stub}}

as This geography-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

There's no similar stub template for geography. I propose to use existing template ((geography-stub)) - no articles link here. This stub only redirects to ((geo-stub)):

{{tl|geo-stub}}

This stub is used for geographical locations and everything links here.

This stub would be used to track stubs related to geography (I mean geography as a scientific discipline). I want to avoid using ((geo-term-stub)), because some terms are not geographical terms per se but only related to geography.

My editing was reverted, so I write here. Thanks in advance. GeoW 12:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'd support this, on the provisos that there's complete clarity and explicit statement that the scope is geography as a discipline, and not for articles about locations and individual geographical features, so as to minimise the confusion with the "-geo-" hierarchy, and that there's some reasonable number of stubs that this would apply to (bearing in mind the existing subcat). Alai 13:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• subcats, Alai - I suspect that, as I mentioned to GeoW a couple of days ago, many of the stubs that could take this already take such things as geo-term-stub, map-stub, geographer-stub and topography-stub. Can you give us a few examples of some that don't, please? Making a parent from them that is different from the geo-stubs (which are for specific location articles) would make sense if there are enough of them that wouldn't qualify for one of those stub types. The problem with using geography-stub for that, though, is that it's still a very frequently used redirect - on my daily clean-out of the main geography stub category I'd say half of the new items put into it use that redirect (so that's about three or four new stubs using it daily). Perhaps {{tl|geography-sci-stub}} (or {{tl|geo-sci-stub}}) would be a more appropriate name? Grutness...wha? 21:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Not a bad idea about the template name(s). Perhaps {{tl|geography-stub}} might be turned into a "please use something else" message, along the pattern of {{tl|football-stub}}. Alai 23:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Ok. Here are some examples from ((geo-term-stub) that could be changed: Association of American Geographers, Behavioral geography, Environment and Planning, Environmental geography, Geosophy, Health geography, Language geography, Maritime geography, Panbiogeography, Philosophy of Geography, Phytogeography, Population geography, Social geography, Strategic geography, Time geography, Visual geography. These are also stubs: Regional geography, Historical geography, Marketing geography, Military geography, Geographic information science. I also wanted to use it for example for Americanization, Westernization ... - to classify this as geographical term (using the geo-term-template) would not be appropriate. It's only related to Cultural geography. I agree with creation of ((geo-sci-stub)) instead of my first proposal.

A little thin on the ground, but it would have natural children, some of which are currently not-very-well placed as children of geo-term-stub - I suggest the following hierarchy:

:*Cat:Geography stubs

:**Cat:Continent/region-specific geography stubs

:***Cat:Country-specific geography stubs

:****Cat:Subnational region-specific geography stubs

:**Cat:Geography science stubs

:***Cat:Cartography stubs

:***Cat:Geographer stubs

:***Cat:Geography term stubs

:***Cat:Topography stubs

Grutness...wha? 23:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:I don't care much about hierarchy this time, but about the creation of stub that would state that: This geography related article is a stub. Geography is quite interdisciplinary study. Issues that are in scope of geographers are also in scope of other scientists (example is the process of americanization - it falls within the scope of language scientists as was written on the talk page recently, many could contribute to this issue from different views and expand the stub). In many cases it's also ridiculous when it states that this geographical term is stub. Association of American Geographers is a bright example of this. On the other hand academic geography on wikipedia does not have that many articles, that every geographical discipline could have its own stub. So, I think its good solution at present. GeoW 09:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::The point with the hierarchy is that 30 stubs by itself isn't really sufficient for a stub type - but 30 and four child categories is more likely to get support. As to where it itself would fit into the tree, it would fit not only into {{cl|Geography stubs}} but also into a category for earth sciences (along with {{cl|Geology stubs}} et al.) Grutness...wha? 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:::So, why everything else what does not fit in the other categories is in the ((geo-term-stub)). Maybe it would be better to change the text of ((geo-term-stub)) to Geography related article instead of this geographical term is stub.GeoW 15:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|let Alai & Grutness work it out}}

Apropos of discussion at SFD, I did a quick tally of {{cl|London geography stubs}} and found that - of the 550 stubs in that category - around 95 were streets, roads, squares and circuses (circi?). This would reduce the load on this stub cat and also reduce the need to split it into boroughs or similar. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Will this replace {{tl|UK-road-stub}} on those pages or be additional? I would prefer it to be additional and if so, would Agree. Regan123 21:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• I would think that it would replace UK-road on those pages because London is more specific than UK. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 21:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• The problem that may arise with that is that the roads are part of a national scheme, whereas the streets and squares etc are of a local perspective. I think these need to kept apart, so should this therefore become {{tl|London-street-stub}}? Regan123 22:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• I think I see. For roads that say, continue outside of London (like an interstate highway here in the US example), I could see both a UK-road and a London-road. However, for streets that are only located inside London, a simple London-road would suffice. (I hope I'm understanding you correctly). ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 22:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• I suggest we don't try to make a road/street distinction; it'd just get completely confusing. (I'm sure we still have numerous -street-stub redirects to -road-stubs from a previous sprees by SPUI and/or FoN.) Looking at the current London-stubs, I assume this would be primarily for the likes of Gillespie Road. Casting around for an example of a trunk road contained entirely in London, I notice that A1200 road isn't a London-stub at present, so I assume it's not really what the proposer had in mind. I don't much mind how these are scoped to make the distinction, but I'd be against double-stubbing with both parent and child, since that's ultimately to frustrate the size-management aspect of stub-sorting. (We're nowhere near having to split the UK-roads on size, but I wouldn't bet against it happening eventually.) OTOH, if we're doing this purely in reaction to Richmond-geo-stub, perhaps we should give it a miss for the time being. Alai 23:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• OK - a few points, since I proposed this:
• #We don't make distinctions in stubbing between roads and streets anywhere else, so there's no point in doing it here, especially since the words "road" and "street" are pretty much interchangeable and actually have reversed meanings in some places (I live in a quiet suburban street that links to the centre of town by one of the city's main roads). Compare HongKong-road-stub and what it covers;
• #London-road-stub would replace UK-road stub (and be a subcat of it) on those roads entirely in london - In exactly the same way as elsewhere and also exactly the same way as related stubs like geo-stub, both stubs would be applied if a road is both within and outside London. There's no reason why A1200 shouldn't be included, and my intention was certainly to cover such roads as well - if the North Circular was a stub, it could be marked with London-road-stub quite happily;
• #this is partly in reaction to the Richmond thing, but I've been thinking it was a good idea for a while. This simply goaded me into action. And with just shy of 100 stubs, it's certainly a sensible split;
• #Currently these roads are stubbed with London-geo-stub, which is incorrect in terms of how we use geo-stub elsewhere - as such, making a separate template and category for them will actually bring London-geo-stub in line with other geo-stubs;
• # we may be nowhere near having to split the UK-road-stubs, but London-geo-stub is getting sizable, at 550 stubs - and since 17% of its contents are items which theoretically should be marked with a diferent stub type, I say let's make that stub type!
• Grutness...wha? 23:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• 100 stubs argues to "viable", not necessarily "sensible". In fact, I really haven't seen any argument as to why splitting these by "form" is better than by more-specific-location -- especially as you're the person to argue the most vigorously against --stubs. That we already have a road-stub hierarchy, and (notoriously) many road-focused editors is granted, but in this case such "demand" as there is seems to be going the other way. It's further a bit of a stretch to assert that (say) Churchfield Road "should" be marked as anything other than a London-stub, since the "transport" aspect seems to be minimal, and the "part of London" considerable (as far as a six-sentence article goes). At any rate, I think we should get some Londonocentric input on this before getting too far ahead of ourselves. Alai 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• A road isn't a landform - which is why with every other geo-stub except London's, roads aren't included. I don't see why London lists them if the others don't. If you want to be technical about it, roads are a form of structure, and those are split by type as well as location (theat-struct, bridge-struct, church, stadium...). Grutness...wha? 01:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remind me at what point I gave the impression that I thought roads were landforms; if "form", which I was not using interchangeably with "landform", is too similar, read as "type". I'm not sure I do want to be 'technical' about it, but roads are not in any especially useful sense 'structures', and are never that I recall either perm-categorised that way, nor stub-supercatted as such. OTOH, they generally are in "-geo-stub" hierarchies (the stub cats being rather more broadly drawn than the various "Geography of Foobar" cats, i.e. including all aspects of human geography, as well as the assorted landforms. And as I've pointed out, some of these articles are not merely articles-about-human-geography-by-way-of-road-transport, they're "neighbourhood" articles (and thus even moreso about human geography) with very little to do with transport, and would probably be more logically be split up (when split up they have to be) in much the same way that other -geo-stub categories of entities of comparable scale, i.e. by sub-region. And yes, some of them are just 'road articles', pure and simple, what's less clear as to whether those approach the stated total, or indeed the usual creation threshold. However, I don't see any of the requested input from the London projecteers, so perhaps I'm attracting undue grief unto my personage to little ultimate purpose. Alai 06:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• FWIW {{cl|Geography stubs}} has {{cl|Building and structure stubs}} as a subtype, but not {{cl|Road stubs}} - and as such much of your point above isn't actually valid as far as the way the hierarchy currently operates. For the most part, these stubs are not about neighbourhoods - they are indeed about the individual roads mentioned in the titles. Even if only 60% of them are, that's still 57 stubs, and I'd say that 60% is a very very conservative estimate. Grutness...wha? 04:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, that settles everything, then. In fact, the whole structure of the -geos and the -B&Ss is massively inconsistent from case to case, being sometimes a subcat, and sometimes not, and I'm inclined to believe that when they are a subcategory (the B&S root included), it's as much through "where to put a by-region type?" issue as any settled "buildings as geography" taxonomy. And, are you arguing that "roads" are a subset of "structures", which are a subset of "geography" (as above), or that roads aren't a subset of geography (as your original 'mis-sorted' claim)? (Well, actually, you've been arguing both, but I'm hoping you can be induced to pick just one of the above.) You may be correct about "for the most part", but equally you may not, and it's rather difficult to say without getting into a case-by-case wrangle about the whole list. (Bearing in mind you don't seem to have specifically addressed my point about the particular example already cited.) However, if there are 60 "primarily about roads as an aspect of transport" stubs, I have no actual objection to this. (In practice this may require either not looking at the contents, if this is created, or else taking numerous Natracalms.) There's 19 double-stubbed with both, which is a plausible start.
• Let me comment what I hope is one final time on the NY/London thing, since I've already said I am not going to continue to comment on what in my view has nothing at all to do with the NY proposal, under that heading -- and frankly that it ever got to the point of "opposition contingent on argumentative hypothetical" was pretty ridiculous. This also seems to be the only type where there's ever been any material question at issue. Road-stubs should clearly be split up by sub-region where viable and/or necessary to do so, and splitting up the U.S. by state should be beyond any argument, and much more logical than the "particular by-state system" scheme foisted on us by the road-warriors. Tagging articles as "roads" that are questionably, secondarily, or not-really-at-all {{tl|road-stubs}} is much less clear-cut, and that's what I was commenting on here. Is it clear that those are different things? Is it clear I'm not in fact saying what I've elsewhere been assumed and/or stated to be saying? If so, then enough said. Alai 05:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Sigh. Of course I'm not arguing that they are building and structure stubs. The reason I mentioned that they were technically more that than geo-stubs is that I was following your logic of how they should be assigned. if I followed the way you were thinking they should be more that geo-stubs, they should count as structures. But they aren't either - we aren't silly enough to regard building and structure stubs as a logical parent for road stubs, just as I hope we're not silly enough to regard geography stubs as a natural parent for it. As for being correct "for the most part" without going on a case by case basis, how the hell do you think I came up with that figure? I went on a cae by case basis, and I'd say that somewhere between 65 and 75% (hence my 60% being conservative) are roads first, neighbourhoods as distant second if at all. There are considerably more than 60 as primarily about roads as roads - that is, things called roads with roads in the title of the articles, sincwe they are about roads, not about suburbs or districts or neighbourhoods and clearly not so becausrs the articles are about roads. Is that clear enough? Listen - I'm sick to death of arguing this point with you - I can't see why on earth you would object to it. Your comments so far have made absolutely no sense on this matter. Alai, have you even looked at the articles you're arguing about? What is there about Kingsway (London), say, that makes it less than obviously about a thoroughfare? or Addington Street? Or City Road? Or Baylis Road? Or Lea Bridge Road? Blackfriars Road? Cockspur Street? Kennington Road (part of the A23, BTW)? Great Dover Street (part of the A2)? Shall I go on? Since the argument for NewYork-road-stub is to include those new York city streets currently covered by US-road-stub, I can't see any difference - or is there something special about the likes of 50th Street (Manhattan) or Avenue C (Manhattan) that make them more obviously about a vehicular thoroughfares and less obviously about neighbourhoods than Finsbury Pavement? Grutness...wha? 06:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

