Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/September 2008#Alaska geostubs

{{sfp create}}

Although the main Vietnam stubs isn't overly large, Vietnamese geography stubs is nearing 800 and seems to wrongly categorise many articles which would normally be building and structure stubs. There also are many articles which aren't even stub tagged at all. {{cl|Thai building and structure stubs}} was recently created which will be a useful tool for WP:Thailand. There isn't as many articles on Vietamese buildings but it easily passes 60 and would be useful I think for the project. The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:Anything that gets struct-stubs out of the geos would be very useful. Support. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Created. Now around 80 stubs tagged so far. The Bald One ^{White cat} 20:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Well over 60 stubs on buildings in Thailand. There is some considerable overlap with purely Bangkok related articles too as far too much activity seems to be centred on it. For organisational purposes I would however propose a new ordering for Bangkok articles a main Bangkok-stub and also some upmerged templates for some of its content. There is already a {{tl|Bangkok-geo-stub}} but I'm not sure if this is intended for the provincial type articles rather than articles about the city itself. Could have {{tl|Bangkok-struct-stub}} linking both The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:I'd certainly be willing to see a Thailand-struct-stub. Not 100% sure about the Bangkok-stub, though it may be useful especially if - as you say - there's a lot of activity there. As far as the Bangkok-geo-stub's concerned, it's currently upmerged into {{cl|Central Thailand geography stubs}}, since it's not in heavy use. If a {{cl|Bangkok stubs}} was created then it (the geo template) could be double upmerged happily enough. The geo-stub is for ther province, BTW (it should say so, but doesn't for some reason); any generic Bangkok-stub should probably also be for the province. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Main stub category {{tl|Buddhism-monastery-stub}} organized by religion. {{tl|Buddhism-monastery-stub}} The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:{{cl|Buddhist monastery stubs}} would probably be a better title... are there 60? Grutness...wha? 22:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

:Category:Swimming biography stubs has various geographically based sub-categories. A survey of the contents of this category shows a sufficient number of stub articles for creation of two additional sub-categories: :Category:Chinese swimming biography stubs (65+ articles) and :Category:South American swimming biography stubs (~40 from Brazil, ~5 each from Peru, Argentina, Columbia, Uruguay, Venezuela...). Yboy83 (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Support -Some of the others could probably be upmerged The Bald One ^{White cat} 18:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Definite support for the Chinese one (with template at {{tl|PRChina-swimming-bio-stub}}, as per standard). With the South American one we'd need to decide whether to have just one template ({{tl|SouthAm-swimming-bio-stub}}) or separate ones for each country all upmerged into a South America category. Given the size of the main swimming bio stubcat it's not urgent, but it would be nice to have. Grutness...wha? 01:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support PRChina and South American category, given the numbers Brazil template, if someone has the patience I have no problem with individual country templates for the rest, otherwise go with SouthAm-swimming-bio-stub. Waacstats (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Category is over 600 and currently has 1 subcat, I propose the following based on catscan

• {{Tl|Brazil-volleyball-bio-stub}} - {{Cl|Brazilian volleyball biography stubs}} (70)
• {{Tl|Japan-volleyball-bio-stub}} (41)
• {{Tl|Italy-volleyball-bio-stub}} (41)
• {{Tl|Turkey-volleyball-bio-stub}} (41)
• {{Tl|Germany-volleyball-bio-stub}} (32)

Waacstats (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as revised}}

The following all have templates already with 60+ articles

• {{Cl|Rally biography stubs}}
• {{Cl|Moroccan athletics biography stubs}}
• {{Cl|Danish badminton biography stubs}}
• {{Cl|Filipino basketball biography stubs}}

Waacstats (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:Crikey no rally bio stubs or filipino basketball bios??. Definately speedy The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support the three nationality ones, but Rally is a dab page, so we need some better name than that for the first one. It's slightly tricky, too - the article's at Rallying but there are two permcats at {{cl|Rally racing}} and {{cl|Road rallying}}, which are overlapping but not identical. Rallying seems to be the general term, though, so perhaps {{cl|Rallying biography stubs}}? It might even be worth making a {{cl|Rallying}} as a parent for both the other permcats. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• Rallying seems to be the term used by the WP so am happy to go with that. Waacstats (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• {{cl|Rallying}} now exists, and I've also proposed renaming of {{cl|Rally racing stubs}} to {{cl|Rallying stubs}} over at SFD for the same reasons as mentioned here. Grutness...wha? 22:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

A last one from the Pakistan tidy-up. {{tl|Pakistan-film-stub}} is now used on 83 articles - speedy? Grutness...wha? 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy. Also add {{tl|Poland-film-stub}} to that speedy proposal which has around 110. The Bald One ^{White cat} 20:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• That's not speediable on the same basis, since you've only just created the template, and it's currently on two articles -- on of which is in Czech. Where are these 110 articles? Alai (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• O Bald One, you must learn control. Please use CatScan or some other method to bring a count of actual existing stub articles, or you will surely be corrected by our many stubinators. No assumptions, please. :P Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oops sorry. There are now over a 100 existing Polish film stubs and I will be adding many more by a certain film director so should be 150 + stubs soon enough. I thought it was the right decision to make seems as I was going through the articles adding the cinema templates. Sorry if the creation wasn't welcome The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Given that there are clearly over 100 marked with this template, I don't think it's a wrong move - it was just a case of being a little hasty. If you'd waited a day or so and said "Poland too - there are 100 stubs marked with that template" no-one would have batted an eyelid. Makes little difference either way though, as long as the category's full enough, which it is. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as discussed}}

Image:Alaska boroughs and census areas 1997-2007.png

Image:Alaska divided for stubs.png

:Category:Alaska geography stubs currently includes 660 articles, and could likely do with a split similar to that which has been done to US states such as Ohio and West Virginia. Propose creation of a stub for each borough and census area under the pattern {{tl|BristolBayAK-geo-stub}} and {{tl|SoutheastFairbanksAK-geo-stub}}. As far as categories, let's say :Category:Alaska Panhandle geography stubs for Yakutat and everything to its southeast; :Category:Southwest Alaska geography stubs for Kenai Peninsula, Lake and Peninsula, Kodiak Island, Bristol Bay, and the Aleutians; :Category:Metropolitan Anchorage geography stubs for Anchorage and Matanuska-S. (corresponding to the Anchorage metropolitan area); and :Category:Northern Alaska geography stubs for everything else. I expect that categories along these lines would all result in 60+ localities, although I admit that it's possible that we'd have to redraw my proposed boundaries. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:We seem to have defining -- or at least hand-wavily defining -- articles for those regions, so it sounds perfectly plausible enough to me. Support. Alai (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::Perhaps we should follow the article Anchorage metropolitan area, thus {{cl|Anchorage metropolitan area geography stubs}}. We don't seem to have a North Alaska or Northern Alaska article, but as a catch-all it'll perhaps suffice. Alai (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Now that I think of this, we would do better to have the Bethel and Dillingham Census Areas in Southwest, rather than in Northern. Any problems with that idea? Nyttend (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::::And if this name format for Anchorage is more standard, support that format instead of my initial proposal. Nyttend (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::I have no idea, I'm just going by our own article. (Which I realize isn't the best practice as regards sourcing for mainspace, but for consistency, and for housekeeping purposes...) Do the incorporated vs. the unincorporated areas in the north help at all? Alai (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] By "incorporated" and "unincorporated" do you mean boroughs vs. census areas? By my count, there are only 71 incorporated areas (all cities, most of which are tiny [for example, Shageluk, population 129], and none of which have very much area) in what I'm proposing for the Northern Alaska section. Assuming that's what you mean: I don't think that we need to worry about B vs. CA distinctions: the Bs are equivalent to counties in other states, and the CAs are county-equivalents that we geography people generally treat like counties (for example, they have their own templates, such as {{tl|Nome Census Area, Alaska}}), so I think we should treat Alaska just as if the census areas were counties. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:Sorry, wrong terminology. I mean the Unorganized Borough, Alaska. Alai (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:I've added a map with my proposed boundaries: the Alaska Panhandle is green, the Anchorage metropolitan area is red, Southwest Alaska is blue, and Northern Alaska is yellow. Nyttend (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::If you have references for the usage of Northern Alaska, any chance you could write a little article for definitional purposes? Alai (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::I don't have references for the usage of Northern Alaska; it's simply that those boroughs and CAs are the ones not included in the Anchorage area, in the SW, or in the Panhandle, and they tend to be in the north. Do you think another name would be in order? I can't imagine any, but I'm really not an Alaska geography master. Nyttend (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Aside from what I've said already, I think a separate section for the Unorganized Borough would be a problem simply because it changes periodically: just in the last two years, Skagway and Wrangell have been organized as boroughs out of the Unorganized Borough. Nyttend (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::Point taken. If "Northern Alaska" isn't a commonly-accepted term, maybe it would be better to leave these in the parent, for now. (Via upmerged templates or otherwise.) I'm not hugely exercised either way, though. Alai (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::I simply proposed this name because rather obvious that these areas are the northern part of Alaska; judging by regions linked by {{tl|Alaska}}, I'd guess that locals generally think of several regions (such as the bush and Arctic Alaska) in this area, but which would be inconvenient or impossible to divide on a county level. You're the stubsorting person, not I, but wouldn't it seem rather odd to put only some county-level entities into their own regional stub categories? Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] A few things... Firstly, I suggest you change Southern Fairbanks to Fairbanks Metro and extend it to include Fbks North Star Borough and Denali borough. Secondly, add Valdez-Cordova borough either to Anchorage Metro or Southeast Alaska, but don't leave it in Northern/Arctic Alaska, since the region is usually considered to be South-Central or sometimes Southeast, but never northern. L'Aquatique[parlez] 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I'm responding to Alai's request for comments at WikiProject Alaska. I'm not aware of any formal definition of Alaska's regions, but there are five or six regions which are conventionally identified. Nyttend's proposal misses Interior Alaska, but covers the others:

