Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/November 2007#Category:Support group stubs

{{sfp top|create as revised}}

There are hundreds of stubs in {{tl|cell-biology-stub}}. Ultimately, these could do with further categorisation to assist people with specific interests. However, right now, I'm trying to revive the inactive WikiProject Cell Signaling, and a {{tl|cell-signaling-stub}} would be most useful to narrow down the search for Articles needing attention, for this project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biochemza (talk • contribs)

• How many current stubs with such a scope? Alai 14:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

: Using CatScan, I found at least 65 articles tagged as stubs in the category Cell signaling and Signal Transduction. However, there are likely many more, as many of "our" articles are not categorised into these categories yet (a goal of WikiProject Cell Signaling). Biochemza, 16:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

: Also, I think this stub would fit best as a child of Molecular and cellular biology stubs ({{tl|molecular-cell-biology-stub}}) rather than Cell Biology stubs ({{tl|cell-biology-stub}}). Biochemza, 17:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

::OK, sounds plenty good enough for me. If anyone can disentangle the distinction in scope between the latter two, they're better off than me, BTW. But if we can continue to hack out well-defined sub-topics, it may eventually all come out in the wash. Alai 17:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

::: Well, simply put (as much as an overlapping topic like this can be simple), signal transduction/cell signaling is a vast and complex field, with some researchers focusing on a more broad view of the cell (cell biology, neurology, receptors, "big things" as triggers), while others focus on a more narrow, molecular view (specific enzymes, or even specific chemicals and ions). Thus, I think the combined Molecular and Cellular biology stub ({{tl|molecular-cell-biology-stub}} is a more appropriate parent category, as it "casts a wider net". Biochemza, 21:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

::::I'm happy to take your word for that, I was just making the wider (and admittedly less on-topic) point about the desirability of having both of these at all. If we were to scope per the permcats (and articles), we'd have {{cl|molecular biology stubs}} and {{cl|cell biology stubs}}; if we followed the WPJ scope, we'd only have {{cl|molecular and cellular biology stubs}}. Having both -- and the entirely enormous {{cl|biochemistry stubs}} too -- makes me suspect that articles get tossed hither and yon into on or the other on a less than syetematic basis. Alai 23:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::You're totally right about the less systematic thing! While I've been looking for signal transduction stubs, I've found them tagged variously with biochemistry, biology, protein, enzyme, MCB and cell biology. Makes it very difficult for experts looking to help. As I mentioned in my first posting, the entire thing could do with more accurate sub-categories. In fact, there's a lot of rearranging I would do: Enzyme stubs would be a child of Protein stubs; I would merge Molecular and Cell Biology + Molecular Biology + Cell Biology (I know that would make the stub category overly large, but from there one can properly go about organising more relevant sub-stubs); I would move Genetics stubs to a child of MCB stubs, I could go on - one just has to look at an undergraduate Biochem textbook to see how much work this particular stub family needs. But one step at a time :). Biochemza, 10:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

::::Any suggestions you can give are much appreciated. Understandably, as the stub tree gets bigger and more complex, we quickly reach the stage where organising different parts of it needs more specialist knowledge, especially in the sciences - knowledge that us mere stub sorters don't always have :) Grutness...wha? 11:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

both of these should be viable

• {{tl|Canada-rowing-bio-stub}} / {{Cl|Canadian rowing biography stubs}}
• {{tl|Canada-Olympic-medalist-stub}} / {{Cl|Canadian Olympic medalist stubs}}

Waacstats 16:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Over 100 of these marked with {{Tl|Cycling-stub}} so I propose

• {{Tl|Cycling-org-stub}} / {{Cl|Cycling organisation stubs}}

I have no preference for s or z in the spelling of organization as the permcat uses s while the stub parent uses z. Waacstats 16:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

:I'd say the permcat spelling probably has precedence (though I will admit that I'm biased towards "proper" English spelling as opposed to Webster's single-handed derailment of US spelling). Grutness...wha? 00:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Catscan gives over 100 dutch cyclists marked with stub templates so I propose

{{Cl|Dutch cycling biography stubs}} / {{tl|Netherlands-cycling-bio-stub}}

Waacstats 14:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Both of the following are viable from upmerged templates

• {{Cl|French Olympic medalist stubs}}
• {{Cl|Dutch Olympic medalist stubs}}

Waacstats 14:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Proposed as an upmerged template in {{cl|Livestock_stubs}}.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

:Would also feed into {{cl|Even-toed_ungulate_stubs}}.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

::On further review there are more than 70 stubs in {{cl|Livestock stubs}} which this would immediately apply to (or about 1/3 of that category as it is currently). The category would be a subcat of both {{cl|Livestock stubs}} and {{cl|Even-toed_ungulate_stubs}}.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

:::I don't know what happened, for some reason I thought today was the 13th not the 10th! Sorry, this should've been pretty simple but I managed to mess it up. Hopefully there won't end up being any problem with the stub cat.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

{{tl|Ohio-NRHP-struct-stub}} is beyond 60 and this will help to cut down the +600 strong Ohio structs. Waacstats 13:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy, per earlier discussion of the NRHPs in general. This should also help a little with the NRHP parent, which was yet again oversized the last time I looked. Alai 17:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• sped however it doesn't help with the NRHP parent as it was only upmerged to the Ohio structs (I can't find the NRHP parent to put a link to on the cat and Florida hasn't got the link either). Waacstats 21:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• I noticed that, but I was thinking of helping indirectly, if there were significant number double-tagged, or only tagged with {{tl|NRHP-stub}}. There don't seem to be, however. Lots of New York, though, which should take care of things for now, and Tennessee is also getting there. The other parent's at {{cl|National Register of Historic Places stubs}}, though strictly speaking perhaps I should say "grandparent", since for other states we've split NRHP directly at state level, rather than into structs and non-structs. Doubtless this will all come out in the wash in due course as the sets of each get completed, though. Alai 15:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry, strike that, I was looking at old data: not NY, Minnesota. Created a {{cl|Minnesota Registered Historic Place stubs}}. Alai 17:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Looks like problems afoot with this - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2007/November. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create upmerged Korea-comics-stub & China-comics-stub}}