{{tl|England-bio-stub}} is over 5 pages, {{tl|UK-musician-stub}} is getting there (almost 4 and a half), and of course musician stubs are still oversized. Plenty of these out there. Crystallina 14:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've been politely ignoring the England-bios, as that road lies madness: one could simply re-sort 90% of the UKs into this, and gain... well, what, in the process? (Yeah, I know, this coming from the person who moved 700 Calvados-geo-stubs to "fix" the 800ish Lower Normandy type...) Was this ever actually proposed, or did we just "fall heir" to it? I suppose we're stuck with it now though, so I'll support this, on the basis of the above necessity. Alai 16:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Not sure, but all of a sudden there are 5 pages of them. I'm not a big fan of it either, but it's rather established now. Crystallina 20:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create sports club stub}}

There are quite a few articles on rowing clubs. About a dozen or so on Oxford and Cambridge college boat clubs alone, and all of them are stubs, although not many are named as such. They currently use the 'sports-related article stub' which is quite vague.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Spith (talk • contribs)

• Are there 60 overall? One way or another, I'd think a {{cl|Sports club stubs}} would be a good idea. Alai 12:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• a sports clubs stub category sounds good to me. --Ohms law 13:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{tl|Arizona-school-stub}} / {{cl|Arizona school stubs}} 64
• {{tl|Missouri-school-stub}} / {{cl|Missouri school stubs}} 59
• {{tl|Colorado-school-stub}} / {{cl|Colorado school stubs}} 56
• {{tl|Nebraska-school-stub}} / {{cl|Nebraska school stubs}} 50
• {{tl|Alabama-school-stub}} / {{cl|Alabama school stubs}} 48
• {{tl|Utah-school-stub}} / {{cl|Utah school stubs}} 48
• {{tl|Iowa-school-stub}} / {{cl|Iowa school stubs}} 45

I suggest we create full-fledged categories for the first three, and keep an eye on the remainder. Alai 05:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I concur. NauticaShades 16:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

These are oversized again; largest countries within seem to be Portugal (46) and Greece (43), with no appeciable undercatting. Alai 21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Further to Aai's propsal below I believe that Both Sweden and Spain have also passed the 60 mark and so I would like to propose {{cl|Sweden athletics biography stubs}} and {{cl|Spain athletics biography stubs}} templates already exist for both of these.

• Now that you mention it, on double-stubbing (or double-upmerged-stubbing, to be more accurate), Poland is at 55, and Finland 48, they may worth a punt, too, or getting very close. Alai 02:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Having been through these again Italy-75, Sweden-70, Spain-63, Poland-61 should be created the next largest are Ukraine-52, Finland-49, Hungary-47 and Romania-43 all have there own templates already and Bulgaria-39, Belarus-37 and Netherlands-34.PS Apologies for not signing my original proposal. Waacstats 16:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Olympics stubs are oversized again: nothing guaranteed to be over threshold, but for these I can certainly find at least 51. Alai 04:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|United States bishop stubs}} 97
• {{cl|United Kingdom bishop stubs}} 68

or:

• {{cl|Anglican bishop stubs}} 77

Bishops are at four pages, above based just on double-stubbing. Alai 22:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support all three.--Carabinieri 19:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Many of the articles about Long Island Rail Road stations in :Category:Long Island Rail Road stations (of which there are 44) are stubs, and I think they should be classified as Long Island Rail Road station stubs to be more specific and to aid WikiProject Trains and WikiProject Stations. I've taken the liberty of creating the category and its associated stub template (:Category:Long Island Rail Road station stubs and :Template:LIRR-station-stub respectively) but I didn't associate them with any higher up stub classifications. It should probably be a subcategory of :Category:United States train station stubs. -- Robert 06:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:Oppose. I'm not at all convinced that this is a good move - with other countries we've started splitting station stubs by location, not by specific line (thus a NewYork-railstation-stub would be the obvious way to split US railstation-stubs). And if there are only 44 station articles in total, it seems extremely unlikely from the viewpoint of logic that 60 of them will be stubs. And I'm certainly not convinced that "make the template first then propose it later" is a good way to go. All in all, this could have been handled better if you'd come here first. Grutness...wha? 06:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::Comment But on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals#Proposing new stubs - procedure page it says "Good number means about 60 articles or more, or 30 or more if associated with a WikiProject, though this figure may vary from case to case," and these are part of a WikiProject, WikiProject Stations. Also, sorry for creating the template first; I had no idea of the existance of this page until I'd already created it and was looking into how to add it to a stub category. --Robert 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:::The stub type associated with the wikiproject would be {{cl|United States train station stubs}}; the "associated with a wikiproject" clause isn't intended to be read as meaning any stub type which is in some sense associated with a wikiproject -- which would be all of them. Perhaps the wording on this could stand to be more clear: WP:STUB, for example, says "This threshold is modified for the stub category for use by a WikiProject. (If a Wikiproject is associated with more than one stub type, normal size considerations apply.)" Alai 00:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

:On the whole I feel much as does Grutness. I'd have no objections to a {{tl|LIRR-station-stub}} upmerged to a {{cl|New York rail station stubs}}, but this is a little too "bottom up", and a little too small, for my liking. Alai 06:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::I've just checked, the said {{tl|NewYork-railstation-stub}} type would take 145 stubs, so I'm going to officially propose that. Also, above I should have said that the WPJ's "designated stub type" should be {{tl|railstation-stub}} / {{cl|train station stubs}}... except that doesn't exist either, so I'm proposing that too. Alai 16:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

:Category:Belgium stubs Could be further split up and reorganised: the current scheme is

• {{tl|Belgium-stub}}
• {{tl|Belgium-geo-stub}}
• {{tl|Belgium-bio-stub}}
• {{tl|Belgium-footybio-stub}}
• {{tl|Belgium-politician-stub}}
• {{tl|Belgium-sport-stub}} (currently on discovery)
• {{tl|Belgium-footyclub-stub}}
• Belgian culture
• Belgian music
• {{tl|Belgium-band-stub}}
• {{tl|FrancoBelgian-comics-stub}}
• {{tl|Tintin-stub}}

I would love some input from the experts here. I think a music stub will already sort out most of the articles, although I'm not sure if this needs to be split up further in artists, songs, etc.

Other stub categories I think of relate to media, politics (broader then just politicians), companies, history...

So I suggest:

• {{tl|Belgium-music-stub}} and :Category:Belgian music stubs
• {{tl|Belgium-media-stub}} and :Category:Belgian media stubs
• {{tl|Belgium-politics-stub}} and :Category:Belgian politics stubs
• {{tl|Belgium-company-stub}} and :Category:Belgian company stubs
• {{tl|Belgium-history-stub}} and :Category:Belgian history stubs

Comments, please!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Aren't these possibly a little over-engineered, given that theres only just over 200 stubs in the parent category? But their scopes certainly make sense in theory; perhaps just create them as upmerged templates, feeding into said parent, until the need and viability is rather more clear-cut? (Ideally 60+ in each case.) Alai 21:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::Sounds like an excellent idea to me.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

If I may quote myself from the RC-WPJ page, 'Also, what about a {{cl|Roman Catholic Church by country stubs}} type for the numberous "Church in Blahland" stub articles?' The name is a tad awkward, but numerically they're more than viable. Alai 09:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

I created {{tl|liberty-ship-stub}} and tagged 34 articles (see :Category:Liberty ship stubs). Sorry I'm posting this after the fact; I'll follow the procedure next time. Brianhe 22:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• If that's the total number of existing candidates, it's rather small. A possibility would be to rescope to naval auxiliaries in general. Alai 00:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:I agree - it's very small. Alai's suggestion of an increased scope might be a sensible move. Grutness...wha? 04:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

::Only 34 articles? Interesting given that the U.S. produced more than 1,000 of these ships. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 20:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

This one has been on my mental to do list for ages:

I suggest a -hist stub for Denmark on par with the similar material for many other countries. I have found a little more than 60 in an unsystematic search, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Valentinian/Sandbox#Material_for_a_.7B.7BDenmark-hist-stub.7D.7D]. Since 29 of them are about battles, I suggest an upmerged {{tl|Denmark-battle-stub}} as well.

There might be a bit more material for the first category. I've been reluctant with tagging material outside of the modern borders with {{tl|Denmark-stub}}. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:Actually, there is a lot more material for this one. I just noticed the articles about elections to parliament. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

::Created and populated. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 15:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Subcategory of {{cl|Luxembourg stubs}} and {{cl|Sports stubs}} as per {{cl|Belgian sport stubs}}, {{cl|India sports stubs}}, and {{cl|South African sport stubs}}. Counting manually in {{cl|Luxembourg stubs}}, one finds 73 suitable stub articles. Add on athletes in {{cl|Luxembourgish people stubs}}, and it's almost certainly pushing 100 without counting under-categorisation. Bastin 19:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• On a mostly unrelated note, {{cl|India sports stubs}} is the only one listed on WP:STUBS. On a more related note, there should probably be an upmerged {{tl|Luxembourg-sport-bio-stub}}. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

This is partly from WP:WSS/D, in the discussion about a North Ireland footyclub stub. The hierarchy would look like this:

• {{tl|UK-footyclub-stub}} / {{cl|United Kingdom football club stubs}}
• {{tl|Wales-footyclub-stub}} and {{tl|NI-footyclub-stub}} would be upmerged templates (both their cats currently exist and are up at WP:SFD)
• {{tl|Scotland-footyclub-stub}} / {{cl|Scottish football club stubs}}
• {{tl|England-footyclub-stub}} / {{cl|English football club stubs}}

~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Alai 16:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