:::::::* Southeast Alaska (a.k.a. the "Panhandle" or the "Inside Passage")

:::::::* Southcentral Alaska (including the Kenai Peninsula)

:::::::* Interior Alaska

:::::::* Southwest Alaska (a.k.a "Western Alaska," including the Aleutian Islands)

:::::::* Arctic Alaska (a.k.a. "Northern Alaska" or the "Far North")

:::::::Sometimes Southwest Alaska and Western Alaska are distinguished by assigning the Aleutian Islands to the former. And it's true that the name for the northern region is the least stable of the lot. I think a lot of people use "North Slope" to refer to the whole region, although strictly that only applies to the coastal segment. The Alaska Office of Economic Development uses "Far North"[http://www.dced.state.ak.us/oed/student_info/learn/region.htm], as does TravelAlaska.com[http://www.travelalaska.com/Regions/StateRegions.aspx], the state's official tourism site. (By way of contrast, Alaska.com, run by the Anchorage Daily News, uses "Northern Alaska"[http://www.alaska.com/places/regions/] and The Alaska Almanac (Nancy Gates, 2005, p.189) uses "Northern/Arctic".) My preference would be to follow the state government sources, and call it the "Far North".

:::::::As far as the boundaries of the regions on Nyttend's map go, Southcentral Alaska should include the Kenai Peninsula and extend east to meet the border of Southeast Alaska. Southwest (or Western Alaska, if it's distinguished) should be extended up to the border of the Nome borough. And Interior Alaska needs to be distinguished from the Far North.

:::::::I support the proposal to get these stubs grouped by region. There are judgment calls to be made along the way, but the vast majority of cases will not be ambiguous. I'd be glad to join in on the sorting itself. -- Shunpiker (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks for the input and encouragement. You've helped restore my faith in the value of talking to other WPJs. :) If there turns out to be a 'critical mass' with those slightly finer regions, perhaps we could lump them back together, but instead call them {{cl|Arctic and Interior Alaska geography stubs}}, say. If there's 60 of each, though, let's go with each separately. Alai (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] How about these? These are the terms we generally use in Alaska, as well as their basic definitions.

{{User:L'Aquatique/akregionstubs}}

Let me know if these are acceptable, and I'll make the templates and necessary categories. Image:Face-grin.svg

L'Aquatique[parlez] 02:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

:I would support L'Aquatique's proposal with the minor quibble that there are better sources for calling the northern region "Far North" or "Northern Alaska" rather than "North Slope". Although I'm more familiar with the colloquial term "North Slope," it's something of a misnomer, and it doesn't seem to appear in formal contexts as naming one of the major regions of Alaska. (Please jump in if you can find an example to the contrary!) -- Shunpiker (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat nervous about these boundaries: not because I don't trust the Alaska people, but because I'm not sure that they'll get up to 60 stubs. On the stub ideas, I see no reason not to make individual borough and census area stubs, as that's the way we've split states; the way we've done it previously is to create individual county (i.e. B. and C.A.) stubs and upmerge them to regional categories, with regional stubs tags reserved for articles in multiple counties/county equivalents. In connexion with this is the Southwest Fairbanks area: this would be a stub for places in Southeast Fairbanks Census Area, not simply for an area near Fairbanks. Also, there's a problem with two maps: Kodiak Island Borough is split between Southcentral Alaska (by the way, wouldn't it be more natural to call it South Central Alaska?) and Southwest Alaska; we need to put all of the borough into S-C Alaska or S-W Alaska. I know it seems odd, but that's where the borough boundaries are (of course, you could always ask the legislature to change the boundaries!), and we always put individual county equivalents into just one category: it would be far more complicated otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

:For simplicity's sake for those who aren't often at this page, here's my full proposed list of stubs:

• {{tl|AleutiansEastAK-geo-stub}}, Aleutians East Borough
• {{tl|AnchorageAK-geo-stub}}, Anchorage
• {{tl|BristolBayAK-geo-stub}}, Bristol Bay Borough
• {{tl|DenaliAK-geo-stub}}, Denali Borough
• {{tl|FairbanksNorthStarAK-geo-stub}}, Fairbanks North Star Borough
• {{tl|HainesAK-geo-stub}}, Haines
• {{tl|JuneauAK-geo-stub}}, Juneau
• {{tl|KenaiPeninsulaAK-geo-stub}}, Kenai Peninsula Borough
• {{tl|KetchikanGatewayAK-geo-stub}}, Ketchikan Gateway Borough
• {{tl|KodiakIslandAK-geo-stub}}, Kodiak Island Borough
• {{tl|LakeAndPeninsulaAK-geo-stub}}, Lake and Peninsula Borough
• {{tl|MatanuskaSusitnaAK-geo-stub}}, Matanuska-Susitna Borough
• {{tl|NorthSlopeAK-geo-stub}}, North Slope Borough
• {{tl|NorthwestArcticAK-geo-stub}}, Northwest Arctic Borough
• {{tl|SitkaAK-geo-stub}}, Sitka
• {{tl|SkagwayAK-geo-stub}}, Skagway
• {{tl|WrangellAK-geo-stub}}, Wrangell
• {{tl|YakutatAK-geo-stub}}, Yakutat
• {{tl|AleutiansWestAK-geo-stub}}, Aleutians West Census Area
• {{tl|BethelAK-geo-stub}}, Bethel Census Area
• {{tl|DillinghamAK-geo-stub}}, Dillingham Census Area
• {{tl|HoonahAngoonAK-geo-stub}}, Hoonah-Angoon Census Area
• {{tl|NomeAK-geo-stub}}, Nome Census Area
• {{tl|POWOKAK-geo-stub}}, Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan Census Area
• {{tl|SoutheastFairbanksAK-geo-stub}}, Southeast Fairbanks Census Area
• {{tl|ValdezCordovaAK-geo-stub}}, Valdez-Cordova Census Area
• {{tl|WadeHamptonAK-geo-stub}}, Wade Hampton Census Area
• {{tl|WrangellPetersburgAK-geo-stub}}, Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area (this is still the official name, despite the separation of Wrangell)
• {{tl|YukonKoyukukAK-geo-stub}}, Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area

:Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

::I don't see the logic of creating more finely-grained stub categories if the objection to the regional stub categories is that they won't have enough articles -- borough/census-defined categories are guaranteed to have fewer articles. As somebody that works on WikiProject Alaska, having stubs grouped by regions would much more useful to me than having them grouped by census area or borough, some of them being quite obscure. A couple of fine points:

::* The Alaska Office of Economic Tourism places Kodiak in Southwest Alaska, as does the Anchorage Daily News' Alaska.com. The Wikipedia article on Southcentral Alaska claims Kodiak, but I would question its authority.

::* Google shows more than twice as many hits for "Southcentral Alaska" than "South Central Alaska." "Southcentral" is also the form used by the State of Alaska sites and the Anchorage Daily News.

::Lest it be lost in the details: I really appreciate that Nyttend raised the issue of stub sorting for Alaska geo stubs! -- Shunpiker (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Commewnt - I'm a little surprised about some of the proposed names. AFAIK there's nowhere other than Alaska where there is somewhere called Yukon-Koyukuk, in which case the stub template name should simply be YukonKoyukuk-geo-stub (it doesn't need the AK disambiguator). The same is true for many of the other names. And I certainly am not in favour of a POWOKAK-geo-stub by that name! To answer Shunpiker's point though, as far as I can tell no-one is p[roposing fine-grained stub categories - only templates. The normal procedure when a state or similar region is split is to create all the required templates for the next administrative unit down 9i.e., county), but to upmerge those templates into regionalstub categories. Thus we'd have all the templates Nyttend suggests 9though hopefully with better names, as pointed out), but only four r five regional categories. Grutness...wha? 05:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

:I also don't quite understand how you can logically say that the categories are too detailed... then suggest a solution that would be more detailed!

