Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/October 2006#Cat:Italian record labels

{{sfp other}}

• {{cl|Terminology stubs}} 234
• {{cl|Glossary stubs}} 179
• {{cl|Word stubs}} 164
• {{cl|Phrase stubs}} 92
• {{cl|Word coinage stubs}} 68

Parent is oversized: on the basis of the top-level subcats of {{cl|vocabulary}}, these look to be viable splits. Off the top of my head the words and phrases look the most straightforward; the first two might be a bit broad: some possibilities for finer-grained types might be {{cl|political terms}}, {{cl|philosophical terminology}}, and {{cl|architectural glossary}}, but I don't have plausible counts for those. Another possibility is {{cl|slang stubs}}, at 59. Alai 03:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• If we do go with the terms and glossaries, then {{cl|Philosophy term stubs}} +c would probably be the way to go, to parallel the geo-term category - and the difference between "terms" and "glossary" is probably small enough that we can get away with using the same naming style for each. It might also be worth going through it to see whether anything can be wiktionarified - that was one of the original reasons for this stub cat, after all. Oh, and does phrase include idiom, or would that have a separate count? Grutness...wha? 21:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• That would probably be a good plan, if anyone has the stomach for it. The distinction as it would be manifest in the category structure rather escaped me too. {{cl|Idioms}} redirects to {{cl|English phrases}}, for which the count is 45 (as opposed to {{cl|English idioms}}, a subcat of the latter, go figure). It all seems a bit ad hoc and disorganised to me... Alai 00:38, 28 October 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|see November for revisitation of this item}}

The Tamil Nadus have been on the oversized list for a while now, being the only "unsplittable" geography type to have come up of late, but they're soon to have company: Uttar Pradesh. The trouble is the firstly, they're not categorised on any more fine-grained basis than by-state -- no "district" categorisation -- and secondly, the districts are rather numerous, so by-district would probably not be viable, anyway. Ideally, such categorisation would be added, and then we'd identify a group of related districts big enough to pass threshold, and split those out. The only such grouping I'm aware of is the group of southern districts in the Vindhya Hills region, and I don't know how official or generally recognised that is, or indeed what to call it, or whether it'd hit sixty stubs. Any ideas appreciated. Alai 18:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• The Geography of Uttar Pradesh is broadly classified into (1) Himalaya region, (2) Gangetic Plain and the (3) Vindhya Range. It is perfectly ok, IMO, to create {{tl|Himalaya-geo-stub}}, {{tl|Gangetic-geo-stub}} and {{tl|Vindhya-geo-stub}}. Such stubs would also incorporate stubs from surrounding areas such as Nepal, Uttaranchal, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar, so in the end I think the size will be reasonabe to justify these stubs. Rama's arrow 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• That last part is a good indication of why it's not okay in that form! If we're dividing by country and state boundary, we don't want subcategories that cross those boundaries. If we could make it clear that these are for places in UP, though, it might be acceptable (though I realise that {{tl|Himalaya-UttarPradesh-geo-stub}} is cumbersome, to say the least). Grutness...wha? 22:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• As far as I can see, the Himalayan portion is all covered by the key phrase in that articles, "transferred to Uttaranchal", which is why I mentioned only the Vindhya region (which is likewise, nothing like all the Vindhyas, so that template name would not be a good choice. (In fact I'd suggest no regional templates, only upmerged districts, for that reason and otherwise.) Alai 23:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Alternative proposal: {{tl|UP-town-stub}} - applicable for cities, towns and villages. Rama's arrow 22:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'd be strongly opposed to that. Firstly, it's almost all of them, so gets us nowhere; secondly, it sets a bad precedent for splitting on similar lines, which is almost always going to be a bad choice. If anything else, splitting out particular types of geography that are not villages, towns, and cities is liable to make more sense (if either). Alai 23:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• On a "glimmer of hope" note: Ganeshk has kindly offered to add district permcats based on infobox usage, which is likely to help with this down the way (perhaps in a db dump or two's time). Alai 23:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• are there, perhaps, enough related to Lucknow that we could split that off as a separate subcat? Also, Dividsion might be more useful than district (see Divisions of Uttar Pradesh). Grutness...wha? 23:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• {{cl|Lucknow}} has 40 articles, so not too promising by itself. Good spot on the Divisions; now, why did a) I not notice that, and b) Tamil Nadu not think of those? Alai 00:31, 27 October 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 United States academic scientist stubs}}

Also in the category of 799 stubs, and trickling onto a fifth page. Scientists-in-academia looks viable at 84, though what precisely to call it is an interesting question, even beyond the usual "United States" vs "American" issue. (There are also 50 university presidents, though I assume we probably want to sort those as "administrators".) Alai 01:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

:I'll go ahead with this as {{cl|United States academic scientist stubs}}, unless someone either objects or comes up with a better idea in the next two-thirds of a day. Alai 08:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::Or alternatively, perhaps {{cl|United States science academic biography stubs}}? Alai 02:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Just curious - {{cl|American scientists}} is a sub-cat of {{cl|American academics}}, so how is an academic scientist different from any other scientist? And how about {{cl|United States science academics biography stubs}}? Pegship 06:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

::::The sub-categorisation doesn't correspond to strict inclusion (much as I'd prefer sub-cats were restricted to cases where they were); one can be a "scientist" without working in "academia". Which isn't to say that existing tagging is consistent one way or the other: some have one or the other tag, some have both... Alai 19:27, 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}}

• {{cl|Stockholm County geography stubs}} 78
• {{cl|Western Götaland geography stubs}} 69

Not urgently needed, cat is "only" 3 1/2 pages, but... Alai 02:44, 27 October 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}}

Parent is at the high end of the four-page mark, one "European" subcat currenty exists. 175 possibilities. Alai 06:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Definitely support. After going through the {{tl|mathematician-stub}} redirects mess, I can see that the parent needs some splitting badly. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:20, 31 October 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 Florida state park stubs and Florida National Register of Historic Places stubs, with sub-stubs as discussed}}

Yes, I realize we created this about ten seconds ago, but now it's eight (!) pages long. Someone's been busy, I suppose. I looks to me we could split these either by type, or by county (or some combination, if we want to make matters more complex):

• {{cl|Florida protected building and structure stubs}} 442
• {{cl|Florida protected house stubs}} 234
• {{cl|Florida state park stubs}} 154
• {{cl|Florida protected school stubs}} 71
• {{cl|Florida protected church stubs}} 58
• and/or:
• {{cl|Miami-Dade County protected area stubs}} 119
• {{cl|Duval County protected area stubs}} 83
• {{cl|Hillsborough County protected area stubs}} 78
• {{cl|Volusia County protected area stubs}} 76
• {{cl|Sarasota County protected area stubs}} 76
• {{cl|Tampa Bay Area protected area stubs}} 74
• {{cl|Jacksonville protected area stubs}} 73
• {{cl|Polk County protected area stubs}} 64
• {{cl|Pinellas County protected area stubs}} 60
• {{cl|Palm Beach County protected area stubs}} 57
• {{cl|South Florida metropolitan area protected area stubs}} 52
• {{cl|Alachua County protected area stubs}} 51
• {{cl|Lee County protected area stubs}} 48

:A question - have we got florida-struct-stub yet, and if not, would that alleviate the load by taking some of these? And wouldn't the protected schools be better served with Florida-school-stub? Grutness...wha? 03:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, "we" do (unproposed creation, listed at /D), though it's not especially well-used at present. And to a man, the above PA-stubs are already also in a school-stub type. Moving any of the above out of the "protected" hierarchy only seems a good option if they're there wrongly in the first instance (which is possible, but I can't speak to). Alai 03:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:Okay, let's put it another way. Is there something in the definition of "Protected area" that includes buildings? I would have assumed it meant areas of land or water, such as parks - having it as protected areas and buildings crosses the hierarchy to some extent anyway - would it be better to divide it in two, into protected parks and protected buildings? Grutness...wha? 05:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::I was hoping to nimbly dodge that issue (and if we go with some sort of "protected buildings" type, per my first batch of suggestions, it at least means the issue becomes simply how to categorise that type). But I'd have thought much the same, that "PA" wouldn't have covered these in the first instance. (I've no idea what the US system and terminology for 'listed buildings' is, though.) I've left the wikiproject a note, hopefully the domain experts will wade in and clarify matters. Alai 05:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::Wow...I am going to address this situation at the project level. I am not in favor of having sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places as being a part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas. They are often privately owned and to get on the list, all one needs to do is to establish that the house is "historic" or architecturally significant per se, and agree to restore or maintain the structure in accordance with guidelines. Some folks do this for tax reasons, or to fetch a high resale value after restoration. I'm inclined to not have these areas be a part of this project. There are areas that are managed by government entities and are also on the National Register of Historic Places, however if they are not managed by government entities, then I can't see how they should be included in the scope of this project. Allow me some time to clean this up and maybe what we need is a stub for every U.S. state that has National Register of Historic Place (and every state does) and encourage the main persons adding these infoboxes and stub templates to create their own wikiproject to deal with these articles.--MONGO 06:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:To add more complication, some National Register listings are buildings, some are historic districts, and there are even specific boats on the list.

:It probably should be broken out from Protected Areas, then. Some of the places aren't protected at all, and are falling apart. One of the reasons that things get added to the Register is to call attention to them. In essence, a "Hey, this is historically important, let's preserve it" shout-out. The more commercial motives are possible too, I suppose.

:Anyway, I'll keep my eyes on y'all's discussion. --Ebyabe 14:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::OK, so this would suggest a {{cl|Florida Registered Historic Place stubs}}, except that as I understand what you're saying, some of these are protected areas, and some are not; and that that type would itself be instantly oversized: 1298, according to my count. We could split these up by type, or by location, pretty much as above. What about starting off with (something to the general effect of) {{cl|Florida historic building stubs}}? That'd "only" have about 442 stubs (!), and if I'm following the logic of this, none of them are "protected areas", so we could move that out of that hierarchy entirely, and under {{cl|Florida building and structure stubs}} instead. If the RHP list has any "official" subcategorisation (Registered Historic Buidings, or something?) we might want to follow that terminology instead. If all else fails, I suppose we can say {{cl|Florida Registered Historic Place building stubs}}. Alai 15:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I'd like to re-implement the Florida state parks for the state parks. After that, I can try creating a bot to change all the remaining protected area stubs to something else. I thought maybe Florida-history-stub could be a possibility. That way, the whole 'is it a building or not' thing would be avoided. And it could be used for battles and other history-type stuff. Since there is a Florida-struct-stub, that could be added to the buildings. I'm already using the Registered Historic Places in Florida category, so I think that would cover most everything. --Ebyabe 15:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Don't forget that I think that you have enough items that can be made into a wikiproject. As I mentioned, there must be thousands of these areas. In the instance that a item that is on the List of National Historic Places and also managed by the federal or, to a lessor degree, state government, then the item could be stubbed for both...but ths would only include maybe 100 (probably less) sites U.S.-wide...but I may be wrong.--MONGO 19:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::More than enough for several wikiprojects. :) A FL-history-stub would be a bad (or at least, highly incomplete) solution, as would just lead to yet another huge stub type, which would swamp any other "historical" topics that might happen to pertain to Florida. It might be desirable to have it as a top level category as well as more specific sub-types. The point isn't to find types that are more general, but that are specific enough to get reasonably-sized stub types in an appropropriate place in the hierarchy. I certainly don't see why it wouldn't be desirable to separate out the buildings, in some form or another: if anything, they're especially getting rather large themselves, if they're being created by the hundreds per month. Re-tagging any and all of the above by 'bot (and by category) shouldn't be difficult, it's "SOP" for Alaibot. Alai 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::I think User:Ebyabe is getting this sorted out and we can make the current category problem more reasonable. He may end up requesting to create stubs and categories for those startes that have numerous articles already on sites listed on the National Register of historic places.--MONGO 05:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks to encouragement (and maybe a little against my better judgement, but why should that stop me), I've created WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. So I'm proposing a stub and associated category to go with it. Let's call it National Register of Historic Places stubs and {{tl|US-National-Register-stub}}. If a different wording/spelling is better, though, that'd be fine; I gladly defer to thy greater wisdom in such matters.

:::::::I'll probably wind up proposing stubs for each state too, eventually, but I figure, you know, baby steps. :) --Ebyabe 16:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Even per-state isn't sufficient, in the case of Florida. If we do as you suggest, we'll create a 1200+ article stubcat, then immediately have to split that into a not-much-smaller "Florida-" version of same, and then be back at the same point, an enormous category to re-(re-)sort, and the same decision to make. Do you want to sub-divide by "type", or by county? Alai 19:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Hmmm. At first I thought by type. But most of the entries are for buildings, so that won't help. I don't think even building types would work, as some places have been several things through their history (e.g., what if it has been a library, then a school, then a church...).

::::By county is better, I suppose. It's just that some counties have dozens of entries (like Miami-Dade, with over 150) and others have hardly any (Holmes County only has one). Still, location is more permanent than type (usually), so counties would seem to be the way to go. --Ebyabe 20:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::But buildings don't as a rule turn into districts, or districts into boats, etc. :) (Or is the above count that 400+ of them are buildings an underestimate?) And "buildings" are generally in a separate part of the stub tree than "geography". If we go with counties, either instead of, or immediately after, splitting out the buildings from the rest, we'd create separate categories only for the 60+ counties (perhaps with upmerged templates for the rest, for completeness and symmetry). Alai 21:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::True. Did a quick check, and there are over 200 districts. Of the 1,300+ left, nearly 400 are buildings which are (or were) residential homes. Then there's schools, churches, fire stations, restaurants, boats, submarines... I'd say stick with counties, it's probably the simplest solution

:::::::How many are buildings in general? Most of the 1300+, minus some boats and subs? Trouble is, if we don't split those that are properly in {{cl|Florida building and structure stubs}} from those that are properly in {{cl|Florida geography stubs}}, we end up with a new set of types that don't have a natural parent, and cut across said existing categories. Alai 17:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Yep, the 1,300+ are primarily buildings. I'd say about 80 percent. -Ebyabe 13:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::OK. So how about a {{cl|Miami-Dade County National Register of Historic Places building stubs}}, etc, with a "Florida..." parent, then a {{cl|Florida National Register of Historic Places stubs}} grantparent. then a {{cl|National Register of Historic Places stubs}} great-grandparent? I should be able to do a significant amount of re-tagging by bot, of that'll help. (Admittedly the catting by county seems to be more thorough than the structures, but probably also contains many "actual protected areas", tha perhaps should be re-tagged.) Alai 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::That sounds fine to me, and botting it would be wonderful. I can go through after and change any of the Florida ones that are actually places to geo-stubs. And might it be possible to create a sub-category for the districts? There's about 220 of them. If you think they need to be broken down by county too, ok. But some counties don't have any historic districts at all. So if you can get away with just {{cl|Florida National Register of Historic Places district stubs}} for them, terrif.