Because of their relative obscurity when compared to their Japanese cousins, Chinese manhua and Korean manhwa have empty pages, indexes full of red links and no appropriate stub tags. The anime/manga stub category is also rather large, and adding articles to it that don't quite match that description will only worsen the situation.

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Korea has tagged most manhwa titles on their talk pages and would like to begin serious work on them.

I propose these stub tags and categories:

{{Cl|Manhwa stubs}} / {{Tl|manhwa-stub}}

{{Cl|Manhwa creator stubs}} / {{Tl|manhwa-creator-stub}}

{{Cl|Manhua stubs}} / {{Tl|manhua-stub}}

{{Cl|Manhua creator stubs}} / {{Tl|manhua-creator-stub}}

Please give your opinions.

ShiraShira 05:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Stub types are only created once its shown that there are already articles that can take them, and certainly categories aren't made until there are a viable number of stubs to warrant separate categories (60 or more stub articles). How many stub articles currently exist for these stub types? If there are fewer than 60, perhaps separate templates could feed into a more encompassing category (maybe Asian comic stubs?) until they are populous enough for individual categories. Grutness...wha? 08:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have a precise count, but eighty-five percent of the articles listed List_of_manhwa_by_English_title here merit such a tag. (There are over a hundred red-linked articles by the time one reaches "L", and many of the created articles also need a proper tag. The creators' tags could be waived, as well as both manhua category tags, but these articles here are getting out of hand. I apologize if I'm being unhelpful- I am not experienced at integrat WikiWork and this is my first foray into such creation.

ShiraShira 01:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's somewhat hard to stub-tag redlinks. Can I suggest an upmerged template, perhaps at the more systematic name {{tl|Korea-comics-stub}}? Alai 14:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, and {{tl|China-comics-stub}}. At a minimum, redirect either way, since the proposed name are not especially obvious, or indeed memorably distinct, for the stub-sorter in the street. (Granted it's the terminology existing articles and categories use.) Alai 21:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

...and another country reaches speedy level with 60 geo-stubs. Grutness...wha? 09:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy by massive precedent. Waacstats 20:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Owing to confusion about a withdrawn nomination in last month's listing, I'm re;listing this proposal. Initially this and a FrancoBelgian comic creators stub type were both proposed. The Franco-Belgian one was withdrawn, but User:Murph did not wish to also withdraw this European proposal (see:User talk:Pegship#Closing stub template request for more info). While {{cl|Comics creator stubs}} is not technically oversized, it is large and this would be a useful way to thin it down, so I support Murph's original proposal. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Re-listing seems a little over-egged to me, the "European" seemed to have general support. But having said that... I'd prefer no "regional" template at all, just upmerged per-country ones (per my usual "someone will only want to delete them later" rationale), and failing that if we do have one, that it be at "Europe", not "Euro-", per recent decisions to standardise in that direction. Alai 15:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• :Good point - I'd forgotten the change from euro-, and have changed the header accordingly, though you're probably right about by-country templates. The idea of 50-odd templates for one category is fairly unnerving, though. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• ::I admit there's a fairly strong counter-argument from patience/stamina. The more of them that are created over time, though, the less deeply-ingrained confusion on the regional templates is likely to become. Alai 01:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• :::There are no plans to create some 20-30 different stubs for the range of European nationals working in comics, but there's a current need for some utility within the WP:CMC European comics work group, already enjoyed by the US and UK work groups. MURGH ^disc. 02:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• ::::I'm not sure what you precisely you mean by "different stubs", but I'm not suggesting distinct stub types (i.e. both category and template), but just simply per-country templates. Alai 02:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• :::::Thank you, no I understood. MURGH ^disc. 10:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• ::To explain - since Murgh isn't a regular visitor here and WP:WSS's ways are a little arcane - it's standard practice here to make individual templates at a country level, even if there would only be enough stub articles for a continent-specific category. That way it's easier to split them at a by-country level if numbers grow. What Alai is proposing is to make the Europe category, but to have separate templates for different countries all directing into it. It may be, though, that in this case a general Europe template is more useful if numbers are unlikely to get big enough for many separate nation-specific types to ever be split off. In either case, there would be one Europe category (for now at least) - the only difference between the suggestions is the template or templates connected with it. Grutness...wha? 05:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• :::Thanks for thorough explanation. While I appreciate the design of this philosophy I'd argue that this field may not be the most applicable. For such a specific area the application is not in creating a Bosnian-comics-creator-stub, but a combination of comics-creator-stub with Bosnian-bio-stub (what happens at any rate). The comics creator work group has a realistic aim of keeping a stub-phase minimal and brief, but will be aided by the ability to distinguish Europe from 'The World'. MURGH ^disc. 10:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• ::::I note that you have a preference for the latter over the former; what I'm not getting is why, or indeed what the counter-argument might be to the clear upsides of "less work" and "more consistency" vs. the double-tagging approach. Though say "Sweden-" might be more illustrative of the point in doing so, as against "Bosnia", if we're going to cherry-pick instances. Alai 16:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• :::::Just from a perspective of approach. There aren't, nor is it likely to ever become, enough notable comics creators from Sweden, much less remain at stub level, for it to become an issue if youre an editor of comics creator articles, but the double stub use serves a function in that editors coming from a national perspective, looking to develop Swedish bio stubs (not yet hidden away in a "by occupation-folder") will easily find it. In this way it makes more sense to me. MURGH ^disc. 19:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• ::::::I wouldn't put any money on the first part: there's at least 16 at the moment, so it's already around 1/4 of the way to being a numerically viable stub type unto itself. Long and painful experience of ever-expanding stub types has taught me not to make too many optimistic assumptions about "ever". Double-upmerged stub templates serve exactly the same purpose, by populating both categories from the one template, the only difference being we're not depending on people to go to the extra effort of applying both (which often, they won't). Alai 20:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• :::::::Well I am sure you speak from experience. I am personally petitioning from my own, in a work group environment where responsibilities are from a bio POV split into US, UK, Euro and the rest of the world. At some point maybe a Swedish-comics-workgroup will desire further utility and there will be tangible motivation for national sorting to occur at a stub-level, but at this point we're able to see stubhood as a very temporary state. MURGH ^disc. 22:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy as alredy discussed. Waacstats 21:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

