Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive23

I've boldly dumped the lists of stubs to Grutness's page. Conscious 16:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like a plan to me. For symmetry, I'd also create {{Urals-geo-stub}}, feeding for now back into the main category, to avoid the mental overhead of "which Russia regions was it we created?" in future stub-sorting. Alai 16:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd name it {{Ural-geo-stub}} after Ural. Conscious 17:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As in Ural (region)? But if the English usage for the federal district -- I'm confused as to the difference, btw -- is "Urals"... Alai 17:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, conscious, I see what you mean. I misinterpreted this bit. My intentions were good though, and no harm done, anyway, right? Besides, what's the sense of leaving Rus-geo-stub containing 95% Urals articles, even if it's below 65? - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 22:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW, with my knowledge of Russian, I was able to identify which fed. district each of the unspecifically-tagged articles belonged to, and sorted all of them accordingly. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 22:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No harm, and I think it'll stay as it is. Thank you for the sorting. Btw, why was knowledge of Russian needed for it? Conscious 09:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Boldly is right. First thing I know about it is a complaint from a Russian editor that an article he's been expanding was on my listpanding was on "my list of Siberian stubs". It would have been nice to have known first, Conscious! Sounds like a good split though, and yes, Urals would make more sense than Ural, IMHO. And why not just Volga rather than Privolzhye (which is no problem to those who govoritye po-Russkiy, but for everyone else might be a problem). Grutness...wha? 18:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beg thy pardon, Grutness. I was under impression that anyone can add lists of stubs to your page.

As for the naming, I have no idea why it's "Urals". Is this plural, adjective or what? If "Urals"=="Ural mountains", like Alpes, Andes and all, then it sounds very unnatural for a Russian (the Russian word doesn't even have a plural form). But we're writing English Wikipedia, so I accept it if it sounds better to you. And yes, I meant Ural (region).

"Volga geography stubs", doesn't sound good to me, because it seems to refer to the Volga river. "Volga Federal District geography stubs" is better. "Privolzhye" was the only one-word definition I could think of that describes that area. Conscious 18:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S'alright - yes, anyone can use that page, though a bit of warning would have been nice :) (I'll be filling it up with various geo-stubs myself shortly, too). As to the names, I'd go with "Volga Federal District geography stubs", if only for the sake of the template (Volga-geo-stub is a lot easier on the fingeers than Privolzhye-geo-stub!). Ural-geo-stub or Urals-geo-stub would work, though it would probably be useful to have a redirect from the other of the two as well. Grutness...wha? 23:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is to make it Category:Privolzhye geography stubs/{{Volga-geo-stub}}. Conscious 09:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm - I'm a little wary of making the category and template names that different, but it might work. What about Category:Privolzhye-Volga geography stubs, or similar? Grutness...wha? 23:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's settle at "Volga Federal District", looks like it makes sense to everyone. Conscious 06:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

27 articles are currently double-stubbed thusly, 136 including lower down the hierarchy. Alai 05:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing a number of themes: both parents are oversized, 42 are directly in both, 106 candidates total. Alai 01:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Methinks there's some sorting to do! Alai 01:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

163 found, 47 directly in both oversized categories. Alai 01:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both parents are oversized; 65 articles found. Alai 01:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's 68 of these according to double-stub-counts, 51 of them in the (somewhat oversized) Scottish bios. Alai 00:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Valentinian ^(talk) 00:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but... is this talking about Scottish MPs (i.e., sitting in Westminster) or MSPs, or both? Grutness...wha? 01:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For proper inclusion in the two types I'm counting on the basis of ({{UK-MP-stub}}, and {{Scotland-bio-stub}}), only the former. And indeed, there's already a type for the second, {{MSP-stub}}. (Don't ask me how Scots who have sat for English constituencies are tagged currently...) A {{Scotland-politician-stub}} would be a possiblity, but that won't reduce double-stubbing (and may increase it). Alai 01:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. "MP" and "MSP" are both widely understood to be referring to different legislatures. I suspect that there are an awful lot more than 68 of these stubs: a lot of the dead people bios in Category:Scottish politicians have not been stub sorted yet (most were MPs), and that cat is growing all the time as more and more historical bios are added.