:::::The National Register of Historic Places project is humming right along. I'm sure I'll be coming to you again to do something similar for the other states. But that's probably going to be quite a while. BTW, what would be considered "critical mass" for a stub category. You know, when it gets X entries, it needs to be sub-divided. For future reference, as it were. :) --Ebyabe 18:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::Yes, I suggest we have something along the lines of {{cl|Florida National Register of Historic Places geography stubs}} for those. that being a little more standard and more inclusive, hopefully, than districts. (If the NRHP uses that specific terminology, of course...) No need to split those by counties, I don't think, and probably not even feasible, unless there's one or two counties that make up the bulk of them. The magic numbers are 800, above which things appear on the "to do list" of stub types to be split (though it's no harm to split them when they hit three or four pages, if that's feasible), and 60, below which they're regarded as a bit "light" (and above which they're big enough to go out on their own). Alai 15:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:::One of our enthusiastic project members created the National Register and stub category. Wanted to let you know in case it needs to be reverted/undone/changed. I asked for folks to hold off on adding more until we get the official go-ahead. Nice to know we have some real go-getters, though. Talk about Be bold!! :) --Ebyabe 01:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

::::It's no problem, just don't get carried away with populating it, when more specific types are being mooted. Alai 15:56, 20 October 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|Reorganized nicely, thank you.}}

As agreed in September, I have created {{tl|ValeofGlamorgan-geo-stub}}, {{tl|NeathPortTalbot-geo-stub}} and {{tl|Caerphilly-geo-stub}}, none of which has its own category. In so doing, I noticed that many of the existing unitary authority geo stub categories are pretty small (9 in the case of Merthyr Tydfil), so I'd like to suggest that they be merged into categories along the lines of the preserved counties of Wales. My suggestions (with numbers of stubs, and new categories marked in bold) would be:

• Gwynedd geography stubs (118)
• Anglesey geography stub (43)
• Clwyd geography stubs (93) = Conwy (18) + Denbighshire (19) + Flintshire (28) + Wrexham (28)
• Powys geography stubs (100)
• Ceredigion geography stubs (43)
• Carmarthenshire geography stubs (71)
• Pembrokeshire geography stubs (59)
• Glamorgan geography stubs (173) = Neath Port Talbot (39) + Bridgend (12) + Rhondda Cynon Taff (40) + Vale of Glamorgan (35) + Merthyr Tydfil (9) + Cardiff (41)
• Swansea geography stubs (69)
• Gwent geography stubs (60) = Blaenau Gwent (c. 0) + Torfaen (19) + Monmouthshire (21) + Caerphilly (20)
• Newport geography stubs (55)

One could also consider merging Ceredigion + Carmarthenshire + Pembrokeshire to make Dyfed geography stubs (173) if desired. --Stemonitis 11:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Makes perfect sense to me - that would only leave Anglesey as a real problem. I think the southwestern ones are probably fine as they are, without grouping them into Dyfed, but it's a close call. Weird about Blaenau Gwent... wonder where the stubs are? Grutness...wha? 18:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• I was hoping Anglesey could be left as it is, despite only having 43 (so far) stubs. The problem is that it's in the preserved county of Gwynedd, and using "Gwynedd" for two different entities would just be confusing. I suspect Blaenau Gwent stubs may be under Monmouthshire, again resulting from confusion about all the different boundaries that have applied at different times. --Stemonitis 09:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

::*All done. Incidentally, it looks like there really aren't any Blaenau Gwent geography stubs. The few articles that there are are all longer than stubs. The exception is River Sirhowy, which flows through Blaenau Gwent. Is it really worth making a stub tag for one article? I think not. --Stemonitis 11:46, 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}}

I see nothing clearly viable by country, but this would break threshold from Sweden and Russia alone. Parent oversized. Alai 17:37, 24 October 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 couldn't help but notice the lack of a stub for lagomorphs, that is, Rabbits, hares and pikas, they aren't rodents- and so unfortunately we can't use the already existing rodent stub, that said, if there's no objection, we also always could change the existing rodent stub to a "Rodent and Lagomorph" stub, since the two groups are closely related.

so far I have only found one article needing a lagamorph stub but I haven't looked that hard just yet, I'll get to it right now.

Herman

Nullius in Verba 01:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, maybe just one article, but that's a big rabbit: should count heavily in the stub weightings. :) It could be tagged with the existing {{tl|mammal-stub}}; I wouldn't be opposed to rescoping rodent-stub to glires. Either way, an upmerged {{tl|lagomorph-stub}} or {{tl|rabbit-stub}} template might be useful. Alai 02:20, 23 October 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 Bangladesh-hist-stub, upmerge}}

There's a Bangladesh Geography stub out there. Can't there be a Bangladesh History stub as well. It's giving me a lot of headaches to figure out which stub to use when creating article projects for Bangladesh history. - Aditya Kabir 19:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you use {{tl|Bangladesh-stub}}. There's less than two listings pages of these and it doesn't leap out of me that 60 are likely to be {{tl|Bangladesh-hist-stub}} candidates. Indeed, more promising steps would appear to be a) a {{tl|Bangladesh-struct-stub}}, which seems highly likely to be viable, and b) sorting the mis-categorised biographies with this type to {{tl|Bangladesh-bio-stub}}. Alai 20:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• It is important to consider that Bangladeshi history is close to Bengali history, which means that it is fair to estimate that many will be imported from :Category:Indian history stubs and with new creations from Banglapedia, the total should easily cross 100 stubs in near future. Rama's arrow 16:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• comment how about numbered list of potential existing articles? Monni 17:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

::How is that done? I estimate about 25 current history stubs. Rama's arrow 17:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Go through existing "stub" articles and put names one below another using syntax "# MyCandidate". (without quotes of course) Monni 18:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• If this is in anticipation of future need, I suggest an upmerged stub template, rather than splitting out a category at present size. Alai 20:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• support Sounds like a good alternative. Monni 20:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:Comment - Bangladesh technically did not exist before 1947. I owuld suggest a {{tl|Bengal-history-stub}} instead.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::Stub types tend for the most part to be split by current country. In the case of history, it might make sense to split by former country or (in this case) by region, but then you run into far more problems in terms of what goes where (many things that would qualify for {{tl|bengal-hist-stub}} (not -history- !) would already be classified as india-hist-stubs, for instance. A Bangladesh-hist-stub, if created, would cover not only modern Bangladesh, but also East Pakistan and the other states which preceded it. Grutness...wha? 04:55, 26 October 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 "by type"}}

Five page parent: the following look to be viable:

• {{cl|Defunct United States railroad company stubs}} 165
• {{cl|United States passenger railroad stubs}} 135
• {{cl|United States Class I railroad stubs}} 126
• {{cl|United States railroad museum and tourist line stubs}} 85

We could also split by state, though clearly that leads to much multi-stubbing. Here's the states (+DC) that seem to be viable, from most to least populated.

• Illinois (149), Missouri, Georgia, Chicago, Louisiana, Tennessee, New York, Texas, Nebraska, Alabama, Iowa, Mississippi, Florida, Kentucky, New Jersey, Virginia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Massachusetts, California, Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado, Maryland, Delaware, District of Columbia, South Carolina, West Virginia, Maine, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Kansas, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Connecticut, Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma (61)

If anyone really wants to know the whole shebang of totals... Alai 02:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think by-state is the way to go. I support the "by-type" as proposed. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:53, 30 October 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 anseriformes, galliformes, and ornithology}}

There are hundreds of articles to do with all sorts of things under bird stubs, why not split it into several (not too many) different stub cateories, such as

• {{tl|Gamebird-stub}},
• {{tl|Ornithology-stub}},
• {{tl|Waterfowl-stub}},
• {{tl|Domesticated-bird-stub}},
• {{tl|Wader-stub}},
• {{tl|Seabird-stub}},
• {{tl|Bird-of-Prey-stub}},

--Greenfinch100 08:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's generally better to split animals by the next lower taxa, i.e. in this case by orders. The problem with gamebirds, domesticated birds, etc is that it will cause a lot of double-stubbing. So far the category has been split into parrots, passerines and pre-historic birds. The prior two are orders. I went through all orders with StubSense and found that only the following two would be viable for a split:

• Anseriformes (67 bird-stubs)
• Galliformes (58)

The numbers only include the bird-stubs. I think an creating an {{tl|ornithology-stub}} as a parent of the bird-stubs, not a child would also be a good idea. It would include biological terms relating to birds but not specific birds, but I don't know how many stubs there are, which would fit this scope.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 09:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment See August discussion here for more data. Cheers, Her Pegship 04:21, 18 October 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 painter stubs are two articles away from being "officially" oversized, and this looks plausible, with 56 classified as such (and 170 lacking a nationality classification). Alai 00:42, 27 October 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 could be tricky: we'd normally want to split this région into its three départments, but in this case the stubs are hugely disproportionately allocated between them. Unless the next db dump reveals otherwise, Calvados has about 700 stubs, Manche 40, and Orne 24 (plus however many weren't categorised at time of the last dump). Obviously we could split out Calvados, but that gets us almost nowhere. Splitting C. into its four arrondissements would be an option, but there's no existing categorisation on that basis. We probably need more concrete data, but if anyone has any bright ideas in the meantime... (Is there a wikiproject that covers this?) Alai 01:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:The only active French WP seems to be Wikipedia:WikiProject French communes - the région and département projects seem to be dead. Grutness...wha? 05:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:Essentially no change here post-dump (we must have gained a few stubs without much categorisation happening). Exactly the same totals for Manche and Orne, in particular. If no-one has any other bright ideas, I'm going go ahead with the Calvados type -- which though it'll be 3.5 pages instantly, seems unlikely to get onto the to-do list itself any time soon -- and then see where that leaves us with the residuals. No harm in having upmerged templates for the other two déps. Alai 17:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

::I must have been looking at the wrong set of numbers: Manche-geo-stub is clearly viable too. I'll leave the Ornes in the parent for the time being. Alai 06:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:I've created three templates, and two categories on the above basis. A lot a bot edits in order to in effect go from a 800+ type to a 700+ type, but it gets it off the list. Alai 22:07, 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}}

No new db dump yet, but here's another sneak preview: the US tv stations are now oversized, and as Indiana seems to be the largest state at 49, I suggest we start upmerged regional splits here, if we haven't already determined to do so (and if the Indianas aren't close enough). Alai 00:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Both Indiana and California were already aproved and are on the to create list on WP:WSS/T--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 21:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• ...and done. Pegship 18:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• It was closed as such, but there was concern on size. Alai 23:39, 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}}

Not quite hitting four pages yet, but on its way.

• {{cl|United States physicist stubs}} 159
• {{cl|United Kingdom physicist stubs}} 71
• {{cl|German physicist stubs}} 67

No existing splits, but I'm guessing we want to go this way. (There's in any case apparently little on the horizon by field, as far as the categories are concerned.) Alai 05:11, 31 October 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}}

It seems a little odd that there's a stub category for medical signs but not symptoms, resulting in medical symptom 'stub' articles being added to the 'signs' stubs or (far more often) the already-way-too-overloaded general 'medicine' stubs, which currently has over 1400 entries! The only problem I could see with this category is that there are different definitions of 'medical sign', and the distiction between a 'sign' and a 'symptom' is blurry at best, so some articles might need to be placed in both. Still, anything that could take some weight off Category:Medicine stubs is a good thing, even with the potential signs-vs-symptoms confusion. - Pacula 14:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Adding symptoms to signs doesn't seem too bad, and if the worst comes to the worst, we might consider simply rescoping it to a "signs and symptoms" type (probably with separate {{tl|symptom-stub}} feeding into it. But since they're separate concepts and categories, distinct stub types are fair enough if there's the numbers for it. I can find at least 24 currently tagged as med-stubs, which is as you say, horribly oversized. So on balance I'm going to say simply support; if we have to think about merging with the signs, we can worry about that later. Alai 18:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• The thought of creating a unified 'signs-and-symptons' crossed my mind as well, but I think there is enough difference between the two to justify having one for each. The only problem is, again, the line between the two can be blurry, and it might not always be clear if a subject is a 'sign', 'symptom', or both. Perhaps one of the several possible definitions given in medical signs should be adopted as 'official'. A possibly better idea - any subject that is a 'sign' by some definitions but not ALL should be placed under both 'signs' and 'symptoms'. - Pacula 13:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Doesn't bother me which definition is used, and a certain amount of double-stubbing won't kill anyone, but the key question remains, roughly how many symptom-as-in-some-sense-distinct-from-sign stubs actually are there? Alai 17:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support: I think signs and symptoms are simply different, maybe it's my background bias talking but we really need more stubtypes in medstub. This is really a good idea! Merging is not: the categories are split, and the stub types should be too IMHO.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• More stubtypes: no, that's not your background bias, that's the eight listings pages of med-stubs. I proposed a batch of these earlier, I'll post some updated counts of the possibilities, possibly after the next db dump (if it gets a move on). But that doesn't mean we should necessarily create them regardless of size, which is the only reason I moot the possibility of merging, if there's not a sufficiency of each separately. Alai 19:39, 29 October 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 could have sworn we already had this, but not a bit of it: just a US version. This looks more than viable, at 200 or more. Urgently needed, too, given the size of the tv-stubs. Alai 07:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:30, 24 October 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}}

Not a lot else seems viable by country, but these look plausible:

• {{cl|Asian television stubs}}
• {{cl|European television stubs}}
• {{cl|South American television stubs}}
• {{cl|Oceanian television stubs}}

The Asians and Europeans are clearly viable, and I'm fairly sure the SAm ones are too: Venezuela alone is 33. Oceania may be more marginal, but as AU and NZ are both in the mid-twenties, it's not far off, at any rate. Alai 07:48, 24 October 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}}

Musician stubs are oversized; Irish people aren't quite oversized but on their way. I've found a decent amount of articles that'd fit this category. Crystallina 03:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oh my word yes. Alai 00:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support an' the only t'ing oversoized about me ancestors is their noggins. (And their sense o' humor, to be sure.) Slainte! Pegship 00:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support (moine too, to be sure - and some of them were musicians :) Grutness...wha? 21:41, 28 October 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 have just created an article on an Italian jazz record label.

It is not quite fitting to place the company under Italian media companies stub, as it only is involved in recording music.

We need a stub category specifically on Italian record labels. Dogru144 14:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• So far as I know, there's no {{tl|Italy-media-company-stub}} / {{cl|Italian media company stubs}} or similar. We create stub types for batches of sixty or more articles, not just one or two. I suggest you double-stub with {{tl|Italy-company-stub}} and {{tl|record-label-stub}} until such time as there's a reasonable number. We might want to look at a {{tl|Euro-record-label-stub}}. Alai 21:32, 28 October 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 have just sneaked onto a fifth page; split by decade, as per the dramas and comedies. Alai 03:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support unless a split by "creature" is viable? {{tl|vampire-film-stub}}, {{tl|werewolf-film-stub}}, {{tl|slasher-film-stub}}, etc.? Pegship 14:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• I didn't see any such possibilities show up; the corresponding permcats may not be split up that finely. Alai 16:54, 26 October 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:Bangladesh stubs has a total of 276 stubs. Out of this, the education-stub can take out the stubs on schools, colleges and other educational institutes, which together exceed 60. The organization-stub can take out the stubs on political parties, business companies and government organizations, which together approach 100 - I understand that these are stub categories themselves, but each by themselves cannot justify the need for a stub yet even though this will change in a big way in the near future. All Bangladesh stubs and stub categories are likely to expand considerably in the future, so I recommend the creation of a subclassification order. Rama's arrow 03:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support; suggest use of upmerged templates if some of the orgs are being "crowbarred" into this type. Alai 03:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

:"Upmerged" templates? How to do that? Rama's arrow 14:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

::That means, create, say, {{tl|Bangladesh-edu-stub}} and {{tl|Bangladesh-gov-stub}}, both feeding into {{cl|Bangladesh organisation stubs}}. Alai 16:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks - will do as you suggest. Rama's arrow 20:47, 26 October 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 Sudan, Senegal templates and cats, create Tanzania template only}}

• {{tl|Sudan-bio-stub}}, {{tl|Senegal-bio-stub}} and {{tl|Tanzania-ethno-stub}}

First off, Sudan stubs. The category is at 150 and has already been split into geography. Most of the stubs on the page are of people and it has a wikiproject. Senegal is a similar story (131 stubs, only split in geo-stubs)Last is Tanzania ethno stubs. Tanzania-stub has over 200 and has been split off into a bio and geo as well. While I haven't done a hand count yet, there seem to be a huge number of ethno groups. Worst case scenario, we can upmerge them back into the bloated Africa-ethno-group-stub and keep the template. I added the Senegal-bio-stub on 30 October.--Thomas.macmillan 21:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support both, though I'd suggest start with only the template for the Tanzania one. it's less hassle to add a category later than to make one and then take it to sfd for deletion. Grutness...wha? 21:58, 26 October 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 could have sworn I'd proposed this already, but seemingly not. 54 stubs, almost certainly an undercount. Parent is oversized, and almost certainly needs re-sorting to existing types. Alai 04:55, 27 October 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 syntax & phonetics}}

• {{cl|Grammar stubs}} 235
• {{cl|Historical linguistics stubs}} 174
• {{cl|Philology stubs}} 162
• {{cl|Semantics stubs}} 149
• {{cl|Philosophy of language stubs}} 149
• {{cl|Words stubs}} 117
• {{cl|Phonology stubs}} 109
• {{cl|Place names stubs}} 97
• {{cl|Toponymy stubs}} 90
• {{cl|Onomastics stubs}} 87
• {{cl|Phonetics stubs}} 71
• {{cl|Sociolinguistics stubs}} 69

In this case, I'm not at all clear which the "sensible" subtypes would be, so I'm more-or-less exhaustively listing all the top-level subcats of {{cl|linguistics}} that seem to be numerically viable, based on membership of each of those subtrees. A couple of those should be sufficient to take care of the oversizedness for the time being. Alai 22:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

:I would use "Syntax stubs" instead of "Grammar stubs" since grammar includes phonology. And what's the distinction you're making between "Place name stubs" and "Toponymy stubs", and wouldn't both of them fall under "Onomastics stubs" anyway? What's the difference between "Words stubs" and the already existing {{cl|Vocabulary and usage stubs}}? Angr 04:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

::Beats me: I'm just following the names of, and counting of the basis of, the existing permcats. Alai 14:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Words-Stubs is not very descriptive. Let's say I have an article about history of a word. Should we avoid the issue and nominate to move it to Wiktionary, or stub it. I think Place-Names-stubs is redundant and takes away from geography stub articles. So I think those two can be removed and the articles inside re-stubified as a root language, i.e. whether French-root-stub, Latin-root-stub, RomanceLanguage-root-stub, etc. Goldenrowley 03:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Separately the other stub names are obscure. I'd just like to make sure we have place to list languages by continents, i.e. there are Native American language articles (see Karkin language for example). I see it has a sensible stub.