The following categories are all viable {{Cl|Auto racing stubs}} is over 600

• {{Cl|Monster truck stubs}} / {{Tl|Monstertruck-stub}}
• {{Cl|Rally racing stubs}} / {{Tl|Rally-stub}} and {{Tl|Rally-bio-stub}}
• {{Cl|Motorsport venue stubs}} / {{Tl|Autoracing-venue-stub}}

Waacstats 16:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create membrane protein stubs}}

• {{cl|membrane protein stubs}} 86

or:

• {{cl|receptor stubs}} 66

But not both at this point, due to overlap concerns. Alai 03:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support {{cl|membrane protein stubs}} per nom & numerosity.Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create simpler version of EC#}}

Either by EC number cats:

• {{cl|EC 1.1.1 stubs}} 257
• {{cl|EC 1.3.1 stubs}} 72
• {{cl|EC 1.14.13 stubs}} 87
• {{cl|EC 2.1.1 stubs}} 133

or:

• {{cl|NADPH-dependent enzyme stubs}} 291
• {{cl|NADH-dependent enzyme stubs}} 244

Alai 03:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• What names would you suggest for the templates? Grutness...wha? 05:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Off the top of my head, perhaps {{tl|1.1.1-enzyme-stub}}, etc. Alai 14:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

:Would EC number cats, with annotation be possible? eg

• {{cl|EC 1.1.1 alcohol oxidoreductase stubs}}
• {{cl|EC 1.3.1 alkyl oxidoreductase stubs}}
• {{cl|EC 1.14.13 monooxygenase stubs}}
• {{cl|EC 2.1.1 methyltransferase stubs}}

:That seems to be precise while informative. Tim Vickers 06:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

::I like the overall idea and Tim's suggestion best of all; although longer, such stub-labels seem good for lay-person and expert alike. Not everyone will remember what "EC 1.14.13" stands for, ;) but such index numbers are wonderfully precise. Willow 10:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

:::They strike me as hugely cryptic too, but they're following the equally-cryptic-if-not-more-so permcats: {{cl|EC 1.1.1}}, etc. I suggest either following those as-is, for the sake of consistency, or first renaming the permcats themselves, and following new names. Alai 14:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

::I vote for re-naming the categories themselves, but that discussion should probably take place at WP:MCB. Willow 15:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Well, ultimately at WP:CFR, but yes, by all means make sure the WPJ is of one mind first. Alai 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

:Sounds good to me. Personally, I think Tim's solution is a good and elegant one, but the best idea is to talk to the WikiProject about the permcats, take them to CFR if they afgree, and if they're changed, make the stub cats accordingly. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• So, any conclusion about the possible CFR? Otherwise, I'll follow the existing names. (Though obviously the stub categories are fairly straightforward to change later, moreso than the permcats.) Alai 00:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

:I think we're all in favor of re-naming both the stubs and the permcats, but we haven't broached the subject at the MCB WikiProject yet. I'm honestly too tired to do it tonight; maybe Tim can muster the eloquence to make the case to everyone there? Hoping he'll say yes, sleepy 3) Willow 00:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

::I haven't even seen a concrete proposal as to what they're to be renamed to, and no signs of a CFR nom. Personally, I'm certainly not going to create stubcats on the speculative basis of what-the-permcats might-be-moving-to, and I'd like to to have to hold off while two separate discussions take place (or, don't take place). So... Alai 01:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Created. I've created some more of these, as they'd expanded considerably more (over 1700 earlier today), and I've "consolidated" 1.3.1 to {{cl|EC 1.3 stubs}}, 2.x.x to {{cl|transferase stubs}}, etc. Alai 01:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

Actually the above template already exist but the stub category referenced here is {{cl|Asian protected area stubs}}. As India is a very big country with lot of protected areas. The stub category is sure to have more than 100 (presently 21) articles. Pls. create the stub category and add it to the template.Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 06:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, for now at least. The point here is that there are currently only 21 stubs. How many it's likely to have in the future, or how many are possible isn't relevant. As with all other stub types, this is likely to be split out when it reaches 60 stubs, since there's no guarantee that just because stubs are possible, they will actually be made. Once there are 60 stubs using the template, a separate category will be made, but until then it's not really needed. Grutness...wha? 08:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