:In any case, here's my take on this: the point of stub sorting is to make things easier for people. Even if we don't have at least 60 in each, that seems like a pretty arbitrary rule, why not 45, 100, 3.1415... etc? What I'm trying to say is, the sheer size of Alaska and the diversity of the regions, it makes sense to use broad terms that describe location in terms of east, west, south, north. Think of it this way: stretched end to end, Alaska reaches from about California to Florida. We are legally a state but in area are about twice the size of Germany- the largest European country excluding Russia. However, we have a minuscule population that is highly rural and spread out, which has led to a rather complex system of census areas, boroughs, and unnamed divisions. I'm a native Alaskan, and given a blank map I probably couldn't place half the boroughs or census areas, there's so many of them and they're relatively arbitrary.- so how is someone who's never been to Alaska supposed to know where Wade Hampton Borough is? The region descriptors are more user friendly! L'Aquatique[parlez] 07:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

:::How is having five categories more detailed than having a large number of categories plus a load of stubs still feeding into the main category since they are below threshold? (For the reasons behind the threshold, BTW, read user:Grutness/Stub rationales - it explains the reasons fairly well, even if I do say so myself). If you don't know where Wade Hampton Borough is, you add the WadeHampton-geo-stub tag and it automatically gets put into the right regional category. And thoise categories are there to help editors find things to expand, so if you don't know where Wade Hampton Borough is it's unlikely you'd be looking to expand any stubs in that area anyway. Think of it this way. Permanent categories aid people looking for information. Stub categories aid people looking to add information. People who are looking to add information will know well-enough what area they are looking for and therefore what part of the category tree> Also look at it this way - sure, Alaska is big and stretches a long way, but the number of stubs on Alaska is relatively small - overly fragmenting it with masses of categories would make working on the subject harder, not easier. if there were as many stubs on Alaska as there are on , say, Germany, then it would make more sense to split the categories up more, given that eqach iof them would still be large enough to be useful and practical. There aren't that many - though there are enough that the main category needs some form of split. As such, you have two general choices - 40-odd upmerged templates feeding into a handful of regional categories, or the same number of upmerged templates feeding either into individual categories or into the main Alaska category, depending entirely on a case-by-case basis on whether they have reached threshold. The former case is definitely NOT a more detailed solution, and is the solution generally used where possible by WP:WSS (I suggest you have a look at other cases where this is done, like the state-level US school-stubs, country-level struct-stubs, or - most tellingly7 - otherUS county-level geo-stubs. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

::I'm not proposing more finely-grained stub categories: I'm proposing a few categories, with several stubs in each. Look at :Category:Ohio geography stubs, in which there are eighty-eight different stub templates, but just seven stub categories. Each Ohio county has its own template, but they're merged into regions, as marked on this image. I'm proposing to do the same with Alaska.

::As far as the borough and census areas: with a geography article, it's easy to find where a place is: use the GNIS, or a map, or something like that; articles can remain in the statewide category if necessary. Look at the map at the top of this proposal, above my four-color map: there are only eleven census areas, and only nineteen boroughs; most Ohioans or West Virginians couldn't likely name all their counties either, but we've split both of those states by counties. I don't really see how this is different.

::As far as Grutness' idea: what name would you rather see for the Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan Census Area? I just thought that {{tl|PrinceOfWalesOuterKetchikanAK-geo-stub}} was rather awkward. As far as the AK, see the Indiana, Ohio, and West Virginia geography stubs, and the slightly differently named California geography stubs: all of them include the state name, even though there's not likely to be anywhere else with an {{Ashtabula-geo-stub}} or a {{Tuolumne-geo-stub}}.

::Finally, as far as the size: the stub sorting Wikiproject says that 60 is the minimum. That's not my idea. Please, everyone, seek to familiarise yourselves with Alaska geography and with stub sorting procedures: I think that everyone here who is confused is somewhat unfamiliar with one or the other, as both use specialised terminology. You can find stub sorting procedure elsewhere on this project page, and I've added links to all the borough and census area articles up above, so you can read somewhat about them. Nyttend (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

:::And by the way, it would make more sense I think to place Kodiak Island Borough in Southwest, especially as we have Stan Shunpike's state source for such a classification. As far as Southcentral: I was just questioning that because I've not seen that usage; as you've proven that it's more common in Alaska, no reason that Alaska should do otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

:Interesting about the county names in the templates. I'm sure they didn't have the extra letters designating state when they were proposed, and I'm very surprised that those letters are there. As to Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan, I'm not sure, but the POWOKAK suggestion doesn't seen a natural one. Perhaps a redirect of one to the other (there's nothing wrong with PrinceofWalesOuterKetchikanAK-geo-stub - it's a bit long, but easy enough to remember if you know the name of the place. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

::My big objection with the length of PrinceOfWalesetc.-geo-stub was that I expected that this project wouldn't like such a long name. I'm fine with it myself. Actually, as you can see on this archive page, the state name has been in county-level stubs from the beginning: California's stubs (which were the first to receive county-level splitting) had the state included, and Ohio (see this archive page) had the OH included in later stages of the proposal. I wasn't involved in splitting Indiana's stubs, and my proposal for West Virginia didn't include the WV in its stubs, but that's because I proposed doing them like Ohio and California and received no objections. I agree that we're not likely to run into any other PrinceOfWalesOuterKetchikans in the world, unlike (say) a Madison or a Franklin (see how many there are of Madison County and Franklin County nationwide), but I think it makes sense for consistency: after all, the article is entitled Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan Census Area, Alaska, and Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan Census Area is a redirect to that. Not a big deal, to tell the truth, but I think it's better to include the state abbreviation. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Alaska divided for stubs revised.png

What about this proposal? I've based it on [http://www.dced.state.ak.us/oed/student_info/learn/region.htm this] map from the Alaska Office of Economic Development, conforming it as well as possible to county-equivalent boundaries. With this, I'd propose that the regions be Southeast Alaska (green), Southcentral Alaska (red), Southwest Alaska (blue), Interior Alaska (yellow), and Far North Alaska (purple). This is similar to what we did with West Virginia geography stubs, in which our agreed-upon regional divisions were taken directly from a state transportation department website: [http://www.wvdot.com/7_tourists/7_images/7b_8regionsm.gif this] map is the source for our map. I think we could reasonably link the Far North Alaska stub to Arctic Alaska, with text such as "This article about a location in Far North Alaska is a stub..." Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

:I second Nyttend's latest proposal. Nice work integrating the AOED map with the borough map. -- Shunpiker (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC) (No relation to Stan Shunpike!)

::Sure, that looks almost exactly the same as my classification. I still stand by my usage of the term North Slope, but I do understand why North Alaska would be more appealing. L'Aquatique[parlez] 17:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Would you be willing to rework your regional maps along my proposed borders, if this proposal passes? Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Yes, absolutely. It should only take a few minutes, there are only a few differences. In fact, I'm on a high speed internet connection right now so... hold on a moment. L'Aquatique[parlez] 18:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::Okay, you may need to purge your cache to see the differences. Take a look and make sure I got them all. Also, note the shading I added on the southeast map so you can see it better. L'Aquatique[parlez] 18:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::Excellent. When can we start sorting? --Shunpiker (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] Thanks for the update, L'Aquatique, and for the good idea of shading around the Panhandle: they all look good. Sorting won't be done until the proposal time passes: it's five days, like AFD except shorter and in reverse :-) Once that time passes, I'll create (or you, or anyone else) the individual borough and census area stub templates, and the regional categories and stub templates, and we can start applying them in place of the {{tl|Alaska-geo-stub}}. We need the time to make sure that other issues are sorted out: for example, Grutness' concerns about the names of the individual borough and census area stubs needs to be satisfied, either by his agreeing to what has been proposed or by the proposals being changed. Nyttend (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

:I'm fine with the proposal as stands, though I am surprised about the AKs - as I said above, I'm pretty sure that the county-level types for other states were originally proposed without the digraphs. My one suggestion, though, would be to have POWOKAK-geo-stub as a redirect to {{Tl|PrinceofWalesOuterKetchikanAK-geo-stub}} (with lower case o in "of", as per the placename) rather than as the only template. It is shorter, but the others are in full, so this one should be too. I must admit to knowing too little of Alaska's geography to make any comment on the actual by-region split - I'll leave that sort of thing to those who know the area. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

:Okay, so I'm still unclear on one thing: are we going to have stub templates for every borough, census area, etc and categories for all the regions (which sounds great with me, btw, as long as they are sorted by region somehow). Shunpiker, if you're interested in sorting now, we can still get started on that since I'm pretty sure this will pass. I'm going to list out the boroughs/census areas by region on this page, just add articles in a list under the correct heading and then the actual sorting can be done by bot! L'Aquatique[parlez] 23:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

::I expect that we should have one for each borough and census area, but in regional categories, so Waterfall, Alaska will be in the Southeast Alaska regional category. It will also be good to have a stub for each region, for the sake of articles that cover places or features in multiple boroughs/census areas in a single region; the standard practice with places that are in multiple regions is to leave them with the state stub (for example, Isaban, West Virginia, a community split between two regions of WV), although given the size of Alaska, we're not likely to see a ton of use for such templates. Don't start the creation yet, however, since we must give this five days — wait until 11 September — although listing them on your subpage is a great idea. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