:::Ok so I guess I need to answer your question. I think grammar is viable by your count, everything else is questionably divided. Do you like the idea of language-root-stubs? Goldenrowley

:::: Most language stubs are grouped by language family, not by continent (Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Austronesian, etc.). The Native American ones are grouped together because (1) there are so many language families and (2) there are so few languages that we have even stub articles about. Angr 06:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

:Here are the permanent categories that I was trying to describe the other day as a possible useful stub category: {{cl|Etymology}} and-or {{cl|English_words_of_foreign_origin}} Goldenrowley 04:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

:OK, I've split out the phonetics, which "de-viable-ises" the phonology type. Place names, toponymy and onomastics overlap almost completely. I'm likely to split either one of the former two, or sociolinguistics next: any bids? Alai 05:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::As you were, those first two are lousy with false positives. I'm now inclined to follow Angr's suggestion of a syntax-stub, after first feeding out its rather rather overlap with {{cl|Linguistic morphology stubs}} -- 68 candidates on latest dump, which I could have sworn I'd proposed, but seemingly not. (See User:Alai/syntax and User:Alai/morph, if anyone else is interested.) Alai 06:09, 19 October 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}}

Hello, could we have a yoga stub? The nearest thing I can find is culture, which is broad and vague? Current stubs are Satyananda Yoga, Sivananda Yoga, Yoga as exercise, Cheers 61.69.228.197 01:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Tricky one, especially given the overlap with exercise, meditation, and religion. I'd support at least an upmerged template, if there's not 60 stubs, but finding someplace to upmerge it to is, as you note, not straightforward. To "culture stubs" might be be the best option... Alai 02:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

::Yoga is a complete philosophy encompassing asana (what you describe as exercise), meditation, pranayama, a complete moral code (yama and niyama) and much more. It is not a religion. Although there are significant spiritual aspects to it by a Western reckoning, one could be a total atheist and a yoga practitioner - in the full sense of the term yoga, without any contradition.

::—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.227.148 (talk • contribs)

:::I said "overlaps with" religion and exercise, I didn't say "is" religion, nor did I "describe" asana as exercise. If you'd like to nit-pick what I actually said (which I think it's fair to say is demonstrably true, for any reasonable definitions of "religion", "exercise" and "yoga") as opposed to your own re-characterisation of it, feel free. However, I don't see how this is helping us with the stub type, where the pertitent considerations are: how many yoga-related stubs there are; and how to categorise such a stub type, were it to be created. Alai 17:51, 29 October 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 was thinking a stub for pages about dialects would be useful - most languages have two or more dialects. Dialect pages don't fit into the "Indo-European languages-related" stub, since dialects are not languages (although i've seen plenty of dialect stubs with a Indo-European languages-related stub tag. --Aqwis 18:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Personally, a dialect seems about as "language-related" as one can get... Dialects are also generally sub-categorised by related language (group). Splitting first by language family, as is currently the case, seems the sensible way to go: the question then arises, is it better to further split {{tl|ie-lang-stub}} (horrible template name, btw) into dialects with and without an army, navy and airforce, or by sub-family? Alai 19:38, 23 October 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|postpone for now}}

Propose new category :Category:Glacier along with a stub such as {{tl|Glacier-stub}} to tag stub articles associated with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Glaciers. We currently stub all glacier articles with a geo-stub template for the region the glacier exists, but this doesn't really help us. We have a Template:Glaciology-stub which links to :Category:Glaciology but that deals with landforms and the study of glaciers, not the glaciers themselves. I'm open to suggestions and trying to sort this mess out at this time.--MONGO 11:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

:We did have a glacier-stub a few months ago (and an associated {{cl|Glacier stubs}}, which would be the proper name for such a stub category), and it was deleted, since landforms are always stubbed by location rather than type of landform, and various location geo-stub tyles were dwindling in size due to them being removed from there. I'll admit that glaciers are a special case (the main problem with land-type-stubs is people wanting to start town-stub and the like, which would take some 80% of all geo-stubs. Given that glaciers are largely located in several specific places, perhaps an option, rather than a specific glacier-stub, is to have a Wikiproject subpage that lists the stub categories which have most of the glaciers (e.g., Alaska geography stubs, Antarctica geography stubs, and Greenland geography stubs) and simply lists all other individual glacier stubs. Another way, which might be better for your uses, would be to initiate a wikiproject-specific article rating system which will allow you to assess and categorise all glacier articles and mark them appropriately on their talk pages. To give you an example of how that might work, have a look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Assessment page and (for an example) at Talk:Spanish fess. It's a bit more work for you, but you are likely to be far more able to judge what glacier articles need work than we are, and it would give you a categorisation that wouldn't cause problems for the hierarchy we use here! Grutness...wha? 11:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

::Yeah, I know we went through this before and I sort of understand the reasoning. The glaciers are numerous in some locations and nonexistant in others of course. I mainly concerned about size...maybe a glacier stub associated directly with the project itself which would combine glaciers and glaciology? I think though we would end up with 400 stubs at some point. The current geo-stubs are not specific to the focus of the glacier project. Rather than thinking of them as regionally based, as I mentioned perhaps base them on a project wide issue...dunno if that makes a bit of sense to you. At this point, I don't want to get into an assessment drive since the vast bulk of the articles are in lousy shape as this is an area in need of expertise and I am merely interested enough to learn.--MONGO 11:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

::Kind of along the lines of the Protected areas stub which links to :Category:Protected area stubs--MONGO 11:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

:I see no reason why they shouldn't go into {{cl|glaciology stubs}}: {{cl|glaciers}} is a subcat of {{cl|glaciology}}, and so they're properly included there. We don't want to a stub category for every permanent category, for obvious reasons. I'd have no objection to a separate {[tl|glacier-stub}} feeding into the same category for the time being. Given the size of the existing type, however, a separate category would seem a little premature. I think the "landforms" objection is somewhat over-egged: it's not like we're splitting off {{tl|Kent hamlet stubs}} from {{cl|Kent village stubs}} (to say nothing of {{cl|Kentish Town stubs}}), this is a pretty clear-cut distinction that goes directly to notability, and more to the point, the focus of editors likely to expand same. Alai 16:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

::So using the glaciolgy stub would suffice...keeping it to direct into the glaciology cat? That would work for us I suppose. Truthfully, we already use a project banner on talk pages which links into a category page for all article related to the category, but that doesn't help us identify stubs and as I mentioned, I don't want to start an assessment on the articles yet, since most are n dire need of help. Whatever you think is best...if using the glaciology stub works, then that will help us.--MONGO 21:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

:As long as you keep the location stubs in place too - I'd prefer it if the glacier stubs didn't start disappearing from Nepal-geo-stub and the like (yeah, I know... blame global warming). I'm not entirely convinced - I'm very concerned that this might open the floodgates to mountain stubs river stubs and the like, but glaciers are few enough in most parts of the world that we can probably consider them a special case. Grutness...wha? 21:54, 26 October 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}}

As far as I can tell, there is no stub category for Cognitive Science. There are plenty of articles in :Category:Cognitive science that I would classify as stubs, and I'm currently working on a new article which, due to the time spent actually being a CogSci student, I won't be able to bring up to non-stub status right away. Alex Dodge 09:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:That'd be an {{tl|AI-stub}}. The trouble with a cogsci type is the rather diffuse nature of the topic: the candidates are likely to be already perfectly happily tagged as comp-sci, psychology, linguistics, etc. If there are 60 articles that are specifically and identifiably cogsci, rather than the all-inclusive scoping implied by the contents of the {{cl|cognitive science}} category, then fair enough. Alai 17:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

::Well that article would be AI-stub, but many cog-sci articles will currently be marked with either psych-stub or comp-sci-stub, or with one of their subtypes. Things like Categorization, Centration, Confabulation, Conceptual blending, Conation, Anecdotal cognitivism, Bouma, Cognitive space, Cognitive specialization, Cognitive revolution, Cognitive restructuring, Beck's cognitive triad, Cognitive closure, Cognitive dimensions... these 14 from just the A-C section of the psychology stubs category. it should be easy to get to 60. Note that a month or two back i suggested splitting psych stubs by subdiscipline (including cognition stubs and perception stubs) - this ties in with that quite well and also allows for both halves of the cog-sci field (psych and computing) to use the same stub type. Grutness...wha? 22:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Cognitive Science does draw on a large number of existing sciences, but what doesn't? Even though at first glance it does look like Biology, Neurology, Psychology, and Computer Science all rolled into one, it is a unique entity also. You're right about the AI-stub. But, Neural Nets are more than just AI, in the context of CogSci, they're important scientific modeling tools.

Pragmatically, an AI stub tag will attract editors who are AI researchers, and a psychology stub tag will get editors who are psychologists. Neither of these is exactly right, though. I'm sure they could both contribute (AI maybe more the psychology), but what the article really needs is a cognitive scientist. Alex Dodge 03:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:...and my major was perception and psychophysics. Which is close, but no banana :) Grutness...wha? 03:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::(aside)...so does that make you a psycho-physicist?? Pegship 15:51, 28 October 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 :Category:Hinduism stubs is quite overpopulated and without a stub save for :Category:Hindu mythology stubs. While about a 100-odd articles are difficult to classify (except as miscellaneous), the creation of these 3 stubs would considerably ease the burdens. The creation of a temple-stub would help subcategorize more than 70 stubs about temples, sites of worship, pilgrimage or religious significance. The Hindu theology stub aims to cover articles on (1) scriptures, (2) terms, hymns, ceremonies and (3) theological doctrines. I estimate close to 100 stubs can be fitted into this subcategory. The "Hindu-bio-stub" covers religious personalities, clergy, saints, teachers, etc. At the moment such a stub category can fit close to 70 stubs. It is important to note that over a hundred such stubs can be created in the future, so it does no harm to sanction this new stub - helps pre-empt the burden. Rama's arrow 16:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:To emphasize, these stubs should cut 33-40% of the burden of the Hinduism stub category. Rama's arrow 17:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Not quite "officially" overpopulated, but a stitch in time. Support, if the population estimates are at least roughly correct. Alai 20:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. ISTR suggesting the hindu-temple-stub over at SFD, and the other two seem reasonable, too. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Many bios such as Ketut Wiana, Gedong Bagus Oka, and a whole crapload of :Category:ISKCON would fall into this. Many Hindu bios are also in {{tl:reli-bio-stub}} . Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:24, 24 October 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 -edu- template}}

I am trying to sort out the 400 or so of :Category:Mexico stubs and this is the one I would like to start with. Its other "parent" would be :category:university stubs and some of its siblings would be :Category:Canada university stubs and :category:Korea university stubs. --FateClub 09:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Looks to be marginal on size. Do you have reason to believe there's 60, per the size guidelines? (Significantly less than 400 stubs is by no means an urgent case for splitting.) Alai 09:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Specifically, I can find 28. How about an upmerged stub template? Or, a broader {{cl|Mexican education stubs}} type, if that would help? Alai 10:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Well Mex edu stubs was my original intent, but I saw that (country) edu stubs was already there. If you choose option 1 we would include:

1. Autonomous university
2. Centro de Enseñanza Técnica Industrial
3. Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada
4. Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económica
5. Centro Universitario Anglo Mexicano
6. El Colegio de México
7. Escuela Libre de Derecho
8. Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas
9. Instituto Nacional de Estudios Históricos de la Revolución Mexicana
10. Instituto Tecnológico Superior de Irapuato
11. Instituto Tecnológico Superior de Zacapoaxtla
12. Instituto Tecnológico de Ciudad Juárez
13. Instituto Tecnológico de Ciudad Madero
14. Instituto Tecnológico de Jiquilpan
15. Instituto Tecnológico de Saltillo
16. Instituto Tecnológico de Villahermosa
17. National Polytechnic Institute
18. Universidad Anáhuac
19. Universidad Anáhuac del Sur
20. Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro
21. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana
22. Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila
23. Universidad Autónoma de Baja California
24. Universidad Linda Vista
25. Universidad Pedagógica Nacional
26. Universidad Popular de la Chontalpa
27. Universidad Tecnológica de México
28. Universidad de Monterrey
29. Universidad del Tepeyac
30. Western Institute of Technology and Higher Education

With option #2 we would also include:

1. Academia Juárez
2. American School Foundation
3. The American School Foundation of Guadalajara
4. Centro de Investigación en Matemáticas
5. Escuela Preparatoria Federal Lázaro Cárdenas

Now, if 60 is absolutely necessary, there are 49 in List of universities in Mexico with no article for them. --FateClub 11:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess there's not a huge difference between -edu- and -uni-. Personally I'd suggest the upmerged stub template (either one), and revisit the category question later when there's more articles, but no, it's not an absolute requirement, and you'd certainly not be likely to be first on the firing line if someone went on an upmerging/deletion spree. (i.e., there's worse such out there.) But equally, there's no pressing need, either. But if you're planning on writing more of these, create the template now, to save excess work later. Alai 16:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Alrighty then. Yeah, that's sort of the idea, to expand the articles but then to see them "graduate" as full-size articles. I'll create the template now (as "edu", not "univ"). --FateClub 09:33, 20 October 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}}

Did someone already propose a split of these?