There doesn't seem to be an oil and gas industry stub, and I think one is warrented. A lot of oil and gas stubs are classified as general, ambiguous stubs that aren't always all that fitting and almost never consistent, like "industry", "machinery", "energy" etc. What do you guys think? TastyCakes 17:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• We already have {{cl|energy stubs}}, {{cl|energy company stubs}}, and {{cl|petroleum company stubs}}; do we really need this too? Alai 18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:Because the articles I'm talking about aren't about companies, and they're about energy but that's hardly descriptive as energy includes all sorts of stuff. I would say a "Oil and Gas Industry" stub would be a lot more useful than either of these two when it comes to classifying a lot of articles. As for energy company stubs, this seems to almost totally overlap the petroleum company stub. And as a sidenote, why is it petroleum company rather than oil and gas company? TastyCakes 01:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::Let me rephrase that: what articles would be within the scope of your proposed stub type, that would not be {{cl|energy company stubs}} or {{cl|petroleum company stubs}}, and that would justify further splitting up the {{cl|energy stubs}}; and more specifically, how many? And to answer your question, looks like the stub cat was "reparented" from {{cl|petroleum}} to {{cl|oil companies}}, but there was no rename as such. Alai 01:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:::There are a lot of oil and gas information that doesn't have articles yet which I'd like to start stubs on. These include things to do with well completions, well logging, formation damage, drilling, surface equipment, artificial lift and so on. Wikipedia really doesn't have a whole lot of depth to its petroleum engineering articles, and I think a stub would help fix that. TastyCakes 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::::This page is more for proposing stubs to organize articles that already exist. I would suggest waiting until you have around 60 stubby articles that would fit the "oil and gas industry" classification, then coming back and re-propose. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::60? I have maybe 10 at the moment. I'm not going pretend I have any intention of writing 60 stubs on my own, and I'm not going to go out and collect a list of 60 oil and gas stubs for you (although there are a lot out there, most poorly categorized under other stub categories) because I have things I'd rather do with my time. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the purpose of stubs. Are they not supposed to make it easier to organize nascent topics and speed up their progress? Do oil and gas articles not fall under that exact banner? Are you saying there stubs categories all have 60+ articles in them? I have seen stubs on the most innane things which I can't believe contain 60 articles, and yet there isn't even a general "petroleum" related stub. I would have thought that would be the first logical choice over "petroleum companies". TastyCakes 18:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::Redlinks don't sort too well, and if no-one is interested in populating a stub category, it's counterproductive to create it, tag a handful of articles with it, and leave them to languish in a little-visited backwater. Stub types on the "official" list will have at least 60 articles (or have significant contents in subcats, or are the particular domain of a wikiproject, or some combination thereof): if we haven't managed to delete all the "bootleg" ones that no-one ever even proposed, give us time... I suggest creating an {{tl|oil-stub}} template, feeding into {{cl|energy stubs}} (and/or {{tl|gas-stub}}). I notice there's already a {{tl|petroleum-stub}}, on that basis. If it grows over time, or if splitting the energy-stubs becomes enough of a priority for someone to make a particular effort, splitting it out into a separate category will be straightforward (and uncontroversial). Alai 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Ok.. that sounds better than nothing.. How do I make such a template? And how do I make it feed into energy stubs? and what do the cl and tl mean? Thanks, sorry I don't know anything about stubs.. TastyCakes 17:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Here's an example: I've just edited {{tl|petroleum-stub}} to be a separate template, rather than a redirect, feeding into the energy stubs. (Arguably that's a better name than {{tl|oil-stub}} as it'll avoid any confusion with cooking oils, essential oils, etc, etc.) Alai 22:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Hmm I looked at the energy stub list and maybe making a seperate oil and gas stub is a bad idea. I'd say over 75% of the stubs in the energy list are about oil and gas.. I think changing them all to a seperate category would be a lot of work, even if "oil and gas" is a better descriptor. I think classifying all energy under one topic was a bad idea, it is too broad since it contains both electricity generation and oil and gas stuff as well as a bunch of other almost unrelated topics. But again, I don't know if it's worth the hassle fixing now.. TastyCakes 18:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::At the time of creation, there may not have been enough for a separate oil-stubs, etc, and {{cl|petroleum}} and {{cl|natural gas}} are separate permcats, so combining the two in the way you suggest is a little inobvious. Probably at some point they'll be split up, whether on that basis, or some other. Alai 22:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Continuing the inconclusive discussion from below, {{tl|coin-stub}} is definitely a viable split of {{tl|money-stub}}. Right now, I think it should be for individual coins, types of coins, and anything coin-related; it may be subdivided in the future when serious coin geeks arrive and start adding articles about the minutiae of each date and mint. It would NOT be for denominations or money units. A2Kafir 02:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, and concur as to viability. Perhaps this might also be useful for the exonumwhatsits, since a number of are in the form of coinage, or coin-like objects... Alai 03:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:I can live with this proposal. I also thank you for continuing the dialogue. --JAYMEDINC 04:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

82 total under {{cl|Essays}} and its sub-cats, possibly more lurking elsewhere (pamphlets, documents, etc.). Would winnow down {{tl|lit-stub}}s and cover items not suitable for {{tl|nonfiction-book-stub}}. Her Pegship 00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create template, upmerge to European politicians and Asian politicians}}

I am submitting this proposal for 2 reasons. The first is that the stub is viable (78 Turkish politicians are in the "Politician stubs" category and I am positive some are hiding) and also to avoid the continental problem that Turkey always faces: Should they be European politicians or Asian politicians? Or should they be included in both. I am not sure. But I submit it, anyway.--Thomas.macmillan 04:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:If this separate category is made (which I support, BTW) it can have both as parents very easily. Grutness...wha? 12:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. It can be parented by both. NauticaShades 14:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

* YES I've been waiting for this one! This will leave only Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan in the main category (for the same reason as Turkey). Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 19:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

**And no problem with giving it two parents if that'll keep everybody happy. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 19:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:I just rechecked this one and the number is far lower. The number for Turkey is probably somewhere near 30-40, and the entire material for both Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan is just above 60 combined. An upmerged template would be useful though. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 20:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Four page parent, 62 double-stubbed. Alai 22:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

After making {{tl|India-scientist-stub}} and getting approval for {{tl|India-academic-bio-stub}} this week, found that there is a further need to create the following stubs to sort this VERY LARGE and growing bio stub.

• {{tl|India-mil-bio-stub}} - over 60 articles
• {{tl|India-med-bio-stub}} - over 60 articles
• {{tl|India-musician-stub}} - over 60 articles
• {{tl|India-law-bio-stub}} - over 60 articles
• {{tl|India-reli-bio-stub}} - over 60 articles

A speedy approval is requested as of now not many plans for the weekend ;-) STTW (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

:: Now do have plans, working on {{tl|Germany-stub}} and {{tl|Germany-bio-stub}} stub sort, {{tl|India-bio-stub}} needs to wait some more time, hopefully till then we would have reached a consensus. :-| STTW (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

:If you speedily confirm there's more than 60 in each, we promise not to complain too much. :) (And you'd be due much thanks in the long run, obviously.) If you want to be super-scrupulous, you could always populate upmerged templates in the meantime... Alai 20:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

:: {{tl|India-bio-stub}} contains over 800 articles, going through less than half of them I found that the following cats {{tl|India-mil-bio-stub}}, {{tl|India-med-bio-stub}} and {{tl|India-reli-bio-stub}} definatley have more than 60 articles. About {{tl|India-musican-stub}} and {{tl|India-law-bio-stub}} cannot give figures for sure now but I think would touch 60 when I am through with all the bio stubs. STTW (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support any over 60 in size - willing to turn a blind eye to airly speedy creation if there are no complaints, but Alai's suggestion is probably a better one: set the new templates to the main cat until you're sure there are 60, then make the new cat and re-point the template. FWIW, 800 isn't really "very large" by stub standards, but it's certainly well on the way there. Grutness...wha? 22:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• It's over 800, which is "very large" by my definition, not to mention WP:WSS/T's (where you'll note that it was recently even larger). Alai 02:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• whoops - yes, for some reason I was remembering our six hundred definition for very large as six pages (which is very VERY large!) Grutness...wha? 07:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• OK, I see, but... where's it defined as six hundred, either? Granted anything over a listing page is starting to be less than optimal in some sense, and and higher cutoff is fairly arbitrary, but it would be useful to keep to a standard number, with regard to what to tag with {{tl|verylargestub}}, list as cases resorting/splitting cases on the to-do list, and bear in mind as "extenuating circumstances" for creating splits we'd otherwise be lukewarm about. (For each of those, I'd be inclined to go with 800 as the admittedly-arbitrary-cutoff, at least until such time as there's a decision to move it in unison for each of them.) Alai 12:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, that's a good question. I'm sure we've used it before, but the WP:WSS/T page lists both >800 and 5 pages as oversized in different sections. Seems to be pretty arbitrary overall, come to think of it. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Five listing pages and > 800 articles are more or less the same thing (give or take the high-700s with numerous subcats). Alai 00:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Hm. I've always taken it to mean five full pages. Same as with the bins used for counting on the stub type page, we count in hundreds up to "<800", then the next bin after that is "5 pages". Grutness...wha? 01:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Seems fine. NauticaShades 14:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

I got bored, and I had a map of Samoa nearby. Soo... there are now 41 new Samoa-geo-stubs to add to the 27 that were already on WP. Result - one new country-geo-stub ready for splitting. Grutness...wha? 07:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Go ahead. NauticaShades 14:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 18:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

• {{tl|US-mountain-stub}}
• {{tl|Canada-mountain-stub}}
• {{tl|Mexico-mountain-stub}}

• Oppose. Country-geo-stubs are divided by subnational region, not landform. Grutness...wha? 08:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Grutness. NauticaShades 14:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Grutness Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 20:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as Wyong Shire geography stubs}}

I can find 50 of these, possibly to grow when I get a more recent db dump (any month now, perhaps). NSW geos are back up to exactly 800 (or they were yesterday, at any rate). Alai 14:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

:Not sure I like the "suburb geography stubs" idea in general - other Aussie cities we've just gone with the "X geography stub" name. How Wyong got up to 50 I don't know, but if it's needed I'd suggest we do the same here. Grutness...wha? 04:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

::The permcat is {{cl|Suburbs of Wyong}}, which seems to correspond in some rather unclear way to Wyong Shire. If the permcat is renamed and/or rescoped I have no objection to doing so with this. See also {{cl|Gosford suburb geography stubs}}. Alai 12:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:Gosford has one too? But we changed the "suburb" categories to plain geography ones for Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth because everywhere else just used geo-stub categories pure and simple! When was the Gosford one proposed? Grutness...wha? 12:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

::Special:whatlinkshere answers the latter question (in this and a number of other such instances). As far as I can see, the parent of the Melbourne stubs is {{cl|Geography of Melbourne}}, so I see evidence in that case of such a precedent. Furthermore, it does not appear that Wyong and the suburbs/Wyong Shire are coterminus, so I don't think it would aid clarity in this instance. Alai 13:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:Mmm. Well, okay. Not entirely happy with it, but if that's the best way to split them. It does sound like a move towards "town-stub" though. It will simply be {{tl|Wyong-geo-stub}} though, no? Grutness...wha? 23:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

::I assume it would include "geography" in the various suburbs, too. Yes on the template name; again, see the Gosford example. As I say, if someone wants to do some rejiggification of the permcats (such as renaming to, or adding as a supercat a {{cl|Wyong Shire}} or something to that effect, if they can sanity-check that makes scoping sense (Aussie use of the term 'suburb' is as a closed book to me)), I'm fine with a name following-some-different-permcat. Or, we could smoosh the two into {{cl|Central Coast geography stubs}}, come to that. Alai 23:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:In an attempt to cut this particular Gordian knot, I've created {{cl|Wyong Shire}}, and renamed this one {{cl|Wyong Shire geography stubs}}. Let's see if that pans out. Alai 20:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{tl|Germany-architect-stub}} > 60 articles

* {{tl|Germany-inventor-stub}} > 60 articles

• {{tl|Germany-engineer-stub}} > 60 articles
• {{tl|Germany-law-bio-stub}} > 60 articles

German people stubs is now 4 page long, the above further splits would shorten it further. STTW (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. But do you really need separate inventor and engineer types? {{tl|inventor-stub}} is just a redirect. Alai 13:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

:* Thank you for the information, would not be needing the inventor stub. STTW (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. If we're not going to create {{tl|Germany-inventor-stub}}, then it should redirect to {{tl|Germany-engineer-stub}}. NauticaShades 14:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

I count 54 articles this could be applied to. There is an existing sub-category already, {{tl|Cameroon-footy-bio-stub}}. I realize that 54 is below the suggeested threshold of 60 articles, but per the discussion on this project's talk page, this shouldn't be too controversial, since 54 is close, and this is an already well-established and viable split to go from {{Foo-stub}} to {{Foo-bio-stub}}. — BrianSmithson 21:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support; 54+1*subcat is plenty for me. Alai 22:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Hate to say "me too", but... "me too". Grutness...wha? 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

The following stubs have more than 60 articles :-

• {{tl|France-law-bio-stub}}
• {{tl|France-reli-bio-stub}}
• {{tl|France-engineer-stub}}
• {{tl|France-academic-bio-stub}}
• {{tl|France-film-bio-stub}}
• {{tl|France-architect-stub}}
• {{tl|France-historian-stub}}

Splits needed to bring down the 5 page stub list. STTW (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:Support, assuming threshold is indeed passed; I'd found a number of each of these, without being able to confirm there being other 60 (but then, there's always uncategorisation in play). Alai 23:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

I proposed the category and template about a month ago, with the template being approved. I am requesting the category now. There are 133 articles in the main category and 98% of them are stubs.--Thomas.macmillan 23:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• (Fixed category link.) Support, and I don't see why this couldn't be speedied, if the only reason for 'upmerging' was size. Alai 00:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

As a subcategory of :Category:Writer stubs and :Category:Portuguese people stubs. I have collected a list of 69 70 pages to which this stub tag would apply, the list can be seen on my user subpage User:Swpb/Portuguese writer stubs. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 06:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support, the writers are endemically in need of whacking back down to size. Alai 11:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