:::U through Z sorted...! L'Aquatique[parlez] 00:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

::::M sorted. --Shunpiker (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

::I'd be against the idea of having region templates - if a place is in more than one census area the usual procedure is simply to multi-stub it, up to a maximum of about four templates. The general trend at WP:WSS has been away from templates for what are, to be honest, fairly arbitrary regions. Isaban, West Virginia hadn't been fully stub-sorted (it is now). Grutness...wha? 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree. There's perhaps no prospect of it happening anytime soon for Alaska, but for some of the states county-level stub templates are already quite "full", and the regions may progressively become redundant, or only "containers" if they're kept. The counties (or in this case, boroughs) are also much more unambiguously defined, and are after all the actual primary subdivisions, so tagging on that basis seems highly preferable. Alai (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] I have made all the designs for the stub templates, when it's time to create, whoever wants to do that can find them here: User:L'Aquatique/AK. L'Aquatique[parlez] 18:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing left to decide: what are we going to call the region composed of the North Slope and Northwest Arctic Boroughs and the Nome Census Area? All I've seen are North Slope Alaska and Far North Alaska — in case you don't remember, I support Far North Alaska, because that's the name on the state-produced website that we're using as our source for regional divisions. We need to get this decided before the five days are up, so that we can create the category under an approved name as soon as the approval period is done. Nyttend (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

:As I've said, please don't create regional templates: they're more trouble than they're worth in the long run. I also strongly recommend avoiding double-link "stub" and "help" in the scoping text: the end up resolving to the same place, WP:STUB. As for the name, at first sight it looks to me that North Slope has the wrong scope, and Far North Alaska is a redlink. Can we integrate this source (or some other suitable one) into the text of one or other of the articles in such a way as to make the naming and scoping perfectly clear? Alai (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

::Whatever; if that's the tendency, I don't think we should go against WP:WSS standards. As the idea of Arctic Alaska and Far North Alaska seem to be rather similar, I've created a redirect from Far North to Arctic, and added bits relative to Far North at the Arctic article. Does this help at all? Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:::By the way, in relation to your don't-double-link statement: is it more standard to link "stub" or to link "help"? Nyttend (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

::::I just followed the way other stubs I've seen were setup. I would think you would link the one that came first, but I could be wrong.

::::As I said, I prefer North Slope, because that's what I and everyone else in Alaska uses. I would also support North Alaska and Arctic Alaska, preferably arctic. Far North sounds too much like a travel brochure, imho. L'Aquatique[parlez] 18:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::Is Nome generally considered to be in the North Slope region? Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::Thanks, Nyttend, that seems to cover that quite nicely. It's normal to link on "stub", though admittedly there's many around that are double-linked dating back in one way or the other to when there were two different target pages.

::::::Perhaps we should use {{cl|Arctic Alaska geography stubs}}, since it appears to me that the other terms either imply a different scope, or there's some opposition to that as a name. Personally, I'm happy with anything there's a well-scoped scoping article for. Alai (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, Nome is north slope. North slope is everything on the northern side [or slope] of the Brooks range and above, hence "North Slope". Sounds like Arctic Alaska is more popular, though. L'Aquatique[parlez] 22:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::The Alaska North Slope article is far from clear on that, mentioning only the North Slope Borough directly. The Arctic Alaska article is much more explicit, hence my preference and suggestion. (If the current state of these articles isn't indicative of common usage and reliable sources you might consider tweaking them, not to say merging them if there's no actual difference.) Alai (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] Aside from the question of the Alaska North Slope article (which confused me, too; I didn't realise that "North Slope" meant as wide as you say it does), I'm wary about calling the region this because it might sound as if the region were coëxtensive with the North Slope Borough. I still prefer Far North because that's what our source uses, but I'm quite open to Arctic. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

:If that really is our only/best source for such regions, perhaps the scoping article should indeed be renamed. The same rationale would presumbly apply (either way) for the category name. It does look to be touch-and-go whether this is numerically viable, so perhaps we should skip it for now. Alai (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

::Your point being that perhaps Interior and [disputed name northern region] should be just one region? We approved West Virginia regions that weren't big enough, so they weren't created until there were enough stubs; I expect that we could follow this procedure here too: the three stubs could be upmerged to the state template until we had enough of them. Nyttend (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

:::L'Aquatique has completed sorting the stubs on her page. The results by region are:

• Southeast: 139
• Southcentral: 108
• Southwest: 203
• Interior: 40
• Northern region (whatever we call it): 74

:::As I said, we could do like with West Virginia: simply leave the Interior region without its own category (with its stubs being upmerged to the state category) until there are enough stubs to satisfy the minimum. Since we're seemingly going at least somewhat with the state-produced map boundaries, I think this would be better than merging Interior and the northern region. Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

::::I'm fine with that idea also. (At first wink it looked as if Northern/Far North/North Slope/Alaska might be undersized also, not that that would really have made it especially urgent, either.) Alai (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::Feel free to tell me I'm really thick here, but I haven't been paying a great deal of attention and it sounds like I might be the one creating the templates. Are we still planning on having cats for regions and doing individual stub templates for separate boroughs/census areas? Also, I'm not sure I understand why we can't create the one for interior- it's under 60 or whatever arbitrary number is required but we will eventually have enough- part of the problem is this is literally the least unexplored part of the state and so there's less information available- but as more and more people start to hike it and our satellite imaging technology gets better, we're going to start having more information, thus more articles.

:::::Oh one more thing- while sorting, I noticed that some but not all articles are in categories based on their borough/census area. If I added some syntax into the stub template that would automatically add an article into their given [pre-existing] borough category, would articles already in that category be added twice? If not, it seems like a good idea, to help categorization. L'Aquatique[parlez] 04:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::Apparently we're not doing the regional stubs. Since there aren't many stubs in any of the regional categories on your stub listing page, you could probably just leave them there, and we can sort them later manually. You don't have to create the stubs or the categories; I had simply interpreted your words to mean that you wanted to do that. I'd be willing to, and anyone else who wants to do it will be permitted.

::::::As far as Interior Alaska: no, we will not create this category right now. To create the category now would be somewhat crystalballish, stating that there will be enough articles at some point so we should have a category now. The stub sorting project rules state that there must be at least 60 stubs that are in a category, unless it's the primary stub for a project, which need only have 30 — and it looks like the Alaska project is the only non-stub-sorting project involved here, not an Interior Alaska project. There's nothing wrong with saying that the creation is approved for whenever enough articles are created: that means that you or I or anyone else may create that category and move its stubs there without coming back here to get permission. One way to solve this problem would simply be to go out and create viable stubs on places in this region, so we could create the category rather soon :-) As far as the categories in the stubs, this is not a common feature; the stub-sorting project people can tell you whether that's okay from their end. My concern with that idea is that it might put the article in too broad of a category: for example, Pioneer Park belongs in the Fairbanks category, so if we made the geostub place it in the Fairbanks North Star Borough category as well, we'd be getting into overcategorization: and because the problem category is due to the stub, there'd be no easy way to fix it. Nyttend (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Agree with Nyttend on all counts. To amplify the point about the permcats: it's definitely not standard WPSS practice, and could well saving work in the short term, but making more in the longer run, for the reasons Nyttend mentions. However, I'd be willing to try to bot-add both at the same time, if people feel that would be reasonably accurate. (An if it's not 100% accurate, then at least it's then easily fixable after the fact.) Alai (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] Okay, great, thanks for the clarification. I'd be happy to create the categories and templates, just let me know when we're ready for that. L'Aquatique[parlez] 18:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

The following all have upmerged templates with atleast 60 articles propose speedy creation of the categories.

• {{cl|Alabama Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{cl|Arizona Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{cl|Georgia (U.S. state) Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{cl|Kentucky Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{cl|Nebraska Registered Historic Place stubs}}
• {{cl|New Mexico Registered Historic Place stubs}}

Waacstats (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

The main cat is too big. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:This was actually proposed just last week and is in the process of being done. Your proposal came about 24 hours after Alai started the task! Grutness...wha? 01:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

• {{Tl|Malaysia-footy-bio-stub}} has easily passed 60 articles propose {{cl|Malaysian football biography stubs}}.
• {{Tl|Thailand-footy-bio-stub}} has easily passed 60 articles propose {{cl|Thai football biography stubs}}.