• {{cl|United States Army personnel stubs}} 325
• {{cl|United States Army officer stubs}} 240
• {{cl|United States Army general stubs}} 139
• {{cl|United States Navy personnel stubs}} 133
• {{cl|United States Army soldier stubs}} 63
• {{cl|United States Air Force personnel stubs}} 57

And on a different axis:

• {{cl|American World War II personnel stubs}} 112
• {{cl|American Civil War personnel stubs}} 83

Parent is five pages. Alai 02:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:I would oppose it unless United States Coast Guard and United States Marine Corps is also included. I am pretty sure there are a lot of biographical stubs floating around for these services also. They could be upmerged as long as they are explicitly available. The Coast Guard bios include people like famous lighthouse keepers and life savers who are non-combat heroes.--- Skapur 02:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::What I don't like is having 4 different splits for the Army; why not simply split by branch of the armed forces, i.e. {{tl|US-Navy-bio-stub}}, {{tl|US-Army-bio-stub}}, and {{tl|US-AirForce-bio-stub}} and {{tl|US-CoastGuard-bio-stub}} and {{tl|US-Marines-bio-stub}}, if they are viable (I agree with Skapur, upmerging them would also be useful).--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 17:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I believe the Coast Guard was split out already. {{tl|USCG-stub}}. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::::But not a {{tl|USCG-bio-stub}} --- Skapur 03:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Short answer is "size". I don't think a USCG personnel stubs category would be viable, but I'd have no objection to a {{tl|US-CoastGuard-bio-stub}}/{{tl|USCG-bio-stub}} upmerged template (and likewise for the USMC). Conversely, we could create a single USArmy type, but at 325 it'd already be pretty hefty: we'd need to look at splitting it again after it'd not-much-more-than-doubled in size, which probably won't be all that long, in the madcap Moore's Law driven world of wikipedia. (I've heard of inter-service rivalry, but does it really make sense to oppose one type, on the basis of non-proposal of another one?) Alai 04:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

::::How about creating a {{tl|US-Army-bio-stub}} and {{tl|US-Army-general-stub}} and {{tl|US-army-officer-stub}} as splits of the former? Or was that your proposal in the first place?--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 16:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::Indeed, sorry if I was unclear. "Soldier" and "officer" would be subcats of "personnel", "general" a subcat of "officer". Alai 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

::::My opposition is based on the need for consistency rather than inter service rivalry. --- Skapur 21:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:The fifth one should really be combined with {{cl|United States Army personnel stubs}}; using "soldier" as a generic category name for military personnel (Army or otherwise) isn't the best idea, and it's something we've been trying to move away from. Kirill Lokshin 20:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

::Indeed. This has only just been thrashed out at WP:MILHIST, and I think personnel is preferable to soldier. Carom 20:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Different permcat, and from the comments at the category page ({{cl|United States Army soldiers}}), a different scope (enlisted personnel, which is what I'd have guessed in the first place, as it happens). If this is redundant, or mis-named, you might want to CFD or CFR (to {{cl|United States Army enlisted personnel}}, say) this. Alai 21:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

::::BTW, the parent of that is {{cl|United States Army people}}; did that one slip through the cracks of the mass-rename of those to "personnel"? (I made that assumption in proposing the above stub category name; if anything, the vaguer term would be better for the stub category, as it might be desirable to sort people notable-in-connection-with-but-not-actually-in the US Army to such a type.) Alai 21:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have created a {{tl|USCG-bio-stub}} template upmerged to {{cl|United States military personnel stubs}} category as there was no objection to its creation. I have also populated it with 52 stubs. I will also create a template {{tl|USMC-bio-stub}} and {{tl|USAF-bio-stub}} templates upmerged to {{cl|United States military personnel stubs}} as there was no objection to that also. Alai has already created the {{tl|US-navy-bio-stub}} and {{cl|United States Navy personnel stubs}}. From the above discussion there does not seem to be any consensus on Army stubs. --- Skapur 13:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

:I think there's clear consensus for at least an Army type (some questioning of whether to tag or categorise generals, officers and enlisted peeps separately). I just didn't bother for the time being as the USN resorting was enough to get it "off the list" of oversized types for the time being. Alai 19:02, 29 October 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 Euro-}}

{{cl|Archaeology stubs}} now has over 700 articles, and at a quick scan i'd say that about 100-150 of them are related to European archaeology - many of them related to the archaeology of the British Isles. it's quite likely that Asian, Middle Eastern, and New World archaeology also have good numbers of stubs. An {{tl|Archaeology-term-stub}} might also be worth considering eventually.

I'd like to at the very least propose {{tl|Euro-archaeology-stub}}, and suggest a count-up of stubs per continent/region for the rest (sadly, many archaeology stubs have few categories beyong {{cl|Archaeology}}, which is little help for stubsensing). Grutness...wha? 07:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• I was going to suggest a UK type, but in this instance the permcats seem to be broader regions, so that's fair enough. Upmerged templates or redirects might be handy for those (like me) assuming a split by modern countries. Here's some per-permcat (and subcats) counts:

| European_archaeology | 186 |

| Bronze_Age | 140 |

| Iron_Age | 137 |

| Archaeology_of_material_culture | 134 |

| Archaeological_cultures | 97 |

| Ancient_Near_East | 96 |

| Stone_Age | 57 |

| Pre-historic_art | 53 |

| Old_Testament_places | 52 |

| Pre-Columbian_cultures | 49 |

| Monument_types | 41 |

| Archaeology_of_the_Americas | 41 |

Doesn't seem to immediately help on the terms. Alai 16:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:Well, I make that

• Europe 186,
• Near East/Middle East 148 (Ancient Near East and Old Testament places)
• Americas 90 (includes Pre-Columbian)

:...if we were to go by location. Chances are that Iron Age, Bronze Age, Stone Age, etc would to some degree split up between these, too. One snag is that we already have a pre-Columbian stub type... perhaps that should be a child of archaeology-stub? Grutness...wha? 23:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

::Actually, 186, 96 and 49: those last two pairs overlap completely, you can't just add up the totals. Alai 03:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

:so...is that a support for the euro- one? Grutness...wha? 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

::I support Europe archealogy stub.Goldenrowley 00:03, 23 October 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 may be marginal, but it seems to be the largest unsplit grouping of the (oversized) non-fics corresponding to a permcat at 47 (including four in the feminism subcat). There's also a few books in {{cl|sociology stubs}}, plus I assume, some undercatting... Alai 20:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support (she says fervently). Pegship 20:20, 24 October 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}}

I propose the creation of a Cornwall stub, for all stub-class articles relating to Cornwall. There is already a Cornwall geo-stub, but nothing for other Cornwall-related articles. DuncanHill 10:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support - About time there was a general Cornwall-related stub for non-geos ! Gulval 17:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. Heavy Support - same reasons Mdcollins1984 12:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Reasons, what reasons? We deleted {{tl|Cornwall-stub}} just a few months ago: any indication this is any more viable on size now? Alai 19:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• To quote BL from June: "had nine stubs, seven of them were geo-stubs and one was a merge candidate". Have we lept from one to sixty in the meantime? Alai 18:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Not done a formal count, but have seen at least a few dozen suitable articles - one reason that so few may have been found earlier is inadequate categorisation of many entries. DuncanHill 23:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• That seems a bit sketchy. If the sorting need isn't especially great (and it doesn't seem to be), what about an upmerged template until it's more clearly viable? Alai 23:56, 27 October 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}}

Well over 30 stubs associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church, and growing. New stub class would be a subcategory of :Category:Christian denomination stubs. Wikipedia 1.0 project lists 30 Adventist-related stubs in :Category:Stub-Class Seventh-day Adventist Church articles, which does not include many others such as Pacific Adventist University for example. --Colin MacLaurin 04:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

:Sounds fair enough, though it seems a fairly gratuitous instances of the duplication of tagging effort (not to say rampant definitional confusion between "stub" and "stub-class article"). Alai 04:53, 19 October 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}}

45 stubs that I can confirm, but cut me some slack: there's already a more specific cat this would "parent" (the singers), the parent is eight pages, and there's much undersorting by genre (only 322 under a genre out of said parent). Alai 05:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• support as parent of more specific stub type. Monni 05:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• comment/question - there are only 44 articles listed as United States country singer stubs. Are there 45 (confirmed) further stubs for musicians who aren't singers? -Acjelen 15:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• I won't swear that none of them ever sing, but... That's 45 tagged with {{tl|US-musician-stub}}, and categorised in or under {{cl|American country musicians}}, as distinct from tagged as a singer. Alai 16:54, 24 October 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 media company stubs}} 174
• {{cl|United States publishing company stubs}} 83
• {{cl|United States telecommunications company stubs}} 75
• {{cl|United States book publishing company stubs}} 71
• {{cl|United States internet company stubs}} 65
• {{cl|United States entertainment company stubs}} 61

Parent is oversized. Someone stop me if these duplicate any earlier proposals... Alai 02:59, 16 October 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|Perciformes stubs}} 204
• {{cl|Siluriformes stubs}} 85
• {{cl|Cichlidae stubs}} 74
• {{cl|Cypriniformes stubs}} 57

And/or on a somewhere different axis:

• {{cl|Extinct_fish stubs}} 62

Parent's at five pages. Alai 01:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:Don't see any reason to not support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thadius856 (talk • contribs)

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

{{sfp create}}

Another repeat customer:

• {{cl|Košice Region geography stubs}} 403
• {{cl|Košice-okolie District geography stubs}} 101
• {{cl|Trebišov District geography stubs}} 79
• {{cl|Michalovce District geography stubs}} 72
• {{cl|Rožňava District geography stubs}} 59
• Nitra Region:
• {{cl|Levice District geography stubs}} 83

I'm open either way as to whether we create separate cats at the district level, or just upmerged templates. Alai 01:27, 16 October 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}}

StubSense finds 539 stubs in the Jamaica-cat. Surely an overkill, which appears to include all reggae-related stubs. But I think a template is definately viable.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 10:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

:I'm amazed we don't have one (I even told someone yesterday that we did have... oops!) Support. Grutness...wha? 03:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:I don't know how long time it has been since we've had a proposal for a national template where we couldn't find 60 articles. Can't imagine any problems here at all. Support. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 10:01, 18 October 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 at least 100 stubs that are golf course articles stored as a golf stub, but I was proposing a WikiProject to do with golf courses, and this would make it much more organised and easier not just for me, but for anyone who would like to expand on golf courses. I think it is a large enough category of articles to choose from. Thanks.

Grover 06:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think this was proposed before, in some form, and it seems entirely sensible. I've fixed the capitalisation of the category name. (As we don't have any other sort of -course-stub, it might be argued that the template should be {{tl|golfcourse-stub}}, but I'm not sure that's any clearer. No harm in a redirect one way or the other, though.) Alai 06:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah {{tl|golfcourse-stub}} sounds more logical to me, thanks for the tip.
  Grover 07:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• It was proposed before, I'm sure. Currently, there are hundreds of them in geo-stub subcats, too, and it's worth keeping a locational geo-stub on these as a double-stub, though I've no doubt there are enough for a US-golfcourse-stub as well, and probably enough for several other country-golfcourse-stubs too. Actually, I wonder whether {{tl|golfclub-stub}} might be better, since a lot of the articles relate not so much to a course but to the club that operates it - a template could be worded to accommodate both, though, whichever way you want to go with it. Grutness...wha? 03:46, 16 October 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}}

Not quite oversized, but getting there. These look viable:

• {{cl|County Kerry geography stubs}} 60
• {{cl|County Galway geography stubs}} 65
• {{cl|County Mayo geography stubs}} 67

Or we could do a more thoroughgoing split by province, if anyone is so inclined. Alai 04:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please propose templates. Aelfthrytha 04:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• {{tl|Kerry-geo-stub}}, etc. Alai 05:11, 14 October 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|skull stubs}} 145
• {{cl|digestive system stubs}} 42

I'd proposed a couple of possible splits previously, but these might be a little better-scoped. Given that the anatomy type is at seven pages, and only 400-odd have anatomy permcats, I don't propose to worry too much about the latter count being <60. Alai 19:27, 8 October 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 meat, cooking technique, and bread}}

• {{cl|Meat stubs}} 131
• {{cl|Peasant food stubs}} 121
• {{cl|Staple food stubs}} 114
• {{cl|Cooking technique stubs}} 108
• {{cl|Bread stubs}} 76

These look viable on the basis of permcats. Five-page-parent. About 70 undersorted desserts too, seemingly. Alai 22:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Peasant food has a stigma or naming issue. The rest all seem very easy and good to me. Goldenrowley 03:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support the following: {{cl|Meat stubs}}, {{cl|Cooking technique stubs}}, {{cl|Bread stubs}}. Strongly oppose the following: {{cl|Staple food stubs}}, {{cl|Peasant food stubs}} on grounds of vagueness. Staple and peasant foods could be any number of different things depending on what era we're in, who we are, etc. Heck, I know some college students who would classify mac and cheese under the staple foods category. Can you think of other ways to split it? Aelfthrytha 16:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Mrrmmmm, macaroni cheese... As to scope, I can only refer you to the permcats. "Staple" and "peasant" don't have 60 minus the breads, anyway, so no great loss. Alai 17:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• There's also 700 stubs under cuisine. What about looking at splitting up the food&cuisine stub by continent, using this permanent category to decide which continents are large enough for their own stub? {{cl|Cuisine_by_continent}} there's also {{cl|Cuisine_by_nationality}} Goldenrowley 04:39, 6 October 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|String instrument stubs}} 203
• {{cl|Guitar stubs}} 87
• {{cl|Percussion instrument stubs}} 83
• {{cl|Woodwind instrument stubs}} 80
• {{cl|Synthesizer stubs}} 66 (or else, {{cl|Electronic music instrument stubs}} 89)

Yes, the parent is oversized -- doesn't the mind boggle? A couple of broader types would be viable instead ("chordophone stubs", "wind instrument proper stubs" and such like), but other than in the last case I've exercised some selectivity and restraint in what I'm presenting. Alai 21:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Definitely needed, considering the large size of the parent category. -- Ci e lomobile ^{minor7 ♭5} 03:55, 5 October 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}}

65 stubs that I have already counted, but there are already 20 articles in category:Ancient Greek poets that I haven't counted. KRBN 12:04, 18 October 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}}

Third time trying. I propose the creation of a {{Warhammer-fantasy-stub}} as I have already found 84 stubs which are marked at {{wargame-stub}} and are also in the category of Warhammer-fantasy. I'll waste some more time and create a bloody list of the articles when I've got the necessary time. Any objections? Arctic-Editor 14:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:I moved this from its original post on the archive page. {{tl|WarhammerFantasy-stub}} was created a couple of months ago, with an upmerge to {{cl|Wargame stubs}}. If there are enough articles to merit its own category now, let's do it. Cheers, Pegship 23:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:Support, don't bother with the list, just get the category up to size when it goes 'live'. Follow the existing template name, per Peg. Alai 23:30, 22 October 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|Californian airport stubs}} 127
• {{cl|Alaskan airport stubs}} 67
• {{cl|Michigan airport stubs}} 56

Parent is in with a bullet on the oversized list. Alai 02:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support but... this is where Fooian vs Foo starts to break down. Shouldn't it be Michigander airport stubs? Or would sticking with "Noun airport stubs" be better? Grutness...wha? 03:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:I'd say that Grutness is on the right track with "Noun airport stubs" and would support such a proposal. The parent categories follow this naming scheme. Aside from preserving naming convention, it seems odd to be to call an inanimate, geographical object in such a way that I've typically only hear people called. For example, you wouldn't categorize General Motors as a "Michigander automobile manufacturer", would you? thadius856_talk 04:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::I personally wouldn't say Michigander anything, much less propose such categories, that was Grutness's straw man own over-application of the "attributive" principle. The permcats do not follow that naming scheme, they're at {{cl|airports in California}}, etc, which is a construction of an entirely different colour. If "California airport" and/or "Alaska airport" are thought to be more natural usages, fair enough, though a) let's not go back to the misguided "rearrange the words in the permcats without regard to English usage" 'scheme', and b) they don't seem that way to me (though I've never been to either place). Alai 04:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:Hardly an overapplication, let alone a straw-man. You provided three proposals, two using adjectives and one using a noun. I don't mind which we use, but we should be consistent. Grutness...wha? 05:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::I've said this ten million times, but let's hope 10,000,001 is the charm: the principle should be "most common attributive usage", given that, well, we're using these as attributives. "Always use an adjective" or "always use a noun" amounts to "suspend English usage in category names". Alai 05:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:::That was exactly my point, Alai. Always using an adjective seems quite odd to me in this case, not to mention very inconsistent. So, what's left? Like I said, I'd support if nouns were used to preserve the integrity of the language. thadius856_talk 18:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::::I'm not suggesting always using an adjective. I'm suggesting "whatever common usage would be". I can't think of any simpler and clearer statement of this, so I seem to be reduced to mere repetition. I've no idea what you mean by use of nouns preserving the "integrity of the language", but if you're going to argue for "France airport" and such like, you're clearly not following actual usage of said language, which would be my notion of doing so. Alai 18:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::Not sure what I was thinking (probably that we were discussing the names for stub templates, not categories - doh!). So long as we preserve the convention for naming the templates (California-airport-stub, etc), I'd support it. But technically, Grutness is correct with regards to Michigander airport stubs. Sorry for the confusion. thadius856_talk 04:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::Ah! Yes indeed, templates names will/should always use the noun describing the country or region. Except Palestinian-stub, obviously. :| But don't tell Grutness he's technically correct, it only encourages him. :) As it happens, if googlefight is anything to go by, "California airport" does seem to be a more common usage than "Californian airport". Googling for "Alaskan airport" has the nerve to ask me, "Did I mean 'Alaska airport'?" (The nerve.) If "careful usage" in "reliable sources" agrees with that, then fair enough, let's use that in these cases. Alai 06:01, 19 October 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}}