I added a page before realizing stubs would be a better option. Look here at the page. As I'm pretty well clueless as how stubs work, I'd appreciate some instruction (or maybe someone could revise the intro to stubs as it's really confusing).Pvt Mahoney 23:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added {{Minnesota-school-stub}} to the article, which is what I think you were looking for. Don't think a new stub type is indicated, which is what this page is for. Sorry about the lack of clarity. I'm sure there is a comprehensible intro someplace -- finding it might be an issue, all right... Alai 00:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, USA-edu doesn't shout out "Visitation school" to me. We have US-edu-stub anyway (currently a redirect to US-university-stub, IIRC) which if needed could be rescoped to general education related matters. But in any case what you've got here is either a US-school-stub or one of its subcategories. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I count 92 in total, including 54 double-stubbed directly into the two parents -- both of which are oversized. Alai 21:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the circa 110 past and present Category:Members of the Swiss Federal Council, virtually all of which are currently tagged as (and make up the vast majority of) Category:Swiss politician stubs. Granted, this category will grow at roughly 0.1 entry per year, but it's still useful for us fans of the enthralling saga of ambition, despair and ballot-counting that is Swiss politics - of which, yes, there are some on the English Wikipedia. Sandstein 17:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, have to object to this; the present category has 118 articles, so it's mathematically certain that the two types are not independently over the usual threshold. Alai 20:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per Alai. --Valentinian ^(talk) 14:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over 60 of these; at least 30 or 40-ish are in US-bio-stub. Crystallina 05:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use for Pennsylvania State Road articles which are stubs. --myselfalso 01:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if made it should be the second name - PA-SR is ver ambiguous. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)There's an existing, undersized category Category:Pennsylvania Highway stubs with exactly this scope. Oppose on duplication, size, cryptic abbreviation of template, capitalisation... (Admittedly it's a slight improvement on the existing cat, but...) We should revisit this when firstly, there's many more of them, and secondly, when WP:NC/NH has come to a conclusion on the naming conventions for these. In the meantime, I suggest this he sorted as a US-NorthEast-road-stub, as per my proposal below. Alai 02:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - it's not really needed since there's another so similar, but it would be very good to get the nomenclature firmed up. Whatever is decided it shouldn't have such an abbreviated name, though. BTW - 28 proposals in the first 10 days of March? What's with the avalanche? Grutness...wha? 07:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given we have over 100,000 stubs in oversized categories, I'd call it "a start". Personally I'd favour {{X-road-stub}}, so as to be as inclusive as possible, and to punt whole terminological nuances for the perms to worry about. Though in this case, we don't have enough stubs for one stub type, much less two. Alai 07:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with {{Pennsylvania-State-Highway-stub}}? (what we have now) Also WP:NC/NH is on hold as there is mass edit warring in CA and NY, we'll return sometime within the next few weeks. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least 67 of these out there, including 25 in US-bio-. Alai 23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least 93 of these, 30 of them in US-bio-. Alai 23:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dont we use hiphop-stub not hip-hop-stub? if we do that would be US-hiphop-bio-stub. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you're right. Alai 06:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would its parent be? {{US-bio-stub}} or one of the music hiphop stubs ({{hiphop-stub}} and {{US-hiphop-band-stub}})? --Bruce1ee 06:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the former two. Alai 06:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Bruce1ee 06:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, more likely {{US-musician-stub}} than {{US-bio-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 07:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, that's a lot more logical. Freudian elision, as the objective is to get them out of US-bio- (though getting them out of US-mus- is also Good Work). Alai 12:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't it be {{US-hiphop-stub}} / Category:United States hip hop stubs? None of the other musician stubs have "-bio-". --Bruce1ee 13:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, {{US-hiphop-stub}} can relate to bands and any other aspect of hip-hop culture. Conscious 13:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I count 84 candidates, about half of them clogging up US-bio-. Make room, make room! Alai 22:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this going to go forward? (Support, by the way, if it's needed.) --CComMack 21:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see many physics stubs that fit into this one (more than 20 in the first 200, therefore a lot). --Tone 22:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, at least on size. But the perm-cat is at Category:Condensed matter physics, so I have reservations about the name. There was discussion earlier about splitting up the physics stubs, does anyone recall if there was a conclusion? Good idea to drop the wikiproject physicists a line about this, anyhow. Alai 22:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I changed to condensed. Indeed, it's more general. I also mentioned on the physics project's page. --Tone 23:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found earlier discussion of this, here. Seemed vaguely positive, if somewhat inconclusive. Alai 23:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Since then, some templates were already created, namely optics, classical, quantum, particle and relativity stubs. I wonder how condensed matter slipped through. Anyway, I will wait a little for more comments and proceed then. --Tone 23:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cant we have a better name? "condensed-stub" could mean anything. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. {{Condensed-matter-stub}} is better - Condensed-stub simply sounds like one tha5t needs expanding. Or maybe one about Readers' Digest novels... or condensed milk...or... Grutness...wha? 07:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, condensed-matter-stub it is. --Tone 18:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, {{classicalmechanics-stub}} and {{fluiddynamics-stub}} use one less hyphen, so I'd suggest {{condensedmatter-stub}}. But you've created it anyway... Conscious 18:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And I think it is ready now. Can I start using it or do I have to wait another 6 days even if it has general consensus? --Tone 18:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can go ahead since the temlpate is already here. Conscious 20:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, particularly as this was first mooted five months ago, and no-one has objected to the principle. (And the naming seems to have iterated to a conclusion, too.) Alai 20:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again parents are variously "fairly large" and "vast". At least 67 of these, probably many, many more. Alai 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Now I can stop counting them. Crystallina 03:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Makes sense. --Tone 18:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Works for me. Her Pegship 06:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only are the US-bios massively oversized, the med-bios in Category:Medical biographical stubs are pushing along too, and will shortly be north of 4 pages. Existing double-stubbing indicates 91 articles would fit in here. Alai 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While we have a stub type for US tv actors (heavily double-stubbed as both tv and as film actors, naturally), the parent is for tv-bios in general, and there are 52 tv bios in US-bio- -- just about the last place we want 'em -- and 147 in total lower down the hierarchy, but not in a US-TV-specific category. Probably underestimates in both cases. Alai 21:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three more countries have reached the 65 threshold for having their own geo-stubs (in the third case long overdue IMHO). I'd like to propose:

• {{Libya-geo-stub}} Done. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• {{Tunisia-geo-stub}}
• {{SriLanka-geo-stub}}

Grutness...wha? 11:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another one which I've got up to 65 from 63:

• {{Moldova-geo-stub}} Done, up to 75. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 02:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are 65 Norwegian struct-stubs marked euro-struct-stub - and probably another 50 marked bridge-struct-stub. Therefore, I'd also like to propose {{Norway-struct-stub}}.

BTW - Cuba is very close to reaching the 65 geo-stub threshold. If anyone feels like making a couple of new stubs...? Grutness...wha? 09:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support all of them. --Tone 19:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support all of them. (I'm glad Moldova made it.) --Valentinian ^(talk) 14:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CatScan finds 168 candidates, and then pegs out, so there's probably even more. But that'd be a good start... Alai 06:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• ... though there's 145 that would fit into Category:United States singer-songwriter stubs, which would deplete the above below viability. (Though I wouldn't be surprised if there were more lurking in the woodwork, that'd put both over the threshold separately.) Alai 06:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 69 articles double-stubbed in the two obvious parents, more if you consider various other permutations to the same general effect. Alai 06:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose adding this stub category---Category:Operating system stubs---as a subcat under Category:Software stubs, since I have observed that a lot of articles in the latter is about OSes, and I think a separate stub type for those articles would contribute in encouraging OS-interested people to do some editing (not having to eyeball search for OS articles in that huge pile of general SW stubs). I suggest we have the Unix, Linux, and MS Windows stub cats be subcats under this proposed OS stub cat as well keeping them as subcats under the general SW stub cat. --Wernher 04:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Operating-system-stub}} or {{comp-OS-stub}}, maybe, but OS is a little ambiguous. If a stub is OS, simply remove the template :) Grutness...wha? 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently trawling through the 13 pages of Software stubs. Of the 199 I have gone through so far, I have classified 10 as an Operating System (or related). They are:

• AMSDOS
• ANDOS
• ARX (operating system)
• Alliance OS
• AmiQNX
• Amiga Research Operating System
• Amoeba distributed operating system
• Anonym.OS
• Atari TOS
• Atlas Supervisor

Simplistic extrapolation of this result indicates that there are a potential 130 OS stubs out there, so I'd definitely support this. Although {{OS-stub}} would mean Operating system to me, {{operating-system-stub}} would be the better option. --TheParanoidOne 06:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support stub, agree with G & TPO on template naming. I think sub-types might be premature, though, let's just do this one for the time being. Alai 06:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking twice, I too agree on the naming. As for the sub-types I mentioned, I didn't actually propose those---they were already there. :-) --Wernher 08:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll create the new stub type. Thanks for commenting. --Wernher 17:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe I didn't think of this one earlier; they must be spread over a number of different sub-types, so that they didn't show up earlier, but according to CatScan, there's 120 of these. Alai 04:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Bruce1ee 05:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting of these stubs was proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt. I suggest the following sub-stubs for starters:

• {{Ancient-Egypt-pharoah-stub}}
• {{Ancient-Egypt-god-stub}}
• {{Ancient-Egypt-monument-stub}}
• {{Ancient-Egypt-tomb-stub}}
• {{Ancient-Egypt-text-stub}}
• {{Ancient-Egypt-museum-stub}}
• {{Ancient-Egypt-event-stub}}
• {{Ancient-Egypt-cultural practice-stub}}