::Actually several articles are left to be accessed and to put appropriate templates on them. You can take a look at the articles Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Protected areas of India articles by quality most of the unassessed are stubs. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 10:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Or, apparently, have a talk-page "stub class article" template, and no protected-area-stub tag at all. (Insert usual whistling in the wind about the fundamental pointlessness about this duplication and its copious scope for en masse inconsistency.) So why not tag them now, and a) all will be perfectly clear as regards "numerosity", and b) we'll be spared wondering if anyone will bother doing so after de-upmerger? Our to-do list is quite long as it is. Alai 16:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Oversized again (+1000) the following are all viable by size

• {{Cl|Atlanta Braves season stubs}} / {{Tl|AtlantaBraves-season-stub}}
• {{Cl|Chicago Cubs season stubs}} / {{Tl|ChicagoCubs-season-stub}}
• {{Cl|Cincinnati Reds season stubs}} / {{Tl|CincinnatiReds-season-stub}}
• {{Cl|Philadelphia Phillies season stubs}} / {{Tl|PhiladelphiaPhillies-season-stub}}
• {{Cl|Pittsburgh Pirates season stubs}} / {{Tl|PittsburghPirates-season-stub}}

And templates for any other teams people feel are useful. Waacstats 23:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy on basis of earlier discussion, and "holy crap". Alai 00:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• You sure about your count for the 'Braves, though? Alai 04:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Catscan shows 132 with the team name starting out as Boston Red Stockings then going through Boston Red Caps, Boston Beaneaters, Boston Doves, Boston Rustlers, Boston Bees, Boston Braves, Milwaukee Braves before finally arriving at Atlanta Braves. A well travelled team by the looks of things. Waacstats 16:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Aaaaaah, all becomes clear. Carry on! -- Alai (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Kłodzko County geography stubs}} 185
• {{cl|Góra County geography stubs}} 117
• {{cl|Jawor County geography stubs}} 78
• {{cl|Głogów County geography stubs}} 73

Significantly oversized, at least the above are viable. Alai 04:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Suppoprt these and templates for the other 20 odd counties. In case you hadn't noticed we now have a bot creating short articles on Polish municipalities so this, and other polish-geo-stub cats, could go large rather quickly. Waacstats 13:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• That'd explain it: it's Germany all over again! Any chance the bot-op could give us an idea what furrows he'll be ploughing next, so that we can get in front of this and create the new templates in advance? Alai 16:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Now at exactly 800, would seem to split up by sub-taxon quite nicely. {{cl|Meliaceae stubs}} would be the largest, at just over 200. Alai 03:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

From discussion in deletion I propose these two. Firstly to act as somewhere to put the district templates and also as parent of the existing b&s cat and also to pick up any other NRHP in Ohio. Waacstats 22:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support, in the interest of per-state regularity. (If anyone fancies upmerged templates for the remaining states, I say go ahead now: they'll be needed soon enough.) Alai 00:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• In fact, given the prior discussion at SFD, and the existing precedents, speedy. Alai 03:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support per all of the above. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

{{tl|Poland-figure-skating-bio-stub}} is at 64. {{Cl|Polish figure skating biography stubs}} anyone? Waacstats 22:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Add {{Tl|US-bobsleigh-bio-stub}} at 73. {{Cl|United States bobsleigh biography stubs}}. Waacstats 22:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

This parent category is beginning to get rather large, so I propose splitting into separate country-specific categories: {{tl|US-radio-show-stub}}, {{tl|UK-radio-show-stub}}, {{tl|Canada-radio-show-stub}} (and {{tl|Australia-radio-show-stub}} if there are enough articles to warrant it yet; I haven't verified.) Note that US and UK stub notices already exist, although the corresponding categories don't — both templates currently file articles into the general category. Bearcat 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support all, as and when numerically viable. If one is feeling cautious, first populating the existing upmerged templates and creating additional ones might be the way to go.

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent 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 think that Drogheda now being a city should have a stub categories for the many things it has.

I believe that 20 to 50 articles could be put under this instead of an all Ireland categories.

I believe it should look like {{tl|drogheda-stub}},{{tl|drogheda-area-stub}},{{tl|drogheda-places-stub}} or {{tl|drogheda-geography-stub}}

• Oppose. Too small (60 are normally required), wrong scope (usual practice is to first place by primary subdivision, i.e. in the case of Ireland, by county), and wonky names. If {{tl|Louth-geo-stub}} ever becomes so large as to required being re-split, it'd be {{tl|Drogheda-geo-stub}}. And since when was Drogheda a city? By analogy with other titchy Irish cities? Alai 19:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Of course, before Louth could be "split", it'd really need a cat of its own, which currently it is still too small for. I think that rather illustrates the problems with a Drogheda location type. Alai 16:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. First, X-geo-stub is standard naming (certainly not "area" or "places" or "geography"!), and second, geo-stubs are split by county except in rare cases - those cases being for places considerably larger than Drogheda (even Dublin doesn't have separate stubs for the city itself - just for the county). Grutness...wha? 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• ForBut Drogheda is in two counties so you could not put a louth stub on Mornington

And when i say 20 to 50 those are the articles that already exist about 100 more articles could be added on if this stub type was created.markreidyhp

• One would assume you'd be 'for' your own proposal, but... I'd put {{tl|Meath-geo-stub}} on Mornington, County Meath (which I assume is the article you mean); as someone has already done, in fact. If you want to cater for open-ended suburb creep, which is going to be inherently subjective, I strongly recommend keeping it to talk-page templates, if there's sufficient interest for a Drogheda wikiproject. If there's not, I'd favour "no action". Stub types are of little value in sorting redlinks, and the lack of a stub type does not prevent the creation of those articles, tagged by county for now (and realisticly, for the foreseeable future). Alai 19:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Upmerged template with 60+ stubs propose {{Cl|Canadian Winter Olympic medalist stubs}}. Waacstats 13:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