Oversized parent again, no counties are obviously viable. However, if I cobble together upmerged templates for three or four counties into this regional cat, this will get over 60. (Yorkshire is close-ish, but there's not much more than Yorkshire in the corresponding region.) Alai 05:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:Support - a bit surprising about the northeast - Durham was the first to get huge numbers of geo-stubs, I would have thought it might lead the way with school stubs too (in which case it could be grouped with Yorkshire, T&W and Northumbs). Grutness...wha? 00:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

::That's a different region. Durham has six schools, apparently. Other than the above, there's Wales 31, Cambridgeshire 17, West Midlands 14, Greater Manchester 14, Somerset 14. Beyond that, we're getting into the same level of shrapnel as undersorting to existing cats. I'm tempted to go create some Regions of England categories so I don't have to go do complicated things like adding things up next time... Alai 01:36, 18 October 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}}

They're at 6 pages, bigger than their former parent {{cl|United States building and structure stubs}} was when we split it last month. Propose creating state-by-state templates ({{tl|Alabama-sports-venue-stub}}, and so on) for the 45 states that currently don't have them, and preliminarily upmerging to NE/MW/S/W regional categories, and generic state building and structure categories as appropriate, while we sort out what states other than the big five may also qualify for categories on their own. This would also speed the slow draining of {{cl|United States building and structure stubs}}. --CComMack (t•c) 04:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Pesky kids... Support said templates. I was just "running the numbers" on these, and while there's several that are close (Ohio at 53; Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, Virginia all at 40 or more), none that are clear-cut over threshold. (However, there's some undersorting to the "by state" category, so these may possibly be crypto-viable.) Alai 05:17, 17 October 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 ballet-dance-stub, contemporary-dance-stub, ballroom-dance-stub, folk-dance-stub}}

As far as I can tell there is currently only one stub template for all things dance, and it contains over 399 items. I'd like to suggest at least the following: --Will.i.am 00:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• {{t1|dance-swing-stub}}
• {{t1|dance-ballet-stub}}
• {{t1|dance-folk-stub}}
• {{t1|dance-modern-stub}}
• {{t1|dance-latin-stub}}
• {{t1|dance-erotic-stub}}
• {{t1|dance-hiphop-stub}}
• {{t1|dance-ballroom-stub}}

:That's a lot of new stub types for only 399 items! We tend to split off only subgroups of over 60 stubs, and even if all 400 or so were in one of those eight types listed above the average would only be 50. Are there any of them which definitely have over 60? If there are, it might be worth considering them, but the current proposal is too fractured a split. Possibly two or three of them might make it (ballet, ballroom, and folk, perhaps), but they certainly wouldn't all get to threshold - it's certainly worth doing a count to see which if any do have 60. BTW, it'd probably be preferable if they were xx-dance-stub rather than dance-xx-stub. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

::I had basically the same thoughts as Grutness, though there's actually 722 articles, so more of the above are likely to be viable (or at least it's possible), and not a bad idea for that reason if they are. There's already an {{tl|India-dance-stub}}, and I believe a {{tl|dance-bio-stub}} has been proposed. At any rate, here's what the permcat counts look like:

• {{cl|Dance occupations}} 204
• {{cl|Dancers}} 183
• {{cl|Dances}} 163
• {{cl|Dance by ethnicity or region}} 158
• {{cl|Ballet}} 150
• {{cl|Dancers by nationality}} 94
• {{cl|Dance organizations}} 86
• {{cl|European dances}} 82
• {{cl|Ballet dancers}} 70
• {{cl|Social dance}} 68
• {{cl|Choreographers}} 66
• {{cl|Dance companies}} 59
• {{cl|Folk dance}} 55

Usual caveats about false positives/general category weirdness on the one hand, and under-categorisation on the other, apply. Alai 00:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• {{tl|dance-bio-stub}} has been created & is filling up. I would support some broad sub-cats such as {{t1|ballet-stub}} and {{t1|folk-dance-stub}}, and maybe {{t1|ballroom-dance-stub}} since it covers a multitude of styles. Her Pegship 04:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• I guess splitting dances by regions or continents would be a good thing and I could also support own stub for ballet. Monni 19:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'm liking the idea of starting with Ballet, Folk, and Ballroom stubs and seeing how the articles fall out. Splitting by regions may work for the folk dances, but probably not many of the others.--Will.i.am 21:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• I like the dance names, but the Dancers have the most stubs, do you tink perhaps a Dancer stub is needed the most? Goldenrowley 23:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Dance-bio-stub should deal with that, and covers choreographers, too. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

{{t1|dance-bio-stub}} already has 125 articles in it. I surfed around the articles in {{t1|dance-stub}} today, and think I'm going to push at least these the following four:

{{tl|ballet-dance-stub}} {{t1|modern-dance-stub}} {{t1|ballroom-dance-stub}} {{t1|folk-dance-stub}}.--Will.i.am 23:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Those mostly sound plausible, am least sure of the "modern" one: there's not even a {{cl|modern dance}} permcat. Is {{cl|contemporary dance}} synonymous? I can only find 20 dance-stubs under that. Alai 00:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Hm. You're right (I was really thinking of a category that would include modern, postmodern, free, and expressionist - I guess all "contemporary" dances). In practice, here they're called "20th Century Concert Dance", which is rather unruly.--Will.i.am 05:41, 19 October 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|sent to SFD and consensus to rename}}

Consensus over at WP:MILHIST is for the renaming of a number of categories, one of which is a stub category. Just to ensure that everything is calm over at CfD, are there any objections to the following renaming:

• :Category:Military unit stubs to :Category:Military unit and formation stubs

Carom 19:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't, but as this requires admin action (deletion of the old cat), it should really be tagged with {{tl|sfr-c}}, and go to WP:SFD to properly determine consensus for same. (At the risk of being accused of process-fetishish, as seems to be popular these days.) Alai 19:30, 18 October 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 root TV-stub type is so large it doesn't bear thinking about, but this might be one small chip off it: 83 of them are in/under {{cl|Philippine television}} (which seems an odd category name, but what do I know?). Alai 15:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:support Monni 16:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::Support. I take it you'd use {{tl|Philippines-tv-stub}}? Seems to me the perm cat should be {{cl|Filipino television}}, but perhaps that's only for peeople. thadius856_talk 18:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Yes, I think the template is straightforward enough (give or take the usual -TV- vs. -tv- thing). Alai 19:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:Support, good to see this finally break the threshold. Crystallina 20:49, 17 October 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 by genre}}

The TV program(me)s are oversized again, and we're truly spoilt for choice: there's (at least) three axes of split available:

By network:

• {{cl|CW network show stubs}} 106
• {{cl|CBS network show stubs}} 93
• {{cl|NBC network show stubs}} 70
• {{cl|UPN network show stubs}} 68
• {{cl|CBS Paramount Television series stubs}} 64
• {{cl|ABC network show stubs}} 52
• {{cl|WB network show stubs}} 39

By genre:

• {{cl|Non-fiction television series stubs}} 94
• {{cl|Children's television series stubs}} 93
• {{cl|Drama television series stubs}} 87
• {{cl|Comedy television series stubs}} 85
• {{cl|Sitcom stubs}} 58
• {{cl|Animated television series stubs}} 46
• {{cl|Reality television series stubs}} 44

By decade:

• {{cl|2000s TV show stubs}} 66
• {{cl|1990s TV show stubs}} 63
• {{cl|1980s TV show stubs}} 48
• {{cl|1970s TV show stubs}} 56

These numbers are obvious undercounts, some moreso than others. Also this only considers the root category, not any of the country-specific ones. Alai 04:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

: support by genre. Monni 15:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support by genre as well. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support by genre. Decade seems rediculously hard to navigate (where does Law & Order fall?) and by network is equally flawed (syndication). thadius856_talk 18:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support by genre per thadius856. Her Pegship 20:08, 16 October 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|Animated film stubs}} 264
• {{cl|Animated television series stubs}} 237
• {{cl|Animated character stubs}} 112
• {{cl|Warner Bros. Cartoon stubs}} 90
• {{cl|Animator stubs}} 72

The first two look a little false-pos-y, but I'd imagine they're viable regardless. Next three look relatively "clean", would deal with oversized parent for the moment. Alai 04:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:support Monni 15:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support This has been needed a split for awhile. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, and what about {{cl|Disney animation stubs}}? Her Pegship 20:09, 16 October 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 "politican"}}

• {{cl|Bharatiya Janata Party leader stubs}} 184
• {{cl|Indian National Congress leader stubs}} 98

Don't ask me why the permcats use "leaders" rather than "politicians", but they do. If there's no logical reason for this, perhaps it should be CFR'd. Alai 03:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:Conditional supportprovided the categories are renamed to "politician". This is one of the rare occations where I believe we should deviate from the permcat name. The templates should use "-politician" and the permcat should be renamed as well. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 19:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::Nommed as a CFR. Alai 19:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:Created as {{cl|Bharatiya Janata Party politician stubs}}, {{cl|Indian National Congress politician stubs}}. Pardon our redlinks, CFR looks like the fix is in. Alai 04:02, 23 October 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}}

Sportspeople are oversized again, these number 77. Alai 02:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:Support, but as {{cl|Canoeist stubs}}, not canoer! Grutness...wha? 03:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::As studiedly neutral (if not to say, uninformed) as I am about the -er/-ist issue, the permcat is at {{cl|canoers}}, and in a rare display of consistency, so are its 47 subcats (which is all of them, aside from {{cl|doping cases in canoeing}}). Alai 03:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:weird. I've just checked several dictionaries (including one US one) and none of them even list conoer as a possible alternative. Google does support it, though, although canoeist seems more popular (480,000 hits vs 75,000). Grutness...wha? 05:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::Might be a good time for a CFR, then. Would save a whole two edits for the stub-type later! (And the job queue some work, to be fair.) Alai 05:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:And whether there's renaming or not, a template redirect could have its use. Grutness...wha? 05:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::From {{tl|kayaker-stub}}, right? :) Alai 05:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:::That too :) Grutness...wha? 06:01, 16 October 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|Ticino geography stubs}} 194
• {{cl|Canton of Fribourg geography stubs}} 164
• {{cl|Valais geography stubs}} 153

Oversized again, these are cantons du jour (vom Tag, del giorno...). Alai 01:43, 16 October 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|icon changed}}

I think the image should be changed on this stub template. I realise that it is only iodine, but it looks like blood in this small thumbnail, and I have to say that as someone who is admittedly rather squeamish, I find it rather off-setting. Now I am by no means saying that such images have no place on wikipedia, however I do not think it should appear on articles where a user is not expecting to find it (like Bedrest or Cold turkey for example). Personally I would rather just remove it completely, as the Wikipedia:Stub guidelines oppose stub icons anyway. However if it is felt that an image is really neccesary I would suggest an adhesive bandage or gauze as the focus. Walkersam 20:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

:Support change of icon. I don't feel that removal is necessary, though I agree that a bandage suit it better. (Fixed your links, btw) thadius856_talk 22:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. A picture paints a thousand words...eww. Her Pegship 20:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• What about this? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• It had the "old style" Wikipedia:Perfect stub article and Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub duplicate links, and categorised the project page. Though I suppose you were actually asking about the image. :) Alai 21:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Well, yes. I just did a quick subst and changed the image. I was just leaving work and I didn't have time to double check it. Thanks for fixing it. =) ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:19, 18 October 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}}

After my self-inflicted fiasco over splitting down :Category:Ancient Rome stubs, and my mistaken creation of all those stub-types (mea culpa), I'm a little nervous of putting my head above the parapet. Nevertheless, I'ld like to suggest something like the above, though not necessarily with those names. There are definitely 60 or 60 plus settlements within the Rome stubs / structures within the Rome stubs, which would benefit from being grouped together, and, if this might cut across present-country rules as suggested, the country name could be added to the template and it made a category of that country's buildings as well as of Rome's. User|Neddyseagoon 18:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• To clarify: are you saying there's 60 of each, or 60 of the two combined? (If the latter, what'd you call the category?) Alai 22:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Separately. User|Neddyseagoon 09:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Then I think on balance I'm OK with the structs, but would prefer that {{tl|Ancient-Rome-town-stub}} be combined into {{tl|Ancient-Rome-geo-stub}}. (Without a separate such template.) Alai 17:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'm still opposed to this for the reasons mentioned in the SFD nomination. Towns are always grouped by current location. Note that no other ancient civilisation has a separate location stub - not even ones that covered a greater area and for longer time thatn the Roman empire. Certainly a separate town-stub is a very bad idea, as explained earlier. There is nothing wrong at all with giving a location a combination of its current location geo-stub and an Ancient-Rome-stub, especially since the latter is far from overfull (it is farly large, but at least in part because of undersorting at present). A mil-stub makes a lot more sense, since military matters relating to Ancient Rome belong to a specific time and civilisation, but a geo-stub makes very little indeed, especially since most of the places covered by it still exist either as continuing modern places or as archaeological sites. As for a struct-stub, the same problem applies - structures are grouped by current location. An Ancient-Egypt-struct-stub was deleted a few months ago for that very reason. Grutness...wha? 03:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• I don't doubt that you have good intentions here, but I am not feeling comfortable about this one. If the Hagia Sophia in Const... (ahem; Istanbul) was a stub, it would consequently have to be tagged as both a Byzantine monument and as a structure in Turkey. Problem is that some locations have been ruled by many different nations, each of who could have modified the structure. I'm just afraid that we could be opening something which could get out of control, so hence, I reluctantly Oppose. But again, I don't doubt your good intentions. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 15:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Opposed. Valentinian voiced my thoughts perfectly. This would be duplicating the topic of existing stub types. Goldenrowley 00:07, 23 October 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 AncientRome-battle-stub}}

Likewise, there are sufficient military articles in the Ancient Rome stub category which cannot (eg on items of equipment) to supply this new one. (Abortive beginnings towards this may be seen in :Template:AncientRome-military-stub). User|Neddyseagoon 18:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• This one seems mostly OK, if a little light on size currently, though the {{cl|Ancient Roman war stubs}} subcat looks like distinct overkill. Alai 22:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, this one seems fine to me, too (note that I didn't propose this one for deletion, though it does need renaming as suggested). Grutness...wha? 03:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• I couldn't find any mentioning about size here, but otherwise no problems here. Regarding the War stub, we normally use {{tl|AncientRome-battle-stub}}, and we don't have "war" stubs for other nations, so let's stick to the "battle"-stub. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 14:54, 16 October 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}}

Found a good deal of these while poking through France-bio-stub (oversized). Probably more than 60, at any rate. Crystallina 15:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

:Naturellement. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 15:03, 16 October 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}}

Artist stubs are at 6 pages; French biographies are just below 6. This has such a large scope that it'll surely exceed threshold; my searches confirmed this. (French painters, which are already split off, would be moved into a subcategory.) Crystallina 15:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

: Magnifique. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 15:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• D'accord. Her Pegship 20:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• I created the template on the basis of an old proposal, in Archive26, to help thin down the artist-stubs having found about 30, feeding them into the Euros. If I'd remembered we had a current proposal, I'd just have gone ahead and created the corresponding category. Alai 01:39, 19 October 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|Sports by year stubs}} 128 (or, {{cl|Sports season stubs}})
• {{cl|Ball game stubs}} 110
• {{cl|Water sports stubs}} 97
• {{cl|Racing sports stubs}} 80

Oversized parent, these look plausible. Alai 05:55, 14 October 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 philo-book-stub}}

Would run to 62 stubs, by my count from {{cl|philosophical literature}} and subcats, and {{cl|philosophy stubs}}. A somewhat narrower {{tl|philo-book-stub}} / {{cl|philosophy book stubs}} would probably also be viable (instead): I count 53, doubtless there's a few more. Parent is spilling onto five pages. Alai 03:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Aelfthrytha 04:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support either; prefer {{tl|philo-book-stub}}. Her Pegship 16:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• OK, went with that, partly as it's grown somewhat in the meantime. Alai 00:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• I thank you, and the non-fiction book stubs cat thanks you. Pegship 04:24, 23 October 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 category is definitly over sized and I believe there are a number of possible splits

• {{tl|USSR-athletics-bio-stub}} and {{cl|Soviet track and field athletics biography stubs}} (over 100 articles) for athlete who competed for the Soviet Union.
• {{cl|Greece track and field athletics biography stubs}} (over 60 articles) there already exists a template for this category

Other countries with more than 40 articles and therefore probably large enough for a template are

• {{tl|Sweden-athletics-bio-stub}}
• {{tl|Finland-athletics-bio-stub}}
• {{tl|Ukraine-athletics-bio-stub}}
• {{tl|Romania-athletics-bio-stub}}

these templates would make it easier to split these off when/if they reach a good numberWaacstats 00:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:Support per nom. Alai 00:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:Support - I corrected the spelling onnyour proposed templates, BTW (they all said "athltics") Grutness...wha? 01:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

::Damn Cut and paste. Waacstats 21:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:I've taken the liberty of creating these at Blah athletics biography stubs (rather than Blah track and field athletics biography stubs), following the permcats, these being at "Blah athletes" in both cases. Alai 01:28, 19 October 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|N/A}}

Jean Pierre Ruhinguka was a Tutsi officer member of the RPA (Rwandese Patriotic Army)'s rebel army during the 1990/1994 stage of the liberation War in Rwanda.