The latest count of geo-stubs shows that both Dominica and Togo have made it to 40 geo-stubs, so it would make sense to addan upmerged {{tl|Togo-geo-stub}} and {{tl|Dominica-geo-stub}} to the collection. No more countries have made the level for separate categories, although there are still the outstanding "finished business" ones at the bottom of the page to deal with anyway (which I'll get onto in the next few minutes, with any luck). Grutness...wha? 08:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create Munich-stub only}}

• :Category:Munich company stubs
• :Category:Munich history stubs
• :Category:Munich football biography stubs; Already at 65 and set to grow.
• :Category:Munich university stubs
• :Category:Munich politician stubs
• :Category:Munich geography stubs
• :Category:Munich building and structure stubs

• These categories are meant strictly for for WikiProject Munich participants. I'm not looking to have 5 billion articles in each stub category. The breakdown is away to keep it less messy. There will be a number of articles in each. I've already have had a member say he's not interested in soccer and therefore would try another topic. I don't require my members to have an interest in everyhing in Munich. So, therefore I have made a resonable enough breakdown for the stub categories. Kingjeff 00:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, and please see the size guidelines, which don't require there be 5 billion, but do require there be 60. And "A list of stub footballer articles who either was born in Munich or plays in Munich or a ex-player of a Munich-based club." is not a reasonable or coherent scope for a stub type. I suggest these be SFD'd without undue delay. Alai 00:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• These stubs fall within the the scope of WikiProject Munich. Kingjeff 00:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Kingjeff, that's because you made the WikiProject. I told you some of those would be rejected. I suggest you get actual numbers like I requested before, because that will probably help give a definitive answer to these stub category issues. Nishkid64 00:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Alai doesn't even care what number I put up. This is going against the scope of the project by limiting the resources of the project. Kingjeff 00:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I am in the process of trying to determine which existing stub articles might qualify for having these templates used on them. I request that the rejection of the stubs be postponed until I can determine which have enough potential articles to qualify for the creation of a new stub template. Also, I can imagine that if there are one or two groups of only 40 or so which don't quite measure up to the full required 60, that I might create a few new stub articles to justify the creation of the stub template. If I do so, I will only create new stub articles based on names already included on existing lists, or from easily available reliable sources. I hope that this unfortunate creation of a few more stubs to justify the creation of a stub template is acceptable. Badbilltucker 00:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• I've no objection to whatever stubs get created, on whatever basis, but there's more than just size issues here (though some of these seem unlikely to be viable anytime soon for all of Bavaria, much less just Munich): we don't stub-tag people by place of birth, or otherwise by criteria that would lead to rampant multi-stubbing. Alai 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose to the footy-bio one for the reason that subnational bio stubs of any kind other than politicians are generally opposed - people move around too much, so it would be easy to rack up half a dozen stub types for an article very quickly. Weaker oppose to the others, given the size of the parent stubcat and the likely undersized nature of the stub types in question. Willing to re-appraise that iff it becomes clear that there are enough stubs for those stub types and also clear that the parent stub cats are significantly oversized. Would have no objection at all to (and indeed suggest as a good compromise position) a specific {{tl|Munich-stub}} / {{cl|Munich stubs}} since we do not have one (double-stubbing with other stub types such as bavaria-geo-stub and germany-company-stub where necessary), but this overfragmentation seems like a bad idea. In fact, considering sub-types of Munich-stub when we don't even have Munich-stub seems pretty strange, to say the least. Having one stub category to cover articles relating to Munich would seem a far more sensible option for both us and the Munich WikiProject than trying to justify this sort of split. Note: I'm a little concerned by some potential misunderstanding of the use of stub templates in some of the category headings too - the geo-stub one says it is for a "list of Munich boroughs, suburban and other Munich-related locations", which isn't what such a category would be for (it would be for stub articles about Munich boroughs, suburbs, etc). If all that is wanted is a category for Munich boroughs, etc, in general, then a permcat is wanted, not a stub cat. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - At this point, I have to agree that the single Munich-stub might be the best immediate option, and I honestly wish I had thought of it earlier. It would allow for the project to see which stubs fall within its scope, while not creating additional underpopulated stub categories. Also, the possibility of further subcategories of stubs would be an option, depending on how large the first category of stubs is. Here, however, I have a probably stupid question. There are no significant objections to placing multiple stub templates on a single article, are there? Several members of the EU Parliamant, German Parliament, etc., seem to be from Munich, as would probably several of the other members of the various existing Germany stub categories. Badbilltucker 01:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• No, that's fine, up to a point. It's encouraged in fact, since having two stub templates on an article means that the article is more likely to be seen by different types of editor (e.g., A Munich-stub and a germany-struct-stub together would be seen by editors interested in Munich and also those interested in German buildings). I say up to a point though - it's generally frowned on to have more than about three or four stub templates on any one article (hence the comments about the footy-bio-stub above). Grutness...wha? 01:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that a {{tl|Munich-stub}} is a much better place to start. If some of these are going to have significant (if undersized) numbers, there's also precedent for "double-upmerging" a template (so that it feeds into, for example, both German B&S stubs and Munich stubs) until such time as it hits 60+. Alai 02:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• ... though that is occasionally an unpopular move, it seems... Grutness...wha? 02:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• How about changing the politicians stub to politics stub. I really want it to have a wider scope to the stub. footy becomes athlete. I was always borderline about the company. The university one can have many things in it. Keep the history one. Munich has a long and rich history. Keep the building and structures. Kingjeff 02:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• As per guidelines, though, it will have to be established that each new stub template created have at least 60 existing pages on which the stub template can be used. I don't think that rule is going to be voided because of the project. Actually, considering Munich has a project, the likelihood of those articles remaining stubs is likely to drop, which would even decrease the number of stub articles it could be applied to. I do think right now the best option would be to take the single Munich-stub proposal, see how many articles it applies to, and then discuss the possibility of adding further stubs later, depending on how many stub articles exist that it can be applied to. Badbilltucker 02:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Footy to athlete means more sports are involved. Politcian to politics means more then just Munich politicians. I made these categories only for the WikiProject. I don't care if anyone else uses them. This is for the benefit of the WikiProject. Kingjeff 03:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:Athlete (by which I presume you mean sportsperson) would have an identical problem to footy-bio. As I said above, we don't generallty divide bio-stubs by subnational region because people move around too much. Politics-stub wouldn't theoretically have politician stubs in it, though related, they're quite separate - in much the same way as you wouldn't mark entomologists with insect-stub. As things are, I stand by the suggestion that one overall munich-stub is a far more sensible arrangement, double-stubbed as necessary with any other relevant stub templates. As far as the other ones go, just look at the sizes of the German parent categories: Only 71 articles marked with germany-university-stub, a little over 200 germany-struct-stubs, 350 germany-hist-stubs. I seriously doubt that any categories on those topics specifically for Munich will get close to a reasonable size, even the last one (especially since many of the items in it relate to Germany as a whole). It might be worth considering a Bavaria-struct-stub, which again might be useful for your WikiProject, rather than a specific Munich-struct-stub, as long as there are a significant number of stubs (which there may be). Let's face it, no other city has so many separate stubs of this kind, even far larger ones with long-established wikiprojects. Even the long-established London WikiProject only has two stub types. Grutness...wha? 05:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Athlete (by which I presume you mean sportsperson) would have an identical problem to footy-bio. As I said above, we don't generallty divide bio-stubs by subnational region because people move around too much. So this is now all about what this project wants and not about helping out WikiProject Munich. I think this project is going above and beyond the authority of what a WikiProject is suppose to do. By getting these templates deleted, you would be hurting WikiProject Munich and by going against this project, you would be hurting Wikipedia. I've even shown that I'm willing to compromise on the situation. Kingjeff 16:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:So this is now all about what this project wants and not about helping out WikiProject Munich - no, it's all about keeping the munich-stub types in some sort of line with the types used by the various wikiprojects around wikipedia, and also keeping the number of stub types to a reasonable, practical level. Its for this reason we have overarching projects like stub sorting, to help the entirelty of wikipedia run smoothly. Same reason as there are pages like CFD, for cases where one type of category runs contrary to the way others on Wikipedia run. You are actually hurting your wikiproject considerably by continuing to argue for this micro-split of articles, since it will create far more work for anyone involved in your project that having a single stub type would. You have, BTW, shown very little willingness to compromise. Your suggestion for changing from severn stub types to seven stub types with slightly different parameters is hardly a compromise situation, especially since it has been repeatedly explained that the biggest problem is that there is no need for you to have so many stub types in the first place. So far, the main thing have shown is an inability to follow WP:CIVIL. Grutness...wha? 04:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Is there any way we could discuss this at one venue? There's talk over at WP:SFD and here, and this is getting confusing. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:I agree. perhaps the SFD page is a better place, since there's not much point in proposing a whole range of stubs that have already been created. Grutness...wha? 04:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This WikiProject is a joke. Kingjeff 04:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

:It is your prerogative to think so, but if it is it's certainly a long-running and very active one. This is by far Wikipedia's biggest and most active WikiProject, and liaises extremely well with dozens, if not hundreds, of other WikiProjects. Have you had a chance to look at WP:CIVIL yet, BTW? Grutness...wha? 04:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support creation of {{tl|Munich-stub}}; anything for a quiet life. Her Pegship 05:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

A lot of the {{tl|money-stub}}s aren't actually currency. They are exonumia. Thousands of articles are in Portal:Numismatics, so I believe it needs another stub. --JAYMEDINC 01:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• How many? I'll take a whirl through the money stubs tomorrow and see how many I find. Should be interesting; I'm a numismatic geek. A2Kafir 03:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Off the bat, I'm not finding a whole lot. The division I see is between denominations and "everything else." I propose {{tl|denomination-stub}}; this would be for specific denominations (Connecticut pound, Azerbaijani ruble). A2Kafir 16:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:hmm, I just click on the {{tl|money-stub}} and 200 stubs doesn't even bring you through the letter "E". I would think that means you will find a ton of articles. I'm way to busy to go through that and sort what is exonumia and what isn't. However, I don't know how denomination would be much different than money as far as stubs are concerned. At least in my opinion, exonumia and money are a much bigger difference. At least we do agree that the topic does deserve another stub. --JAYMEDINC 16:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

::Which I assume means you're way too busy to populate the stub type, and given that it's not a "priority case" for WSS on size of parent... It seems unlikely to me to be viable, if permanent categorisation of the money-stubs are anything to go by: there's 23 in all of the {{cl|exonumia}} hierarchy, most of them actually {{cl|Community currencies}}, and a few {{cl|Electronic currencies}} and {{cl|Fictional currencies}}. I have to oppose until there's some evidence of need and viability. Alai 18:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:By no means is it completed, but I have tripled the size of {{cl|Exonumia}}. Most of those are stubs and would fit in my proposed {{tl|Exonumia-stub}}. Many are currently in {{tl|money-stub}}, but I believe my proposal to be a more accurate fit for them. --JAYMEDINC 21:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

::While I'm not against splitting (however, they must have a common parent cat), I must point out that articles like Azerbaijani ruble and Connecticut pound are "currency" type, not "denomination" type. These articles refer to a currency system. IMHO, in the numismatic article space, "denomination" type articles are like 1 euro coins or United States one-dollar bill. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Here we are, the next to become old business. This is what I gather. We have mild support for {{tl|Exonumia-stub}} and {{tl|denomination-stub}} based on Chochopk saying he isn't against splitting the {{tl|money-stub}}. He is highly respected in the Numismatic Wikiproject, so I hope we can all go along with his statement. --JAYMEDINC 15:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:What I gathered, on the contrary was there was no evidence of either suggestion being needed, popular or viable on size, and that the proposal had rather withered on the vine. But as we'll need to split them sooner or later, I've crunched the perm-cat-based numbers, and it looks like {{tl|coin-stub}} would be viable, as would {{tl|obsolete-currency-stub}}. Alternatively, splitting by continent would be feasible: Europe and Africa would each be over 60, as would ones based on {{cl|Currencies of the Americas}} and {{cl|Currencies of Asia and the Pacific}}, though those seem less than standard categorisations by region. Alai 16:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

::I got to almost 30 for {{tl|coin-stub}} without finishing the letter "C". I bet there's enough for a {{tl|money-unit-stub}}, but I won't know until I have time to look this evening. A2Kafir 17:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:::My count for the coins was 124, to be precise. Is there an existing permcat corresponding to the scope of {{tl|money-unit-stub}}? Alai 17:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

I suggest that we create a sub-category for Wikipedia:WikiProject anime and manga stubs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocoaguy (talk • contribs)

Fixed spelling -- Brianhe 01:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:If it's needed, then it would need a better name (this one defies just abut everything connected to the template naming at WSS). Given the size of {{cl|Anime and manga stubs}} some split might be in order, but I'd like to see some evidence that this would be the best way to do it. Grutness...wha? 03:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

I think we should have a stub for earthquakes. Patricknoddy 4:46pm November 17, 2006 (EST)

• A bit of clarification here - do you mean individual historic earthquake events, or earthquake science? The two are quite distinct, and probably could do with separate stub types ({{tl|earthquake-stub}} and {{tl|seismology-stub}}, perhaps). Are there enough stubs for this? Are there even enough for one category? If there's enough for only one category, then two templates leading to one category is an option. It all depends on the count. Grutness...wha? 23:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

I am currently going through Finnish actors and the industry is very large in Finland and there are thousands of them. The category Euro actor will soon be too large and also the Finland-bio-stub is too general and too full Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Are there sixty of these, and did we miss the nine-minute interval between "proposal" and creation? Alai 18:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:I've tried to populate it. It is close to 50 now. It's a start anyway. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|send to WP:SFD}}

The stub {{tl|Physiology-stub}} was created on November 162006 by User:Je at uwo. The stub is used by one article, decidualization.