The following categories are all viable by existing templates

• {{cl|Norwegian politician, 1960s birth stubs}}
• {{cl|Norwegian politician, 1950s birth stubs}}

Speedy?-- Waacstats (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. -- Alai (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

{{cl|naval ship stubs}} is at 821, this would handle 196. Aligns with three existing splits: speediable? Alai 03:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy support. -- Waacstats (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

These are all speedy creations that follow the established pattern of segregating new plant stubs. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Under {{cl|Algae stubs}}:

• {{tl|Chlorophyceae-stub}} / {{cl|Chlorophyceae stubs}} - 331 stubs
• {{tl|Ulvophyceae-stub}} / {{cl|Ulvophyceae stubs}} - 87 stubs

Under {{cl|Caryophyllales stubs}}:

• {{tl|Amaranthaceae-stub}} / {{cl|Amaranthaceae stubs}} - 111 stubs
• {{tl|Cactus-stub}} / {{cl|Cactus stubs}} - 195 stubs (already proposed some time ago, but never acted on)
• {{tl|Nepenthes-stub}} / {{cl|Nepenthes stubs}} - about 100
• {{tl|Polygonaceae-stub}} / {{cl|Polygonaceae stubs}} - about 100

Under {{cl|Rosid stubs}}:

• {{tl|Cucurbitales-stub}} / {{cl|Cucurbitales stubs}} - about 100
• {{tl|Oxalidales-stub}} / {{cl|Oxalidales stubs}} - about 125
• :The counts for both categories are appropximate because the stubs in question were added by a bot from a database that used outdated taxonomy. The articles are currently in several other categories, including {{cl|Malvales stubs}} and {{cl|Rosales stubs}} in addition to the parent category.

Under {{cl|Rosales stubs}}:

• {{tl|Moraceae-stub}} / {{cl|Moraceae stubs}} - about 100

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent 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}}

Adding up the number of articles linked to upmerged bio, footy-bio and politician templates means

• {{Cl|Sanmarinese people stubs}} would have 63 articles
• {{Cl|Faroese people stubs}} would have 60

so I propose both. Waacstats (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• First the "Astronemers", now this - People from San Marino are Sammarinese :) Other than that, support. Grutness...wha? 21:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• And more coffee for Waac, please. Support as corrected. Her Pegship (tis herself) 14:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Believe it or not I used to be able to spell before I started editing here.Waacstats 19:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• propose {{tl|US-astronemer-stub}} and {{Cl|American astronomer stubs}}

71 of these in the American people stubs heirachy including 31 in the oversized {{Cl|American people stubs}}. Waacstats (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, "astronemer" is a typo, so the stub should be {{tl|US-astronomer-stub}}. "American" is ambiguous, so we prefer new Categories to say "United States". Thus, the category should be {{cl|United States astronomer stubs}}. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• That'd be my preference as well, given the "prefix normal form" of stub category names, but it would be over-egging things to say there was a settled consensus one way of the other. Or indeed, the slightest consisency in the existing types... Alai (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

These are all speedy creations that follow the established pattern of segregating new plant stubs. All have more than 60 stubs waiting to be shifted from the parent category as stated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Under {{cl|Asteraceae stubs}}:

• {{tl|Astereae-stub}} / {{cl|Astereae stubs}} - 81 stubs
• {{tl|Eupatorieae-stub}} / {{cl|Eupatorieae stubs}} - 88 stubs

Under {{cl|Ericales stubs}}:

• {{tl|Lecythidaceae-stub}} / {{cl|Lecythidaceae stubs}} - 60+

Under {{cl|Gentianales stubs}}:

• {{tl|Apocynaceae-stub}} / {{cl|Apocynaceae stubs}} - includes "Asclepiadaceae"

Under {{cl|Malpighiales stubs}}:

• {{tl|Salicaceae-stub}} / {{cl|Salicaceae stubs}} - includes "Flacourtiaceae"

Under {{cl|Monocot stubs}}:

• {{tl|Asparagales-stub}} / {{cl|Asparagales stubs}} - c. 200 stubs previously proposed but never created
• will have as children:
• {{tl|Iridaceae-stub}} / {{cl|Iridaceae stubs}} (new)
• {{tl|Orchid-stub}} / {{cl|Orchid stubs}} (already exists)

Under {{cl|Poales stubs}}:

• {{tl|Bromeliad-stub}} / {{cl|Bromeliad stubs}} - c. 160 stubs

Under {{cl|Rosales stubs}}:

• {{tl|Rhamnaceae-stub}} / {{cl|Rhamnaceae stubs}}

Under {{cl|Sapindales stubs}}:

• {{tl|Rutaceae-stub}} / {{cl|Rutaceae stubs}} - should subsume {{cl|Citrus stubs}} which currently has 3 stubs

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

{{sfp create}}

Speedy create categories:

• {{cl|Plzeň Region geography stubs}} - 61 stubs of {{Plzeň-geo-stub}}
• {{cl|Vysočina Region geography stubs}} - 63 stubs of {{Vysočina-geo-stub}}
• {{cl|Ústí nad Labem Region geography stubs}} - 72 stubs of {{ÚstíNadLabem-geo-stub}}

- Darwinek (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds eminently speediable to me. Go for it. Grutness...wha? 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

A speediable, per more precedent than I care to recall - {{cl|Bahrain geography stubs}}, 60 stubs. Grutness...wha? 06:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

I believe that there should be a Potter Puppet Pals stub.