Jean Pierre Ruhinguka was born Pierre Munanira in 1966 in CIBITOKE province North West of the Republic of Burundi.Jean Pierre

Ruhinguka's father Isaie Ruhinguka fled Rwanda in 1961 following the so called 1959's Hutu revolution. Isaie was a medical graduate from Rwanda when he arrived in Burundi. The family then moved to the capital Bujumbura in 1968.Jean Pierre Ruhinguka grew up and studied in Bujumbura.

He joined the National University of Burundi in 1985 in Faculty of Medicine.In 1986 Jean Pierre Ruhinguka was one of the founding members of "Jeunesse Patriotique Rwandaise (JPR)".Later the JPR became a branch of the Rwandese Patriotic Front based in Kampala-Uganda.Jean Pierre Ruhinguka was among few Tutsis youth from Burundi who joined the NRA(National Resistance Army of Yoweri Museveni in Uganda)in late 1987 for a 6 months military training.

Later Jean Pierre Ruhinguka was sent back to Burundi for mobilizing the Tutsis youth in that country in preparation of the Liberation war.

In Novemeber 1990, one month after General Fred Rwigema started the Liberation struggle, Jean Pierre Ruhinguka joined the RPA(Rwandese Patriotic Army) leading a group of 500 young Tutsis from Burundi, most of them fresh graduates and students from the Burundi University.

Jean Pierre Ruhinguka died in December 1990 under unclear circumstances.A power struggle between Tutsis exiled from Uganda against tutsis exiled from Burundi may be the cause of the death of Jean Pierre Ruhinguka as he was considered a prominent leader among the so-called "BARUNDI".

• Erm, scuse me?? Pegship 04:22, 23 October 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 propose a split of the above category based on some of the remaining continents and other countries

• {{tl|Jamaica-athletics-bio-stub}} and {{cl|Jamaica track and field athletics biography stubs}} (over 60 articles)
• {{tl|Canada-athletics-bio-stub}} and {{cl|Canada track and field athletics biography stubs}} (over 60 articles)
• {{tl|Asia-athletics-bio-stub}} and {{cl|Asia track and field athletics biography stubs}} (over 100 articles)
• {{tl|Oceania-athletics-bio-stub}} and {{cl|Oceania track and field athletics biography stubs}} (over 75 articles)
• a possible alternative is for Australia only (+60 articles)
• {{tl|CAC-athletics-bio-stub}} and {{cl|Central America and Caribbean track and field athletics biography stubs}} (over 100 articles excluding Jamaica)
• this category would be based on the athletics governing body and include Mexico

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

:Sounds like a good plan to me: support all. Alai 23:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:As above, support all - though I'm not happy with the name "CAC-" - I'd suggest two templates here, {{tl|Caribbean-athletics-bio-stub}} and {{tl|CentralAm-athletics-bio-stub}}, which could feed into the same category for now. It will also make it easier to split later. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

::That's indeed better plan. Alai 01:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Looking at it again it may be better just to split the Caribbean athletes out and leave the Central American athletes (approx 15 Mexican and 2 other) in the main cat otherwise this would leave the main cat undersized with just South American athletes. Waacstats 21:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Or that, sure. Not that leaving the main cat undersized isn't an issue: if it contains several subcats, it's perfectly fine to have it for that reason alone. Alai 22:41, 14 October 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 has been oversized for a while now, but it's not hugely clear how to split it. No "named league" seems to be viable as a type unto itself: closest is {{cl|Spartan South Midlands Football League}} at 54 articles, and a few others in the same ballpark. (Categorisation seems to be fairly good, so I don't think these are subject to any large amount of undercounting.) There's no permcats by "level" or "step" of the league system, and besides those would change fairly often. As geographical location obviously doesn't (well, not much...), and as most of these stubs seem to be level 9 or lower, I suggest we split according to the level 7 or level 8 leagues these all "feed" into. That is, either:

• Northern Premier League
• Southern Football League
• Isthmian League

or else:

• Northern Premier League
• Southern Football League Midlands
• Southern Football League South & West
• Isthmian League North
• Isthmian League South

I'm open to suggestions as to how to word these to make clear they're not necessarily in these leagues, but simply are in those particular "hierarchies". Alai 02:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not overly happy with this method - the problem, of course, is teams get promoted and relegated. And there are some cases where a team can tumble through several leagues if it runs into financial difficulty (most recently, this happened to Canvey Island, only last season). I'd be far happier to split geographically - the fact that the lower leagues are more or less geographically split into northwest, northeast, southwest and home counties would give us a head start, too. Grutness...wha? 03:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• I am proposing a geographical split. Alai 03:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Hm. I misread what you meant, sorry. A geo-split and a split by league isn't quite identical, since a team near the borders of two regions can find itself shuttling backwards and forwards between two regional set-ups (not that that's a big problem, it only affects a handful of teams). But it was the tying of the names directly to the different leagues that folled me... perhaps it would be better if we named them as EnglandNW-footyclub-stub, etc.? Grutness...wha? 03:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• As I say, I'm flexible as to the names. Mind you, I'm not sure what clearly identifies them, other than something to the effect of "teams in leagues which feed into Southern Football League South & West". Alai 04:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Though on the template names, I'd make sense to use the more specific league name, upmerged. e.g., {{tl|SpartanSouthMidlands-team-stub}}, feeding into {{cl|Southern Football feeder league team stubs}}, etc. (Those are both still mouthfuls, I'll grant...) Alai 02:20, 10 October 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 Canadian, defer others}}

• {{cl|Canadian record label stubs}} 44
• {{cl|German record label stubs}} 37
• {{cl|Australian record label stubs}} 34

As {{cl|Record labels by country}} has only 248 articles, these seem likely to be viable, if sorted the hard way. Alai 04:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• comment seems a little low for split... Monni 18:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• If the above was perhaps a little unclear: the record labels stub type is five listings pages, but of those only 248 are in the by country permcat hierarchy (so there's almost certainly large amounts of undercounting). Alai 18:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Well... It was a little unclear, but the general rule still stands, template first and then recount, category if atleast 60 articles. Monni 19:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I actually did a hard count on Canadian record labels awhile ago (maybe a month ago), and it didn't quite make 60. Came close though. Crystallina 17:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Well... if is is only one or two below, then creating even a category could be considered, but if it is not... time for upscope Monni 18:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• I went ahead and created the Canadian one; if anyone else can chip in a few more, it's well on the way. Worst comes to the worst, we can merge to a North American type, if it doesn't grow in a reasonable space of time. I'll hold off on the other two, partly as the parent is now (just!) under the 'oversized' threshold. Alai 00:25, 19 October 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 would like to propose the creation of United States military operation stubs as a subcategory of {{cl|United States battle stubs}}. There are over 75 articles at {{cl|United States military stubs}} that begin with the name "Operation" but can not really be classified as battles. Please also look at {{cl|Military operations}} and Military operations. And what about non-combat military operations (e.g. Operation Garden Plot). According to the note at the bottom of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#Battles section: for the purposes of categorization, no distinction is generally made between "battles" and "operations"; all combat operations should be placed in the appropriate categories for battles, regardless of whether "battle" appears in the title of the article.--- Skapur 02:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per nom. :) The permcats, in line with your quote from MILHIST, use "operations and battles" it seems: why would it be desirable to split these up, for stub-sorting purposes? I've no objection to making the scope more explicit, an additional (upmerged) template, or if thought necessary, renaming the category to {{cl|United States military operation and battle stubs}} or some such. Alai 05:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• I had attemted to make the scope more explicit (see history of {{cl|United States battle stubs}} and of {{tl|US-battle-stub}}) but the change got reverted by Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} who advised me to post a request here so that you may monitor it. Please see my talk page. --- Skapur 05:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• He indeed has a point that it would ideally be done consistently across the various "battle" types, rather than as a one-off, but I see no reason in principle not to do. OTOH, the template texts should be kept reasonably short (which is one reason why a separate template feeding into the same category might be a plan). Alai 06:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

::::The proposal above was suggested by me on Skapur's talk page, but I'd also gladly support Alai's suggestion about a separate template feeding into the "old" category. That suggestion might in fact be even better than my own. I'd simply prefer to keep the text of the "battle" templates short and consistent, and the "operations" terminology is normally used in connections with theUnited States military (so it seems based on the material here), and for many nations, an expanded text doesn't seem to make sense. But we have more than 60+ of these articles, so there is enough scope for at least an upmerged template. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 07:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

:Per discussion, I am creating the stub template to go to the {{cl|United States battle stubs}} and changing the description of the category to indicate that it also includes operations.

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent 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 compiled a list here with more than enough articles to start the section. It should help trim down the parent {{cl|Aviation stubs}} by a substantial amount.

I'm not quite happy with the name, but I'm trying my hardest to avoid {{tl|aviator-bio-stub}} as many were presidents of manufacturing companies, designers, engineers, etc etc.

Proposed stub template? No idea. I could use some help with that. Thadius856 01:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

:Support.' The template name in the heading is good and in line with other template names, IMHO.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 21:00, 15 October 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 will make {{tl|anime-stub}} a great deal smaller as a subcat of it. If you use the List of Naruto episodes and check each of the articles from sections Season 6 and Season 7 you'll find enough to cover the 60 or so to create this stub category. A majority of these episode articles are stubs, not just those seasons that I just used as an example. If I were to guess I'd say there are approximately 100 just linking from that list of episodes article and they are bloating the anime-stub category. However there are also many other Naruto based pages that are stubs, not just the episode pages. For example: Rookie Nine and Naruto the Movie 3: The Animal Riot of Crescent Moon Island --Squilibob 13:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::Good plan, then. The parent's been getting very big, high time it was tackled... Alai 15:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I decided to count all the stubs. These are just for the episode articles alone:

:Season One: 12 stubs.

:Season Two: 11 stubs.

:Season Three: 25 stubs.

:Season Four: 22 stubs.

:Season Five: 22 stubs.

:Season Six: 23 stubs.

:Season Seven: 24 stubs.

:Season Eight: 13 stubs.

Total: 152 stubs. --Squilibob 14:01, 15 October 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 with redirects}}

:We already have :Category:Aircraft components, but no corresponding one for stubs. I'm proposing that the stub woks as a subcategory of {{tl|aircraft-stub}} (obviously).

:Also, {{tl|engine-aircraft-stub}} and {{cl|Aircraft engines stubs}}

:See :Category:Aircraft engines. Like above, we have no corresponding stub category for engines.

::I'm thinking that have the engine stub as a sub of components would make the most sense and allow for further splitting of the components section later on.

:I've also made a list of articles that would qualify for both new stubs. I've only gone through the {{cl|Aviation stubs}} so far, so I'm sure I'll turn up more fairly quickly. Thadius856 01:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:Sounds plausible to me; given that an engine is a component, the two could be merged, if the worst came to the worst. As the aviation stubs are over 600, fairly timely, too. I might add a redirect to a template name in somewhat less Reverse Polish style, though. Alai 02:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::Sounds great, Alai. What would you recommend for the redirects? {{tl|aircraft-engine-stub}} and {{tl|aircraft-component-stub}}? Thadius856 03:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:::That's what sprang to mind. Alai 04:01, 12 October 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 subcategory to {{cl|United States government stubs}} will be supported by Project Congress. The parent category currently has about 1000 articles. A quick glance at the first 200 articles found at least 30 articles that fit into the proposed stub category. There are also articles in {{cl|United States politics stubs}} that would fit here.--G1076 06:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. And I changed category from "U.S. Congress stub" to "United States Congress stubs".—Markles 09:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support category (as modified), but could we make the template US-congress-stub, please? Cong can mean various thing, none of them Congress, and it's not as if it's in danger of becoming a "standard abbreviation", since it's essentially one-off. Alai 14:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• I have modified the template.--G1076 15:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Where? It looks red-linked to me.—Markles 15:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Alai and also that Congress ought to be capitalized. Thus, {{tl|US-Congress-stub}}.—Markles 15:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• I believe G1076 means that the link was modified. Alai
• Alai is correct, thanks for clarifying. I have modified the link as capitalized.--G1076 15:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've uploaded a list of candidates stubs, specifically all the US-gov-stubs also under {{cl|Legislative branch of the United States government}}, to User:Alai/UScongress. Alai 15:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Excellent list, thank you. --G1076 15:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, very very excellent! I've now alphabetized the list. Why? I don't know. Maybe it will help when it's time to restub them.—Markles 20:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Fair enough. :) If you've looked over the list and Deemed it to be Good, I can restub them by 'bot when the type is created. Alai 00:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• I've added more articles found at US-poli-stubs. It's unformatted, as I figured that you can put the articles in whatever format you need to run the 'bot.--G1076 06:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Ideally, just link the article titles, otherwise the format doesn't matter. Alai 07:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:Hmmm. the icon's a bit unwieldy - certainly a bit longer than the preferred 35-50 pixels. But any smaller and it'll be indistinguishable from the side view of a Klingon Bird Of Prey :) Might I suggest the following icon instead:

:Image:Uscapitolindaylight.jpg

:Grutness...wha? 04:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::That seems a little large, and none too clear either. Might I suggest either of the above, cropped to the capitol dome? Alai 05:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I have removed the Bird of Prey icon 100px and replaced it with a much better image. Note that the image is of the Capitol in one of its formative incarnations--kinda like a stub version of the Capitol.--G1076 05:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've created a gallery, below, for ease of discussion. Feel free to add more.—Markles 13:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A. USCapitol 1829:

----

B. Image:Uscapitoldome.png:

----

C. USCapitol1801:

----

D. United States Capitol at sunset, 2004.:

----

E. US Capitol Dome High Res Jan 2006:

----

I don't think →the "Bird of Prey"←(C. USCapitol1801.jpg) is a good idea. You can't tell what it is at stub size. The "Bird of Prey" ("A. USCapitol 1829") isn't distinguishable as pertaining to Congress (at least to the untrained eye). I've added a couple from {{cl|Images of the United States Congress}}, for your discussion.—Markles 13:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC) modified by --G1076 13:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I support A. Second choice E. --G1076 13:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support E. Her Pegship 22:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support A or B - E looks too similar to St Paul's Cathedral, London (though that's not a huge problem, I suppose). It's a shame that the contrast isn't better on D. Grutness...wha? 23:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• What about this, then: 40px. Alai 01:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• rather nice - I could live with that. Grutness...wha? 01:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• B would also be clearer at 40px if cropped a bit (it's probably already OK for contrast). Alai 02:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Cropped and uploaded. Her Pegship 19:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Instant support for A or E, they both are attractive! so much I think the president will be jealous we don't use it on the presidential stubs (I'm kidding on second part) Goldenrowley 00:07, 11 October 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}}

We already have stub categories for North American, South American, African, Asian, and European airport stubs. I'm assuming this is a breakdown by continent, since Cental American and Carribean are subs of North American. It only makes logical sense to add in the 7th continent - Australia.