Igiffin 00:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm more than a little skeptical. Existing category has <400 stubs, and there's already an undersized stub type, Category:Egyptian mythology stubs. These won't all pass the normal theshold of 60+, and I'm reluctant to extend the "wikiproject licence" to any number of separate stub types. I'd be surprised if they all even hit 30, come to that. Is this is necessary at all, rather than simply using permanent categories, which are more suitable for this level of detailed classification? Even if a split is indicated, can't we smoosh some of these together somewhat? (Mythology+gods and monuments+tombs look like a good start.) BTW, it'd probably be a good idea to rename to AncientEgypt-<whatever>, if we have our story straight about the naming convention yet. Alai 00:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing "Ancient-Egypt" to "AncientEgypt" to fit the naming convention sounds good, and it seems that {{Egyptian mythology stubs}} should be {{AncientEgypt-mythology-stub}} for consistency. Could someone point me to info on how to rename stub types? Igiffin 01:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • There's some howto at WP:SFD#Putting_a_stub_type_on_SfD.2C_and_what_happens_afterwards (though in this case I doubt anyone would be greatly upset if you just did it yourself). Alai 02:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, in case the above jargon about thresholds and viability is somewhat opaque, see WP:STUB#Additional_information. Alai 02:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ancient-Egypt actually is in keeping with Ancient-Rome, Ancient-Greece and similar, so I'd favour keeping the hyphen. I definitely think the size of the categories could be a problem, though, and Ancient-Egypt-god-stub would surely fill the almost-empty {{Egyptian-myth-stub}}. Let's face it Egypt-struct-stub is currently undegoing the deletion process because it's underused and was never proposed. It has only ten stubs, so where are you going to find fifty or so each for tombs, libraries, museums...? Grutness...wha? 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 193 articles in Category:Asian politician stubs, and whilst I am not sure how many of these are Chinese it seems reasonable to assume that China is big enough to warrant splitting. Darcyj 00:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really especially large. If there's 60 of them, weak support, if there's not, strong oppose. OTOH, Category:Chinese people stubs is getting largish, so if it'd help there, that'd be useful. Alai 00:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same reservation as Alai. Are we talking about Mainland China or both the Mainland and Taiwan, btw? --Valentinian ^(talk) 01:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We consistently use China-xxx-stub for Mainland China (i.e., PRC excluding HK and Macau). We use Taiwan-xxx-stub for RoC. Grutness...wha? 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that takes care of that problem. Regarding the number of stubs, Asia-politician-stub has rather few Chinese, but China-bio-stub must contain more politicians. I've never made a count of them, though. --Valentinian ^(talk) 13:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Said use seems a little dubious, though: Category:China includes HK and M, and our alleged practice is to follow the scope of the corresponding permie... Alai 16:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We ran into strong resistance for putting the Hong Kong and Macau items in with the PRC ones (harrumph...nstantnoo...cough, cough :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's only consistent for things related to the defined territory in modern times, e.g. geography, buildings. For history, people, painter, writer, military, we don't have that distinction, and such distinction is not quite possible at the time being, for we've to take pre-1912/1949 history into consideration. Since the stub categories normally keep growing as anything on Wikipedia, it'd be possible to create {{MainlandChina-xxx-stub}} for post-1949 articles (and leave {{China-xxx-stub}} and category:China xxx stubs for pre-1912, and as a parent of mainland China's ones). {{ROC-xxx-stub}}, as template redirects, are used for things related to the ROC but are not or not only related to Taiwan. — Instantnood 18:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've done a count of the Asian politicians and my number for Mainland China is around 42. This number includes a few (around 5-8) politicians from the 1911-1949 period, so I don't know if they should belong here or under Taiwan (ROC). I have not checked the Category:Asian people stubs but so far, there's not enough politicians. Btw, I also have four politicians from Imperial China, which I don't know what to do with. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that seems to be too few for a separate category for now, but it might be something to watch. Darcyj 03:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need to get my head examined. The relevant category is of couse Category:Chinese people stubs. I haven't checked it, but others are very welcome to do so. In any case, I'm watching China. Valentinian ^(talk) 08:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps poli-bio-stub could be an option. Imperial mandarins and technocrats under communist rule are not quite like politicians in the modern and western sense. — Instantnood 18:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been a great fan of grouping imperial officials with politicians in the modern sense of the word (might be a slightly Euro-centric POV on my behalf). I had the same gut feeling about cabinet ministers from pre-democracy Denmark (just to name my own country). I didn't consider this possiblity, but I'll examine the articles again, next time I go over the material. I hope I'll make it within the coming week. Valentinian ^(talk) 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Jesper. — Instantnood 22:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not real big on following stub sorting discussions but in general there shouldn't be any reason to make all these sub-divisions because of the whining of Instantnood. Alai is absolutely correct that one term "China" does fine to include HK and MO, it is after all, one country. This would include pre-1949 ROC and dynastic people too. There's no reason to declare these people are from a different "place" because of the changing of governments. SchmuckyTheCat 18:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians are related to governments. The word China does fine to include Hong Kong and Macao, if and only if it's not used synonomously with mainland China, as in the case in many real-life situations and many articles and categories across Wikipedia. — Instantnood 18:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then organize the stubs by politics if that's what you're going on about. China could mean mainland, or it could not. If we say it's ok to include HK and MO politicians in this stub category, then that's what meaning we use. Your level of POV pushing pedantism is disruptive. SchmuckyTheCat 18:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing pedantic, considering Wikipedia is an encyclopædia. We've gotta be serious with details and accuracy. And no, I did not say it's (or it isn't) okay to extend this category to cover Hong Kong and Macao politicians. — Instantnood 19:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub categories aren't content, so no, we don't have to be über-accurate and pedantic. And I think a lot of people have stopped caring whether you say something is ok or not. You don't understand consensus, you don't respect it, and you're recognized as a POV-pushing revert warrior under arbcom sanction.

From the discussion above: 1. There aren't enough "mainland only" politicians (even including pre-1949 ROC and dynastic) to justify a mainland only stub cat - BUT the proposal is to create a generic China category, which including HK and MO, might make sense numerically. That makes it obvious that your proposal/opposition isn't based on what's been presented and what is useful to the stub-sorting project but instead they are based on your personal biases on the definition of China. That's a problem. SchmuckyTheCat 19:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where and when did the ArbCom declare I am a " POV-pushing warrior "? And where and when did I not respect consensus? In what way is my definition of China " personal biases ", when it's basically true fact? Did the proposer suggest to cover Hong Kong and Macao? If she/he did, why there were people seeking clarification? Please kindly justify before you made bold claims and accusations.

" ...which including HK and MO, might make sense numerically. " I did not count myself, but from the figure presented above, not even a generic category got enough stubs to be qualified. What I talked about was that what could be useful in the long run. — Instantnood 20:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, gentlemen. Please assume good faith. It seems people simply draw the line different places, so let's stick to debating the issues. According to the category description pages, both the {{China-stub}} and {{Taiwan-stub}} are used regarding the 1911-1949 situation. In any case, this seems a bit inconsistent, so perhaps we should start there? So far, we've sorted politicians according to current administrative division, not by ethnicity. I suggest we should stick to that definition.