My vote is for this stub is Keep. Currently, stubs about physiology (of which there should be many, although I have not tried to count them) have to be labeled under the more general term {{tl|Biology-stub}} or the too specific {{tl|Cell-biology-stub}}. This stub would be a useful addition.

Note: this stub category was previously deleted in 2005 (See: stub types for deletion)

—Brim 22:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Four page parent, 65 double-stubbed. Alai 22:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, I have been keeping an eye on the athletics and knew this wasn't far off but didn't realise it was over 60. Most should already be stubbed with the relevent template so only the category needs to be created. Waacstats 22:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

The South Africa stub stands at 467. I propose a fairly large split: {{tl|SouthAfrica-university-stub}}, SouthAfrica-union-stub (for trade unions), and {{tl|SouthAfrica-sport-stub}}. I don't have specific numbers yet, but I am fairly sure all of them will reach the standard level.--Thomas.macmillan 17:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:SouthAfrica-union-stub should be {{tl|SouthAfrica-trade-union-stub}}.--Carabinieri 16:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

:Then it shall be. I wasn't exactly sure.--Thomas.macmillan 22:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

This topic has reached over 600 stubs and without doing a full count it appears that

• {{Tl|Horseracing-race-stub}} and {{cl|Horseracing races stubs}}
• {{Tl|Horseracing-horse-stub}} and {{cl|Horseracing horses stubs}}
• {{Tl|Horseracing-bio-stub}} and {{cl|Horseracing biography stubs}}

all seem viableWaacstats 11:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable. Another possible axis to split on would be gallops vs steeples vs trotting and pacing, but I think I prefer your suggestion. Grutness...wha? 05:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC) (who'll be watching the big race tomorrow afternoon)
• For naming consistency, those should be {{cl|Horse race stubs}}, {{cl|Racehorse stubs}} and {{cl|horse racing biography stubs}}. Alai 06:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{tl|Seychelles-geo-stub}} / {{cl|Seychelles geography stubs}} 57
• {{tl|Comoros-geo-stub}} / {{cl|Comoros geography stubs}} 55
• {{tl|Jordan-geo-stub}} / {{cl|Jordan geography stubs}} 51
• {{tl|NewCaledonia-geo-stub}} / {{cl|New Caledonia geography stubs}} 51
• {{tl|Niger-geo-stub}} / {{cl|Niger geography stubs}} 50
• {{tl|Laos-geo-stub}} / {{cl|Laos geography stubs}} 49
• {{tl|SierraLeone-geo-stub}} / {{cl|Sierra Leone geography stubs}} 46

I'd think the first two are worth a category at this stage, and the others, keeping a close eye on. Alai 13:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

: Shouldn't it be {{cl|New Caledonia geography stubs}}... AFAIK We don't suppress spaces in category names... Monni 18:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

::Oops, pesky c'n'p. Thanks, fixed. Alai 19:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

::: Support revised ;) Monni 20:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder that I am indeed keeping a close eye on these. My last count-up was only a week ago, and we've been using 65 as the usual split for national geo-stubs. Having said that, i've no objection to the creation of the first couple. BTW, your tally and mine don't quite agree - I have slightly higher numbers for some of those countries, and two more (Marshalls-geo-stub and CongoR-geo-stub) are also above 45. Grutness...wha? 01:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

:The above are only for countries with double-upmerged templates, and are only counting articles in both stub categories, as of the 31st. Alai 01:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

::That explains it - my count was on the 7th, and I don't think we have either a Marshalls-stub or a CongoR-stub. Grutness...wha? 02:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

A division of {{tl|insect-stub}}, for dragonflies and damselflies and related articles. Redirect from {{tl|damselfly-stub}} for convenience.

60 stubs, at least:

1-10: Anax (dragonfly), Amethyst Dancer, California Dancer, Emperor (dragonfly), Emerald Damselfly, Common Bluetail, Common Blue Damselfly, Common Darter, Hine's Emerald Dragonfly, Four-spotted Chaser.

11-20: Flame Skimmer, Giant Hawaiian Darner, Hairy Dragonfly, Hine's Emerald Dragonfly, Orange-spotted Emerald, Mexican Amberwing, Migrant Hawker, Norfolk Damselfly, Orthetrum v. villosovittatum, Variable Damselfly.

21-30: Vagrant Darter, Variable Dancer, Variable Darner, Variegated Meadowhawk, Western Meadowhawk, Red-eyed Damselfly, Red-veined Darter, Southern Emerald Damselfly, Small Red-eyed Damselfly, Scarlet Skimmer.

31-40: Scarlet Dragonfly, Scarlet Dwarf, Lavender Dancer, Familiar Bluet, Green Darner, Keeled Skimmer, Dainty Damselfly, Azure Damselfly, Banded Demoiselle, Beautiful Demoiselle.

41-50: Common Hawker, Banded Darter, Broad-bodied Chaser, Brown Hawker Lesser Emperor, Blue-tailed Damselfly, Large Red Damselfly, Pantala flavescens, Zyxomma, Sympetrum.

51-60: Diplacodes, Celithemis, Celithemis eponina, Neopetalia punctata, Macromiidae, Gomphidae, Corduliidae, Blue-eyed Darner, Calopterygidae, Coenagrionidae.

There are more, either not marked as {{tl|insect-stub}} or not marked as a stub at all. Plus there will be many more as each species is filled in. A2Kafir 22:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable in terms of size - I'll take your word for it in terms of the taxonomy, though if someone can confirm that it's a logical way to split these things I'd be happier. Grutness...wha? 23:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Dragonflies and damselflies make up the whole order of insects called Odonata; that's why they fit together like this. So {{tl|dragonfly-stub}} would be a subcategory of both the category of insect stubs and the category for Odonata. A2Kafir 00:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, contingent on the stub category name following the permanent category name ({{cl|Odonata stubs}}. (Usual escape clause from the singular noun naming guideline.)) Alai 00:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|rename as woodworking-stub}}

I just added the WikiProject: Stub sorting. template to the :Category:Joinery stubs page, as it is a current stub category, but is not aparently in the project. -Ohms law 14:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

:Not all categories have the template because that is a relatively new template; there were already several hundred categories in use when it was created, and not all of them have had it added yet. Grutness...wha? 01:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

::just for the sake of clarity, we should be adding the W:SS template to stub category pages that do not currently have it correct? That's what it sounds like you're saying, but you didn't come straight out and say it. -Ohms law 09:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:mainly yes. We should be adding it to ones that have been cleared through either the proposal or discovery page. Ones that haven't been shouldn't have it on until we've decided what top do with them. Grutness...wha? 10:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

::I see. Thank you! -Ohms law 14:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

So what do you guys want to do about it? Leave it alone? create a woodworking stub? rename the joinery stub category to :Category:Woodworking stubs?? Luigizanasi 02:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The template actually says "This article about joinery, carpentry or woodworking is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it". Perhaps the stub should simply be woodworking stub, since that would indicate a wider field of inclusion in my mind. -Ohms law 14:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

:Just for your information, we started using it as the only available stub related to woodworking when we started the Woodworking Wikiproject rather than create a proliferation of stubs for each topic. I added the words carpentry and woodworking to the stub description. There is also a :Template:Carpentry-stub which User:Grutness redirected to the joinery one. Previous discussion on the redirect in the stub sorting page is here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria/Archive9#.7B.7Bjoinery-stub.7D.7D.3F. Note that joinery in the sense used by the stub is referred to a finish carpentry and millwork in North America where joinery usually refers to woodworking joints. In my opinion, it would be OK If someone wants to create a woodworking stub and ensure that the others redirect there, but I am not particularly hung up on it since I have been using the joinery one for quite a while. Luigizanasi 17:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

::I'm fine with the way it is, now that I know some of the history. The thing is, as a new stub-sort'er it did take me a while to find the proper stub to use. That being the case, could we expect someone who doesn't usually put articles into a stub category to know that the proper one to use is "joinery-stub"? That's the root of my concern.

::just to add some references to the discussion here, the definitions for joinery [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=joinery&x=0&y=0], woodworking [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=woodworking&x=0&y=0], and carpentry [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=carpentry&x=0&y=0]. From looking over the above definitions, it seems logical to me for everything to be under the umbrella of woodworking (and therefore woodworking-stub would be the stub). In addition to their being past history on this subject, I'm still to new at this to feel comfortable in continuing this line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion. I do feel that the information provided above should be usefull in coming to a consensus, however. -Ohms law 18:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is all a while ago, so my memory might not be 100% accurate, but ISTR that carpentry and joinery have somewhat different meanings in different countries (here, for instance, joinery implies furniture and fittings, carpentry implies buildings) - as such it made sense to have both stub types point at the same category. Since there is a redirect, there's nothing to stop anyone using carpentry-stub in place of joinery-stub as a tag for articles - the result will be the same. This has worked fine so far, though if there's a call to reoppen the idea of splitting them, that's fine by me, as long as it's clear what should be marked with which stub. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:I would be opposed to splitting, it's useful to have all woodworking related stubs in one place. Whether the category is called :Category:Joinery stubs is immaterial to me, although I admit it would be neater if the category was :Category:Woodworking stubs. But having several stub templates such as joinery-stub, carpentry-stub, and perhaps woodworking-stub is OK and maybe even better, as long as they all point to the same category. Luigizanasi 06:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

::Linguistically, I'm in the joiner(y) camp, but yes, this should really follow the name of the permcat (with template redirects as you suggest). Alai 12:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

To be covered by WP Gold Coast.

About 30 stubs will fit this type.