I've composed a list of airports that are eligible for movement if the new stub and cat subs are created. It should be more than enough to justify creating them.

Proposed stub layout:

If accepted, don't forget to remove the : I placed before the Category link. Thanks! Thadius856 00:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:Actually, it probably makes more sense to have {{tl|oceania-airport-stub}} first (which I would support), since Australia is counted primarily as part of Oceania on wikipedia and this type would be a little more all-encompassing. It would also cope with the three on the list that you weren't sure about. (Norfolk Island would automatically count in Oceania anyway - the other two are a little more problematical, but would normally go under Australia). The breakdown isn't strictly by continent, BTW - just by whatever continental/regional grouping makes most sense size-wise (usually but not always continent - for some things we split off things like the Middle East). As to the stub layout, it would be standardised like the other airport stub types - i.e., as you've done it, but not centred! Grutness...wha? 00:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with Grutness. An Oceania stub would make more sense. Then the only things left in the airport stub category would be non-airports. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree too, though it's not far off being viable to have both, by the looks of it; I count 50 airport-stubs under {{tlx|airports in Australia}}. No harm to have an upmerged Australia-airport-stub, at the least (just not a centred one, I hope). Alai 02:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:I hadn't planned on it being centered; that was just for style here, as the bold heading above it looked a little funky with both left-aligned. I've removed the centering and indented it here, so it doesn't look like the end of my original request. I was under the impression that only small islands were considered "Oceania", but I suppose it makes sense. I'm not an Aussie, so I'm by no means an authority on this. Alai: once I'm done with all the California airports (at least a week left), I plan on starting up stubs for all of the Aussie ones too, which will make enough...

:...if there's no objections, I'll go ahead and make the Oceania stub once we've reached the 7 day mark. Thadius856 04:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::FWIW, I'm not an Aussie eithr, but I am a Kiwi, so I've got some idea about it :) And yes, if this is here for seven days with no objections, go for it! Grutness...wha? 04:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:I've updated the proposal above to avoid any confusion of those who haven't been following it. Counting down the days! :) Thadius856 09:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::Dumb question. If I'm making the "upmerged" version, do I make both Oceania with Australia as a sub, or just make the Oceania and put Austalian airports in there? (Please excuse my newbness, couldn't find any Wiki namespace articles on Upmerging.) Thadius856 20:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Upmerging is basically where you have a template that feeds into its parent category without having its own category. So you would have {{tl|Oceania-airport-stub}} which would feed into {{cl|Oceanian airport stubs}} and a {{tl|Australia-airport-stub}} which would also feed into {{cl|Oceanian airport stubs}} instead of its own {{cl|Australian airport stubs}}. Does that makes sense? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Makes perfect sense! Thank you. Would there be an issue if somebody was to unknowingly list it under both? Would it be listed twice in the cat, or is Wikipedia already prepared to deal with that? Thadius856 03:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::I don't think so; this seems to happen semi-regularly for (sub)categories, and aside from one sort-key overriding the other in some less-than-obvious manner, it doesn't seem to cause any problem. Alai 04:04, 12 October 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 would like to propose the creation of a stub category for the United States Coast Guard as a sub category for United States military stubs --Skapur 16:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Seems unlikely to be viable on size; I can only find 7 US-mil-stubs in the {{cl|United States Coast Guard}} category tree. Alai 17:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

::There are more articles. Some are put in US-mil-bio-stub (like Frank A. Welch that you put in there), some do not have a stub tag and I intend to create more articles on individual USCG districts, sectors, stations and cutters that do not have a page that will start out as stubs. There are articles that are tagged with USN-stub like Naval Helicopter Association that could as well be tagged with a Coast Guard stub. See the category "United States naval ship stubs" as another example --- Skapur 19:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

::In addition the US Coast Guard performs a lot of non-military functions (e.g. search and rescue, licensing of mariners etc., Aids to navigation maintenance, recreational boating safety etc.) that really do not belong in a pure US-mil-stub. --- Skapur 19:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

:::But you don't say how many more. If the issue is completeness or scoping clarity, I'd have no objection to a template, upmerged until such time as there's 60. Alai 20:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

::::That sounds like a very workable solution. By my count there are approximately 30 articles currently in the US-mil-stub category that can get a proposed USCG-stub. Thanks --- Skapur 05:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:Here are 79 articles that could get the stub that currently have US-mil-stub:

1. Advanced Boat Force Operations Badge
2. Advanced Helicopter Training
3. Ancient Order of the Pterodactyls
4. Anthony Petit
5. Badges of the United States Coast Guard
6. Baltimore Maritime Museum
7. Barbara Mabrity
8. Boat safety
9. Car-boat
10. Coast Guard "E" Ribbon
11. Coast Guard Arctic Service Medal
12. Coast Guard Bicentennial Unit Commendation
13. Coast Guard Command Enlisted Identification Badge
14. Coast Guard Honor Guard Badge
15. Coast Guard Intelligence
16. Coast Guard Investigative Service
17. Coast Guard One
18. Command Master Chief Petty Officer
19. Commandant's Letter of Commendation Ribbon
20. Commandant Staff Badge
21. Coxswain Badge
22. Cutterman Enlisted Badge
23. Damage controlman
24. Dassault Falcon
25. Elmer Fowler Stone
26. Enlisted Person of the Year Ribbon
27. Fast Response Cutter
28. Flag of the United States Coast Guard
29. Flag State
30. Gary Blore
31. George Cobb
32. Great Lakes Floating Maritime Museum
33. Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum
34. Harbourmaster
35. Integrated Support Command Kodiak
36. International Search and Rescue Competition
37. James Rankin
38. Joshua Applebey
39. Katherine Walker
40. Lighthouse tender
41. Lightvessels in the United States
42. Maria Bray
43. Marine Environmental Protection
44. Marine Investigation (USCG)
45. Marine Military Academy
46. MARSEC
47. Menemsha, Massachusetts
48. Merchant Mariner's Document
49. Meritorious Team Commendation
50. Military of Palau
51. Military of the Bahamas
52. National Museum of Naval Aviation
53. National Vessel Movement Center
54. Naval Aviator Badge
55. Naval Helicopter Association
56. Navigational aid
57. Office of the Secretary of Homeland Defense Identification Badge
58. Office of the Secretary of Transportation Identification Badge
59. Operational Distinguishing Device
60. Operational Dress Uniform
61. Physician Assistant and Nurse Practitioner Badge
62. Port Security Badge
63. Port State
64. Restricted Duty Ribbon
65. Secretary of Transportation Outstanding Unit Award
66. Shore patrol
67. SPARS
68. Special Operations Service Ribbon
69. Surfman Badge
70. Surfmen
71. Tactical Law Enforcement Badge
72. Underwater Port Security System
73. United States Coast Guard Reserve
74. US Coast Guard in popular culture
75. USCG aids to navigation boat
76. USCG Air-Sea Rescue, at USAF Base, Kindley Field
77. USCG Base, Whites Island, Bermuda. WWI
78. William Charles Bowser
79. William J. Kossler Award

:::*Support. .... Goldenrowley 00:11, 11 October 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 at least 100 livestock stubs by my estimation, the majority being breed pages. This would be a sub-category of {{tl|Agri-stub}} which has about 500 articles and is much too broad.

Dukemeiser 11:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• good idea - I, erm, tagged ear tag the other day, which fits this one nicely. I can see the possibility of it eventually being split between cattle-stub and sheep-stub, too. Grutness...wha? 05:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, I had considered a cattle, sheep, pig stubs, but I thought I'd take it one step at a time. Oddly enough, horses already have a stub. Dukemeiser 04:02, 6 October 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 just found and populated a template for Qatar, and since a stub for Bahrain has already been proposed, Oman is now the last country in the Middle East missing a national template. Furthermore we already have a {{tl|Oman-geo-stub}}, which could need a holder. I admit, I haven't done a count (and StubSense is useless here), but I believe the last 10 countries proposed all broke 60+ so I'm pretty sure Oman will do the same. I suggest we create the missing generic Oman template feeding into {{cl|Middle East stubs}}, and give it a category as soon as we have 60+ articles. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - per nom. Oman deserves a stub category just as much as any other country. -- Ci e lomobile ^{minor7 ♭5} 03:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Aelfthrytha
• Me too. Grutness...wha? 23:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

:I have created both template and category. We had 70+ articles. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 11:34, 8 October 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}}

By a hand count of the {{tl|BurkinaFaso-stub}}, I count 54 bio stubs. However, this would seriously deplete the Burkina Faso base stub (roughly 80 stubs as of now).--Thomas.macmillan 21:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• I just did a little simple stub sorting from the Burkina Faso category and now there are at least 90 Burkina Faso stubs. With a bit more sorting, I think it will be able to stand alone without the bio-stubs.--Thomas.macmillan 21:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• As that would give BF-stub three subtypes, I'm not too worried about it dipping below 60 top-level stubs. Alai 14:22, 4 October 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 printmaking-stub}}

{{tl|drawing-stub}}, {{cl|drawing stubs}}, {{tl|draw-print-stub}} and {{cl|drawing and printmaking stubs}}

Under category of Art: I could get about 60 or more in these art mediums. I am aware of the potential issue that there might potentially be overlap with standard printing processes although there is not a printing stub yet, is there.... Goldenrowley 20:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Bit of an odd combination... any reason for grouping drawing and printmaking together? Seems to me a bit like having an architecture-and-kinetic-sculpture-stub. Perhaps a standard printing stub to include both art printing and trade printing would make more sense? Grutness...wha? 12:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Well the rational is they are both a type of line art rendering on paper, but maybe it will be best to not join those categories drawing & printmaking. Since there is a wikiproject visual art project that lists both these mediums, could I do one of each even if I do not have 60 stubs each? Here are the Wikiproject categories of visual arts: Crafts | Design | Drawing | Painting | Photography | Printmaking | Sculpture. We have most of these covered. These are all BASIC art media. Maybe I can find some art pencils and pens in the wrong categories. Maybe since there is a WikiArt project. Goldenrowley 01:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Mmmm. It's pushing it a bit to say that these two types would be possible with lower numbers because of the WP, but... see how many there are in each first - could be that they'll be close to a splittable level anyway. I think we can afford to be a bit lenient on the 60 here, and hopefully more of them will be of one type than the other. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

:Ok here are my stub counts:

• Printmakting, engraving, and the like -- about 57.
• Drawing - a measly 10. I am shocked and amazed. I guess I'll have to propose Drawing later after enlisting more art writers. Goldenrowley

:At least that makes it fairly easy to say which one I'd support :) Grutness...wha? 07:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

:I'll make it a priority to do 60 printmaking stubs! I can find 3 more if I look hard enough. Goldenrowley 16:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC) - done

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

Plus consistent USA subcategory: rename {{tl|US-art-museum-stub}} as {{tl|US-art-display-stub}}. Rename {{cl|United States art museum stubs}} as {{cl|Art museums and galleries in the United States stubs}}. 10/5/06

{{tl|art-exhibition-stub}}, {{cl|art exhibition stubs}},{{tl|art-gallery-stub}} and {{cl|art galleries stubs}}

{{tl|art-exhibits-stub}} and {{cl|art exhibitions and galleries}} or else {{cl|art exhibitions stubs}}

Under category of Art: Are Art Galleries considered an organization? Are exhibitions? I do not see them as orgs because they are usually run by smaller legal entity than a full blown organization, so I suggest first that any articles on art exhibits, expositions and galleries should be pulled from art and art organizations and become a new subcategory. Is there a viable count? Goldenrowley 20:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'd have counted galleries separately, and listed them as a subtype of museum-stub and art-stub. There's certainly a big difference between galleries and exhibitions. Also, there are numerous different types oif galleries, some of which could count as organisations, others as companies, and others as something else entirely. I'd suggest splitting this into {{tl|art-exhibition-stub}} and {{tl|gallery-stub}}, and I'd suspect the latter would be the more useful and more populated. Grutness...wha? 12:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• I would like to split them as you suggest. I was just not sure I can find 60 of each. Art Exhibitons are in the Visual Arts Project so I anctipate you will approve that one at a lesser count. Galleries seem to be popping up dailyand we might have 60 already. However I would never put a gallery under 'art museums'. A place where art is for sale is not a museum ( I shiver just thinking of it). Goldenrowley 01:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Sounds like a regional/national language variation. Here they're all called art galleries, whether they are archival galleries (i.e., art museums) or commercial galleries. The term art museum is almost unknown here, and tends to imply something which combines an archival gallery and a museum into one building (FWIW, this is one area I know something about, as an artist and art reviewer by profession!) I could stand not having museum-stub as a parent, though, even though I suspect that most of the galleries notable enough for articles would fall into that category. Grutness...wha? 02:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

:*I am an artist as well. We've stumbled upon another regional difference, what region do you speak for? In any town or city in USA there are art galleries, they are for glorified art stores, and art dealing. The main sites are New York City, New Mexico and San Francisco but they're everywhere. In contrast, the Smithsonian would be considered our largest museum (not for sale, for the public to come enjoy art). Museums might bring in "exhibitions" or send some of their art out on a world exhibiton, to show from some of their rooms or go on tour to show their prized collections Goldenrowley 18:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

:: Ok I've thought about it. I like how the Permanent categories resolve this regional wording by just doing "musem and gallery" together, not separate. Here's what I recommend to match the names of the permanent categories. This will be a viable plan and number counts are high:

::(1) make a new stub named {{tl|art-display-stub}} and category named: {{cl|Art museums and galleries stubs}}, it's parent is {{cl|Art museums and galleries}}. Place it right under category of Art Stubs. Move the museum/galleries out of general art stubs and organizations here.

::(2) rename existing {{tl|US-art-museum-stub}} as {{tl|US-art-display-stub}}. Rename existing {{cl|United States art museum stubs}} as {{cl|Art museums and galleries in the USA Stubs}}. (1a) add 31 USA galleries I've located. (1b) over time review USA style gallery stub and nominate unimportant stubs for deletion.

