Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before proposing or creating a new type of stub, please read How to propose a new stub type.

Shortcut: WP:SFD

Deletion debates Deletion today Deletion yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Images & media Categories (active) User categories Stub types Redirects Miscellany Deletion review Deletion policy Process - log - tools Guide - Admin guide

This page only deals with the deletion and renaming of stub types, which consist of a template and a category, and are intended to be used for sorting stubs. Stub templates that are missing categories and stub categories without associated templates are also appropriate here. All other templates or categories nominated for deletion or renaming have to be put on Templates for discussion or Categories for discussion, respectively.

Contents 1 About this page 1.1 Putting a stub type on Stub types for deletion (SfD), and what happens afterwards 1.1.1 Putting {{sfd-r}} or {{sfr-r}} on redirects 1.2 Possible reasons for the deletion of a stub type 1.3 What this page is not for 1.4 Typical voting options 1.4.1 Renaming options 1.5 Note to non-administrators 1.6 Note to administrators deleting stub types 2 Listings 2.1 February 29 2.1.1 Church-directory-stub/ redlink/ {{Church-directory-dev}} 2.2 February 25 2.2.1 {{Uiuc-stub}} / Cat:UIUC stubs 2.2.2 {{Alien-stub}} / Cat:Alien stubs 2.3 February 21 2.3.1 {{SA-composer-stub}} 2.3.2 {{SW-org-stub}} 2.3.3 {{Rabinical-bio-stub}} 2.3.4 {{Uic-stub}} 2.4 February 19 2.4.1 Cat:Polish artists stubs → Cat:Polish artist stubs 2.5 February 17 2.5.1 {{Frasier-stub}} / Cat:Frasier Stubs 2.5.2 {{BRoy-stub}} / Cat:British royalty stubs 2.5.3 {{AquaticInvert-stub}} / Cat:Aquatic Invertebrate stubs 3 Old business 3.1 February 12 3.1.1 Cat:Medical Book stubs / {{medical-book-stub}} 3.2 February 11 3.2.1 {{CAsia-studies-stub}} / Cat:Central Asian studies stubs 3.3 February 7 3.3.1 Several Texas city categories 3.3.2 {{Kosova-geo-stub}} 3.3.3 Various Chinese sports bio templates 3.3.4 {{Childrens-book-series-stub}} / Cat:Children's book series stubs 3.4 February 6 3.4.1 {{BaseballStub}} 3.4.2 {{footy-stub}}, and other templates in hierarchy 3.5 February 5 3.5.1 {{Glass-stub}} / Cat:Glass stubs 3.6 February 3 3.6.1 Basketball stub templates 3.7 January 17 3.7.1 Cat:Côte d'Ivoire football biography stubs 3.7.2 Cat:Belarus history stubs → Cat:Belarusian history stubs 3.8 January 15 3.8.1 {{UK-suffragan bishop-stub}} 3.8.2 Category:Côte d'Ivoire biography stubs 3.9 January 14 3.9.1 {{Sturgeon-stub}} / Cat:Sturgeon stubs 3.10 January 10 3.10.1 Realigning Ohio subregion stub categories 3.11 January 9 3.11.1 {{Philippine Movie Stub}} / Cat:Philippine Movie Stub 3.11.2 {{UK-Olympic-medalist-stub}} -> {{GB-Olympic-medalist-stub}} & Cat:United Kingdom Olympic medalist stubs -> Cat:Great Britain Olympic medalist stubs 3.12 January 4 3.12.1 {{Iceland-eco-stub}} / Cat:Iceland economy stubs 3.12.2 {{Mining stub}} / Cat:Mining stubs 3.13 December 31 3.13.1 {{Mesogastropoda-stub}} 3.13.2 Yukon v. Yukon Territory 3.13.3 {{Yukon-politician-stub}} / Cat:Yukon politician stubs 3.14 December 16 3.14.1 {{Video-game-gameplay-stub}} (redirect) 3.14.2 Several undeleted redirects 3.15 December 11 3.15.1 {{CPI-politician-stub}} / Cat:Communist Party of India politician stubs 3.15.2 {{CPI(M)-politician-stub}} / Cat:Communist Party of India (Marxist) politician stubs 3.16 December 8 3.16.1 {{San Francisco-stub}}/redlink 3.16.2 {{San Francisco Bay Area-stub}} (upmerged) 3.16.3 {{Los Angeles-stub}} / Cat:Los Angeles stubs 3.17 November 2 3.17.1 Various Cat:Ohio Registered Historic Places building and structure stubs templates 3.17.2 {{1948s-novel-stub}} 4 To orphan 5 To delete 6 Listings to log

WikiProject Stub sorting  v • d • e
Information
Project page	talk
- Stub types (sections)	talk
- Stub types (full list)	talk
- List of stub redirects	talk
- Naming guidelines
- To do	talk
Wikipedia:Stub	talk
Discussion
Criteria (A)	talk
Proposals (A)	talk
Discoveries (A)	talk
Deletion (Log)	talk
Category

[edit] About this page

This page is for the proposal, discussion, and voting on deletion or renaming of stub categories, stub templates, and stub redirects. Centralizing the vote on these three closely related matters on one page reduces the need for repeating identical arguments on several different Wikipedia deletion pages (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) and also reduces the workload on those pages.

This page is still named "Stub types for deletion" for two reasons. Firstly, many of the stub types brought here arrive here after rudimentary discussion has already taken place at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries. Secondly, renaming automatically implies some form of deletion. The renaming of a stub category leads to the replacement and deletion of the older category, and the renaming of a stub template usually (but not always) leads to the deletion of the previous template name, as stub template redirects are rarely used (for the reasons for this, see the stub naming guidelines).

[edit] Putting a stub type on Stub types for deletion (SfD), and what happens afterwards

• Mark the affected pages:
  • For deletion:
    • Put {{sfd-t}} on stub templates
    • Put {{sfd-c}} on stub categories
    • Put {{sfd-r}} on stub redirects, and include the redirect target after it (see below for details)
  • For renaming:
    • Put {{sfr-t|New-name}} (parameter optional) on stub templates
    • Put {{sfr-c|New name}} (parameter optional) on stub categories
    • Put {{sfr-r|New name}} (parameter optional) on stub redirects (Redirects should be nominated for renaming only as part of a mass renaming that includes templates that share the name element to be renamed that the redirect uses.)
• List the stub type below in a new subsection at the top of the section which has the current date. If that section does not yet exist, create it.
  • Mention all affected pages in the subheading, like this:
    ==== {{tl|banana stub}} / [[:Category:Banana stubs]] / {{tl|YellowCurvyFruit-stub}} (redirect) ====
  • Also mention how many articles currently use the template, and if it is listed anywhere else.
  • Of course, state your reason for nominating the stub type!
• It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors to the stub that you are nominating the stub. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the stub.
• After a voting period of seven days, action will be taken if there is consensus on the fate of the stub type. Please do not act before this period is over.
• Archived discussions are logged here, and are marked with {{sfd top}} and {{sfd bottom}}, indicating whether category and template were renamed, deleted, or no action taken.