Nathannoblet 06:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Looks reasonable if there are 30 or more. The only problem I can see is that "Gold Coast" is a disambiguation page (in fact, my first thought was the place now known as Ghana) - and I only live just across the ditch from Queensland!). Might I suggest that it be called {{tl|GoldCoastQLD-stub}} or similar to get around that? Also, the usual caveats about double-stubbing apply (that is, geo-stubs about Gold Coast get marked with both this new stub and Queensland-geo-stub, struct-stubs with the new stub and Australia-struct-stub, etc etc etc, so that they are also stubbed by type as well as location). Grutness...wha? 06:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

::I had the same feeling, Grutness (well, I could be biased. Half of Europe had colonies in Ghana, including you-guessed-it) :) What do we do with the category name? We'd better be able to distinguish between the two. {{cl|Gold Coast, Queensland stubs}} ? Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 11:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

:::The article and permcat are both called Gold Coast, Queensland, so that would make perfect sense. And yes, I know about Christiansborg Castle, Accra ;) Grutness...wha? 12:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

::::(Jaw hitting floor). Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 14:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

::::) My dad used to work in Ghana. Grutness...wha? 23:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Agra division geography stubs}}
• {{cl|Bareilly division geography stubs}}

Five page parent, these look to be over threshold. Alai 22:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• And also {{cl|Lucknow division geography stubs}}. Alai 22:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

: Support, there is a need of further stubs based on the Divisions of Uttar Pradesh, as not only the Agra, Bareilly and Lucknow geo stubs are very large. There are in all 17 divisions!! STTW (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::Those were the only ones I found that look like being over 60, though of course I'm open to correction on that. If anyone is feeling zealous, I'd suggest creation of all 70 per-district templates, upmerged either to district categories, or to the UP parent. Alai 11:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::: OK! I will do that but after I am finished sorting the {{tl|India-bio-stub}}. STTW (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::::There's no hurry on that, the first couple should take care of the immediate oversizedness. And more power to you if you reduce that of the bios... Alai 15:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Kanniyakumari district geography stubs}} 58
• {{cl|Erode district geography stubs}} 64
• {{cl|Coimbatore district geography stubs}} 76

Five-page parent. Alai 21:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:Support both this and the UP ones, if they will help to erode the size of the parent cats (ba-doom-ching!) Grutness...wha? 00:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Needed for {{tl|Tajikistan-bio-stub}}. Jahangard 05:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:No it isn't. That category has been deliberately upmerged into a larger category, since there are not enough Tajikistani biography stubs for a separate category. Currently there are only 27 stubs marked with this template - note the requirements listed above for separate categories. Grutness...wha? 05:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

::Including them in :Category:Asian people (without being in any subcategory) is simply useless (because :Category:Asian people is too large). Also, the term Asian people is misleading in this case, because it's mostly used for East Asians. Jahangard 07:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:::That's only because there are more east Asians with stubs - if it is true, which it doesn't seem to be by looking at that category. In any case, it also directs to {{cl|Tajikistan stubs}}, which is a logical place to look for them. Grutness...wha? 09:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

::::In fact, there are only some 150 articles in that category (which is {{cl|Asian people stubs}}, not {{cl|Asian people}}), so finding Tajikistani ones should be no problem at all. Many of the others there seem to be from Armenia and Georgia, which isn't really East Asia by anyone's definition of the term. Grutness...wha? 09:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

::About the small number of the articles, what is the threshold? Where is the policy page? Jahangard 07:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:::As I mentioned, have a look at the top of the page. To quote from there: 60 articles or more, or 30 or more if associated with a WikiProject. For more explicit details, see WP:STUB, which saysIdeally, a newly-created stub type will have between 100 and 300 articles. In general, any new stub category should have a minimum of 60 articles. This threshold is modified for the stub category for use by a WikiProject. (If a Wikiproject is associated with more than one stub type, normal size considerations apply.) Given that there is no WikiProject for Tajikistan, there are fewer than half the number that are required. Directing a template such as this one to a more general category, as has been done here, is standard practice when there are below this threshold number of stubs. If you can find another 30-35 stubs which can be marked with this template, then there will be no problem creating such a category - but until there are that many, directing it to the larger categories is a more sensible thing to do. Grutness...wha? 09:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

::::BTW, I've just rolled back your change to the template - please don't mess around with it. Removing a perfectly acceptable category from it - one that is the result of a discussion only a couple of weeks ago - could easily be considered vandalism. Grutness...wha? 09:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::A perfect acceptable category?! I have already mentioned why it's not appropriate in this case.

:::::A result of the discussion in a couple of weeks ago?! In that discussion 4 users participated and among them only you have mentioned using this category. Jahangard 09:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::Outsider's 2c: Jahangard, I suggest you give it a rest. While Grutness' response may have been a bit harsher than strictly necessary, I can't see anything wrong with the solution he's been advocating. Just look at how these articles show up both in :Category:Asian people stubs and in :Category:Tajikistan stubs, that seems to make perfect sense to me and is in accordance with common stub sorting practice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

::::You explained why having it link to {{cl|Asian people}} was inappropriate. I agree - but it never linked there. It links, perfectly acceptably and approriately, to {{cl|Asian people stubs}}, which only contains 131 stubs, many of them for people from around central Asia (not, as you claim, for people in East Asia). Unless you'd like to argue that Tajikistan is not in Asia, i don't see how you can suggest that this is not an appropriate category. As for the discussion, the number of people involved was small, yes, but that is hardly relevant to the fact that a decision was reached and carried out through propoer process, that decision being to upmerge the template. Since the template is a bio-stub template, the only logical place it could be upmerged is to the next higher bio-stub category on the hierarchy, that is, {{cl|Asian people stubs}}. This is standard stub practice when a category is upmerged - Since there are too few articles currently to have a {{cl|Tajikistani people stubs}}, the template redirects to {{cl|Tajikistan stubs}} and to the next higher {{cl|X people stubs}} - in this case, Asia. Now, are you going to address my earlier suggestion and find a couple of dozen more stubs so that you can have the category you want, or are you far happier yelling at me? I know which I'd prefer, which is why I've been trying to find a few more Tajikistan-bio-stubs myself. If you would like to do something useful and help in that task, it would be much appreciated. Grutness...wha? 10:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• UPDATE - After a bit of frantic stub-creation by User:Francis Tyers and myself, there are now enough stubs for a separate category. As such, I now support the creation of a separate category. Hopefully, that will keep everyone happy. Some advice for next time, Jahangard - if you are told that a few more stubs are needed for a new category, find a few more stubs for the category. It's a lot more sensible - and much less of a waste of time and energy - than kicking up a fuss about whether a category is appropriate or not or whether an upmerge should have been made to a parent category when no category was specified. Grutness...wha? 11:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per Grutness. - Francis Tyers · 11:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support this solution, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. We now have 60+ articles so a category it is. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

I've been horrendously bold, and created this as a new home for the soon-to-be-deleted UVa type. If it turns out to be too small, or generally unwanted, I've no objection to upmerging it. Alai 17:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

To be located under {{cl|Classical antiquity}} and {{cl|Literature stubs}}, to include Latin, Greek, and any other text that falls into this period and is not poetry, drama, or myth. We need something for items which are not books per se from this era. Count coming... Her Pegship 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

::OK, the count is: 50, under {{cl|Ancient Greek works}} and {{cl|Latin texts}} (which, of course, are not all from the classical antiquity period). I can keep trolling, but if this doesn't sound workable to y'all I will cease & desist, and get back to categorizing. Her Pegship 03:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:Is this instead as or as well as the latin-lit-stub suggested at WP:SFD? Grutness...wha? 03:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

::I withdrew that one after further musing. Her Pegship 07:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

The stub category {{tl|India-bio-stub}} needs to be sorted as it is too large now. The number of articles related to scientists is over 60 and growing. STTW (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

: As per Alai's suggestion below, I would also like to propose {{tl|India-academic-bio-stub}} as a further stub split as there are more than 60 stub articles belonging to this sub category. STTW (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• An excellent plan then, on both those grounds. Actually, I already proposed {{cl|Indian scientist stubs}} here, so this would technically be speediable. (I didn't create it, as it'd require a manual 'trawl', as I think is generally the case with all the occupation-splits, so I ignored it in favour of "easier" splits.) Alai 00:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Ekantik 02:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Indian people stubs is extremely backlogged.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create/keep}}

Stub template created before approval, sorry. ({{tl|Houston-stub}}. Need template to identify articles

associated with the project that need development. Thanks, Postoak 06:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Are there 30 or more articles with this scope? Alai 12:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, >30 articles. Postoak 01:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Sounds OK, then. Alai 11:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

At 56 stubs, this double-stubbed upmerged template is surely ready to "go legit", even in the (I'd think unlikely) event there's not another four scuttling around someplace. Alai 02:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I see nothing wrong with it, and I see 61 now. NauticaShades 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - the actual template name sounds a bit funny, but if it is the norm ie. "Mexico-footy-bio-stub" or "France-footy-bio-stub") then definite support.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. looks useful. Grutness...wha? 05:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

The novels stubs are oversized again, and while they probably mainly are in need of more catting, which has become quite low, or manual sorting, it looks like the above would just about fly, at 61. Alai 22:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Mooted in passing about a year and a half ago, I can't quite believe we don't have this. Seems to be the only viable subcat for band-stub, which is five articles away from being officially oversized (it already spills onto a fifth listings page). Alai 07:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. We should have this already. NauticaShades 16:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

There are 35 of these just counting the trade unions and the buildings and structures. Template should probably be named {{tl|Trinidad-stub}} as the geo-stub template is {{tl|Trinidad-geo-stub}}.--Carabinieri 20:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, given the existing subcat. Alai 22:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I know of at least one editor (G*ett*rda) who is likely to increase this number pretty quickly, too. Grutness...wha? 22:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Per above. NauticaShades 16:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|European Union education stubs}} 93
• {{cl|United Kingdom education stubs}} 71
• {{cl|United States education stubs}} 62

Parent is oversized. We may wish to make the first simply {{cl|European education stubs}}, depending on whether we want to conform to the permcat, or the usual stub pattern. Alai 06:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better to conform with the usual stub pattern.--Carabinieri 19:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Didn't I already propose this? Can't find a link to same. Viable on double-stubbing alone (69). Alai 08:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as US-southern-gospel-stub}}

There are currently 93 listings in the category "Southern gospel performers" and it is safe to say that nearly 90% of them are stubs. Most of the stubs in this category are listed as {{Tl|US-singer-stub}}. I don't feel that this stub is specific enough and contains thousands of names in its holds. I feel like people who are familiar with the genre of Southern Gospel would be more prone to expanding articles if the stub {{Tl|Southern-gospel-stub}} was created. T. White 12:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:Seems reasonable. You might want to scope it as US- same, since if we're splitting singer-stubs by genre as well as by country, that's the more profitable area for same. Alai 05:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Following in the footprints of such stubs as {{tl|Babylon5-stub}}, {{tl|StarTrek-stub}} and {{tl|EastEnders-stub}}, the Battlestar Galactica stub category would categorize the large (and ever-growing) number of BSG related articles that need work. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• There actually used to be one of these, but it was deleted as underused and poorly named (it was at BG-stub)... but if you're right about this being fast-growing, perhaps it's more viable now. There appears to be a WikiProject, albeit a small one, so that cuts the necessary stubcount down to about 30. Is this likely to have 30 current articles that can use it? If so, I don't see any problems with a {{tl|BattlestarGalactica-stub}}. But I'd like to know the numbers first! Grutness...wha? 23:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• (ec)Assuming there's at least 30 (given that there's WP:BSG), seems sensible. Alai 23:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

:A quick look through :Category:Battlestar Galactica and subcategories came up with fifty articles marked as stubs, spanning both the old and new versions of the show, in articles on episodes, actors, characters and miscellaneous subjects. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

:Question If this stub category meets approval, how would people feel if I created it as either {{tl|BSG-stub}} or {{tl|Galactica-stub}} for sake of brevity? --BlueSquadronRaven 04:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

::Personally I've no objection to {{tl|Galactica-stub}}, but I'd have a BIG objection to BSG-stub. BSG is a disambiguation page, to start with, and it's not instantly obvious to an outsider what BSG would stand for - see my note above as to one of the reasons the original Battlestar Galactica stub was deleted. Grutness...wha? 04:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

::Galactica is also a disambig page, as it turns out, however, it's not as extensive as BSG and the Battlestar reference trumps the other two, I think. Unless there's further objections, I'll make it Galactica-stub. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I'd support that template name. Note that the category should use lower-case 's': {{cl|Battlestar Galactica stubs}}. Alai 13:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Done. Proposal altered. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for your input. The stub template and category has been created. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