Waacstats (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

{{Tl|Malta-footy-bio-stub}} has easily passed 60 articles propose speedy. Waacstats (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

{{Tl|Argentina-fieldhockey-bio-stub}} has 64 articels propose speedy. Waacstats (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as revised}}

Category is pushing 600 and currently has no subcats, I propose the following based on catscan

• {{Tl|Norway-sailboatracing-bio-stub}} - {{Cl|Norwegian sailboat racing biography stubs}} (109)
• {{Tl|Sweden-sailboatracing-bio-stub}} - {{Cl|Swedish sailboat racing biography stubs}} (94)
• {{Tl|UK-sailboatracing-bio-stub}} - {{Cl|United Kingdom sailboat racing biography stubs}} (61)
• {{Tl|US-sailboatracing-bio-stub}} (50)
• {{Tl|Australia-sailboatracing-bio-stub}} (33)
• {{Tl|Netherlands-sailboatracing-bio-stub}} (33)

Waacstats (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I'm surprised New Zealand didn't also get into the 30s! Grutness...wha? 01:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• Follow-up... there are over 30, but most of them are simply marked with NewZealand-sport-bio-stub. May be worth adding a {{tl|NewZealand-sailboatracing-bio-stub}} too. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• I was surprised there were not more but I only checked the sailboat category. No problems with a newzealand template. Waacstats (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• I take my eye off the bouy for a minute and Waacstats proposes what I was going to come to the proposal table with. As such, support. There may be a medium term case for {{tl|windsurfing-bio-stub}} but not quite yet. Severo^TC 20:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Why 'sailboat racing'? That's not where the article is, a permcat name, or indeed what I've ever heard used in the wild. Shouldn't it be {{cl|sailing biography stubs}} or {{cl|yacht racing biography stubs}}? Alai (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• I wondered about that too, since it's hardly a natural construction - but the parent permcat is the equally unlikely {{cl|Sailboat racers}} (they're yachtspeople, folks!) Grutness...wha? 23:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• I missed that one, and was going by yacht racing, {{cl|boat racing}}, and {{cl|sailing}}. USonianism? At any rate, surely we could stand to increase the consistency therein. Alai (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• I agree that sailboat racing isn't the best name for this. The permcat is there but I still feel it is wrong, {{Cl|Sailing biography stubs}} would have a different scope in that navy sailors and recreational sailors would be categorised with the competitive sailors. Given that Sailboat racing is a redirect to Yacht racing I would be happy to use yachtracing. Waacstats (talk) 08:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• I have taken the parent to SFD for discussion regarding renaming so will hold off on this for now.Waacstats (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Permcat has been renamed {{cl|yacht racers}} so I support {{cl|yacht racing biography stubs}}. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

My recent tidying of {{cl|Pakistan stubs}} has resulted in 70 articles being marked with {{tl|Pakistan-struct-stub}} - this subcat seems speediable. BTW, what's with all the microstubs on museums in Thailand that seem to be cluttering up {{cl|Asian building and structure stubs}}? They're already marked with {{tl|Thailand-museum-stub}}, so they shouldn't be marked with {{tl|Asia-struct-stub}} as well... Almost all of them seem like AfD fodder as well. Grutness...wha? 02:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:Mmm I don't see them as AFD fodder if they could potentially become full articles. Most of the Thai museum sub stubs could be expanded fully and I in response have begun to fill them out a bit. They were started from a missing WP:Museums list in bot form and as yet very few have been expanded and are pretty crap. They shouldn't be in asia struct stub anyway. Don't worry I;ve fixed that now and I'll try to expand them all to or nuke the lesser notable ones. Bangkok Folk Museum has been expanded/sorted etc The Bald One ^{White cat} 10:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::Well, as long as there's actually work done on them. As they stood when I looked yesterday there were a few dozen stubs that were identical, all simply saying "XXX is a museum in Thailand." If they stay like that, then merging them into a list would make sense, at least until such time as they're ready to be expanded. But if there's work being done, that's fine. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

I noticed that there wasn't any category for urology, despite the vast amount of articles related to the subject. Many of these articles are stubs, and should be labeled as such. I propose a urology stub category. Thoughts? Approval? ForestAngel (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'd certainly support an upmerged template ({{tl|Urology-stub}}, upmerged to whichever is the most logical part of the med-stub tree). Once it's shown that it's in use on 60 articles, then a separate category could easily be speedied. Grutness...wha? 11:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• If 'vast' is 60 actual articles, then go for it. The med-stubs certainly need it. If not, upmerge, as Grutness suggests. Looking at existing categories, I can only find around 30 (and given the nature of the category structure, I can't guarantee all of those, either). Hopefully you'll have more lack if you do a manual trawl, on a better-informed basis than me. Alai (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create European cat, templates for countries 60+, and upmerged templates for others}}

Upmerge templates by country The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:Any specific countries? I'm sure there are quite a few that would be reasonable, but the idea of finding, say, a Nauru-rower-stub doesn't thrill me too much. Any that have a dozen or so stubs sounds like a reasonable idea though. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably countries like Norway and Sweden The Bald One ^{White cat} 09:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• The largest countries seem to be Italy(61), US (57), Netherlands (56), NZ (43), Norway (34), Poland (26). CAtscan can only find 5 articles in Rowing bio stubs in a subcat of swedish people stubs. Waacstats (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• It might be a little early to be creating very large numbers of upmerged templates, given the fairly moderate number of actual articles, though I'd rather err on the side of too soon than too late. Perhaps a good place to start would be {{cl|European rowing biography stubs}}, with upmerged templates for as close to every European country as people can stand. Alai (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• If Italy has 61, isn't that enough to give it its own category and its own stub? Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• True enough - I'd support that. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• I make the Netherlands 59, incidentally, so if there's just one more lurking around uncategorised, or untagged... Alai (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

After some time this template {{t1|18thC-novel-stub}} has been floating around 60 article associated. It is about time to create the associated category {{cl|18th century novel stubs}} (a la {{t1|19thC-novel-stub}} & {{cl|19th century novel stubs}}). Currently they drop into a "catchall bucket" of {{cl|novel stubs}} which is better served as a catchall when it regularly monitored and the recent additions have been defused. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy on precedents and pattern. Alai (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• ... but don't add an 'About this stub type' mini-essay. :/ Please use the standard format, per WP:STUB. Alai (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Splitting {{cl|Hindi-language film stubs}} further, upmerge 1940s and 1930s. {{tl|1950s-Hindi-film-stub}}. As it is it is requires stub sorting as there ar emany films still organized as Hindi-film-stub when they should be resorted as e.g 2000s-Hindi-film-stub The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I can confirm this one is viable, so speedy that, and the upmerged templates. You're not wrong either about the undersorting; I may be able to help out there with the bot. Alai (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Alai can you use the BOT to sort out :Category:Hindi-language film stubs, the 1950s in particular needs sorting. Might I also suggest the creation of a {{cl|Pre-1950 Hindi-language film stubs}} to cover Hindi films of the 1930s and 1940s. The Bald One ^{White cat} 18:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

:Aren't you asking the question I just answered in advance? Actually, the 80s in particular needs to be (re)sorted. Alai (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create upmerged template}}

CatScan currently shows there are 46 stubs. However I aim on starting the films directed by Template:Alice O'Fredericks which should take it to exactly 110. User:Cactus writer and others also regularly add Danish films and would help relieve the {{cl|Denmark stubs}}. Let me know, as its probably best to add the stub template as I create them to save time stub sorting later. Regards The Bald One ^{White cat} 18:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A response anybody???

:Okay, since you poked :) I'd certainly favour a {{tl|Denmark-film-stub}} under the circumstances. It'd be easy enough to speedy a separate category once we're sure it's reached 60. Grutness...wha? 01:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

recently created upmerged template has reached 60 articles. Speedy creation? Waacstats (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

:Certainly, but do please include an 'h' somewhere. Alai (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

::Vholleyball? :) Grutness...wha? 00:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Location left as an exercise... I was thinking that 'volleybhall' would have an interestingly pseudo-Goidelic look to it, though purists might object that ought not to have a 'v' in it (if they didn't just choke on their evening cocoa anyway). Alai (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

::::I was just checking who was paying attention honest. I meant {{cl|Italian volleyball biography stubs}} Waacstats (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

:After all that, creating the cat found it short. Appears I meant to propose the Japanese cat not the Italian. I really wish I was back on holiday. I'll send this to SFD. Waacstats (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as revised}}

Another category over 800 articles. It appears that the following are viable

• {{Cl|Bus station stubs}} - {{Tl|Bus-station-stub}}
• {{Cl|Bus operator stubs}} - {{Tl|Bus-operator-stub}}
• {{Cl|United Kingdom bus operator stubs}} - {{Tl|UK-bus-operator-stub}}

As well as a stub for buses as opposed to this category that says it is for anything related to buses, but I don't know what to call it. Waacstats (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Support The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support, but suggest we use {{tl|bus-company-stub}} / {{cl|Bus operating company stubs}} to conform to permcat & eliminate the possibility that, say, Ralph Kramden might end up there. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Hadn't thought about individuals being operators! So support Pegship's suggestion. Waacstats (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Over 800 articles propose the following both should easily reach 60 given a quick glance

• {{Tl|Anglican-diocese-stub}} - {{Cl|Anglican diocese stubs}}
• {{Tl|Anglican-church-stub}} - {{Cl|Anglican church stubs}}

There are also a lot of articles along the lines of Bishop of Foo and a few Dean of Foo stubs, now the blurp on {{Cl|Bishop stubs}} says it is for people not positions is it worth making a category for positions and if so what do we call it. Waacstats (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Oversized has 720 stubs in it. Split by district. Some of them pass 60 but some may need to be upmerged.