[edit] Putting {{sfd-r}} or {{sfr-r}} on redirects

Given that the {{sfd-r}} and {{sfd-r}} templates break redirection, it is necessary to change a stub redirect when adding the template, as follows:

#Redirect [[Template:Example-stub]] should be changed to:

{{sfd-r}}{{Example-stub}}

[edit] Possible reasons for the deletion of a stub type

• They are not used in any article, and their category is empty
• They overlap with other stub categories, or duplicate them outright
• Their scope is too limited - As a rule of thumb, there should be at least 50 appropriate stubs in existence
• Their scope is too ambiguous or vague - in these cases, renaming may be more appropriate than outright deletion
• The stub category or template is misnamed. In this case, make this clear when nominating and propose a new category or template name. Note that - in the case of a template but not a category - it may be more appropriate to make it into a redirect.
• They are malformed, misnamed, or deprecated redirects

[edit] What this page is not for

• Patently nonsensical or insulting stub types — they may be speedily deleted.
• Empty categories with no corresponding template — they may be speedily deleted (after 4 days, as per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD) criterion C1).
• Recently created stub types not used on any articles — they may be speedily deleted (after 4 days, as per WP:CSD criterion C1). This does not apply to types properly proposed and accepted which have not yet been populated.
• Malformed stub types to which no further deletion reasons apply — fix them or tell the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting.
• Stub templates that were not approved by the WikiProject Stub sorting (again, unless other reasons apply) — list those on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries. From there, they may later be taken to this page
• Stub categories that are too large — these are not deleted, even if they get subdivided.

[edit] Typical voting options

• Keep (do not delete or modify)
• Delete (delete template and category)
• Merge with xx-stub (delete category, keep template (either as redirect to, or feeding into the same category as, xx-stub))
• Merge with xx-stub without redirect (delete category and template, put xx-stub on all articles that use it)
• Upmerge (merge to parent stub type)
• Change scope (reword the template, typically giving it either a larger or more precise scope. Usually also means renaming the category)

When voting, please try to give a more substantial reason than simply "I like it/find it useful" or "I dislike it/don't find it useful".

[edit] Renaming options

• Rename/Support
  • (for templates: move to new name, replace existing usages, delete redirect);
  • (for categories: recreate category page under new name, repopulate, delete old category).
• Rename, keep redirect/Move (for templates only: move, but don't replace usages of existing template)
• Oppose (no move of template, and/or deletion and recreation of category)

• DO NOT rename any stub type that has been nominated here while discussion is still in progress. Any necessary renaming will be done when the discussion is closed.

• If you wish to argue for the deletion of a template or category nominated for renaming, please re-tag with {{sfd-t}}/{{sfd-c}}, and note the date of doing so, so as to ensure proper consideration of this new nomination.

If a template is speedily renamed, similarly re-tag the resultant redirect if deletion of that is desired.

[edit] Note to non-administrators

If a category and/or stub deletion is agreed upon and you're helping to change the stubs on those pages: Once you've emptied the category, please note the category on this page under the "To Delete" section that the stub category section is empty ("orphaned") and "ready to be deleted" to the administrators.

[edit] Note to administrators deleting stub types

It is important for consistency, and to avoid confusion on the parts of stub-sorters that stub types be removed from the stub type list when they are deleted. Please don't leave red links on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types!

[edit] Listings

[edit] February 29

[edit] Church-directory-stub/ redlink/ {{Church-directory-dev}}

This one's a really strange one. unproposed, and - according to its text - for lists "of Christian church bodies or Christian denominations (not Church buildings)". All articles on these subjects are currently well-covered by other stub types. Lists aren't, because - by definition - lists aren't stubs (they usually get {{listdev}} rather than stub templates). There is, of course, no permanent parent Cat:Church directories - instead, there's an equally strange Cat:Find a Christian church, which is heading to WP:CFD in a moment or two. Delete as unsalvageable. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Say a prayer for it before burying it. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP - I have changed the name (Template:Church-directory-dev)and format to reflect the {{listdev}} template as stated above. This template is need so folks understand it is a directory of Christian church bodies or Christian denominations-- not church buildings). --Carlaude (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 25

[edit] {{Uiuc-stub}} / Cat:UIUC stubs

Discovered belatedly through discussion on Uic-stub, below, this was was never proposed, was incorrectly formatted (fixed), and has not got halfway to threshold even after 20 months in existence. There seems to be a bit of a mix-n-match going on with US university stubs overall, but most of them use state-university-stub as their form (which keeps them in line with other splits of US stubs). Suggest renaming/rescopinging this into a new {{Illinois-university-stub}}, either upmerged or - if numbers are sufficient - along with Cat:Illinois university stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{Alien-stub}} / Cat:Alien stubs

Where to start? Unproposed. Unused. There is no Cat:Aliens or Cat:Alien. Ambiguous name (illegal aliens? no. Extraterrestrials? no. The Alien fim series? yes). Even being lenient and adding in the Predator categories to the Alien series category (Cat:Alien (film series)), yields only some 75 articles (difficult to count for certain, given the cross-categorisation of items in both parent and child categories). It would take nearly half of them to be stubs for this to reach threshold even with a WikiProject. Currently effectively handled by various film-, sf-, and videogame- stub types. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I created this one, as part of the construction of Wikiproject Alien which I'm still working on and based off another WikiProject. I wasn't familiar with the proposals process or the threshold requirement. Unfortunately I would guestimate that a good deal of the Alien and Predator-related articles are in fact stubs (which is why I'm launching the project), so I could see it being used quite a bit, but if you feel it is better handled by other stub types then so be it. If you have further guidance for me on the project I've undertaken, please go ahead and message me on my talk page. I'm using the "learn by doing" method so I need all the coaching I can get. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the categories you mention don't exist yet because I'm still constructing them. Once they're created I'd planned to start placing project tags and stub tags on the articles that require them. The fact that the stub type is unused and uncategorized currently is because I only created it yesterday. I'm still deferring to your experience on the matter, I just wanted to address those specific points. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My point about those categories is that they shouldn't exist. The correct category for the Alien film series already exists (Cat:Alien (film series)). Any category simply called Cat:Aliens or Cat:Alien would be a deletion candidate due to its ambiguity - too many things have those names and Alien is a disambiguation page. For the same reason, there should not be a category called Cat:Alien stubs, not a template called {{Alien-stub}}. If kept, this would need to be renamed to {{Alien-film-stub}} / Cat:Alien (film series) stubs or similar, though I would still question the need for it at all. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your points about the disambiguation of the category. I think the confusion there is that it doesn't just cover the film series, but also comics, video games, and other media. The primary media is of course the film series, but I'm hoping to move/expand Alien (film series) into something more like Star Wars as sort of the parent article for the project, so that it includes discussions of those other media. Similarly my hope is to rename Cat:Alien (film series) into something more inclusive of the franchise as a whole and its various media. The problem is settling on a proper disambiguation, since "alien" applies to so many things unrelated to the franchise (Alien (fiction series) maybe?). I've started assessing, sorting, and tagging articles withing the project and have tagged about 65 stubs so far. So my preferred course of action would be to rename the categories and stub to make it all fall under a uniform umbrella term. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Since stub categories follow permanent category names for the most party, your best course of action would be to try to change the permcat name at WP:CFD before making any stub categories. You may have problems though, since the term "Alien" is so ambiguous. Perhaps suggesting something like "Alien (entertainment franchise)" or similar might work, but I'm sure someone at CFD would be able to suggest better alternatives. In any case, starting with the stub category is definitely putting the cart before the horse. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 21

[edit] {{SA-composer-stub}}

SA is ambiguous, but in this case is supposed to be South America and not South Africa or any other SA meaning. Rename to {{SouthAm-composer-stub}} to match the naming guidelines. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rename, before anyone starts adding composers from Adelaide. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{SW-org-stub}}