70 to 200 articals could be put here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markreidyhp (talk • contribs)

• That would seem to be very unlikely. Not only is there no {{cl|Potter Puppet Pals}}, there isn't even an article about them - all there is is a redirect to a small section of the article about their creator. So it's quite possible there are no stubs whatsoever about this subject. It seems very unlikely there would ever be anywhere near 60, let alone 70 to 200. Grutness...wha? 09:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

There are currently 59 pages that link to {{tl|Utah-radio-station-stub}}, which I feel is sufficient to warrant these particular stubs getting their own category, a sub-category of :Category:Western United States radio station stubs. (These stubs and related articles are maintained by WP:WPRS.) - JPG-GR (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Even closer. One more stub? Grutness...wha? 00:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Found one. Support. Waacstats (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

There are currently 55 pages that link to {{tl|Oklahoma-radio-station-stub}}, which I feel is sufficient to warrant these particular stubs getting their own category, a sub-category of :Category:Southern United States radio station stubs. (These stubs and related articles are maintained by WP:WPRS.) - JPG-GR (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Not quite, but close - the standard threshold for splitting is 60 (unless there was a specific Oklahoma radio WikiProject). If you can find another five, then I've no objection. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

There are currently 53 pages that link to {{tl|Maine-radio-station-stub}}, which I feel is sufficient to warrant these particular stubs getting their own category, a sub-category of :Category:Northeastern United States radio station stubs. (These stubs and related articles are maintained by WP:WPRS.) - JPG-GR (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Not quite, but close - the standard threshold for splitting is 60 (unless there was a specific Maine radio WikiProject). If you can find another seven, then I've no objection. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

:Ah - I was under the impression that if the stubs are watched by a WikiProject, 30 was enough - wasn't aware there had to be a specific WikiProject. In that case, the other 2 I've added are equally unwarranted at this time (per your comment). JPG-GR (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

::The Utah one's probably close enough - the others, it's just a matter of time :) Grutness...wha? 00:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm just in the process of doing maintenance - the larger 4 regional stub categories just seem cluttered. If they pass, great. If not, like you said - just a matter of time. JPG-GR (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Category is around 650. Therefore, I recommend breaking it down by continent with templates when needed. The US will need its own category. What do you think of a national team stub?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like a resonable split and i agree with the national team stub as there appear to be around 70 of them. Waacstats (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Getting close to oversized, normally we split these by nationality the only ones that are clear at the moment are

• {{tl|US-RC-bishop-stub}} / {{Cl|American Roman Catholic bishop stubs}}
• {{tl|UK-RC-bishop-stub}} / {{Cl|British Roman Catholic bishop stubs}}

or we could split out the archbishops

• {{tl|RC-archbishop-stub}} / {{Cl|Roman Catholic archbishop stubs}}

Waacstats (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

Oversized, we seem to be splitting by body parts and the following are over 60.

• {{Tl|Abdomen-stub}} / {{Cl|Abdomen stubs}}
• {{Tl|Head-stub}} / {{Cl|Head and neck stubs}}

based on permcat names. Waacstats (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• We've never split by body parts before except for {{tl|eye-stub}}. Most anatomy stub subdivisions have been by organ system (e.g. {{tl|musculoskeletal-stub}}, {{tl|digestive-stub}}, {{tl|circulatory-stub}}, etc.). I'm also not seeing a significant number of "abdomen" stubs, but I do see a lot of {{tl|urogenital-stub}} candidates; stubs dealing with the urinary and reproductive systems. I think that would be a better option than abdomen, particularly since most of the anatomy stubs are by system. There are also quite a fair number of stubs in the category that should be stubbed for one of the subcategories (e.g. stubs on bones and nerves). That would reduce the size of {{cl|Anatomy stubs}} quite a bit as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• well spotted, I don't know what made me think that the split was bodyparts. The problem I would have with the urogenital stub cat is that we don't have a matching permcat, we have one for Urinary system and one for Reproductive system. I think the best thing to do is to withdraw my nomination, tidy up the category and have a lok at what is left. Waacstats (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• :Comment: Do we have a way to link a stub category to two separate permcats? Or could we create a Urogential Ueber-permcat to contain the existing ones? It certainly looks like there are plenty of stubs to fill such a category. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• We can have a stub cat linked to any number of permcats it is just that it is not usual way (of course there are a number of exceptions). I think that because urogenital isn't linked to one permcat it might clearer if nominated seperatly rather than suggested four days into a different nomination. note dispite what I have said I would support the nomination.Waacstats (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• :But if it follows established patterns, then it can be speedied, so it would be a simple nomination. When this discussion is closed, the closer might even choose that as the outcome of the discussion, so we might just be patient. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Would {{cl|Human reproduction stubs}} help winnow down this category? Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• :Well, yes and no. It would cover the "genital" part of "urogenital", so in that respect it could serve the function of such a stub without having to create a new one. However, that stub category is about physiological processes, not anatomy. The question is whether we want to swamp out all the physiological process article stubs with the strict anatomy. I could see a valid argument either way. --EncycloPetey 03:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• :I've thought a bit more and have to say "no" that wouldn't work. The {{cl|Human reproduction stubs}} includes reproductive methods, birth control, and a lot of other varied topics. It isn't an anatomy category and shouldn't be used for the reproductive anatomy stubs. I think {{tl|urogenital-stub}} / {{cl|Urogenital stubs}} would be a better solution. --EncycloPetey 03:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Category is close to oversize and the following would all have over 100 articles and follow established pattern.