To me it makes the most sense to see Imperial China and the pre-1949 situation as a continuum. As I see it, we basically have three options: Option 1) Imperial China + pre-1949 republic in one category ({{China-stub}}), the PRC ({{MainlandChina-stub}} or {{PRC-stub}}) in a second, {{Taiwan-stub}} in a third (both children of the first?), Hong Kong and Macau as distinct stubs (children of either the PRC or the first category?) (= 5 templates); Option 2) Imperial China + pre-1949 republic + PRC in one category ({{China-stub}}), Taiwan in a second, HK and Macau as distinct stubs (children of the first category?) (= 4 templates); Option 3) Imperial China + pre-1949 republic + PRC including HK and Macau in one cat., post-1949 Taiwan in a distinct category. Basically, this means reserving "Taiwan" to the post-1949 island. (= 2 templates) Did I miss anything? Valentinian ^(talk) 22:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the matter can be easily generalised in this way, but I'm afraid that's not the case. After the relocation of its government from Nanking to Canton and Chungking, finally to Taipei in 1949, the Republic of China still controls until present day a few islands along the coast of the continent, opposite the strait, as well as a few islands in the South China Sea. These islands are not, unlike Taiwan and the Pescadores, colonised by Japan between 1895 and 1945, and therefore had a different path of history. A different language is spoken on the Matsu Islands.

For the time being, I'd suggest 5 stub templates and 6 categories. The stub templates are template:China-stub, MainlandChina-stub, HK-stub, Macao-stub and ROC-stub/Taiwan-stub, and the categories are category:China stubs, People's Republic of China stubs, Hong Kong stubs, Macao stubs, Republic of China stubs. China-stub would be for generic matters (culture, festivals, mythology), and pre-1912 matters. Category:PRC stubs and category:ROC stubs would be children of category:China stubs, and category:mainland China stubs, category:Hong Kong stubs and category:Macao stubs would be children of category:PRC stubs.

Category:Republic of China stubs would serve as the stub category for both the ROC and Taiwan for the time being. Template:ROC-stub is used by pre-1949 mainland matters and matters not or not only related to Taiwan (e.g. Suiyuan, list of finance ministers of the Republic of China, Matsu Daily), but it is a redirect to template:Taiwan-stub for the time being. A list of such articles is available through special:whatlinkshere/template:ROC-stub. — Instantnood 15:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three comments: 1) It seems a slight mishap has occurred. Some of us didn't realize this discussion was still active, so a new proposal has been listed further up this page (to simply create a category (no flag or insignia) and use the material in it to populate a politician stub. 2) Please bear in mind that the material on China is still very limited (given the size of the thing). We simply don't have enough material to populate 5 or 6 politician categories (that's including officials). We barely have enough for one decent category (yes, that's excluding HK, and MO but including Taiwan / ROC. HK politicians are still stubbed using a different -gov + -bio system, so that'll need fixing one day, but for now, we don't have enough material for a real HK cat, so I suggest we do nothing about them for the moment.). Besides, the more I look at the material, the more I feel it will be virtually impossible making sensible splits between the Empire, the first republic, TW, and the PRC. Besides, the other Chinese categories seems to operate by a generic system, and so does Korea. Had Germany or Vietnam not been reunited, it would have made sense to use it there as well. The HK and MO categories are different and operate by themselves so they can stay put for now. When we have more material, we can debate splitting the PRC, Empire, and whatever later, but for now we should simply make do with what we have. Otherwise we'll never be able to split off the Chinese. It's a bit ironic, that we can split off countries with 5 million people, but not one with 1.3 billion. 3) I suggest any new discussion takes place at the section further up this page. (currently section 2.22) And I'll suggest we soon close this thing. We've been debating this one topic since early March ! That's one and a half months. We still barely have material for 1 (one) category. Valentinian ^(talk) 13:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other Chinese categories are not always operated by a generic system. For the stub types, it actually depends on each situation, as explained above. For categories in general, however, many categories titled "something of/in China" or "Chinese something" are mainland China-specific. I agree there are too few stubs for politicians to have the stub type split, but still we've to handle the complicated situation properly. — Instantnood 06:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two more stubs now seem splittable:

• {{Belarus-bio-stub}} 67 (The blue link is only a redirect. This stub must have been deleted previously.)
• {{Oceania-politician-stub}} 71 (to avoid triple-stubbing of e.g. {{PNG-stub}}, {{Oceania-bio-stub}} and {{politician-stub}}. I've not done a complete count of Fiji, so the actual number is a bit higher.) This is the last continent without a separate politician-stub (except North America which is already covered otherwise). --Valentinian ^(talk) 23:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Supportismo. Alai 23:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Note that we already have Australia-politician-stub and NZ-politician-stub, which are natural child categories of the Oceania one. Grutness...wha? 05:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this one these two before:

• {{Greece-politician-stub}} 63 --Valentinian ^(talk) 12:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• {{SouthAfrica-politician-stub}} 68

(the South Africa proposal should be seen in context with Conscious' proposal for a {{SouthAfrica-bio-stub}} listed elsewhere on this page. Given the large size of {{SouthAfrica-stub}} I think it is pretty safe to make both splits.) --Valentinian ^(talk) 14:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At over 6 pages in Category:Spain geography stubs, further subdivision would appear warranted. The obvious approach would be by autonomous community, of which there are seventeen. At least the larger of the autonomous communities could be commenced with, if not in fact all of them. So am proposing something like:

• {{Andalusia-geo-stub}}
• {{Aragon-geo-stub}}
• {{Asturias-geo-stub}}
• {{Balearic-geo-stub}} (maybe)
• {{Basque-geo-stub}}
• {{CanaryIslands-geo-stub}} (maybe)
• {{Canaries-geo-stub}} (maybe)
• {{Cantabria-geo-stub}} (maybe)
• {{CastileLaMancha-geo-stub}}
• {{CastileLeon-geo-stub}}
• {{Catalonia-geo-stub}}
• {{Extremadura-geo-stub}}
• {{Galicia-geo-stub}}
• {{Madrid-geo-stub}}
• {{Murcia-geo-stub}}
• {{Navarre-geo-stub}}
• {{LaRioja-geo-stub}} (maybe)
• {{Valencia-geo-stub}}