Seems to be some confusion here. This is an unproposed stub template, but it leads into a Stub-Class category. If the intention was to create a Stub-Class template then this should be renamed to something like {{Stub-Class SW-org}}, but if so, something's definitely wrong, since the appearance of the template is also that of a stub template. There's also the problem that it says it's for "a social work concept or organisation", yet there's no way that a concept should get anby form of org-stub. If the aim was to create an actual stub template, then it needs a category or to be upmerged properly, and it also needs a less ambiguous name ({{Socialwork-stub}} or similar). However, I'm not really sure how much call there'd be for a template like that, and given that we'd need to start over from the top with this it would probably be simpler to delete it and (re-)propose it from scratch. Grutness...wha? 12:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with deletion. I will research the need some more and make a proposal in the near future if this seems like a good process. My intent was to bring more attention to these stub articles regarding subjects that I think the encyclopedia really needs. However, I was obviously confused. Sorry about my screw up. I hope this did not cause too much disruption. Ursasapien (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{Rabinical-bio-stub}}

Unproposed and entirely redundant with the long-standing {{Judaism-bio-stub}}. And rabbinical usually has two "b"s. Delete. Grutness...wha? 12:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This template should be kept. It is not redundant with {{Judaism-bio-stub}} because that template can refer to any jewish personality and not specifically rabbis.Nerguy (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to make clear one point {{Judaism-bio-stub}} is for people who are notable specifically because of some contribution they made to their religion, not just simply because they are a Jew who may be notable for other reasons. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to renaming to {{rabbi-stub}}. The naming guidelines prefer using nouns over adjectives, and furthermore they also prefer correct spelling, so it needs renaming at a minimum in any event. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want it renamed as {{rabbi-stub}}, that is reasonable. Also, not all people who contribute to the Jewish religion are rabbis. Many are lay leaders.Nerguy (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

{{Rabbi-stub}} sounds fair to me as well. Your point about lay leaders makes sense. Caerwine's point is worth noting re Judaism-bio-stub being specifically for people most notable for their religious work, though. Grutness...wha? 23:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Lay leaders can also do some religious work. Nerguy (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

But that doesn't make them Rabbi's

More to the point, a reli-bio-stub of any kind is for people whose primary notability is for their religious work. That will not necessarily be true for all lay leaders, though it will be for many. A Rabbi-stub would be specifically for people who have been ordained. Grutness...wha? 22:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rename as proposed to {{Rabbi-stub}} as above. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Grutness and it just should be renamed.Nerguy (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{Uic-stub}}

Unproposed, and without even a redlinked category. There is no such thing as a uic - there are several UICs, however and this stub type seems to be intended for one of them, the University of Illinois in Chicago. University are usually divided by state, not by individual university (and certainly not for individual campus!), and this is hardly likely to reach the required splittability threshold (it currently is used on two articles). Delete, or rescope to cover all universities in Illinois, or at the very least the whole of the University of Illinois. Grutness...wha? 12:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong - it had two noincluded category links - a permcat and a redlink Cat:UIC stubs. Grutness...wha? 12:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not proposing it. It should indeed be on more pages; however, I was working on that. However, if you are proposing to also eliminate the UIUC-stub in favor of stub for the entire University of Illinois system, then I suppose that would also be fine. But as is, the UIUC-stub is not useful for anything relating the the University of Illinois at Chicago. What is done for the University of California at Berkeley versus the University of California at Los Angeles? And is that perceived as a model to be followed?--Cumulant (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What UIUC-stub??? Erg - another one never proposed. Sigh...that also goes on the SFD list. As for California, its universities all use {{California-university-stub}}. There is no UCLA-stub or UCB-stub (let alone Ucla-stub or Ucb-stub) - and yes, the state-university-stub formulation is the perceived model to be followed. Henc e my original suggestion that this be rescoped to cover all universities in illinois. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 19

[edit] Cat:Polish artists stubs → Cat:Polish artist stubs

This should have been caught during the recent proposal, but wasn't. Hopefully this can be speedied. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Creator support.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 17

[edit] {{Frasier-stub}} / Cat:Frasier Stubs

Thought I'd pick some easier ones today. This one has had 2 articles since March 2007, and the parent contains 5 articles and 7 infoboxes. The other sub-cats are for episodes or characters, each of which have their own types, and lastly, I think we only have series-specific types for really behemoth franchises like Doctor Who and Star Trek. Delete, please. Her Pegship (tis herself) 02:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• And that's not to mention the miscapitalised category. Clearly not needed - even an upmerged template seems unlikely to gain much use. Delete. Grutness...wha? 07:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{BRoy-stub}} / Cat:British royalty stubs

Apparently {{UK-royal-stub}} redirects to this template, but the category page says to use {{UK-royal-stub}}. On the Discoveries page, it's noted that the associated WP uses "BRoy", so I assume this was a well-meant slip. I suggest we reverse the redirect, and possible delete {{BRoy-stub}} as well. Her Pegship (tis herself) 02:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's a horrible, non-intuitive, and utterly non-NG-standard name. Move the template back and delete this ASAP. Grutness...wha? 07:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{AquaticInvert-stub}} / Cat:Aquatic Invertebrate stubs

The template was originally nominated back on January 21 but since then the creator removed the notice and added a category that also violates the naming guidelines. Relisting here for deletion as it has only 4 tagged articles, cuts across existing stub categories, and has bad names for both the template and the category. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• What do you mean? If you check my talk page, the issue was resolved. And, it has already proved useful. Let's say there's a stub on an invertebrate, and it lives underwater. Then let's say there's an invertebrate on land. Using that stub template, you can differentiate between the two. Jourdy288 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Let me address the points I raised individually.
    1. It does not follow the naming guidelines for stub types. If this stub followed the the naming guidelines, it would be something like {{aquatic-invertebrate-stub}} / Cat:Aquatic invertebrate stubs.
    2. It is undersized. Stub types should generally have at a minimum 60 stubs, which is reduced to a minimum of 30 stubs, but at present it only has 7 stubs.
    3. Finally, there's the fact that Wikipedia categorizes organisms primarily by their taxonomy and not by the type of habitat they live in. Habitat is a distinctly secondary scheme.

    Sorting by habitat might have proved a useful tool for splitting the invertebrate stubs if we had exhausted the possibilities of taxonomy, but we hadn't. Indeed, Invertebrate stubs itself is a rather poor grouping given that about 97% of all animals are invertebrates. At least you can rest assured that your effort has spurred this project towards developing stub templates for each phylum. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, as this area is covered by various other stub types. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, due to the fact that it still has use, as, stubs I marked with it have been appropriateley changed, as in all those echinoderm stubs I marked with my stub, are now changed to echinoderm stub. Again, I say keep, as it is still much more descriptive and draws a major line.

Jourdy288 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Further, howether, I notice your point on renaming, and I agree.