Districts:

{{col-begin}}

{{col-3}}

• Attock
• Bahawalnagar
• Bahawalpur
• Bhakkar
• Chakwal
• Dera Ghazi Khan
• Faisalabad
• Gujranwala
• Gujrat
• Hafizabad
• Jhang
• Jhelum

{{col-3}}

• Kasur
• Khanewal
• Khushab
• Lahore
• Layyah
• Lodhran
• Mandi Bahauddin
• Mianwali
• Multan
• Muzaffargarh
• Narowal
• Nankana Sahib

{{col-3}}

• Okara
• Pakpattan
• Rahim Yar Khan
• Rajanpur
• Rawalpindi
• Sahiwal
• Sargodha
• Sheikhupura
• Sialkot
• Toba Tek Singh
• Vehari

{{col-end}}

The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Any fear of an intermediate level of organisation/region, whether official or un-? Alai (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Can't see one in the relevant articles, unfortunately. However, on a brighter note, it's possible that just creating the Lahore one may ease the pressure a little. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Oversized 700 stubs needs to be split at least by region, perhaps by department and if there aren't 60 for some of them, upmerge them the regional stub categories The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

:We've started this split so I see no problem speedying this. Waacstats (talk)

Speedy by region or department? The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:Sorry, the way we have been going which looks like templates for departments upmerged to regional categories. Seperate category for any department that reaches 60. Waacstats (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

oversized, contains 2 upmerged templates both over 60 speedy propose

• {{cl|Hunedoara County geography stubs}}
• {{cl|Timiş County geography stubs}}

Waacstats (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

sorting through this slightly oversized cat (1455) and have got four templates upto size for seperate cat.

• {{cl|Ehime Prefecture railway station stubs}}
• {{cl|Fukuoka Prefecture railway station stubs}}
• {{cl|Gifu Prefecture railway station stubs}}
• {{cl|Saitama Prefecture railway station stubs}}

Also ask for permission for any others that get upto 60 in sortnig through this lot. Waacstats (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

:Add to that

• {{cl|Okayama Prefecture railway station stubs}}
• {{cl|Toyama Prefecture railway station stubs}}
• {{cl|Shizuoka Prefecture railway station stubs}}
• {{cl|Kōchi Prefecture railway station stubs}}

and on a side note should the upmerged templates be linking to Prefecture-geo cats. I would have thought that railway stations would have counted as struct-stubs.

Waacstats (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Nowhere near oversized but 2 templates have reached 60 so propose

• {{Cl|United States business biography, 1900s birth stubs}}
• {{Cl|United States business biography, 1960s birth stubs}}

Waacstats (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Close to 800 propose

• {{Tl|US-rowing-bio-stub}} - {{Cl|United States rowing biography stubs}}
• {{Tl|US-sportshooting-bio-stub}} - {{Cl|United States sport shooting biography stubs}}

both over 60 according to catscan. Waacstats (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

:Support Makes sense The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

New upmerged template reaches 60. Speedy. Waacstats (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Seems like a sensible course of action. At present the building and structure concentration seems highly stacked in Asia with nothing to support Latin America. Many places are not even stub tagged or even categorized so may not be easy to root them all out. Basically there are many like Quatro de Setembro Theater with no organizatio at all. I would also propose {{cl|Brazil building and structure stubs}} and {{cl|Argentina building and structure stubs}}. I'm very surprised there is nothing as yet to support them. The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oh bald one we already have these at {{Cl|South American building and structure stubs}}, {{cl|Argentine building and structure stubs}}, {{Cl|Brazilian building and structure stubs}} and a template for each South American country. Given this a Mexico template is atleast a must have category when it gets to 60. Waacstats (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah duh. I knew I had seen these before. I can't think what I was looking at. The Bald One ^{White cat} 19:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'd go for the Mexican category now - it's already got a child in {{cl|Mexican sports venue stubs}} - or at the very least an upmerged {{tl|Mexico-struct-stub}}. Looking at {{cl|Mexico stubs}} there seems to be quite a bit of undersorting, BTW - lots of geo-stubs in there... Grutness...wha? 00:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• At a quick scan I've managed to reduce the {{cl|Mexico stubs}} by 5% by removing all the geo-stubs from A to G. There do seem to bhe more than a handful of struct-stubs in there, too. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• I've now done the same with all the other mexico-foo-stub types, A-K, and the main category's down from 480 to 400. I also created the {{tl|Mexico-struct-stub}} template, since it seems speediable - it's upmerged, and in use on 25 articles so far. Grutness...wha? 22:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Done the lot. {{cl|Mexico stubs}} now only has 360 articles, of which 61 are mexico-struct-stubs. As such, I supp;ort the original proposal! Grutness...wha? 01:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Great work, again The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

recently created upmerged template has reached 60 articles. also has a 'h' in it, and I have double checked that this has 60 articles. (see the Italians below). Waacstats (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

:Support, and I've found a few more Italians for you (see WP:SFD). Grutness...wha? 01:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

I've not been here as long as some but even I can remember the creation of {{Tl|NRHP-stub}}, now we don't just have a template for each state, or even a state (Massachusetts) that has been split by county, but we have a county that has a category containing over 800 articles. What to do? I propose templates for the towns specifically listed on List of Registered Historic Places in Middlesex County, Massachusetts that is Arlington, Cambridge, Concord, Lowell, Marlborough, Medford, Newton, Reading, Sherborn, Somerville, Stoneham, Wakefield, Waltham and Winchester. Templates along the lines of {{tl|ArlingtonMA-NHRP-stub}} and any with over 60 articles a category along the lines of {{cl|Arlingon, Massachusetts Registered Historic Place stubs}}. Waacstats (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Another grab bag of categories for which upmerged templates that have reached 60. Speedy propose the following 8 categories.

• {{cl|Peruvian building and structure stubs}}
• {{cl|Colombian building and structure stubs}}
• {{cl|United States basketball biography, 1920s birth stubs}}
• {{cl|United States basketball biography, 1910s birth stubs}}
• {{cl|Brazilian athletics biography stubs}}
• {{cl|Brazilian company stubs}}
• {{cl|Brazilian Olympic medalist stubs}}
• {{cl|Cuban boxing biography stubs}}

Waacstats (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy the whole motley selection, on the basis of about half a dozen various patterns and precedents. Alai (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

It's been a while, but another country has crawled to the 60 geo-stub mark and can be speedily given its own category. Grutness...wha? 05:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Yay for slomo speedies. Another entity can be struck off the UN List of Non-Stub-Categoried Territories. Alai (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

A stub category for all articles related to the city of Copenhagen. Many of the Copenhagen articles are not even stub stagged. The Bald One ^{White cat} 18:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thing is, it's not a primary subdivision of .dk, so splitting-wise, it's a little cart-before-the-horse. (That'd be Region Hovedstaden.) If there's an urgent need driven by a Copenhagen WPJ or something this might be somewhat attractive, but it certainly doesn't seem to be indicated at present by way of splitting {{cl|Denmark stubs}}. Alai (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

The following templates have all reahed 60 leading to the listed categories being proposed for speedy creation

• {{tl|India-RC-diocese-stub}} - {{cl|Indian Roman Catholic diocese stubs}}
• {{tl|Oregon-airport-stub}} - {{cl|Oregon airport stubs}}
• {{tl|Alabama-airport-stub}} - {{cl|Alabama airport stubs}}
• {{tl|Bahamas-bio-stub}} - {{cl|Bahamian people stubs}}
• {{tl|Somalia-politician-stub}} - {{cl|Somali politician stubs}}
• {{tl|SaintLucia-bio-stub}} - {{cl|Saint Lucian people stubs}}
• {{tl|Maldives-bio-stub}} & {{Tl|Maldives-politician-stub}} - {{cl|Maldivian people stubs}}
• {{tl|Venezuela-struct-stub}} - {{cl|Venezuelan building and structure stubs}}
• {{tl|Israel-struct-stub}} - {{cl|Israeli building and structure stubs}}

Waacstats (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy The Bald One ^{White cat} 18:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

:Add to that

• {{cl|Omani people stubs}}
• {{cl|Kuwaiti people stubs}}
• {{cl|Qatari people stubs}}
• {{cl|Turkmen people stubs}}
• {{cl|Liechtenstein people stubs}}
• {{cl|Dutch musician stubs}}
• {{cl|Pakistani singer stubs}}