--cjllw | TALK 08:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea how many articles would be in each of these? --Stemonitis 09:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If there's only 6-7 pages, I doubt all 17 of these would reach a splittable threshold. The average size would be around 75, so some of them will definitely be splittable (for most subnational regions we use 65 or thereabouts as the splitting size). I haven't done a count of Spain - for the most part, the only geo-stub tallies I do are for regions not yet split into countries - but if other country splits are anything to go by, I'd expect Madrid to definitely be splittable. Since we already have Catalonia-stub and Valencia-stub, it might make sense to do geo-stubs for them too. Other than that, a count might be in order. Grutness...wha? 12:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This certainly looks like the right level to do the split at. (Provinces would clearly be too small.) I'd suggest creating all the above templates, for the sake of consistency, but feeding any that prove to be undersized back into the parent category, pro temps. I think I can make a wild guess as to which are likely to be undersized, based on this; it's not unlikely perhaps only half a dozen will hit threshold. Alai 16:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• btw wed normally use {{Canaries-geo-stub}} not {{CanaryIslands-geo-stub}} like with azores and maldives. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If you take a look at the articles in Category:Lists of municipalities in Spain, you will see that without including natural geographical features (most of which are stubs) there are potentially hundreds of candidates per (most) autonomous communities. Note that quite a few of the items in these lists are redlinked not because they don't exist, but because they exist under a variant title; in the past couple of days I've been going through an exercise in recategorising and correcting links to articles on Spanish municipalities, and even in the early stages of that process have come across at least 40 or so stubs not marked as such- which in fact prompted me to make this proposal, rather than carry on adding them to Category:Spain geography stubs. Although I've not yet made a formal count, my experience thus far indicates that the threshhold of around 65 would be met easily by the larger communities (that's if I don't expand 'em as I go!). Perhaps the island autonomous communities won't make it, but I'd at least like to make a start on the others (btw, point taken re naming standard wrt Canaries, have modified it above).--cjllw | TALK 04:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

update: after some delay, I've commenced creating these geo stubs and categories per the above proposal, starting with some of those most likely to be well-populated. Have also begun the reassignment out of spain-geo. It will probably take a few days more, maybe longer; will add the tpls to wp:wss/st & other appropriate places in due course.--cjllw | TALK 01:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly 60 stubs included in both Category:Science fiction stubs and in Category:US writer stubs, one of which is oversized. Alai 02:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While Category:Battle stubs is no longer oversized (though I say so myself), this has now hit 61 articles (counting just those that're also in Category:Russian history stubs), and is probably worth splitting off too. Alai 02:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Da! --Valentinian ^(talk) 23:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• mmm. ya nye znaiyu. The trouble with splitting battle-stub by country is that most battles involve two countries. You're likely to end up simply increasing the number of stub templates on each article. Grutness...wha? 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having just done about 800 battle stubs on that basis, I'm afraid I'm going to have to bar that objection on time! Note these are existing double-stubbings (or treble, quadruple, quintuple...), and this is pretty consistently reducing the total number of templates. See the discussion under the earlier battle sub-types. Alai 05:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's now 68 articles in both Category:American people stubs and in Category:Skating biography stubs, up significantly from the discussion, below, about US-sports-bio (still viable separately, of course...). Alai 02:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the rail theme, Category:Australian rail stubs has just peeked over the five page mark, and 215 (!) articles are double-stubbed in here and in Category:Melbourne stubs, so this is a cheap and cheerful way of getting it back down to 3 pages. Alai 02:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good idea - probably worth telling WikiProject Melbourne about this before it goes ahead, too! Grutness...wha? 05:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody can create the category and the template, I would be happy to work on this. I was going to create it myself, but I don't fully understand what goes into one, and don't wanna mess up. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 16:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coming shortly... Slambo (Speak) 16:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created. Template at {{Melbourne-rail-stub}}, category as stated above. Sort away! Slambo (Speak) 16:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 250 stubs in that cat alone! - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 02:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there are seven pages of these. i havent done a count but it may be worthwhile splitting them into England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and possibly London. anyone know how many would go in each or should i take a random sample? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok ive done a count from the first ten in each column in the catagory. its probably biased it a bit towards wales becuase one of the columns started with "Ll". i rounded the count a bit to make it exactly 15% of the articles.

• England (exc london) - 107 articles (est 713 over all)
• Scotland - 31 articles (est 207 over all)
• Wales - 42 articles (est 280 over all)
• London - 24 articles (est 160 over all)
• N.I. - no articles!

spliting into England-railstation-stub, Scotland-railstation-stub, Wales-railstation-stub and London-railstation-stub looks good :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest we only sort to "England" if we're the proverbial masochists on diets. Rather I suggest we sort to the Regions of England:
  • {{SouthEastEngland-railstation-stub}}
  • {{SouthWestEngland-railstation-stub}}
  • {{EastEngland-railstation-stub}}
  • {{EastMidlands-railstation-stub}}
  • {{WestMidlands-railstation-stub}}
  • {{NorthEastEngland-railstation-stub}}
  • {{NorthWestEngland-railstation-stub}}
  • {{Yorkshire-Humber-railstation-stub}}

Most of these seem likely to hit threshold on the basis of the above stats. Alai 04:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Perhaps we could just split out Wales, Scotland and London first, then see how the English regions look once we've one that? Grutness...wha? 12:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, excluding Northern Ireland. Splitting England by those regions may not be very popular: counties tends to be the main subdivision categorisation tool in England (eg. see Category:Transport in England by locality) and these are subcats of the English buildings and structures stubs, which are set up by county. There must be some NI stubs, but probably less than 60. In summary:
  • {{England-railstation-stub}}
    • {{London-railstation-stub}}
  • {{Scotland-railstation-stub}}
  • {{Wales-railstation-stub}}

--Mais oui! 09:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • ... and the purpose here is stub-sorting, not categorisation (esp. not for categorisation's sake). Sorting by county is unlikely to be viable on size for any at present, except perhaps the odd one or two, but the need for a (further) split is pretty much imminent. Maybe the unpopularity will spur people to "de-stub" the articles. (No, I didn't really think so either.) Alai 16:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, if you're splitting out England, Scotland and Wales station stubs, then {{UK-railstation-stub}} will be de facto {{NI-railstation-stub}}; why not just rename it while you're at it? Leave the category of UK railway station stubs, without a stub template filling it, to hold the four sub-categories. That said, I support the proposal, with the strong suspicion that England will have to be further split some time soon. --Stemonitis 09:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • seems a bit pointless f there arent any NI-railstation-stubs! better to leave it as a holding pen for now for people who still use UK-railstation-stub. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've made {{Scotland-railstation-stub}} and {{Wales-railstation-stub}}, and their relevant categories. I've also started to populate them, but I'd gladly accept some help. I wasn't sure what to do with England, so I've left it for the moment. --Stemonitis 12:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seemed to be to split out London, and to live in denial about the rest for a little longer. :) Alai 16:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wales and Scotland are now finished. I'll leave the English to sort out their remaining mess. --Stemonitis 11:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well wrought, Stem. As there's still over 1000, and on the above estimates of the Londons, will still be oversized after those are split out, I'll re-float my suggestion of splitting by (the other) English regions (too). Alai 18:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im making a start on london. once this is all done perhaps the main catagory should be renamed to "United Kingdom..." too. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ps - ive found one NI one! Coleraine railway station. There may be more :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All 8 of the Northern Ireland railway station articles are of stub length, but only Coleraine, Londonderry and Larne Town are marked with {{UK-railstation-stub}}. Just for information. --Stemonitis 08:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished out London. I'd say, based on current categorisation and informal counting as I went, that Greater Manchester, Kent, Merseyside, and Tyne and Wear are at or near threshold. Someone may want to do a formal count. I would advocate splitting by county where it is called for, then evaluating where we are. --CComMack 03:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of existing categorisation, the first three are all "near" (50-56 articles). There may be the odd station that lacks a per-county cat, but it seems pretty thorough on the whole. For Tynes and Wear, it depends on whether one counts the Metro stations (they're not perm-catted that way). Alai 04:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some may not have obvious categories; Category:UK railway station stubs ∩ Category:Railway stations in Merseyside (and subcats) yields 50 articles, while Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom ∩ Category:Historic transport in Merseyside yields another 8. As to Tyne and Wear Metro stations, unless they're numerous enough to have their own category like {{LUL-stub}}, they should count towards the county-wide count. --CComMack 21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There indeed seem to be about 60-70 not under Category:Railway stations in England (though that would also include the handful of NIs, and is still <10%, a pretty good hit rate). Basically the choice is either do the above, (somewhat marginally viable) splits now, and be left with a residual of 3 1/2 pages; or to split by regions, and have a number of one-page sub-cats. It'd be interesting to determine if we're at or near "saturation coverage" of the current stations (though doubless there's many disused stations that might come along later). Alai 22:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I suppose the questions I have are: 1) How saturated is our article coverage, and 2) Where else do we use regions as opposed to counties to subdivide England? --CComMack 22:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the first question, I was hoping someone else would have a handy answer to that. I found a statement that post-Beeching, there's been around 2000, but no more precise a figure. Judging by UK railway stations, and the fraction of redlinks, coverage is in the ballpark of 80-90%.