Jourdy288 (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old business

[edit] February 12

[edit] Cat:Medical Book stubs / {{medical-book-stub}}

Moved from CFD; not sure if there are enough items for it, but it need renaming at least. Someone created it today and even placed the {{WPSS-cat}} banner on it, despite its not having been proposed. Whaddaya think? Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• rename and upmerge as {{med-book-stub}}, deleting current template name. If it reaches threshold by the end of the process period, then keep the category but renames with lower case B. I'd just found this on my daily trawl through newpages/templates and was about to bring it here, but looks like you beat me to it :) I've put a notice on the creator's page, BTW. Grutness...wha? 04:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 11

[edit] {{CAsia-studies-stub}} / Cat:Central Asian studies stubs

Unproposed, and - to be honest - a peculiar one. At first glance, it's difficult to see how this would be different from a CAsia-stub, and it's only on closer look that it becomes clear that this is being used as a bio-stub type, mostly for academics whose area of expertise is Central Asia. As such, it cuts across such stub types as historian-stub, academic-stub, and their subtypes. Most of the few non bio-stubs this could take would naturally belong in the longstanding Cat:Central Asian history stubs. It's worth noting that the parent permcat (Cat:Central Asian studies) has fewer than 10 non-bio articles, and all of those, if stubs, would be well covered by the above combination. As to the parent stubcat, remerging this would leave it with a barely viable 65 stubs - definitely too few to even contemplate splitting. Delete. Grutness...wha? 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this caught anyone by surprise. My thought was that a lot of the stubs in question had been previously Central Asian history stubs, which seemed inaccurate. I felt it would be helpful to have a distinction between articles/stubs about Central Asia history as opposed to those who study that history (but aren't really part of it themselves). As for the limited number of articles at the moment, the idea was that more articles would be created (there are quite of number of articles, including non-bio articles, which can be created on the subject). I was simply trying to make things more organized. As for the unproposed, guilty as charged (pleading ignorance - I've now discovered and read about the proposing process). If it really bothers people, I won't fight deletion, but knowing which Central Asia studies articles are stubs (as opposed to just throwing them into the mass of history stubs) seems helpful to me. That was all. Otebig (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Splitting historians by subject area as well as by their nationality strikes me as a good thing, but there hadn't been a good idea for how to make the stubs distinct from the *-historian-stub series. Merging them into a *-series-stub series of templates might work. However, it does seem that there are too few at present identified for a CAsia-studies at present, but upmerging Cat:Central Asian studies stubs to a new {{Asia-studies-stub}} / Cat:Asia studies stubs seems quite viable, keeping the existing {{CAsia-studies-stub}} as an upmerged template feeding into both Cat:Asia studies stubs and Cat:Central Asia stubs. {{Europe-studies-stub}} and {{Africa-studies-stub}} would also seem worthwhile. The Americas would prove a problem from the usual viewpoint of stub sorting, as the split there is clearly Latin America / Anglo America instead of our usual North America / South America, but a {{US-studies-stub}} / Cat:American studies stubs would handle most of the distinction, leaving the remainder of the Americas to wait for now in an Cat:area studies stubs that would be the logical parent of all these stubs. Consider all the above to be a comment for now. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds plausible, though it does keep the problem as to whether it relates to people or other things. Most non bio-stub types can already be covered by other things (area history stubs, area politics stubs, and the like), and "X studies stubs" doesn't make it clear that it is being used primarily for people. The idea is a reasonable one, but it would need some tinkering with to name it, and unfortunately there is no such word as "Centralasiaologist". Perhaps rather than X-studies-stub, an X-scholar-stub for scholars concerned with particular regions would be a practical solution? Grutness...wha? 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Still being a stub novice, I'm not quite sure what to do next -- should I propose a Central Asia-scholar-stub? Otebig (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just started debate on a range of scholar-stub types on the proposal page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2008/February#Scholar-stub_types - feel free to add any comments there. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Central Asian studies stubs. I think a Central Asian studies stub section makes much more sense than merging Central Asia into general historians or into Asian studies. Asia is larger on the map than Europe and the Americas combined and dividing it into regions only makes sense. There are a fair number of journals of Central Asian themes being published and it's a growing field of study, so keeping it separate is the right idea. Also, many academic departments combine Central Asia with Russia because of the historical connections, and lumping Central Asia with "Asian nations", whether it be China, Japan or S.E. Asia doesn't make much sense because the Central Asian states share more in common culturally, religiously and linguistically with the Middle East than they do with Asian nations. Central Asia is a distinct region, so let's keep it a distinct category.David Straub (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Um... have you read all of the comments above? If so, which stubs do you think - other than the bio stubs, types for which have been proposed to replace this - wouldn't fit more naturally into the current Central Asian history, Central Asian geography, Central Asian politics, or general Central Asian stub types? Grutness...wha? 05:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 7

[edit] Several Texas city categories

• Cat:Austin stubs → Cat:Austin, Texas stubs
• Cat:Dallas stubs → Cat:Dallas, Texas stubs
• Cat:Houston stubs → Cat:Houston, Texas stubs

Rename to reduce ambiguity, fit the normal category naming conventions, and match parents Cat:Austin, Texas, Cat:Dallas, Texas, and Cat:Houston, Texas. - Dravecky (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Templates are probably fine where they are though. Grutness...wha? 08:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• I dunno about "ambiguity": Dallas and Houston are redirects, and Austin is a rather marginal-looking dab page, listing N-1 places I'd never heard of, and the one it probably should be a redirect to. However, if the permcats and article names are going to be over-qualified -- and evidently, they are -- we should probably rename to match. However, {{Austin-TX-stub}} is horrendous (it seems to have been moved from {{Austin-stub}} and that redirect deleted, without reference to this page. Move back. Alai (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Erk! I'd assumed they were at {{Austin-stub}} and the like. {{Austin-TX-stub}} is a horrific bastardisation of a stub name. Move back per Alai and lose the dog. Grutness...wha? 19:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Various Chinese sports bio templates

Hi all - I've just noticed that several Chinese stub types designated (if the icons are anything to go by) for China PR simply use the word "China-" in their template names, wheras I'm pretty sure that ChinaPR- is standard. I'd like to nominate the following for renaming (with no preference for keeping/discarding the redirect), and suggest we may need to keep an eye out for others:

• {{China-athletics-bio-stub}} → {{ChinaPR-athletics-bio-stub}} {{PRChina-athletics-bio-stub}}
• {{China-sport-bio-stub}} → {{ChinaPR-sport-bio-stub}} {{PRChina-sport-bio-stub}}
• {{China-footy-bio-stub}} → {{ChinaPR-athletics-bio-stub}} {{PRChina-athletics-bio-stub}} {{PRChina-footy-bio-stub}} (see also further discussion below on footy-stubs in general)
• {{China-badminton-bio-stub}} → {{ChinaPR-athletics-bio-stub}} {{PRChina-athletics-bio-stub}} {{PRChina-badminton-bio-stub}}

I've no objection to the use of the term China- when it's clearly for items which have a shared history between the Chinas, but unless I'm much mistaken in these cases that seems a little dubious. If these stub types are intended for both Chinas, then the icons definitely need changing, too! Grutness...wha? 02:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• "PRC-" or "PRChina-", please. Alai (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, good point - and PRC isn't a standard name used for stubs either (or if it is I'd like to know why!). Amended accordingly. Grutness...wha? 08:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • As creator and proposer of 3/4 templates I can state they are for PRC. I Support change but ask if the china- variety can be kept as redirects otherwise I may end up leaving a load of red links all over the place because I'll frquently forget to use the PRChina templates. Waacstats (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Sounds reasonable - we could always do whyat we did with {{China-geo-stub}}, add a note saying "this is deprecated, please replace with either PRChina- or Taiwan-" That might not be necessary yet though since we don't have equivalent Taiwan stub types yet. When we do, it would make sense. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • PRC is completely standard in general usage, while "PRChina" is merely conventional in the context of the ST-NGs, and a somewhat marginal application thereof, at that. We should have (at least) redirects at PRC-. Alai (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • May be worth standardising one way or the other while there's still only a handful of templates. I must admit that I rarely if ever think of PRC referring to China, but that's because I occasionally dealt with PRC curves in my university studies (ironically I also used ROC curves to analyse some of my results!) In any case, PRC means a whole bunch of different things. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• PS I also changed the templates. I don't think we need 3 templates for athletics.Waacstats (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oops - cut'n'paste strikes again! :) Grutness...wha? 23:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the is only one China. Matthew_hk tc 15:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Actually, there are 2 Chinas: the People's Republic of China and Republic of China. --_contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 19:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{Childrens-book-series-stub}} / Cat:Children's book series stubs