• {{Tl|US-film-actor-1890s-stub}} / {{Cl|American film actor, 1890s birth stubs}}
• {{Tl|US-film-actor-1880s-stub}} / {{Cl|American film actor, 1880s birth stubs}}
• {{Tl|US-film-actor-1870s-stub}} / {{Cl|American film actor, 1870s birth stubs}}

Waacstats (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy 'em, by well-established precedent. Alai (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

I think an {{cl|Italian cuisine}} stub should be added along the lines of those for other cuisines, such as Spain-cuisine-stub or Turkey-cuisine-stub. Most articles in the categories: Italian Cuisine, Italian desserts, Italian cheeses, etc. would be candidates for stubs.- AKeen (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Any idea how many candidate existing stub articles? There's also the issue of whether this should be an {{tl|Italy-cuisine-stub}} or a {{tl|Italy-food-stub}} -- did we make any decision to standardise in one direction or the other? Alai (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• we didn't, IIRC, but -cuisine- would have a slightly wider scope, so I'd favour that. Grutness...wha? 23:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• I'd say cuisine as well, and there are 150+ articles that currently have simply the Italy or Cuisine stub that would be better categorized by this one. - AKeen (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp other}}

At 800 at the moment. There looks to be a lot of bios in there, split those? Split by century, or otherwise by era? Any other bids? Alai (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I thought the general rule was that bios were never marked with history-stub... why aren't they marked with whatever subtype of Japan-bio-stub is appropriate? Grutness...wha? 06:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{cl|Pigeon breeds stubs}} this would be best under the sub category of *{{cl|Columbiformes stubs}} There are enough breeds of domesticated pigeons List of pigeon breeds to warrant creation of this stub as the list of articles is growing all the time. Sting_au Talk 03:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Numerically plausible (I can count at least 54), but see my comment about the naming of the permcat, which would also apply here. Alai (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I've read it (thanks for your input) and left a reply. Sting_au Talk 05:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• {{cl|Domesticated pigeon breeds stubs}} so does that look any better? Sting_au Talk 05:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Sounds sensible to me, assuming there are no (counter-)objections to the CFR. Alai (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• The Category has been created. I'll go ahead with the new stub. (when I find some time). Sting_au Talk 06:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Should this be {{cl|Domestic pigeon breed stubs}}, singular? Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It's done {{cl|Domesticated pigeon breed stubs}} and being populated. Sting_au Talk 01:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create broader Canada-gov-bio-stub}}

I thought I'd proposed this before, but I can't find such a thing. At any rate, I can find 60 under {{cl|Canadian civil servants}} (this could be scoped slightly more narrowly as {{cl|Canadian civil servant stubs}}, if people prefer). Alai (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• The government-bios would be more inclusive and i feel more useful in cutting down the size of the canadian parent. Also fits in with other splits better (we have US gov split but no civil servent split anywhere). Waacstats (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• Proposed as an upmerged template to both {{cl|Livestock stubs}} and {{cl|Even-toed ungulate stubs}} primary intent is to advance the working of Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture in sorting and improving these articles, thus not calling it {{tl|Pig stub}} as that would imply all of genus Sus not just Sus scrofa domestica, other pigs should not be in {{cl|Livestock}}.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

:Mmmmm. I can remember suggesting this was getting close to a split when someone proposed a chicken-stub last month. Problem is, as you point out, not all pigs are domestic (we have "tuskers" living only a few kilometres from where I live, in fact). Perhaps the best way to tackle this is with two stub types:

:*{{tl|pig-stub}} / {{cl|Pig stubs}} as a subtype of the E-T ungulates, and

:*{{tl|domestic-pig-stub}} upmerged into {{cl|Pig stubs}} and {{cl|Livestock stubs}}

:Otherwise, we'll end up with a gap in the (admittedly shaky) hierarchy. Pig-stub could also be used for pig-related things like swine diseases, and would very likely meet threshold. Note, BTW, the standard stub naming convention with the hyphens ({{tl|Pig stub}} etc. are definitely out!) Grutness...wha? 08:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

::Oh yes, of course, I spaced the hyphens (literally). If the intermediate stub template and stub cat are necessary, fine. Doesn't really make any difference to me. Does the heading for the proposal need to be modified?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

::probably - I've altered it to suit. Grutness...wha? 09:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

:I don't think the intermediate type is necessary, but it does seem to make things a little neater. Support both. Alai 17:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create Mexico-metro-stub / Mexico rapid transit stubs}}

There are lots of existing articles about the Mexico city metro system, and there really isn't a way to categorize them, except for using a {{mexico-stub}}. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 13:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think the usual way this would be titled would be {{Tl|MexicoCity-metro-stub}} / {{Cl|Mexico city rapid transit stubs}}. But I'm wondering whether a more general scope would be better i.e {{tl|Mexico-metro-stub}} / {{Cl|Mexico rapid transit stubs}} as I believe both Monterrey and Guadalajara also have rapid transit systems that could then be tagged with this template. Waacstats 18:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• The reason I had suggested it originally on Mexico city was because there seemed to be a lot of articles on the Mexico City metro system itself, but I agree that a more general topic would also be OK. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 19:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support the more general Mexico-metro-stub. It's unlikely Guadalajara and Monterrey will have enough stubs for their own category any time soon, but this puts them somewhere where editors will be likely to find them readily. If numbers allow later, the three can always be split by city. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support a Mexico-in-general stub category, with per-city upmerged templates. Alai 02:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

:*Support the idea of per city templates but i think we also need a general template incase anywhere else has a metro system.Waacstats 16:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

::* A general metro system template? Or a general Mexico metro system Template? --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