I've just been through {{cl|New Zealand stubs}} sorting out the new templates, one of which was NZ-struct-stub, currently upmerged into {{cl|Oceanian building and structure stubs}}. I was surprised to discover 70 stubs that could take the NZ-struct-stub template - enough for a separate category. it would leave the Oceanian parent a little thin at 41 stubs, but I'll have a hunt aroundf to see if that can be increased (in any case, it would be 41 stubs plus plus four child categories, so it's not too dreadful). I'd therefore like to propose a separate {{cl|New Zealand building and structure stubs}}. Grutness...wha? 10:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. fits right in with the other "building and structure" stubs, from what I can see. I say we do it. --Ohms law 19:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Small size of parent isn't an issue, as it's holding sensible subcats. Alai 12:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Plant stubs are oversized again; fixable with sorting to existing types, but I note that this would also be viable, at 78. (Technically I'm breaking the 'singular noun phrase', but singularising scientific Latin clade names doesn't seem like too good a plan.) Alai 05:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, the category is already big enough, and important group evolutionarily and horticulturally. I'm not certain though, if this page is about supporting or not, but I do support this as a useful stub category, as certaily it is one I would peruse for articles to work on, and it is much easier in plant articles to work on groups at a time. KP Botany 20:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support is always welcome, though to be honest there's splits where anything short of entrenched opposition would be construed as adequate consensus. :) Alai 20:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

The NSW geo stubs are oversized again; only sensible-looking split I can find is the 67 articles in {{cl|Suburbs of Gosford, New South Wales}}. Alai 04:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

Propose {{cl|University of Virginia-stub}} to associate with the University of Virginia WikiProject. At least 30 articles would fall under this cat. Jazznutuva 16:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

:Per the naming guidelines, that would be {{tl|UniversityofVirginia-stub}}, or something similar without spaces, and {{cl|University of Virginia stubs}}. For that and other reasons, better to "propose" something before creating it. Alai 17:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• As pointed out on WP:SFD, the project was up at WP:MFD. It has been closed as userfy. I believe this means that a stub would not be needed. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Propose :Category:Haitian people stubs. Both parent cats, :Category:Haiti stubs and :Category:Caribbean people stubs, have over 200 articles. At least 70 articles would fall under the new cat. Jwillbur 22:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Alai 02:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

I haven't done much hunting yet, but I'm amazed such a category doesn't already exist (esp since UK-comedian and US-comedian already do). Comedy is practically one of Canada's biggest exports. --Arvedui 07:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:Those latter exist because there were a sufficient number of such stubs, and because they were urgently needed due to a vast excess of stubs in the parent. (Not because we think USians and Brits are funnier than Canadians. Necessarily.) I can find 28 possibilities: is there in fact anything like 60? Alai 07:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::Which main category did you check? At present, there are about 1100 people in the Category:Canadian people stubs along with ~450 in Category:Comedian stubs. I can't believe at least 60 of them wouldn't be both Canadian and comedians. Is there an easier way to check than by looking at each one in turn? (By the way, is it kosher to put something in more than one stub category at once?) --Arvedui 02:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I only checked the former; throwing in the latter, it does seem to just about creep over threshold (62). My 'easier way' is a little on the difficult side: see the discussion on tools at WT:WSS. Adding multiple stub tags is OK, and sometimes necessary (i.e. to this point, a Canadian comedian should in theory have been in both of the categories you mention). Alai 04:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Oh, that's a support, btw. Alai 04:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create archosaur-stub, pterosaur-stub, ichthyosaur-stub, paleo-fish-stub, paleo-mammal-stub}}

The recent sfd discussion of the horrible "dinobird-stub" has alerted me to the close-to-overpopulated dinosaur and paleontology stub categories, which have about 1200 stubs between the two of them. I'd like to suggest the following as potential splits:

From {{tl|dinosaur-stub}}:

• {{tl|ornithschia-stub}}
• {{tl|saurischia-stub}}

From {{tl|paleo-stub}}:

• {{tl|archosaur-stub}}
• {{tl|pterosaur-stub}}
• {{tl|ichthyosaur-stub}}
• {{tl|paleo-fish-stub}}
• {{tl|paleo-mammal-stub}}

Note that lower order stubs (such as {{tl|sauropod-stub}} may also be useful, since simply dividing dinosaurs into ornithischia and saurischia is still going to leave two fairly large categories.

Note also that I haven't done a tally, so these are on the proviso that they're each a reasonable level. I doubt these will all be viable, but several of them will be, and at the very least templates for the others may be worthwhile, even if upmerged into larger categories. Grutness...wha? 05:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:Possibly {{tl|theropod-stub}}, especially for those which are now classified with both {{tl|dinosaur-stub}} and {{tl|paleo-bird-stub}} (the latter could usually be retained). There are several taxa for which this would apply. Dysmorodrepanis 05:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Going by the perm-cats, here's what seems to be viable (or ballpark-close):

• {{cl|Saurischian stubs}} 344
• {{cl|Theropod stubs}} 187
• {{cl|Ornithischian stubs}} 180
• {{cl|Sauropod stubs}} 131
• {{cl|Coelurosaur stubs}} 93
• {{cl|Ornithopod stubs}} 76
• {{cl|Iguanodont stubs}} 52

• {{cl|Prehistoric mammal stubs}} 234
• {{cl|Prehistoric placental mammal stubs}} 122
• {{cl|Prehistoric reptile stubs}} 81

Usual caveats about the whackiness of the category tree apply. Alai 09:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think stubs such as {{tl|archosaur-stub}}, {{tl|pterosaur-stub}}, {{tl|ichthyosaur-stub}}, {{|paleo-fish-stub}}, and {{tl|paleo-mammal-stub}} might very well be useful. I'd use them, anyway. There's long been a need for them, as I've been sorting since February.

However, I don't like the idea of {{tl|ornithschia-stub}} or {{tl|saurischia-stub}}, for multiple reasons. One, "Ornithischia" is the correct spelling, not "Ornithschia". Not a big deal, until you think about the number of times that template will be misspelled. Let's keep it simple, if possible. People know how to spell "Dinosaur"; and the word "Dinosaur" has name recognition that S&O simply don't have, while still being a scientifically valid name. Secondly, there are many dinosaurs which don't "shoehorn" easily into Saurischia or Ornithischia: the Herrerasaurs, for example, which may predate the S/O split. In my work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs, I've come across dozens of reptiles which are "probably dinosaurs" but which cannot be classified further, based on the material. Less-well known reptiles ("possibly dinosaurs", "definitely not dinosaurs", "indeterminate vertebrates formerly considered dinosaurs") have been sent to various other categories. I'd rather keep the dinosaurs seperate from the other stuff, if possible. And it's easier to monitor the 1,200 dinosaur articles if they're not in a hodge-podge of different stub categories. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:My fault about the spelling of ornithischia (you're right, of course - I was going from moderately distant memory). We can leave that in one section for now if it's preferred, but it is getting pretty big at about 580 stubs. If splitting at the next level down is more useful, then perhaps putting the theropods into one subcategory would be useful. remember that I'm not talking about removing the current stub types - simply adding a subcategory or two. As far as the non-dinosaur stubs, another possible subtype which might be useful which i thought of after my intial proposal if there are enough of them is {{tl|Therapsid-stub}}. If Alai's counts are anything to go by, it may not reach the standard threshold, though. I'd say that - barring any objections - it looks like paleo-mammal-stub is definitely a good place to start if there are around 350 of them (including the placental ones). Grutness...wha? 12:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::Well, I only pointed out the misspelling because I worry about misspellings in the future. If perfectly intelligent users such as yourself have difficulty spelling it, imagine how hard it will be for all of those dino-fancruft people who are constantly adding misspelled content to Wikipedia (and there are dozens every day! :( ). I've got all the dinosaur pages on my watchlist, and you would be surprised at the poor quality of many of the additions. "Dino-bird" isn't even all that bad when considered with other contributions.

::Some questions: Would these templates be used in addition to or replacing the existing dinosaur-stub tag? I really don't like the idea of adding a second stub tag. Some of these articles are so short that (1)adding a second tag would mean most of the content would be at the bottom of the page, and (2)since I use pop-ups to determine the size of the shortest articles and list them on the short dinosaur article page, I would need to account for the size (in bytes) of the tags themselves, which is a bit of a pain.

::If they replaced the existing tag, which category would they then appear in? This is something that worries me, too. The WikiProject Dinosaurs team has just spent the last 10 months categorizing every dinosaur article on Wikipedia. We have articles for every last one on the List of dinosaurs (four new ones were added today, so I haven't had time to make articles for them yet). Each dinosaur appears in at least three categories: Era, Family, and Continent (except for a few dinosaurs which are invalid; they appear in an Invalid dinosaurs category). The problem with the above proposal is that it doesn't take into account all of the Family-level categories: there's no mention of an Ankylosaur-stub category, no mention of a Stegosaur-stub category, or Hadrosaur-stub category, or Thyreophoran-stub category, or Therizinosaur-stub category, etc, even though these exist as populated categories. One major problem I forsee is that these articles will end up being listed in multiple categories, with short stub articles being listed in more categories than similar articles that aren't stubs, and with no regard for the current classification scheme. We've just spent ten months cleaning up these articles, categorizing them and sorting them, and this sounds like a bit of a huge mess. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:::(ec)The general practice is indeed to replace the existing stub tag (other than where there's overlap, rather tha strict inclusion, which doesn't appear to be the case here, give or take the taxonomic uncertainty). So they'd appear in a sub-category of the dinosaur stub category: all other categorisation would obviously not be changed. I didn't mention the family-level possibilities as they don't appear to be large enough: I did nearly mention the Thyreophorans, at 41, which would have been next on the list, but since categorisation seems to be quite good, and a split isn't at all urgent, it seemed unlikely to be a going concern. However, it's certainly an option to create per-family templates, feeding into broader stub categories. Might be a good idea, as the families are more familiar -- not to say, easier to spell. Alai 21:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:The new stubs would replace dinosaur-stub (or paleo-stub) on many current articles, but both stub templates and categories would still exist as base types. The articles would be categorised into new subcategories of {{cl|Dinosaur stubs}} and/or {{cl|Paleontology stubs}} as an extension of the stub tree, in exactly the same way that {{cl|rodent stubs}} is a subcategory of {{cl|mammal stubs}} which is itself a subcategory of {{cl|animal stubs}}, while {{tl|mammal-stub}} and {{tl|animal-stub}} are still regularly in use. Thus the main {{cl|Paleontology stubs}} would appear emptier in terms of articles, but would have more subcategories (and the same with {{cl|Dinosaur stubs}}). The above propsal doesn't mention ankylosaurs, hadrosaurs or stegosaurs simply because none of these are likely to reach a viable level of 60 stubs - those articles could simply remain marked with dinosaur-stub until such time as there are enough articles to warrant separate categories, or alternatively they could be marked with upmerged templates (that is, stegosaur-stub etc could be made but feed into the main {{cl|Dinosaur stubs}}).This is why my initial suggestion was just for a basic split into the two main categories of dinosaur, with the added comment that subdividing might be useful. Grutness...wha? 21:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What about splitting paleontologist-stub (which presently, like paleo-stub, captures non-dinosaur entries as well)? Jackrepenning 23:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

:{{cl|Paleontologist stubs}} only has 83 stubs - not big enough to really consider splitting. And in any case, a significant proportion of paleontologists would be involved in the study of both dinosaurs and other fauna of the same era, so splitting it could be a problem. If we were to split it, splitting by nationality would probably be a more sensible way to go, as per other bio-stub types. Grutness...wha? 00:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

::I concur. There's only three permanent subcats by paleo-speciality, dinos not being one of them. Alai 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have been more contentious than I initially thought... still, there seems to be enough support at least for the following:

• {{tl|archosaur-stub}}
• {{tl|pterosaur-stub}}
• {{tl|ichthyosaur-stub}}
• {{tl|paleo-fish-stub}}
• {{tl|paleo-mammal-stub}}

Revisiting the dinosaur category at a later date seems like a reasonable option - at least this has opened us up to some possibilities such as splitting out theropods. Unless there are any objections, the five above at least seem like they can be proceeded with. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create yeshiva-stub, upmerging cat}}