Waacstats (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Although the main Vietnam stubs isn't overly large, Vietnamese geography stubs is nearing 800 and seems to wrongly categorise many articles which would normally be building and structure stubs. There also are many articles which aren't even stub tagged at all. {{cl|Thai building and structure stubs}} was recently created which will be a useful tool for WP:Thailand. There isn't as many articles on Vietamese buildings but it easily passes 60 and would be useful I think for the project. The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:Anything that gets struct-stubs out of the geos would be very useful. Support. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Created. Now around 80 stubs tagged so far. The Bald One ^{White cat} 20:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Create upmerged templates. In the same way as Denmark, is likely to be viable for its own in a short time frame. Note there has been a recently created Nordic film task force and such a creation would be very useful to the project, which is why I have proposed them. I would suggest that a {{cl|Nordic film stubs}} is created (which I created as a result of the finnish film stub category having only 36) as the wider cat, until they reach the requirment. just a suggestion. The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support upmerged templates per Sir B; aren't we using RCzech- rather than Czech- ?. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Nope - {{tl|CzechRepublic-film-stub}} would be the name (after that edit war between Czech Republic and Czechia blew itself out). Support all three, BTW. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

::The reason why I purposefully didn't link it that way is because there are very few films post 1993 at present. By "Czech film" it implies both "Czechoslovakian" film and "Czech Republic film" and basically "Czech language film". Perhaps it might be best to have it as Czech-language-film-stub to avoid the political mess. The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|use existing sub-types for now}}

713 stubs at present. Would suggest splitting by decade in coordination with the other genres. The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:Do any of the categories under {{Cl|Documentaries by topic}} have enough for a split, we already have a cat for music documentaries. I would prefer to go that way first rather than decades if possible. Waacstats (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'd thought about by topic. In my experience though I've always found it best to split by decade as often the precise topic may span numerous categories and oftne there is an uncertainly to which it should fall in. Music and bio documentaries already exist and are likely to be the most valid ones. The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• We do have {{cl|Music documentary film stubs}}, {{cl|Political documentary stubs}}, {{cl|Sports documentary stubs}}, and {{cl|Biographical documentary stubs}} already; does this help? Her Pegship (tis herself) 14:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. If the consensus is by topic for documentaries I have no objections. I was thinking in terms of consistancy with other film stub conventions although I guess documentaries differ in this respect. What I don't want to see though is over categorization as we often see with such things e.g Documentary films about ice cream etc. The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think with some re-sorting we can use the existing sub-cats, which are broad enough without involving the ice cream issue...although someday maybe food-documentary-stub...JK! JK! Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Much needed creation of dam stubs. There should be enough to think about regional splits such as a {{tl|Asia-dam-struct-stub}} etc if they qualify. The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:There are probably more than enough for a {{tl|US-dam-struct-stub}}, too. Sounds reasonable. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Sort from Bridge-struct-stub. There also appears to be numerous articles not stub sorted for asian bridges also The Bald One ^{White cat} 09:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:Sounds like a good idea - bridges are ubnder-sorted, and there are a ton of Asian bridge stubs. Grutness...wha? 09:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd strongly recommend upmerging a {{tl|Japan-bridge-struct-stub}} into this Asian one. At present we have over 20, and I reckon this could be expanded at least three-fold The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp nocreate}}

Upmerged template for electric vehicle stubs. It be included in the {{tl|vehicle-stub}} category. --Mac (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:Arr, it be that. Possibly, but certainly not under that name (check EV for the reason why). {{tl|electric-vehicle-stub}} may be worthwhile, but I suspect it would have serious problems, since it would cut across the division of vehicles by type of vehicle (there are electric cars margked {{tl|car-stub}}, electric buses marked {{tl|bus-stub}}, electric trams marked {{tl|tram-stub}}, electric motorcycles, trains, mopeds, microlites, boats... I think it may simply lead to double-stubbign without actually clarifying anything too much. Grutness...wha? 09:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:: We can use one of them EV or electric vehicle, but electric vehicle is longer to type. An alternative can be evehicle-stub. Suggestion for the image to use in the template ?. Perhaphs http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Chevy-Volt-NAIAS-2007-LoRes.jpg ?. All the vehicle types would use the same stub type, in a similar way to {{tl|vehicle-stub}}. Articles can be expanded by people interested in electric vehicles ( I don´t mind they can be cars, trucks and so ). If it is so important, one can create {{tl|ecar-stub}} and so on. But I prefer {{tl|evehicle-stub}} for now. --Mac (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Neither ecar-stub nor evehicle-stub would be in line with normal stub template naming guidelines (electric-vehicle-stub is in line with them, and really isn't too hard to type compared to a lot of stub templates. You should try working with {{tl|ChaharmahalBakhtiari-geo-stub}} for a while!) That's what cut & paste keys are for, anyway. As for the icon, stubs don't have to have images, but anything that is typical of an electric vehicle and is clearly visible at 40px would be fine. Discussing that's really putting the cart before the horse, though - it's far more important first to work out whether it's worth having such a stub in the first place. I'm not convinced personally, but I'd like to hear from others here. Grutness...wha? 10:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Object {{tl|electric-vehicle-stub}} may have some value but to me it seems problematic in that it cross cuts many modes of transport and is pretty generalised as well as cluttering articles with more specific transport templates. The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:Precisely. If this would entail splitting the electric trains (say) off from the diesels and steams, and lumping them in with electric cars and such like, there would be consternation, rending of shirts, and much lamentation among the trainies and petrolheads both. Alai (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

I apologize for not initially going through the proper process. I created {{t1|Taiwan-edu-stub}} for Taiwan education articles, primarily Taiwan schools and universities, to place them under :Category:Taiwan education stubs like :Category:Hong Kong education stubs; before it was difficult to find Taiwan-specific school stubs in :Category:Asian school stubs and :Category:Asia university stubs. From the discoveries discussion, I now think the best solution would be to create the upmerged template {{tl|Taiwan-school-stub}} to place schools in :Category:Taiwan education stubs and to change the pre-existing {{t1|Taiwan-university-stub}} to place universities in both :Category:Asia university stubs and :Category:Taiwan education stubs. After a count, I think there are around sixty Taiwan school and universities stubs, but currently not enough for their own subcats. --Jh12 (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

:I was wondering when this one would appear :) A separate template is a good idea, upmerged for now to both {{cl|Taiwan education stubs}} and {{cl|Asian school stubs}}. Grutness...wha? 23:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

:Speediable, I think. Alai (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|re-org by DoB}}

This is more a query than a proposal but I placed it here because it could turn into a proposal.

{{Cl|Baseball pitcher stubs}} is again oversize(almost 1000). We currently split this by decade that the pitcher predominantly played in. The normal way we would split this now is by decade of birth and as far as I can find this is the only category split by era of play. Do we want to

:1 - Continue with this split in which case I will get on with sorting these articles.

:2 - Create new categories and templates for by birth and get rid of the current categories (each decade to 1860s would be viable) leaving a samll number in the parent category.

:3 - Some other way that I have not thought of.

My opinion would be to go for the new categories as they would be easier to determine which category someone goes in, the downside is that it would mean re stubbing over 3000 articles.

If someone feels this discussion would be more appropriate elsewhere let me know where.Waacstats (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'd favour changing them to decade of birth categories - firstly, that's how the others are done, and secondly, there should be less double-stubbing (not many players are born in two different decades :) Grutness...wha? 01:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Owch. The current system is certainly harder to automate: one would need to check for both a début and a retirement, and if either was missing, or if they were in different decades, kick for touch. But on the other hand, switching over would be a large undertaking, and a potentially confusing one, given the rather-similar templates. I suggest we get the topical WPJ onside before doing anything. Apologies for the non-baseball sporting metaphors... Alai (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• That's all right - none of them had me stumped. Perhaps we should pass the baton on to WP:Baseball, after all, this is a complex one, not a slam-dunk, and if we get it wrong we could be in for the high dive... ;) Grutness...wha? 00:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Having been away for a few days I have let WP:Baseball know of this discussion so can we keep this open a bit longer. Waacstats (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've been an active baseball stub sorter in the past, and hope to get back to that project in the future. The reason the stubs have been sorted by decade of play is because references on these players will be by era in which they played, not era in which they were born. As most pitchers only play between the ages of about 20 to about 40, either way should work just fine. If the change is made, this would be a great project for a bot. The bot could look at the year of birth category (or lifetime template) in the article, and change the stub accordingly.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Yeah, it should be relatively easy to do by bot. Made pointlessly that little bit more time-consuming by the in-fact-generally-pointless {{tl|lifetime}}... but that's another page's topic. (Though to be fair there's often an inconsistent split in such info between infobox and category, so yet a third way of doing things only makes things incrementally worse, it doesn't ruin some hypothetically pristine situation.) Alai (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Here's a thought: as you note, most players probably start to become notable around 20 or so. So, if we make this change, perhaps we could keep the old templates as redirects, with a 20-year "offset"? Or would that cause more confusion than it'd alleviate? Alai (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• I suspect it would add extra confusion. It'd be fine if everyone became notable at age 20, or was born towards the middle of a decade, but with a range from, say, 18-25 as the point of main notability, you'd have to allow for a major finagle factor. Grutness...wha? 01:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• True, and the redirects would be the wrong way 'round for any real semantic leeway... it'd be odd to end up giving someone the wrong decade of birth, if they became "primarily notable" at 19 or 31. So I suppose it's a "clean break settlement", or else not change at all. Alai (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create regional cats, upmerged county templates}}