[edit] February 6

[edit] {{footy-stub}}, and other templates in hierarchy

OK, call me crazy [pause for public comment] but I have been long frustrated by the use of "footy" in the association football/soccer templates. After a brief study of the articles on the topic, I wonder if there's any chance we could agree on a renaming. assoc-football-stub? soccer-stub? Any ideas? Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, you're crazy. <rimshot> I'll certainly agree that it is not a usage friendly to American English. However since the dictionary definition of footy is "poor; worthless; paltry", I think it does serve as an accurate description. Seriously though, is soccer so throughly disliked by the Anglo-centric among us that it can't be used in preference to the slang term "footy" which I had never heard of until coming across it here? Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

One further comment. The use of footy as a substitute for football is not just for soccer but also Australian rules football. Not only that but there is a popular class of radio controlled model sail boats that boasts the name. All three show up on the first page of Google searches for "footy". Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, yes, it is. Expect an angry mob of Anglo-centric peasants with torches here presently. Alai (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's actually hopeful that they think "soccer" a monster, since it was Frankenstein's monster and not the torch wielding peasants who ultimately prevailed. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page discussions. Nanonic (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

For reference - these stub types were previously nominated for renaming in April 2006, the archived discussion of which is here Nanonic (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not just Aussie rules, either - here in NZ rugby union is often called footy (indeed there's a tv sports programme ccalled "The footy show" which deals with that sport). I think that soccer, disliked though it is by purists, is possibly the only word which instantly disambiguates the sport from other sports, so - though I generally dislike the term - I can see that moving all of these templates would be a reasonable move. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, the word "footy" does not even appear in the article text these stubs appear on, footy is just shorthand, it makes it easier than writing out {{Argentina-Association-footballbio-stub}} instead of the shorter {{Argentina-footybio-stub}} which leaves the text This biographical article related to Argentine football is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. I really can't see how moving all instances of these templates to some other name could constitute good use of time and resources. King of the NorthEast 08:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It would be helpful to those of us (and there are many) who had never heard of the term and tried to tag articles with "soccer-stub" only to find there was no such thing. The word "footy" is not intuitive; for the same reason we have recently renamed the basketball stub templates from "hoops" to "basketball". Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Umm.. {{soccer-stub}} has been a redirect to footy-stub since November 2005. Nanonic (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Umm, true, but all the other "footy" templates don't have redirects. Perhaps we should just create a redirect every time a footy template is created. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Bots can take care of the moving and keeping the stubs at "footy" makes zero sense because of the ambiguity in the name. If footy were used only for the round ball variety of football, I could see keeping the provincial shorthand, but that isn't the case. Whether *-footy-* becomes *-soccer-* or *-Associationfootball-* doesn't matter to me, but both have an advantage that *-footy-* will never have, that of being unambiguously about the version of football governed by the IFAB. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

One further remark, when we make the change keep {{footy-stub}} as a redirect to the similarly ambiguous {{football-stub}} that exists solely to give chauvinists who insist that their version of football is tne one true football a target for their stub efforts. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Indifferent mainly because the other sports that may use "footy" already have their own stub types and I haven't come across any instances of confusion arising from editors who've placed the wrong one on an article. I would prefer *-associationfootball-* if these do get moved, purely to avoid all the "it's football" - "not in my country it isn't" - "I live in the same country and it is" - "ok well not in my state it isn't" arguments that we're still having over the name. Adopting the term that no-one seems to use strikes me as wise in the long-run. Of course, it's a long stub name which may annoy those who prefer shorter ones, such as {{Amfoot-bio-stub}} instead of {{Americanfootball-bio-stub}}, no doubt some wag will propose {{Assfoot-bio-stub}} at some point. Nanonic (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What about assoc-football-stub? Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • All assing around aside... {{Amfoot-bio-stub}} isn't a great precedent, since while there's no {{Americanfootball-bio-stub}} template or or redirect, contrariwise we've a {{Americanfootball-stub}}, but no {{Amfoot-stub}}. Alai (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Why should we require total disambiguation with internal titles, which are never seen in the article text itself? For every person who types "soccer-stub" before realizing it's actually at "footy-stub", there are probably ten people who have become used to typing "footy-stub" for years. There are plenty of arcane stub template names, and this is not one of the more strange ones - after all I've never heard "footy" used in any context other than to refer to association football. And quite frankly, considering that the majority of the world uses "football" in this sense, and an even greater majority would never use "footy" or "footballer" in any other sense, what's the need for this move? My policy with moves, especially outside the article space, is that if there is no compelling reason to change the status quo (a compelling reason would be a spelling error or naming convention error, in 99% of cases), then why bother? ugen64 (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is that "footy" is a slang word, like "hoops", which we also have revised for reasons of clarity. I'm not advocating "soccer-stub", just suggesting we find something more accurate linguistically. Her Pegship (tis herself) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per KotNE and Ugen64. I don't see the problem at all, since those most likely to be opposed the current name (Americans and linguists) are those who are least likely to use it. If renaming I support {{Assfoot-bio-stub}}. Oh, and Her Pegship, you're crazy. Sebisthlm (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you. At least we've reached consensus on that. :P Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Sudden thought -- any chance we could deal with scoping {{football-stub}} to mean association football, and make all the "American" football forms use the Am- prefix? Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • As some one who regularly clears out football-stub I would say this is not a good idea as most of the articles (wrongly)given this template are not then footy- templates bt rugby or amfoot. Waacstats (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ugen64, makes no sense whatsoever. BanRay 16:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per ugen64, couldn't have put it better myself! Oh yeah, and Her Pegship – you're crazy :-) Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 22:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 5

[edit] {{Glass-stub}} / Cat:Glass stubs

Unproposed, and seems to be vague and hierarchy-crossingly ambiguous. The icon implies its for types of drinking glasses, the three items in the category are tools used in glass production. Given the scope of the article Glass, it could cover a very very broad area, almost all of which is currently effectively covered in narrower/more focussed stub categories. Despite this, there's also no guarantee that this would get close to threshold. I'd suggest upmerging, but the breadth of the template's scope makes that difficult, to say the least. Delete. PS - if kept, the category will need better parents. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Proposed and not approved in January 2007. Delete per G. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • At best it might be salvaged by renaming to {{glass-engineering-stub}} and giving it a placement in Cat:Glass engineering and science but I don't see the need. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I created the stub without knowing that it needs to be suggested first, and the parent category was meant only temporary. I intended it to cover all areas of glass, including art, not only drinking glasses or engineering and science. I did it because I did not see any stub types that would fit well, therefore, I am using the general stub template currently. What existing stub types you had in mind? If you consider them appropriate in all glass areas I would agree to delete the glass stub. Again, sorry, I never created a stub template before; I was not familiar with the policy, and I hope I did not make too much trouble for you.--Afluegel (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I think the stub Template:Material-stub would cover the whole area of glass, maybe even glass art, but is is very broad. The stub Template:Decorative-art-stub is used currently for glass art, but it is also rather broad.--Afluegel (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The discussion under January 2007 is not very relevant because it seems to be rather confused, and the area of glass would well cover more than 60 articles.--Afluegel (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • A redesign/rescope, as suggested by Caerwine, might just work, though as I pointed out, this seems to cross so many different stub types, from art stubs to material stubs to tool stubs to industrial process stubs, that at present it needs quite a bit of work to sort out exactly what it can and can't be used for. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I think "glass engineering" is too narrow for a new stub type. It also should include the categories Glass types, some of Glass applications, Glass history, and glass science. However, I do not consider the topic as very urgent, it just seems appropriate to me. If you think that it may be too complicated at this point we can easily delete the new stub for now, and I could suggest one after about a year, following the proper procedure. In the meantime the category Glass might have improved in such a way that it would be easier. What do you think?--Afluegel (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 3