:::* sorry a general mexico-metro-stub template. Waacstats 15:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

::::*Unless WP's article on the subject is sadly mistaken, it would appear that there are only three such systems in Mexico at present. And if another gets built, let's float the boat out and make another template for that one, too. OTOH, a country-level template would probably be what the casual sorter would expect (assuming they expected there to be such a thing at all), so I agree that creating that too seems sensible. Alai 02:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with points raised above, Support a general mexico-metro-stub template and category. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 01:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create upmerged}}

There were no stub categories for Support Groups that I could find. This includes Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Gamblers Anonymous, family support groups, peer counseling, et cetera. Parasane 22:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• mmmm. An interesting one, it falls through the gaps next to med-org-stub... probably worthwhile to at least have an upmerged template... how many stubs do you think there are for this? Grutness...wha? 00:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• I ran into this problem a while back while slogging through the org-stubs. If the count supports it, so do I. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• I'm trying to get a definitive count. There's one stub article listed as "Sponsee", which was a term I wasn't even familiar with until I watched the latest episode of Dexter. I'll post count updates as I find qualifying stubs, and I'd like to request that others post their findings as well. Parasane 21:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• So how about an upmerged {{tl|support-org-stub}} or {{tl|support-group-stub}}? Her Pegship (tis herself) 02:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Queensland's bang on 800. This regions seems to be fairly well-defined, and there's 96 of 'em. Alai 03:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|keep template, don't create cat yet}}

• I am about a add a number of stub articles about vaccines, and marking them with {{tl|vaccine-stub}}. A {{Cl|Vaccine stubs}} category would be very useful for this. -- The Anome (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, indeed, and once there are 60 articles tagged with it, a category will be appropriate. I suggest we upmerge the template until such time. Also, it would be more constructive to propose the template before creating it, although it seems reasonably formed to me. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create elapidae-stub}}

{{cl|Snake stubs}} contains roughly 600 articles - none sub-categorized - and Colubridae is by far the largest family in the Serpentes. So .... - Metanoid (talk, email) 12:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• See previous discussion here, closed with no consensus. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, per previous discussion (not needed, too big to be a sensible initial split, too poorly-defined). If you really must split out a family, do {{cl|Elapidae stubs}}. Alai (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• read discussion, makes sense, thanks. - Metanoid (talk, email) 19:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Oversized both of these are viable

• {{tl|NorthAm-native-bio-stub}} / {{Cl|Native American people stubs}} (110+leaders)
• {{tl|NorthAm-native-leader-stub}} / {{cl|Native American leader stubs}} (178)

Not to sure about the names though.Waacstats (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps {{cl|Native North American people stubs}} & {{cl|Native North American leader stubs}}? The templates look OK. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

The majority of these look presently intractable, since huge numbers consist of just "is a plant pathogen", a taxonomy infobox, and a couple of stub tags and external links, with (believe it or not) nothing to indicate what it is they actually affect -- especially for fungi, which are the vast bulk of these. Oh well. In the meantime, I think it might be worthwhile splitting off those cases where the infective agent is actually something else:

• {{cl|water mould plant disease stubs}}
• {{cl|animal plant disease stubs}}

The animals might be a little light at 55ish, but I'm inclined to invoke "any port in a storm" here. This would seem to leave behind mainly the parasitic plants, but there don't seem to many of those at all. Alai (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

'90s and '00s rock albums are oversized, as usual: likeliest-looking split in each case looks like "pop rock".

• {{cl|1990s pop rock album stubs}}
• {{cl|2000s pop rock album stubs}}

Alai (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• not a term I like but it is used on permcats so I don't see why not. Waacstats (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

{{cl|Electronics stubs}} is oversized, this looks like the most coherent subcat that I can discern. Alai (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

{{cl|Politics stubs}} is oversized, NZ seems to be the leading candidate for a fresh split. (60-odd constituencies, mainly.) Alai (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create Australia-plant-stub}}

I realize we don't ordinarily split plants and animals by region, but we have 64 articles already tagged with {{tl|Australia-stub}}, which is currently just over 800. (Most are flora, but it's not quite as clear-cut whether that's separately viable or not.) Alai (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• On closer examination, it looks as if a -plant- type would indeed be viable. Alai (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Early in the year, :Category:Ohio geography stubs was subdivided into eight regional categories, based on county lines, in large part because there were hundreds of these articles. :Category:Ohio school stubs has many hundreds of articles in it, as well. Two subcategories exist, for schools in two of the eight aforementioned regions — :Category:Cleveland-Akron-Elyria school stubs and :Category:Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe school stubs — and I don't see why we shouldn't have the other eight. Therefore, I'm proposing the following regional school categories:

• :Category:Greater Cincinnati school stubs
• :Category:Dayton-Springfield-Greenville school stubs
• :Category:East Central Ohio school stubs
• :Category:Northwest Ohio school stubs
• :Category:Southeastern Ohio school stubs
• :Category:Southern Ohio school stubs

The two existing categories use county based stub tags (as do the geography stubs): for example, schools in Ashtabula County, Ohio have {{AshtabulaOH-school-stub}}. Therefore, I propose that the same process be done for the sixty-eight counties in the other six regions. Nyttend 05:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable (assuming the regions reach the usual 60-stub level for categories) - county templates would allow us to split further later if required (God forbid...) Grutness...wha? 08:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Given the constant stream of these, and further given the latest edict from on-high (or in at, from inside-oligarchy) that anon article creation's to be re-enabled, I'd predict this happening sooner rather than later, unless we quite literally run out of schools first. Alai 14:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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