On the second: The number of times that England has been "stub-sorted" geographically at all is rather modest -- AFAIK, once, the -geo- stubs -- so there's no exactly a mountain of precedent here. In that case, the population did eventually grow to the point where by-county splits were feasible, though it was a long and lingering process. (How the permanent categories are arranged is another matter entirely.) I note that List of British towns with no railway station is arranged by region, and by the looks of it, for roughly analogous reasons: the list could be too "thin" if split by county. Alai 00:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, time for a Stupid American Question: are the counties strict subsets of regions? I look around, but I see lots of mentions of boundaries getting moved, and not so much about what goes into what. (Also, the difference between administrative and ceremonial counties with the same names but different boundaries... oy. My head hurts.) If the answer is "yes, these regions are simply counties stuck together and not something more complicated, then I formally withdraw any objection. --CComMack 21:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It takes very little empathic effort on my part to Feel Your Pain(TM), as I feel a good deal of it myself every time I wrestle with the detail of this. Doesn't help that I've been out of the UK for most of the last ten years, during which time the last iteration of changes took place. But the short answer is "yes"; the currently defined counties are each properly contained in a single region, and so it'd be possible to split into regions, and then re-split into counties (or indeed, to split into regions by category, but have a template per county), without any "sideways" movement.

The slightly longer answer is that "administrative county" as such is old terminology, dating back about 30 years (but three iterations of major local government reorganisation(!)). Actual "local goverment" now occurs at a) district level (districts being properly contained within counties), and/or b) county level, and in the single case of London, regional level -- but in no case at all three. There's either the region and (London) borough (effectively county-level, though not in name), or the county and the district, or just the county, or just the district. To further complicate matters, non-elective functions often use different boundaries again for administrative functions. Historic/traditional/former administrative counties will, as you say, often have the same names, but different borders, and are a whole different can of worms. It must be said there are indeed a number of traditionalist backwoodsmen that will argue about what the counties are (or should be), insist in writing old county names on their mail, etc, but unless they show up here and start edit-warring, hopefully that's not a concern here. Alai 01:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Revisiting old news, nothing seems to be happening with this proposal; my objections were withdrawn, so it probably ought to go ahead. Except, of course, that now that I check, Merseyside has 74 railstation-stubs. Should we get the non-controversial ones knocked out so we can cut this category down to size *before* we bicker about threshold?  :-) --CComMack 15:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been executing this split (very slowly...), and can now certify that Merseyside and Greater Manchester are at threshold, and I can almost certainly take Kent over with a little trawling of the category for missing tags. If there's no objection in the next few days, I'll split those counties out. --CComMack 14:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a new subcategory for Category:Album stubs for ska albums, and a template to go with it. I'm not sure where we're supposed to keep that list of articles we think is appropriate for the category, so I'll just start it here: bmearns.....(talk) 19:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Skunk With a Porpoise
• Listen...
• Brad Is Dead
• Miniature_Golf_Courses_of_America
• Goodbye_Blue_and_White
• Greased
• Hello Rockview
• The Pez Collection
• Divine Mandess (Mandess album)
• Devil's Night Out
• Don't Know How to Party
• A Jackknife to a Swan
• Let's Face It
• Live from the Middle East

• I'm hoping that's not the whole list; we're cutting our own throats if we agree to start any more new stub types for less than 60! (OK, I exaggerate a tad.) But this parent is so oversized I'm inclined to support on spec. Alai 04:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Why ska? There are other genres mixed into album stubs that could probably come closer to threshold. Eight articles won't make much of a dent. Crystallina 17:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Well ska because I happened to be creating two articles for ska albums and noticed that there was no such stub category. I honestly don't know if that's all the articles currently in or not, I will continue to look. But by all means, if this is too much of an inconvenience I'm not all that concerned with it. I'm not familiar with the logistics of creating a new sub cat for this project, so if it's a hassle, don't even worry about it. bmearns.....(talk) 21:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that it's a hassle, it's that the ska category may not meet threshold. I just finished album stubs and didn't encounter many ska articles. Crystallina 15:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good need for cellphone or mobile phone-related stubs so I'll make that right now. I was told to post my stub ideas here before making them. --Shultz III 12:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well you were told that much but you didnt reads the instructions on this page! the whole point of proposing them here is so they can be debated for a week before they are created. that way we can tell if it will be useful before you make it. this template simply doubles up stuff already covered by other templates like telecom-company-stub and comm-stub. and you didnt make it propoerly either (i had to fix it so that the catagory could be seen and worked - its still a redling tho). please follow the instructions! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Duplicative of Category:Wireless stubs, which isn't in urgent need of being split. No harm to have the template as a redirect. Alai 04:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Alai. --Valentinian ^(talk) 07:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged this with above category. This leaves Category:Cellphone stubs empty, and a candidate for deletion in 4 days if everyone is agreeable. Alai 03:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template deleted via SFD. Logged discussion here. --TheParanoidOne 06:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need an "Austro-Asiatic language" stub and template. Most of the current stubs that would take this template are currently marked as "Afro-Asiatic language stubs" which is grossly inaccurate. The few that aren't are simply marked with a plain "language stub" template.--WilliamThweatt 02:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have some width-of-scope concerns; the corresponding permanent categories are far from massive. The parent isn't oversized, so leaving the ones already there (correctly), and moving up any in Afro-asiatic (incorrectly) wouldn't be a disaster by any means. How many of these actually are there? Alai 04:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is that there are numerous stubs that are presently incorrect. Any solution that would remedy this would be acceptable for me. However, for the sake of consitancy, I would prefer that the new Stub be created. Otherwise we will have some labeled as "Afro-asiatic", and some simply labled as "Language". The Austro-Asiatic language family is an upper-level (parent) classification, analogous with "Indo-European", "Afro-Asiatic", "Austronesian", etc. I found at least 10 present stubs and literally scores of "red-links" that will one day need this catagory.--WilliamThweatt 06:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do see the concern that current mis-sorting may be an indication of possible future mis-sorting (perhaps due to the superficial similarity of the name -- we should probably rename Aa-lang-stub to be less ambiguous). The rule of thumb, though, is based on current size, to avoid creating titchy backwater stub types. Ten is too small for my personal tastes, though admittedly we do have worse... Shame that an Austric category would be entirely (minority) POV. Alai 07:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best thing is to do what is done with other such situations - keep them simply as {{language-stub}} for now, but keep a close eye on their numbers, re-proposing once it's clear there are enough for a meaty category. Given that it is a basic language family and most of the others have been split the threshold can probably be bent a bit - I'd have no objection if there were 30 stubs, say - but ten is very thin. Grutness...wha? 07:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly at any rate it'd be no harm to create a template for them, though if there's really that few, keep it feeding into the main category for the time being. Alai 15:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with creating a template that simply feeds into the main "language" catagory, if that can be done. However, I am still counting articles and have now found 17 Austro-Asiatic stubs labeled as "language stubs" in addition to the original 10 that are mislabeled. This brings the total count (so far) to at least 27 stubs that would fit this new catagory. With such a large language family, I'm sure there are even more, but because of the way they're currently classified (or not classified), they're so spread out making it time-consuming to look for them all (which is one of the problems I'm trying to remedy).--WilliamThweatt 17:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I seem to have mislaid a reply to this I thought I'd made earlier... 27's better than some we have, at any rate, and is around what we consider the usual minimum for a new category where there's a wikiproject. Note there's an existing permanent category, which should serve for consolidation purposes. Distinct templates feeding into the same category are indeed possible: just create a redirect, or near-copy of the existing template. (I'll be glad to help if you have any trouble.) Alai 01:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged or retagged four, that were either untagged or mistagged. Don't know if these are additional to the above. Alai 20:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious: Which template did you retag them with?