Over sized near 850 stubs. Suggest a split by county The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

:254 counties! I think we need to look at a few dozen regions. Waacstats (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

::Few dozen would likewise be too many. What about this as a starting point? Or some non-overlapping selection of the geographical regions of Texas? Alai (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Eeks there are really 254 counties? Wow. Perhaps not then. By region would seem sensible as has been suggested The Bald One ^{White cat} 20:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yup, ever'thang's bigger in Texas...I suggest we start with East, Central, West, and South Texas (and maybe Panhandle) per the Geography of Texas article. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• A few dozen might have been an exaggeration, support pegship's solution. Now who's going to create 200+ upmerged templates? Waacstats (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• ... *whimper* Maybe it's time to dust off some bot code for page creation... Alai (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Or come to that, given that this is a pretty extreme case -- five "traditional" regions, each of which would end up with around 50 upmerged templates -- making an exception to the usual primary subdivision rule, and just populating from regional templates. (Gasp, heresy!) Alai (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Given the circumstanes I think that regional templates would probably be best. Waacstats (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as -venue- and -competition-}}

Propose the creation of {{tl|Tennis-venue-stub}} and {{tl|Tennis-tournament-stub}} or {{tl|Tennis-competition-stub}} which are both clearly eligible. Tennis stubs overbloated with 546 stubs. Tennis venue stubs in particular is a much needed creation and would each sports venue and struct stubs. By tournament I also mean individual years of a competition such as 1994 Miami Masters rather than just for "Miami Masters". Probably tennis-competition-stub would be more appropriate in this respect. I thought these would have existed. The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:Support a template for competition/tournament (Does this include the tennis at the xxxx Olympics articles), lets see whats left after that before creating a venue template. Waacstats (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Split by continent. Over 600. Some like US may be eligible for national stub categories. The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

Over 500. Split by region of Asia. This would also ease the regional struct stub categories too. E.g Al Zawra Stadium would become this article about a Middle Eastern sports venue is a stub The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create as revised}}

Suggest creation of {{tl|US-prison-stub}}, {{tl|England-prison-stub}} etc and any others which are viable and by continent. The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:Support the US template, I think a {{Tl|UK-prison-stub}} rather than england is also a good idea, categories for both if over 60, don't know that we really need continent splits just yet (less than 400 stubs in the stub cat at the moment). Waacstats (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the category will look considerably more sparse if the two above are created. ANother example of wikipedias bias towards "us". The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:IIRC there are oprobably enough for an upmerged Australia-specific template, too. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

::We already have an Australian category. Waacstats (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

:::There has to be a joke in there. Alai (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Heh. Indeed so - and I hadn't noticed the subcat already existed. My dad (a New Zealander) always used to say that Aussies were inherently superior to Kiwis; back in the old days anyone could become a Kiwi, but Aussies were hand-picked by the best judges in Britain... Grutness...wha? 00:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|upmerged templates by country}}

I haven't checked to see if any individual countries have over 60 although Japan on a quick check has 61. but there are well over 500 stubs in this category. By region of Asia would probably the best initially The Bald One ^{White cat} 10:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:When you say by regions, which regions? for most things we use the UN geoscheme, however for football-bios we have gone with FIFA regions, I know that the AFC is split into regions so Is it the UN or AFC regions. note we currently have a bit of a mess on the Asia-footy-bios because we seem to have both for MEast/West Asia.Waacstats (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:Well I was thinking about middle east, central asia, south asia, far east and south-east asia The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

::Based on that where does Australia go? The current split has them in Asia. I don't necessarily disagree with that split just throwing up an obvious problem. Waacstats (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean? What has Australia got to do with it? We already have {{cl|Australian football (soccer) club stubs}} and {{cl|Oceanian football (soccer) club stubs}}? The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

::Missed that one. I assumed that we split the clubs the same way as the bios and there we split based on FIFA federation and with Australia in the Asian fed I thought that Australian clubs would be sorted under Asia obviously something else is going on. Waacstats (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

{{Cl|Anime and manga stubs}} is over 1000 according to catscan this should take about half of them and matches a {{cl|Anime series stubs}}. Waacstats (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support and strong "yay". There would remain those topics that cover stories that have appeared as both manga and anime, but this would be enough to be getting along with. Alai (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

We seem to have subcategories in {{cl|Greece geography stubs}} for eleven of the 13 Peripheries of Greece. The other two don't even have templates. Problem with this is that one of those two is for Attica, the most heavily populated part of Greece. Today, I discovered a stub-in-all-but-name - {{tl|Attica-expand}}, which may have been prompted by this lack. I propose at the very least creating the two missing templates ({{tl|Attica-geo-stub}} and {{tl|NorthAegean-geo-stub}}) and - if numbers permit - the categories as well. It may also be worth talking to WP Attica about their new Attica-expand template about whther it would be as sensible as either a real stub type or (preferably) a talk-page banner. Grutness...wha? 02:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Templates are speediable, on existing pattern. Attica wasn't viable at the time of the original split... not really seeing the problem, however. The other template seems to be unused -- so according to some people, T3-"speediable" (*eyeroll*) -- so I don't see much of a problem there. It might be sensible to wait until the stub tag is in place before doing with that, however. Alai (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp create}}

The template {{tl|Mining-stub}} is in use on about 70 articles, and is also referred to by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mining on their main page. I expect it would go under {{cl|Mining}}, but currently the template is under {{cl|Geology stubs}} and {{cl|Industry stubs}}. Where does it belong, do you think? Fleebo (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

:Closer to 80, by the looks of it. Normally, I'd say that's plenty for its own category, but I'm a little concerned at the numbers of articles on individual mines in there (about 30 of them). The original intention of mining stubs was for it to be about mining terminology, technology and practice, not the specific mines - similar, say to the use of glaciology-stub for glacier science but not for individual glaciers. Grutness...wha? 01:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

::I guess that's because Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mining states that it's "for stub articles related to mines or mining". I see your point, but as it stands the name does suggest that it's a catchall stub. I can't think of a more specific word that means only "mining-ology" and not mines, to parallel glaciology. Fleebo (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

:As {{cl|mines}} is a subcat of {{cl|mining}}, it'd be a little tortuous to argue that individual mines are not within the scope of {{tl|mining-stub}}. Speedy the category, declare the content to be a non-issue. Alai (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

::As to where... under all three, it seems clear to me. {{cl|mining}} would be the permcat argument to the {{tl|Stub Category}} boilerplate, the other two would be stub parents, via explicit categories. Alai (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create by country w/possible continent parent cats}}

Split by continent. For some of the European countries split by country such as {{tl|Italy-sculptor-stub}}, {{tl|France-sculptor-stub}} etc The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is only "bubbling under" size-wise, so while I'd be happy to see continental categories and any upmerged by-country templates, I do think we should avoid continental templates completely here. Doing an analysis by categorisation... a US type is already viable at exactly 60, we should definitely create templates for France- and Italy-, both into the 40s, and the UK (at least into the 30s, with the usual vast inconsistency between "British" and constituent country categorisation at work), and Hungary (20s). Also into double digits are: Germany, Canada, Ireland, Haiti, Spain and Poland. Alai (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• I take it that is 60 in the {{Cl|Sculptor stubs}} that should be in the existing US subcat. Also catscan gives 67 UK sculptors. Waacstats (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• And catscan gives 64 Italians as well. Waacstats (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

{{sfp top|create per Cuddy Wifter's list}}

Once some decision has been made at WP:SFD about what to name the main category - "Victoria (Australia)", "Victoria", or "Victoria, Australia" - we need to start thinking about splitting this one. Even with the Melbourne geo-stubs subcategorised there are knocking on the door of 800 geo-stubs for Victoria, a state with an annoying number of districts and subregions. Some form of Alaska-like debate is needed on the grouping of shires by area, though I know too little of Aussie geography to be able to work out what needs to be done for that - any opinions are welcome. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• What about [http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=129&languageId=1&contentId=-1 these]? Alai (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• If they're widely accepted regions, then I've no objection - but passing this one by WP:Victoria and WP:Melbourne would be a good move - I'll mention it on their talk pages. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has a [http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/956c382b0b05ba7d4a2568010004e173/2EFC42784E25F9A6CA256AD4007F6826?opendocument Australian Standard Geographical Classification structure for Victoria] which defines Victorian regions as: Melbourne, Barwon, Western District, Central Highlands, Wimmera, The Mallee, Loddon, Goulburn, Ovens-Murray, East Gippsland, Gippsland and Off-Shore Areas & Migratory. There is also a more detailed structure [http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/956c382b0b05ba7d4a2568010004e173/946567A08EF41E43CA256AD4007F6814?opendocument here]. These regional names are recognised and familiar to people from Victoria. Hope this helps. - Cuddy Wifter (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• That works for me. If someone were to knock up short defining articles for the remaining regions (or a single article on the ASGC scheme as a whole, perhaps), then so much the better. Alai (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Sounds good to me, too, though the naming of the last one's category may leave a little to be desired! Grutness...wha? 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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