[edit] Basketball stub templates

• {{hoops-stub}} (currently redirects to {{basketball-stub}})
• {{hoops-bio-stub}}
• {{Africa-hoops-bio-stub}}
• {{Australia-hoops-bio-stub}}
• {{Europe-hoops-bio-stub}} & its redir {{Euro-hoops-bio-stub}}
• {{NorthAm-hoops-bio-stub}}
• {{SouthAm-hoops-bio-stub}}
• {{Canada-hoops-bio-stub}}
• {{Turkey-hoops-bio-stub}}
• {{US-hoops-bio-stub}} (& its DoB sub-cats)
• {{US-hoops-coach-stub}}
• {{US-women-hoops-bio-stub}}
• {{hoops-team-stub}} (currently redirects from {{basketball-team-stub}})
  

I suggest we rename the templates with {{foo-basketball-stub}}, for clarity and for ease of guessing at the template form for editors less steeped in stub-ism than I. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong support for this change. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong support. Probably worth keeping the current names as redirects, for now at least. Grutness...wha? 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Move, keep redirects. (At least at this time.) Alai (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rename Def a local term issue. MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As the original creator of the "hoops" idea, I VERY strongly support the changes. I was a dumb Wikipedian back then. :) — Dale Arnett (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong support. "hoops" is vague. There's no reason not to be specific, and change it to "basketball". Brianreading (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Rename, I never liked "hoops", it's too idiosyncratic. GregorB (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Support, -rename to basetball. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 17

[edit] Cat:Côte d'Ivoire football biography stubs

If the bio cat below needs a rename so does this one to Cat:Ivorian football biography stubs. Waacstats (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Belarus history stubs → Cat:Belarusian history stubs

Unless there are connotations to the word "Belarusian" which makes it inappropriate, this category should follow the standard practice for hist-stubs and use the adjectival form of the country's name. Grutness...wha? 07:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 15

[edit] Category:Côte d'Ivoire biography stubs

Moved from WP:CFD

Propose renaming Category:Côte d'Ivoire biography stubs to Category:Côte d'Ivoire people stubs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per parent cat and considerable precedent. This is the proper venue according to the stubs for deletion page, despite what the instructions here say. kingboyk (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• You misread WP:SFD, it seems. Mot that it would make too much difference in this case, except that here it's a speedy rename. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've just noticed that this wouldn't be the correct name anyway - all othe people stub categories use the adjectival form, so it should be Cat:Ivorian people stubs. Grutness...wha? 07:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• I was just following the category names already in existence when I created it, I.E. Cat:Côte d'Ivoire sportspeople instead of Cat:Ivorian sportspeople. We should rename all of these while we are at it.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That hierarchy seems to use the form Cat:Côte d'Ivoire people pretty consistently, so we can't really do that off the cuff. If we're not going to follow the permcats, it's over to CFR... Alai (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 14

[edit] {{Sturgeon-stub}} / Cat:Sturgeon stubs

Unproposed, misnamed, and unlikely to meet threshold. It is misnamed, since all other fish stub categories are named for the order or family, not for the common name. As such, if needed, this should have been at {{Acipenseridae-stub}} / Cat:Acipenseridae stubs. But it's really not needed - not as far as size is concerned, anyway. It contains 14 stubs, but the permcat (which is not linked - in fact, virtually none of the categories that should be linked are) and its subtypes contain only 30 articles, so there's no way it could reach threshold as things stand. And at some 600 stubs, Cat:Fish stubs only borderline as far as further splitting is concerned. A case could perhaps be made for a larger upmerged {{Acipenseriform-stub}}, but even then, Cat:Acipenseriformes contains only 36 articles in total. So basically, not a useful split for the purposes of stub sorting. At the very least this would involve scrapping the category and starting from scratch with a new upmerged template, but deletion may well be the simpler option. BTW, I notice that Cat:Fish stubs has an incorrect parent (Cat:Fish articles by quality) which seems to indicate yet more confusion by a WikiProject as to the difference between stubs and Stub-Class articles... Grutness...wha? 12:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm the sturgeon-stub culprit. I was completely unaware of the stub-proposing protocol, threshold issues, etc. I thought it might be a way to help highlight the fact that the sturgeons are very poorly covered, and dropped a note off to that effect on the Fish Project page. While I don't have very strong feelings either way, and obviously committed a neophyte mistake, I don't entirely understand why a stub-category with 30 stubs is "too small". It's quite convenient to a person who's working their way through the sturgeons to see on a single page which ones urgently require content, whereas they are lost in a sea (if you will) of fish-stubs. Perhaps I am somehow misunderstanding the purpose of categorization. Either way, it was a good exercise just to make a template. Besides, as the most proportionate and lovely of all possible fish, surely the sturgeon deserve special treatment ;). Best, Eliezg (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at it from two points of view. There are currently some 700,000 stubs on Wikipedia (a conservative estimate). From the point of view of stub sorting, if there is no minimum limit on stub category size, then the current 3000 or so stub types would quickly balloon to a completely unmanageable number - far too many for stub sorting to be a task anyone could reasonably undertake. Look at it also from an editor's poit of view. Stub cateories are kept to sizes where an editors can find a moderate number of stubs on a specialist area - not so many that they are swamped with them, and not so few that they have to hunt through several categories to find any articles that they can edit easily. Over time, the size of 60-800 stubs has become regarded as an optimum for both these tasks. Easy mistake to make, though it is mentioned on quite a few Wikipedia pages (WP Fish really should have a note re stub template creation on its project page - a lot of wikiprojects do). Yeah, sturgeon's are lovely (though sadly I'm both allergic to and too poor to regularly taste their most famous product). Unfortunately, that's not enough in itself for a stub type, though :) Grutness...wha? 14:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

These are good points. No resistance from me if the category is deleted. I can go through and change all the sturgeon-stubs back to fish-stubs if you like. Best, Eliezg (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 10

[edit] Realigning Ohio subregion stub categories

We've split Cat:Ohio geography stubs and Cat:Ohio school stubs into subregions, but as a result we've got some undersized categories.