I counted about 45 Jewish school stubs. That might seem like a small number, but trust me; it's needed. Many Jewish schools operate under Hebrew or Yiddish names that are hard to spell, look up, or even recognize as schools; most Jewish articles are under Hebrew or Yiddish titles, so it's hard to differentiate between subjects. Catchthedream 03:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Why does this argue for a stub type, as opposed to an ordinary category, if the issue is simply one of finding the articles? Schools are being sorted by location, I'm not at all sure we want to start double-tagging them by "ethos". Alai 05:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• I see your point, but I have to qualify. For the user genuinely interested in Jewish schools -- which are, by the way, already listed under the Judiasm stubs -- finding such schools proves tedious. Plus, the schools are arguably already listed by "ethos"; most of them are not listed under the other tags for school stubs. --Catchthedream 06:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not commenting on the use of the Judaism stub tag, which seems fine, but whether we should split up the school-stubs on that basis. It would certainly have to be in addition to a geographical tagging, since surely most "interested editors" are going to be so primarily on the basis of location (though granted not all), and combined with the fact that there's strictly speaking too few... But just to make sure we're on the same page here: are we talking about "day schools", or yeshivas? Alai 06:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Hmm. Again, I see your point. I was talking about both. --Catchthedream 01:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'd think that day schools are most appropriately tagged as -school-stubs. For the religious schools, I can easily believe they wouldn't be tagged as school-stubs at present (and I'm not quite sure if it's even entirely appropriate they should be), so I could see a case for them, but if there's even fewer of those... What about a {{tl|yeshiva-stub}} template, upmerged to {{cl|Judaism stubs}} until the size issue is less of a gotcha? Alai 04:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|creating hurling-stub & upmerge cat, rename gaelic-sport to gaelic-games}}

We have over 200 stubs in this category and a quick count would suggest half are bio stubs so I would like to propose {{cl|Gaelic sports biography stubs}} and {{tl|Gaelic-sports-bio-stub}}. Waacstats 20:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:There's no permanent parent, though (at least that leaps out of me). One might be created, but what about a hurling/football split? (With all apologies to the hardball handball players.) I also note that the current stub cat is {{cl|Gaelic Athletic Association stubs}}. Alai 22:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:: Am going to mention this over at WP:GAA. As for a new stub i agree their is a need for football/hurling split and possibly a stub for GAA clubs as their as currently over 35 over these (Gnevin 22:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

:::35 is a bit low for a stand-alone category, though it's never too early to start populating upmerged templates, sez I. Alai 22:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::::perhaps further division is needed into counties/provinces??--Macca7174 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Is this the correct place to suggest that {{tl|gaelic-sport-stub}} be renamed as {{tl|gaelic-games-stub}} (19:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC))

:::::::Technically you'd want WP:SFD for that, but if you don't require mass-moves of the usages or deletion of the old template as a redirect (and I don't think there's any need), I suggest you just go ahead and do it -- either move and leave the redirect, or create a redirect at the above redlink. Alai 20:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

Logic-related stubs are either categorized with {{philo-stub}}, {{math-stub}}, or {{mathlogic-stub}}. It is often the case that something categorized as one could have just as easily been categorized as another (e.g., most foundational topics in logic are applicable to both philosophical and mathematical logic).

Some examples:

Atomic formula

Illicit minor

Illicit major

Inverse (logic)

Logical constant

Modal operator

Ternary logic

Semantics of logic

The Laws of Thought

T-schema

Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:There's obviously some overlap, but there's also a difference in terminology, and as many of these articles are about the terminology... What are you suggesting we do with the existing mathematical logic stubs: merge them en masse? Restub the ones that seem most overlappy? Alai 03:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

A couple new stub types are requested; one for 1960s albums in general, and one for 1960s rock albums. At present we have a 1960s pop album stub, but none for 1960s albums in general or for rock albums in particular. There are presently stub templates for pop albums, rock albums, and albums in general for the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Adding the two missing 1960s templates would make sense and help to classify things better. Owen 23:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds like a reasonable idea, assuming there are plenty of stubs - any idea of the numbers? Grutness...wha? 23:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• I count... 12. Total, between the two. However, I was only looking in the album-stubs (obviously many have already been moved into more specific types, especially by genre), and many (many, many) album stubs lack genre (or artist) categories, or by-years categories, or both, so the actual potential population could be anything, really. Like Grutness, I'd be all in favour of one or both, if they're at all sensibly-sized. Alai 02:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• I've been working on cleaning out the rock album stubs category, and it's looking like there's quite a lot of 1960s albums listed there. It's hard to give any accurate count, but even by the most conservative estimate there's well over 30 rock albums. I haven't looked so much at general 1960s albums yet, though I'm sure that one would be put to good use as well. Owen 12:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• I just went ahead and started the rock stub category. The other category is necessarily simply because it is the root of two existing categories (1960s rock albums, and 1960s pop albums). Owen 00:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• So far as I know, there's nothing in the guidelines to the effect that the stub hierarchy must be a complete lattice (and by the self-defeating logic of IAR, presumably if there were, we'd either follow or ignore it at whim), so I don't see any particular necessity if there's little in the way of population. Alai 01:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Well, think about it this way. If we empty out lower level categories, does it make sense to delete them? If only 14 articles remain in :Category:Stubs, is that a reason to delete the stub category as unnecessary? Not really, because organizationally it makes sense to have it. We don't delete stub categories when the stubs are moved into more specific categorizations, because even if the category appears nonessential, it's better to have things as close as possible to where they should be. It also makes categorization confusing for editors, who for the most part would assume if there is no categorization for 1960s albums stubs, there wouldn't be for anything more specific. Anyway, the hierarchy is now a complete lattice. I've classified 24 articles as 1960s album stubs. I'm sure that a number more exist, and not too worried about it being an unpopulated category. Owen 02:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• I prefer to think about it this way: WP:STUB. {{cl|stubs}} is (in effect at least) at the root of the hierarchy: we don't delete it because it's constantly filling up, only to be "diffused" downwards, not because it's inherently undersized, never having reached the target size (as you appear to be rationalising on the expectation of). If it's not in fact in due course underpopulated, fair enough, but your "IAR, organisationally it makes sense" rationale, could just as well be applied to any old category with 24 stubs, and if iterated (un)suitably would end up duplicating a large portion of the category space as stub types, very many of them counterproductively small for the purposes of editors finding a reasonable density of reasonably related articles. Alai 05:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not sure I understand your complaints. I also notice that you created the 1970s album stubs category, which was apparently also out of process. That category isn't much larger than the one I created. And I'm not saying I created it simply because it makes organizational sense, although I feel that it does. Something in the range of 1500 articles are currently classified as being albums in the 1960s. Having a stub type for these articles is useful, and keeps clutter from the higher levels of classification. Owen 06:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not sure how to complain more understandably. Excessively small stub types are counter-productive to stub "management", because they a) needlessly multiply the entities involved, and b) leave stubs to languish in categories likely to have little foot-traffic. The 70s type has two perfectly decently-sized sub-types, and if it wasn't mentioned explicitly in a proposal here, it was certainly within the "spirit" of a related proposal. IARing and 'organisational sense' were the justifications you offered when asked about size, and they make a poor precedent as they can be applied to just about anything. Various bits and bobs of album stub hierarchy are indeed persistently oversized, which makes a somewhat stronger one, but 24 articles is still a large stretch. Alai 07:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• :Category:1960s album stubs is NOT an "excessively small stub type". I've been adding new stubs to the category, and it currently holds 66. By the time I'm done working there could be well over 300. IARing was not a justification for the size. It was a justification for ignoring the typical wait period before starting to stub articles. The reason I chose to ignore this wait period was because I was motivated to work on these categories. In a week, I probably wouldn't be. I've spent hours today working on these, and I find your reaction baffling. Owen 07:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• And NOW (to coin a case convention) you decide to mention the size, after repeatedly defending your inalienable right to create two stub types on the basis of 24 stubs? I asked specifically about size; your later comment, which your indentation would suggest was a reply to mine, was, one might infer, IARing in that regard (as opposed to just IA comments, too). Personally, I couldn't care less about the waiting period, if the end result is unaffected. I'm baffled as to what you find baffling: you've taken me on a pointless digression about the stub size guidelines, and now you are wondering why? Alai 08:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• I just said that the stub category has well over 24 stubs. At present count it has 119 stubs. You seem to have misinterpreted me, as I never said anything about any "inalienable right" to create stub categories with 24 stubs. Obviously we were not communicating. I said that I created the 1960s rock albums by way of IAR; then I said that I would probably work on the 1960s albums stubs because it made organizational sense. I linked to IAR under the text "went ahead". I thought that made it obvious that my use of IAR was to ignore the seven day period. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was using IAR to create stub categories that "made organizational sense", since I never talked about IAR in relation to organization. What I found baffling was your seeming hostility to my efforts, and what I took as your not assuming good faith in my actions. Hopefully this matter is settled. Owen 08:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• I wasn't misinterpreting, but rather paraphrasing, but yes, there seems to have been the proverbial failure to communicate. I'm sorry if I appeared to be hostile, that wasn't my intention, and nor did I at any point doubt your good faith. I still find it hard, even with the benefit of hindsight, to put any other reading on your earlier comments other that the "rule" you were "ignoring" was the size guidelines, given the on-going exchange in which you did nothing to dispell the impression that that was the topic ay hand; oh well. The main lesson I take from this is that doing something 'per IAR' (as opposed to for some actual specific reason) leaves everyone as wise as before (though I may be biased about that, since that's rather what I've thought for a long time). At any rate, I'm indeed now more than happy with the stub types -- another panel pin in album-stub, hopefully. Alai 08:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

A few suggested splits:

1. I've run a bit of a quick survey of the 750-odd New Zealand stubs, and found just under 100 which could be given a {{tl|NZ-org-stub}} (and accompanying {{cl|New Zealand organisation stubs}}).
2. There's also about 80 which would use the proposed but never implemented {{tl|NZ-ethno-stub}} or {{tl|Maori-stub}} (whichever was decided - I don't recall).
3. There are also now 43 {{tl|NZ-struct-stub}}s... not enough for a separate category, but getting on that way, and probably enough for an upmerged template.
4. FWIW, there's also considerable undersorting, with about 70 bio-stubs and 30 geo-stubs in there. I've added some lists at User:Grutness/NZ stub split. both of the ones I found for the three proposed splits and those which could do with restubbing if anyone feels like some work :)
5. There are also nearly 40 potential NZ-tv-stubs... something to possibly consider in future (but not now).

Grutness...wha? 08:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

:Further comment - the tv stubs would tie in with the proposed by-continent split from last month. it would take the oceania total very close to the 60 mark. Any thoughts, Alai? Grutness...wha? 23:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

::What I'd failed to notice, though, is that there's already a TV stub for the Aussies. However, 40 stubs and a sub-type wouldn't be disgraceful. Alai 23:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Also getting close to a fifth page. The stations would be an "over-viable" type, though we might want to create it anyway, partly as a container for the following:

• {{cl|Miyagi Prefecture railway station stubs}} 168
• {{cl|Yamagata Prefecture railway station stubs}} 71

I was also going to propose {{cl|Japanese railway line stubs}}, at 60, but false positives appears to reduce that slightly, so I won't. Alai 06:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

I've probably mooted this one before, but as there's several possible axis of split, I'll open this up for fresh discussion. I'm attracted to this one as double-stubbing puts 76 in {{cl|German_military_stubs}} and {{cl|World_War_II_stubs}}, so it's the easiest one to do. (Rogue bluelink's nothing to do with me, btw, and nor is it a 'live' stub type.) Alai 23:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Seems sensible enough, and segues nicely from the existing stub types. Kirill Lokshin 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Kein Problem. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Klein Problem (but only slight). be aware that this will probably overlap to a considerable extent with nazi-stub. Other than that, I don't see much of a problem, so make that a ja from me. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'd have had that worry myself, were this a count based on perm-cats, but as it's double-stubbing, it seems relatively safe. (I won't swear that none of them aren't treble-stubbed -- I haven't checked.) Not that it would be the first time that someone has told me with a straight face that something can be both an x-stub and a y-stub, but isn't an x-y-stub. Alai 02:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Believe it or not, there's 82 articles double-stubbed into {{cl|Go stubs}} and {{cl|Japanese people stubs}}; latter is oversized. Alai 22:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, I remember seeing a lot of these in Japanese people stubs. Crystallina 23:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

More whittling of {{tl|musician-stub}} by nationality. There's quite a bit of double-stubbing here, I've noticed. Crystallina 21:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

This would be a decent-sized amount out of Chinese people stubs and would help keep military personnel stubs under 5 pages (currently they're just under). I've found a good deal of articles that'd fit. Crystallina 05:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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