Lang-stub. I'll be able to find 'em again from my edit history, from the summary, though. Alai 22:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 60 of these, total, currently in three unproposed, undersized, and yet mysteriously undeletable stub categories. Smoosh 'em all together and make one good one (but keep existing templates, all feeding in here, for easing of future re-splitting, should the need arise). I'm ignoring the issue of whether a split by age is at all wise, due to "facts on the ground". Alai 17:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems we can't get rid of these horrible things, this may be the best solution. Go for. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new items to the bottom of this section

Just a quick note to other sorters that I've started a scratch pad for notes about sorting articles tagged with {{rail-stub}}. I've started by doing a country count to see how close we could be to the next split based on political borders (I thought there were more Ireland articles, but the count says otherwise). I plan to take a closer look at Category:US rail stubs next to see how it can be better handled. Slambo (Speak) 21:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the children of {{Compu-stub}} have the message "This X-related article is a stub. Help Wikipedia by expanding it." Every other stub template I've seen (well, with a couple of odd exceptions) say "You can help ...". The way it's worded here, apart from being inconsistent with other stub templates, sounds rather rude to me. I'd change them myself but I thought there might be a reason (I don't take editing templates lightly), so I'm being cautious and asking this WikiProject's folks about it. Hairy Dude 17:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for telling us. Valentinian ^(talk) 09:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Browse, Portal:Browse, Portal:Society, Portal:Technology and a lot of other-language Wikipedias (such as ), use Nuvola icons to refer to topics. I think we should do the same in our stub templates, whenever possible. Besides consistency, these icons have the advantages of being:

• LGPL;
• culturally neutral and non-controversial, to my knowledge;
• colourful and friendly;
• available to suit many topics (the biggest gaps probably being religion and food); and
• very legible at 32x32px, which many of our existing images (being photos) are not.

Many templates already do this, from Template:Metal-album-stub to Template:Golf-stub to Template:Chem-stub to Template:Electro-stub. Good, modified icons have been made for others such as Template:Musical-film-stub and Template:Furniture-stub. I believe we should commit to using (original or modified) Nuvola icons for stubs whenever possible.

We may not be ready to do this with flags yet. User:Valentinian tells me there are a large number of dual-country stub articles. Since only a handful of flags are available (original: Spain, France, Japan; modified: Peru) yet, this means that many articles will be decorated with both a straight and a waving flag. If this is an issue, we can hold off on changing the flags over until more Nuvola-esque flags are available.

However, I think in general, using Nuvola wherever possible would increase legibility and stylistic consistency and improve the aesthetics. Does everyone agree? Seahen 19:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all the double- and triple-stubbing going on, it'd look pretty bad if we start using two or more standards on the flags, and I'd really prefer if we postpone a change of them, for the time being. If a (more) complete set of flags becomes available, we can decide on a complete shift then. I've gone through a lot of the templates to preserve a consistent look (.svg version and 30px), so I'd hate to see that go. An update of other icons might be a good idea, but that should be considered on a case-to-case basis. There's no need for change if the template already uses a great free image (e.g. the portrait of Einstein for {{Physicist-stub}}.) Second, we should still strive for templates to use different icons as much as possible, enabling easy identification. Just my thoughts. Valentinian ^(talk) 19:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I definately agree with Valentinian. The nuvola icons might be useful for a lot of cases, but not for others, it should be decided depending on the stub you need an icon for.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 20:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I know a suitable Nuvola icon is not available for every template, consider the following. (Note that icon sizes have been normalized to 40px.)

Template	Current icon	Nuvola alternative
Compu-stub
Math-stub
Insect-stub
Geo-stub
TV-stub	File:TV icon.png
Software-stub
Bcast-stub