• Cat:Southern Ohio geography stubs - 36 articles
• Cat:Southeastern Ohio school stubs - 26 articles
• Cat:Southern Ohio school stubs - 34 articles

Southern Ohio, Southeastern Ohio, and part of East Central Ohio make up a larger region Appalachian Ohio, while the rest of East Central Ohio combined with Cleveland-Akron-Elyria make up Northeast Ohio, so I propose we do some realignment and consolidation of four existing categories into two categories. For those who are concerned about abandoning the use of a CSA for one of the subregions, I point out that we already are using Northwest Ohio instead of the Toledo-Fremont CSA Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific about how you envision the realignment? I imagine that you plan on retaining counties as the building blocks for the categories, but what would the new structure look like? - Eureka Lott 16:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

IIUC, he's proposing that we keep all the per-county templates, but retarget them, deleting above four categories, and consolidating the contents into Cat:Appalachian Ohio geography stubs and Cat:Northeast Ohio geography stubs. It sounds reasonable to me, so I'll support. Alai (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also consolidating the schools categories into Cat:Appalachian Ohio school stubs and Cat:Northeast Ohio School stubs. Specifically as for which counties of East Central Ohio go where, it would be:

• Belmont, Carroll, Columbiana, Coshocton, Guernsey, Harrison, Holmes, Jefferson, Muskingum, and Tuscarawas to Appalachian Ohio
• Mahoning, Stark, Trumbull, Wayne to Northeast Ohio

We'd also need to delete or upmerge {{GreaterClevelandOH-geo-stub}}, {{SouthernOH-geo-stub}}, {{SoutheasternOH-geo-stub‎}}, and {{EastCentralOH-geo-stub}} to the new categories. (The schools don't have regional templates.) Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the economic development and tourism organizations in Northeast Ohio sometimes consider it to be a 16 county region and sometimes a 13 county region. - Eureka Lott 01:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see going with the 13 county definition but not the 16 county definition. Columbiana County is part of the Youngstown-Warren-East Liverpool, OH-PA CSA along with Trumbull and Mahoning Counties so a case can be made for shifting it up to Northeast Ohio. Conversely Richland County is part of the Mansfield-Bucyrus, OH CSA along with Crawford County which isn't part of the 13 county definition. I'm also comfortable with my original proposal for only 12 counties in Northeast Ohio as Trumbull and Mahoning are part of the Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA MSA but Columbiana isn't as it's off by it's lonesome in the East Liverpool-Salem, OH μSA. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That accounts for all but Carroll County, which forms the Canton-Massillon MSA with Stark County. Should we be using a 14 county region? - Eureka Lott 03:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd favour sticking to proper supersets of the *SAs wherever possible, so I'd support that 14-county tweak if it's the most sensible such. Alai (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Qualified support for using 14. We might want to consider bumping Ashland County over from Northwest Ohio to Northeast Ohio as well (giving us 15 of the 16 counties in the 16 county region) since Northwest Ohio at present has the most counties (25) and it's debatable whether Ashland is Northwest or Northeast. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That could work, too. Ashland County is a micropolitan area, but not part of a larger metropolitan area. I don't know if most people consider it to be part of Northeast Ohio, but I know that I don't think of it as being in Northwest Ohio. - Eureka Lott 02:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[removing indent] When the state was split eleven months ago, we did it on the basis of official boundaries, which are linked on the category headers. Admittedly, Ashland County (and to an extent, Richland County) was a problem, as it didn't fit nicely anywhere. Frankly, the idea of naming the category after Appalachian Ohio is problematic in my mind, as that official designation covers most of the light blue region as well. Most of the counties in Appalachian Ohio are less developed than other counties statewide, and by removing Wayne, Stark, Mahoning, and Trumbull Counties we wouldn't have a very big region. What if we merge those counties with the current Cleveland region and merge the remainder with both Southern and Southeastern — the only counties with significant populations in both of those regions are Scioto, Lawrence, Athens, and Washington? This would result in a single category for all of Appalachian Ohio, minus the Cincinnati and Columbus counties, which undoubtedly would be properly named Appalachian Ohio. Nyttend (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much what was proposed in the first place. The only questions were whether any counties currently in East Central Ohio and that are in Appalachian Ohio would be placed in Northeast Ohio instead because of their membership in a CSA (as has already been done in the case of Appalachian Ohio counties in the Cincinnati and Columbus CSA's) and whether to tweak the boundary of Northwest Ohio to include in the new Northeast Ohio categories any counties that were placed in Northwest Ohio by default because they weren't part of the Cincinnati CSA. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"because they weren't part of the Cincinnati CSA" Do you mean the Cleveland CSA? Between the Cincinnati stub region and the Northwest stub region is the Dayton stub region. Nyttend (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Cleveland. I just confused my C's. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 9

[edit] {{Philippine Movie Stub}} / Cat:Philippine Movie Stub

Not proposed and, frankly, quite a mess. The template: uses the adjectival form; uses spaces rather than hyphens; capitalises all words; useds the term movie rather than film - all counter tol standard stub naming. The category: capitalises all words; uses the singular "stub"; uses the term movie rather than film; has no stubcat parents; has inappropriate permcat parents (one of which is a redlink). The stub type overall: is not assured of reaching the required threshold. The template should be either deleted orrenamed and upmerged - the current name should definitely not be kept as a redirect. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• For the most part, we're not splitting by country of origin, so delete. If there's a strong case to do so here, which I must say is not immediately clear to me, rename and upmerge. Alai (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Rename {{Philippines-film-stub}} and upmerge for now. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Renameper above, there are enough in the category to justify its existence. Delete. Per Alai, who has brought to my attention policy which states that there should be a minimum of 60 articles in the category, this one only has 14. --Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 17:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, there are not. Alai (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Rename {{Philippines-film-stub}} per {{Japan-film-stub}}. Meets minimun of 60 artciles per CatScan. --bluemask ^(talk) 07:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Populated the category. As of 01/25/2008, there are 71 articles. --bluemask ^(talk) 08:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{UK-Olympic-medalist-stub}} -> {{GB-Olympic-medalist-stub}} & Cat:United Kingdom Olympic medalist stubs -> Cat:Great Britain Olympic medalist stubs

The United Kingdom does not field a team nor compete at the Olympics, Great Britain does and we should reflect that properly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Partial support - if changed, GreatBritain-Olympic-Medalist-stub would be preferable for the template. Ideally, though, the template could remain at the current naming (or at the very least the current name should be left as a redirect). The category though probably should be changing. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Alai raises some good points, though there are counterbalanced by the team name actually used. Changing to neutral (no !vote) Grutness...wha? 23:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose any rename of the template. The UK(oGB&NI) does field an Olympic team, with precisely that scope. (Well, given or take some NIers who can choose to represent either the UK, or the Republic.) What you mean is that it's called "Great Britain" for said purposes, obviously using the principle of maximum confusion. To quote the very first sentence of Great Britain at the Olympics: "Great Britain is the name used by the United Kingdom at the Olympic Games." Given that the scope is "the UK", it would cause untold confusion to have the "UK-" template not sort here, and indeed, further confusion if a "GB-" or "GreatBritain-", which is only used on a very few templates where the scope actually is Great Britain. The category name I'm easy either way with, given that the permcats have already moved to the "official" name. Alai (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 4

[edit] {{Iceland-eco-stub}} / Cat:Iceland economy stubs

Unproposed. Only one stub and little indication there'd be a viable number of stubs for this. Normally, that would mean an upmerge, but there's problems with the name of the template, too (is "eco" economy or ecology?). Rename template (don't keep current name as redirect), upmerge. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for creating this stub type without a proposal. On second thoughts, I agree that the name of the stub is ambiguous and probably unnecessary. Delete if you wish. Max Naylor (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{Mining stub}} / Cat:Mining stubs

Unproposed, incorrectly named, and ambiguously scoped (the category claims its for mines and mining, and its suggests the emphasis is on the latter; the template claims that it's only for mines). Mines are normally given whatever the local geo-stub type is, though I can envisage a stub type for mining technology, albeit likely an upmerged one. Rename and rescope template (don't keep current non-standard name as a redirect), upmerge. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Rename & don't redirect - The stub is incorrectly named (should be {{Mining-stub}}, correct?), however DuncanHill has revamped the wording to make it more appropriate. I am sure the stub template will be used for both mines and mining, (i.e. Birchtree Mine will have both a {{Mining stub}} and {{Manitoba-geo-stub}} attached to it, although gettign rid of the later might be an idea too.)--Kelapstick (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] December 31