::(3) Make the USA set as the first sub-category of "Art museums and galleries stubs". Goldenrowley 02:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• sounds like a good scheme. BTW, in answer to your earlier question, I'm in New Zealand, but as far as I recall the UK also uses art gallery for both shop-galleries and "art museums". I do note that major US exhibition venues use the word "museum" as part of their name (the Guggenheim Museum, the Whitney Museum, etc), but in the UK and elsewhere in the world the word "gallery" is used (The Tate Gallery, and the National Gallery, London, for example) - Britain seems to be becoming more ambivalent about the term art museum, though it still implies something that is both a museum and a gallery (i.e., has more than just artworks) rather than simply a gallery. In the city where I live the main public art venue is the Dunedin Public Art Gallery, BTW. I suspect another US/UK difference, with NZ following the British lead. Grutness...wha? 03:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• This distinction seems more subtle than systematic; the US has "galleries" that are public art museums, such as the National Gallery of Art, even if "museum" is the more common term there. It seems to be common in Australia and Canada, and is certainly the usual term in UK&I. Alai 14:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• So is that a support, Alai? I'll be matching permantent category structure. Goldenrowley 17:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Of a combined museums and galleries type? Sounds OK to me. Alai 17:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Yes I moved the 4 final proposed names to the top. I crossed out initial ideas. Goldenrowley 18:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• BTw, that's now a support from me, too, but with one slight change - I'd prefer either {{cl|Art museums and galleries in the United States stubs}} or {{cl|United States art museum and gallery stubs}} to {{cl|Art museums and galleries in the USA stubs}}. Grutness...wha? 23:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• I can go with {{cl|Art museums and galleries in the United States stubs}} Goldenrowley 23:49, 5 October 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 several stubs under the topic of signal processing, which could benefit from a category. I've put them under {{tl|Mathapplied-stub}} which is kind of OK, but "applied maths" doesn't really describe their topic. Would like to create "signal-processing-stub" as a category. Examples: Quadrature mirror filter, Mel frequency cepstral coefficient, Warped Linear Predictive Coding mcld 16:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Agree but with a caveat - the wording will have to be quite specific to indicate that this is for applied maths and not psychology - signal processing and signal detection theory are important areas of research in perception and cognition. Grutness...wha? 12:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC) (who sat through a few too many talks on Type II ROC curves in his time as a psych postgrad)
• OK, I don't mind adding a note to this effect. However, there's no such note on the main Signal processing article, or associated category. I can't find anyting on wikipedia dealing with the psychological interpretation of the term. Is it really a term used in psych? Is there anything on wikipedia I can refer people to? --mcld 14:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, it's definitely used - Detection theory covers some of the gory details. Grutness...wha? 03:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Seems plenty viable, and narrower types have been previously created, but deleted on size, so I think there's a distinct sorting need. As this is the sense of signal processing, and {{cl|signal processing}}, it seems clear enough in scope. Alai 14:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This stub type has now been created. Thanks for the comments.

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent 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 has three more countries getting to 40 stubs, but none getting to the 65 mark. No new categories this time, then, but I propose the following new templates:

• {{tl|Bhutan-geo-stub}} → {{cl|Asia geography stubs}}
• {{tl|Falklands-geo-stub}} → {{cl|British Atlantic territories geography stubs}}
• {{tl|SierraLeone-geo-stub}} → {{cl|West Africa geography stubs}}

Grutness...wha? 05:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

:Support, of course. Aelfthrytha 16:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

:Eponymous support, apparently. Alai 18:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

:Support Goldenrowley 04:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

:Strong oppose (just kidding). Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 19:15, 6 October 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 in the permcat, this looks the most plausible split of the US-singers. The "by style" container is not that well populated, so I suspect a significant undercount, as with the other subtypes. Alai 16:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

:Support. R&B is a recognized genre. The abbreviation is very well known if you want to use it Goldenrowley 18:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

::The categories generally seem to use "rhythm and blues" (aside, admittedly from {{cl|R&B album stubs}}). For the template name, I was thinking of {{tl|RnB-singer-stub}}, following {{tl|RnB-album-stub}}. Alai 22:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

:Support. Sounds good to me. Goldenrowley 02:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - per nom. I'd also suggest {{RnB-singer-stub}} for the template. -- Ci e lomobile ^{minor7 ♭5} 03:57, 5 October 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 by decade of birth}}

Following the TVs, this was always likely to not be far behind. No existing permanent sub-category looks to be viable, though {{cl|American silent film actors}} looks close at 55. (Though that may include actors not primarily/exclusively notable for silents.) Other than that, a split by decade-of-birth would be an easily-implementable solution. Alai 12:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support split by decade of birth. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support split by decade. Monni 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Ok I've come around and see this is the only way Goldenrowley 19:21, 7 October 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 unwittingly created a new stub, not realizing that there was a process to go through to create the stub. That having been said, I would like to use this stub as a replacement for {{tl|Pennsylvania-State-Highway-stub}} for articles related to Pennsylvania state routes.

My apologies for not following proper procedure. myselfalso 19:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• No way. We try to avoid acronymns in stub templates at all costs. Also, we would not want to confuse this with Pash. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 21:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - "pash-stub" would be a redirect to "love-stub" if anything (only there isn't a love-stub). This one should be sfd'd pretty quickly. Grutness...wha? 23:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Love handles, maybe, but love-stubs....?! ♥ Her Pegship♥ 03:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Fair enough. I didn't realize that Pash existed, and that could create some confusion. I have no problem if it is sfd'd. --myselfalso 02:39, 5 October 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}}

Category:Richmond, California, Category:Richmond City Council, California and others that i have yet to track down, many WWII Navy Ship articles also.Qrc2006 23:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Badly named, tiny scope: oppose, SFD. Alai 00:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• how is the scope tiny, 108 is tiny? renamed.Qrc2006 08:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• too small, and not in Canada (that is, CA), and proposal would cut across several more appropriate stub types. Oppose Grutness...wha? 01:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• 108 is small? yes California, which more approproate stub types would those be?Qrc2006 08:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Scope is way too small. If it was larger, it would need to be something along the lines of {{tl|Richmond-California-stub}}, which would lead to almost all articles it was on being double-stubbed. Since it only has 3 articles in it, I'm going to concur with Qrc2006 on SFC. Thadius856 02:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

108 is small? it is larger and i renamed it to conform to that scope, im inexperianeced and now know how to name it correctly., you concur with me? with what? Qrc2006 08:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• There are 108 articles in the Richmond, California category and its subcategories as of oct 10 2006. Qrc2006 08:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• QFC2006: I was concurring on SFD with Alai for deletion of {{tl|richmond-ca-stub}}. Sorry for the typos. Now, while I agree with you that there are a decent amount of articles in the Richmond category, I don't think the scope of the proposed stub category is large enough. You see, it's only natural for articles to be listed under multiple categories, but it is my impression that one of this WikiProject's purposes is to be able to categorize all stubs sufficiently by only adding one stub tag to each stub article. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong... I'm pretty new to this as well. Thadius856 09:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

this isnt a wikiproject tho, ohhh is that how it works? that if a stub that allready exists can cover any of these articles a new stub isnt neaded?Qrc2006 04:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• that's basically it, unless there's a group dedicated to working on one particular subject (such as a WikiProject). Look at it this way - we already have over 2000 stub templates and categories to try to keep track of. If every city in the US (or, let's face it, every city in the world) got its own stub template and category, how many would need to be patrolled? And, unlike the main, permanent categories, stub categories aren't really designed for navigation by readers - they are designed to be used by editors and precise enough for them to know that they've got a good chance of expanding articles in a category, but still coarse enough not to have the category with a small and quickly emptied population. As for whether 108 articles is enough - that's 108 articles. Just because there are articles on a subject doesn't mean they'll all be stubs - even if half of them were stubs them there'd be fewer than the 60 threshold. Thjadius isn't quite right, though - two or three stubs on an article is perfectly fine, though a specific town or city is not likely to be one of the first two or three things that a person would search for when looking for articles to expand. As to what stubs would be more appropriate, if the articles are geographical (places in Richmond), then California-geo-stub or one of its subctypes would be more appropriate (IIRC California has been broken up largely by country for geo-stubs) for politicians, California-politician-stub. For WWII naval ships, there is USN-stub and WWII-stub, and so on. Grutness...wha? 04:53, 12 October 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}}

117 just under {{cl|Dance occupations}}; haven't trolled the {{cl|People stubs}} yet. Her Pegship 22:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• This was actually approved as {{tl|dancer-stub}} back in June 2006. Um, speedily create? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• If we can create it as {{tl|dance-bio-stub}} it would also include choreographers, promoters, patrons of terpsichore, et al. Her Pegship 19:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Makes sense. Go for it. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• support Monni 19:36, 13 October 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}}

How about it, just like the United States new art museum/gallery stub section. When stubbing last night the UK was the most stubby museum subcategories (see {{cl|Art museums and galleries in the United Kingdom}}) aside from the United States. There are what 400 UK --(245) museum stubs to check as well. (I have this kind of art museum temporarily double stubbed as both UK-museum-stubs and art-display-stubs, but just one UK-art-display-stub would be better for art museum grouping and counting). Goldenrowley 20:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:I see that {{UK-museum-stub}} has 200 pages in its contents. How many of these would you say could qualify as being under the new stub? If it's > 60, I'd support it. Thadius856 21:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::Stub sensor says 105 (not just there, also in museum-stubs and other places). I saw definitely enough to group as a set. Goldenrowley 22:43, 10 October 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 proposing this stub with some hesistancy. By hand count, I found 71 people under {{tl|Albania-stub}} but some of these are definitely people from Kosovo, Macedonia, or Montenegro that are ethnic Albanians. What is the stub-sorting policy for those disputed people?--Thomas.macmillan 17:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's not like we have any actual policy on anything, strictly speaking, and on this, I don't think we even have any formal guidelines for people to ignore. But I think there's been a general sentiment against "ethnic" types, which would suggest to me that Albania-stub, or any Albania-bio-stub, be applied only to those with a direct connection to the modern state. (Admittedly there are cases like Ukraine-stub, where application is to several different historical states, and none, but this sounds like an even more dubious case.) Alai 17:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Creating it, and, in sorting, shall rid the Albania-stub of non-Republic of Albania people.--Thomas.macmillan 02:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Excellent. :) Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 16:06, 15 October 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 the five-page {{tl|actor stubs}} has only 329 also under {{cl|actors by nationality}}, I'm factoring in a certain "John the Baptist" factor, and assuming that:

• {{cl|Asian actor stubs}} 48

will be viable, after some manual sorting. Indeed, it's quite likely that {{cl|Brazilian actor stubs}} will be too, at 25 in the above, but to be on the safe side, I'm instead going to propose:

• {{cl|South American actor stubs}}

Which I'm assuming will be a racing certainty. Alai 14:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support both per nom. "John the Baptist"?!? Her Pegship 20:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• "he'll buy anyone's premise, just bump it down 25 percent" -- "That guy over there says he's Jesus Christ; even if he's lying, he's John the Baptist." Alai 06:25, 13 October 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|um, BJAODN?}}

:it appears to be, yes. And it's a stub article on a bank, so that makes perfect sense. Your point is...? Grutness...wha? 23:15, 7 October 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|Berkshire building and structure stubs}} 60
• {{cl|Yorkshire building and structure stubs}} 54

Just the Berks one will take care of the oversized parent for the time being, Yorkshire one is close to threshold, and after that we're likely looking at English regions. Alai 16:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• support - but wait until we know for certain how the cats should be named (cf. the SFD debate). Grutness...wha? 00:35, 6 October 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 cat}}

I've found a lot of them.

• Aleksey Zhivotov
• Alexander Alyabyev
• Alexander Goedicke
• Alexander Gretchaninov
• Alexander Levine
• Alexander Lokshin
• Alexander Tcherepnin
• Alexei Fyodorovich Lvov
• Anatoly Lepin
• Arseny Koreshchenko
• Boris Tchaikovsky
• Dmitriy Borisovich Kabalevskiy
• Eduard Artemyev
• Ella Adayevskaya
• Evgeny Golubev
• Gavril Popov (composer)

Foxjwill 22:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Commendable, but so far I've only found 39 under {{tl|composer-stub}} and {{cl|Russian musicians}} (down 3 levels). If you can find more composer stubs not tagged as Russian, or more Russian stubs not tagged as composers, that would bring it up to a stubbable level. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• If there are that many, it might be worth making the template but having it feed into parent categories for now - I've no doubt that it will be eventually viable in its own right. Grutness...wha? 23:28, 3 October 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|N/A}}

There is no category for Switzerland or Swiss. There should be subcats for Swiss people, history, and such. -- Alarob 03:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• See {{cl|Switzerland stubs}}, and children. If there's a need for additional types, can you be a little more specific? Alai 05:34, 13 October 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|referred to sfd}}

Palestine is the region, and this deals with the proposed Palestinian state and west bank and gaza. Amoruso 20:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• SFR Monni 20:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• All country stubs follow this format: {{tl|countryname-stub}}. Thust {{tl|Palestine-stub}} is appropriate. Oppose on those grounds. Aelfthrytha 04:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Aelfthrytha. If a stub for the state is needed, I suggest we use {{tl|Palestine-stub}} for the proposed state and {{tl|Palestine-geo-stub}} for the region. Her Pegship 04:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Aelfrytha.DuncanHill 10:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, and revert any unpropsed changes. Grutness...wha? 03:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 14:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Interestingly, the {{tl|Palestine-geo-stub}} template describes it as applying to the proposed state, not the region. Her Pegship 20:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• The wording on the geo-stub changes every few days. It originally said Palestine, but that caused confusion with the earlier boundaries of the place with that name, so it was changed to West Bank and gaza (which personally i think it should have remained as), then to the Authority until someone pointed out that you can't have locations in a government, then... etc etc etc. Grutness...wha? 22:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'd have thought it would be relatively uncontroversial that the intended scope was the Palestinian Territories. I imagine, however, that WP being WP, a) it won't be, and b) that it certainly won't be uncontroversial what said territories should be called. (Occupied, disputed, small t, capital T, whatever else.) Alai 22:31, 16 October 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 category ONLY as parent}}

{{cl|Transportation stubs}}: Can a stub cat be created for this? Wiki-uk 14:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:That's a fair question. It's not immediately clear to me if there's huge numbers of transport-in-general stubs that would need a "misc." type, but there's bound to be a few. (Do you have any idea how many?) At present, the vast majority of these will be sorted to a more specific stub type: rail-, road-, airport-, vehicle-, etc, and their manifold subtypes. But if there's even a moderate number, it might make sense to have this to also serve as a "semi-container". Alai 16:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::I'm also wondering about the quantity of stubs that would fall under this umbrella. I'm guessing that hybridized modes of transportation (not to be confused with hybrid engines in cars) could find this useful. However, I can only think of one type that might vaguely categorize as such: subways. However, they more likely fall into {{Rail-stub}}, as they're just underground railways. If there's enough articles, I may support it. Thadius856 18:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I was thinking in terms of articles like "Department of Transport (Small Country)", or anything about transportation-in-general. Alai 00:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:A {{tl|metro-stub}} already exists, by the looks of it... and is quite useful, judging by recent discoveries listed at WP:WSS/D... as to the original request, a transportation category is probably a very good idea as a parent for all the subtypes mentioned, though it might be better as a parent-only (i.e., with no template) unless there are a large number of stubs that wouldn't be otherwise categorisable. Grutness...wha? 23:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::My question came up actually when I started article Trunking (transport) and wanted to put it in a stub category; I don't know where to put it otherwise, and without doing so, it will not be clear that it's just a stub. It could be that there are more stubs articles, but I didn't check this. I would say that a stub category 'transportation stubs' would be good thing to start with, to show the status clearly, and may avoid making many subtypes with only a few stubs inside them. Wiki-uk 14:50, 14 October 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 area code stubs}}

107 of these, would help with the somewhat-oversized telecoms stubs. Alai 18:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

:Scoping Objection: the North American Numbering Plan covers not just the US, but also Canada, Bermuda, and most Anglophone Caribbean countries. Would {{tl|NANP-stub}}/{{cl|North American Numbering Plan stubs}} work? --CComMack (t•c) 19:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

::I'm proposing this on the basis of {{cl|Area codes in the United States}}. I don't see a NA permcat, but if one were to be created on that basis I'd be fine with that, or indeed with a still-wider scope such as {{cl|Area codes}}, or {{cl|Telephone numbering plans}}. (The actual contents would be much the same in any of these cases, really.) Alai 20:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

:::(/me looks at the permcats). Oh, bleh. I see why it's that way, but it's just unfortunate. That said, it seems like {{cl|Area code stubs}} is probably the best split that follows the permcats. --CComMack (t•c) 09:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Fine by me. Alai 14:16, 4 October 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 managed to nurse Haiti up to the 65 threshold for its own geo-stub category. it already has a template in use (currently upmerged into the Caribbean stubcat) so creating and sorting a separate category should take mere seconds (he says, hopefully). Grutness...wha? 11:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds great to me.--Thomas.macmillan 19:49, 26 October 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.