Now, can we all agree that the Nuvola icons are (a) more colourful and visually appealing; (b) easier to read at first glance; and (c) more consistent in appearance, compared to the ones on their left? Seahen 21:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them look appealing, e.g. the tv-icon, but to be frank, I'm not a fan of the Apple-look, and I personally find it a bit too childish (sorry if this offends any Apple-user reading this, but hey, that's my view. The only thing important is the quality of the text.) The computer- and tv-icon are good, but the original maths and broadcasting icons are also very appealing. I don't like the new geo-icon, and I don't understand the square on the software-icon; I presume it's a monitor. In my book, stub images should be easily identifiable but not dominating. I *will* give you that the Nuvola icons are generally more colourful. Btw, who implemented a standard about 40 pix images for stub templates? Not WP:WSS, and I find most images large enough, particularly on double-stubbed pages. Regarding the flags, I'm currently going through all templates using flag icons, so *please* don't make changes to a standard that 95% of them actually follow. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for putting all icons at 40px was to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison. As for the globe, sit back from your monitor a bit, and tell me: which one can you recognize as a globe from two or three feet away? Or compare them at the smaller sizes we generally use: versus and versus This is the advantage of colourful, space-filling icons: they're more readable. Seahen 15:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find them too glossy, "loud" and dominating. The glossy look reminds me of the wrappings of candy, not something I should take seriously. Geo-stubs might not be the best of examples since the great majority of them are stubbed with an template using a national flag. I've reverted the edit to the {{academic-bio-stub}}, the added image was simply an icon of a white person wearing a tie, and the image reminds me of a salesman or businessperson, not a professor. Second, I don't see the point about standing away from the monitor, since the important part of Wikipedia is its text, not the layout. The layout of Britannica is pretty dull too, but that's because it is irrelevant to the page's main task; conveying information. Third, some editors hate the notion of stub templates in the first place, and have specifically objected to the use of images on them. I see no reason to further anger these editors. The stub images were retained but a key reason was that members of WP:WSS argued that we need the images for our stub sorting work. Fourth, double- and triple-stubbings is extremely common, and large glossy images on those will dominate way too much. Especially if the stub article also uses an infobox or something similar on the right side of the screen. My impression of the proposed examples: Computer: might be an idea, but should be 30px, Maths: old image is serious, new one is noicy, Insect: the first image is clearly more serious, Geo: new one is way too glossy, tv: no clear winner there, software: the original image is a lot better, since the combination of a package, cd, and disk clearly shows what it's all about. The new image could as well be perceived as a music disc or DVD. It's impossible to see if the square is a book, box, monitor or whatever, Broadcasting: the second image only reminds me of a piece from a ludo game. I don't see any reason to change the status quo unless a new image is vastly superior to an old one. And stub sorters keep an eye out for that. Its part of the job. Valentinian ^(talk) 16:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yuuk! some of those look awful compared to whats there now (and i am an apple user). were not five year olds so why use five year old book illustrations? fwiw i vote against this proposal! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I agree with BL - those nuvola icons look very childish. In any case, as to their "political neutrality", a great deal of thought goes into the creation of neutral stub icons, and they are often far better in this regard than the dinky little kid's book icons in the nuvola system. I'm also opposing this proposal. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the matter some more thought, and I basically find the outline too childish. I prefer a more serious / scientific look. I'd second Grutness' point about the neutrality. Stub sorters already strive very much to avoid offending anyone with the stub images, and I think they're doing a good job. I can't remember a single edit war over this issue. Oppose this suggestion. If an editor finds a stub image to be sub-standard, he/she will probably also look in the nuvola package, but editors shouldn't be restricted to using them. I don't see any need to change the standard size of stub images either. Valentinian ^(talk) 12:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with any of the example current icons. Not much to separate them. I doubt Nuvola has enough icons with appropriate separation and distinctions to be able to universally place a different one on each stub template - and I definitely vote against repeating the same icon on different stub templates. If Nuvola has enough depth to replace the photos with icons, I would be open to support that (for stub templates with either no picture or a scaled photo), but does it really have a suitable icon for (example) {{Australia-road-stub}} that is sufficiently distinct from every other substub of both {{Australia-stub}} and {{Road-stub}}? --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Nuvola does not have an icon for Australian roads. Instead, I'd suggest replacing the existing photo with an Australian highway sign (maybe ?), since it would be more readable. Seahen 15:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian road stub photo was discussed on the Australian noticeboard and selected as at that size it was clearly a road and had recognisable Australian colours in it. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, someone changed the icon on flag-stub to a nuvola one - I've just reverted it, since replacing a deliberately non-political flag (a maritime signal flag) with two European national flags is a clear example of why the nuvola images are actually far less neutral than our own icons. Grutness...wha? 04:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose even though I love the Nuvolas (I used them for a lot of the film stubs). I appreciate the thought, but I think this is carrying uniformity a bit too far. Leave it up to the projects or to a random editor with a perfect icon, whether Nuvola or otherwise. Her Pegship 04:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following - verbatim - was a message from Instantnood to my user talk page - sounds like a good idea... are there any technical/other problems with it? Grutness...wha? 01:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be a good idea to sort biography stubs according to the "Family Name, Given Name" format? That line in the templates can be written as [[Category:Something people stubs|{{{1}}}]] or [[Category:Something people stubs|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]] (instead of [[Category:Something people stubs]]). — Instantnood 18:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for bringing the matter here. I've tested the proposal with the article on Cecilia Cheung (This article was chosen because the given name and the family name start with the same letter.). I used |{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}} instead of |{{{1}}} since it's impossible to modify all articles at a time – those not yet modified are kept sorted in the old way. — Instantnood 18:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is not currently a stub category for performing arts, defined in this instance as artistic performances performed before a live audience. As a result of this missing category, there are also no subcategories for drama, comedy, improvisational theater, musical comedy, melodrama, performance art, marching band, color guard, winter guard, drum corps, operetta, kabuki, and several other legitimate performing arts. There are also many "crossover" categories: dance, symphony, etc. There probably quite a hierarchy here, and I have not proposed a category because it is not clear to me if we can have categories that cross-list subcategories. Is someone more experience in category formation willing to to tackle this, or at least provide me with some pretty honkin' good guidance while I try it? Ray Trygstad 05:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well first don't try it yourself, because it will need debating here - what you're proposing is quite an organisational/hierarchical change. Currently the different things you mention are all dealt with in their separate categories - operetta and musical comedy use the same stub as opera, for instance, drama uses either play-stub or theat-stub or some subcategory of them depending on the particular type of drama. Improvisional theatre also uses theat-stub as does kabuki (probably double-stubbed with japan-stub). Performance art uses art-stub, and both marching bands and drum corps use one of the musical ensemble stubs (I have no idea what a winter guard or color guard are so I can't comment on them). In other words, all of these items are already categorised and subcategorised in places on the tree - creating a new branch specifically relating to performance is a huge and probably unnecessary extra tangle on the tree. (BTW I've moved this to the proposer place on the page!) Grutness...wha? 07:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either I'm blind or missing something obvious, but how do you label a stub which is about a castle? Heidelberg Castle came to mind. I came up with using "German structure stub" or something. There exists a template:castle-stub but it's a bit broken. Has there really never been a need for such a thing before? The trouble is, castles aren't necessarily military history, they aren't necessarily "structures" (they could be ruins),... anyway. Stevage 23:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the Castle stub and added it to the Heidelburg page. Burns flipper 11:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castle-stub shouldn't exist - it wasn't proposed. Use germany-struct-stub, which is what is used for all other german castles. And what makes you think ruins aren't structures? Grutness...wha? 14:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't know the stub policy, but in the meantime, could castle-stub at least be a redirect or something? It's very useful to be able to just guess at the name of a stub, rather than having to actually look it up, and castle-stub is a pretty intuitive name :) Personally, I'm not sure that splitting everything by country is necessarily the best way - Heidelberg castle is probably more likely to attract castle fans that German building fans. But anyway, there's obviously a bit of "history" here...Stevage 14:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rather agree about the "expansion likelihood" (speaking as a Scot who's visited said castle). Ideally all "structures" would be double-stubbed with both a location, and a "type"; the downside of having both is that people choose to use one or the other on an entirely ad hoc basis. Alai 18:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]