[edit] {{Mesogastropoda-stub}}

Merge with Sorbeoconcha-stub without redirect - I came across a comment on a "Mesogastropoda" stub article about it being a classification that is no longer used. I don't know about gastropods so I don't know which of these hundreds of articles would be appropriate to merge, but the user indiciated that most (all?) should be able to be reclassified with this different stub type. So I propose we delete the stub for this deprecated classification, and reclassifying the articles that already use it TheBilly (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I would request that this change is not done right now, but is least postponed until the next major update/reworking of the gastropod taxonomy is published, which will be sometime in 2008. Right now these Polbot generated stubs need a lot of work on their taxoboxes and elsewhere, and keeping the stubs all together in one category (however outdated it is) makes them easier to find and go through. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• [Insert usual Polbot-related rant here.] If someone can give me a list of which articles are to be reclassified on a taxon-by-taxon basis, I should be able to start depopulating this, and indeed fixing the taxobox at the same time. If that's not possible, then as Intertzoo says, this will for practical purposes have to be postponed until the population is reworked by other means... Alai (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yukon v. Yukon Territory

[edit] {{Yukon-politician-stub}} / Cat:Yukon politician stubs

[edit] December 16

[edit] {{Video-game-gameplay-stub}} (redirect)

[edit] Several undeleted redirects

I was right in my comments in the section above, sadly. Someone has been closing and logging "rename" debates here without orphaning and deleting the old template names. Just looking back through the logs to the beginning of September, I've discovered the following:

• {{NorthernMarianaIslands-radio-station-stub}}
• {{3K-stub}}
• {{Korean-cuisine-stub}}
• {{Afro-stub}}
• {{Even-toed-ungulate-stub}}

As I see it, we have two options:

1. Accept these sorts of names as redirects and abandon the whole idea of having uniform names, resigning ourselves to picking through a morass of occasionally whimsical and often ambiguous names in the faint hope that we will discover stub templates that actually have the meanings we think they have (like to guess what Afro-stub or 3K-stub refer to without looking them up?)
2. Orphan and delete these, as should have happened when the templates were renamed.

Personally, I favour the latter course of action. We also need to look through earlier logs, to see how long this has been going on :( Grutness...wha? 11:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• PS - there were two other which had been orphaned (Muni-stub and Leaf-nosed-bat-stub), which I did delete. Grutness...wha? 12:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest keeping the NorthernMarianaIslands-radio-station-stub and even-toed-ungulate-stub redirects, since those are really in the "have to stop and think about it" category as to which is the "good" and which is the "bad" version. And if you haven't memorised the NGs, it's in the realm of "wild guess". leaf-nosed-bat-stub I'd put in the same bracket, in fact. In general I'd suggest that if the redirect is sufficiently "bad" that deletion is required, this be mentioned explicitly in the discussion, since "rename by default means delete" is probably not quite the gold standard in transparency. If you might not like the closer's interpretation of the sense of the discussion, remove the room for same. 3K- and Afro- I'm going to speedy, though, on the basis that they objectively truly suck, lots. Korean- is probably somewhere in between. On the issue iof whether's there's lots, I could generate an exhaustive list from the toolserver db. Since the number of "good" redirects runs into the hundreds if not the thousands, sifting through the complete list is likely not to be a trivial task. Alai (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably simple enough to report them when we find them, rather than doing a massive time-consuming search. As to the interpretation of the discussion, it's worth noting that usually if the redirects are to be kept that's noted when the discussions are closed. Deletion of the redirects still seems to be the default option. You're right that it's probably worth specifying explicitly though. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• FWIW, I emptied out the NorthernMarianaIslands-radio-station-stub and NorthernMarianas-radio-station-stub has all six AM/FM licensed stations (there's also a shortwave station without even an article), so I doubt we need worry too much about new stub articles for this one, so delete the redirect. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Mop up the mess (Orphan and delete). Also inform the closing admins, add clear instructions to main template for this namespace. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• The warning message for {{Korean-cuisine-stub}} is embarrassing. Can some admin please remove it? This shouldn't warrant as much debate as even-toed ungulates or Northern Mariana Islands radio stations. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like {{Even-toed-ungulate-stub}} has been retagged, this time with a discussion of the redirect, notwithstanding the result in September (rename to eventoedungulate-stub, keeping redirect - which it appears was implemented). There doesn't appear to be any new discussion however, unless this is it. So what's up? This tag is applied to a large number of stubs and shouldn't be deleted.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that I understand why this is a problem. Why wouldn't you use a redirect?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I do see the problem with the deletion debate, three different votes and the closer picked one and didn't state a reason or sign the close, that's bad; but that's not the issue I'm concerned with directly.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• • FWIW, the reason why the redirect was tagged is that it's standard practice in stub naming to use hyphens to indicate a subtype - that is, Korean-cuisine-stub was moved to Korea-cuisine-stub (taking the usual noun form) as an acceptable subtype of cuisine-stub. Even-toed-ungulate-stub, by that naming convention, would be a subtype of toed-ungulate-stub. Eventoed-ungulate-stub makes sense (since there is the possibility of an ungulate-stub, even though that stub type doesn't currently exist) whereas the version with the extra hyphen doesn't. It's also usual practice to delete redirects which do not conform to the naming standards, as they lead to extra confusion among non-regular stub-sorters as to whether there is a standard naming pattern, making it harder for them to tell whether there is an existing stub type (if there appears to be a pattern, it makes it far easier to predict what an existing stub template will be named). For that reason, it was until recently standard practice for a rename debate here to implicitly mean "rename and delete the redirect formed from the renaming". It is only in the last month or two (largely since this debate) that the deletion of the redirect has been made more explicit in votes, since some people closing debates were unaware that redirects should have been deleted (hence this debate in the first place). That also might explain the patently bizarre closing of the first debate on even-toed-ungulate-stub. There was no mention of keeping the redirect, and the implication was therefore that it should have been deleted, but whoever closed the debate decided to unilaterally declare that it should be kept. Grutness...wha? 23:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• • OK, thanks for the explanation of the naming convention, I wasn't clear on that issue. It would seem that the problem here though is that the ungulates are not "eventoed" nor are they "even toed" but they are in fact "even-toed". See Even-toed ungulate and the category is Cat:even-toed ungulates and even Cat:even-toed ungulate stubs, so removing the redirect could cause some confusion. I would suggest this is a case where WP:IAR should apply with respect to the convention.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

    And for the record, there are plenty of odd-toed ungulate stubs, they're just all (or almost all) in Cat:horse stubs so there is no need for the higher level stub cat except for completeness/form.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] December 11

[edit] {{CPI-politician-stub}} / Cat:Communist Party of India politician stubs

[edit] {{CPI(M)-politician-stub}} / Cat:Communist Party of India (Marxist) politician stubs

Unproposed, horribly named, narrowly scoped, and with parents that show no evidence that stub threshold is likely (even Cat:Indian communists has only 82 articles - to get 60 stubs for each of these two categories seems highly unlikely at present). Delete. If the templates are to be kept (upmerged) they will need better names - have a look at CPI. Grutness...wha? 02:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I usually don't work with stubs, and had completly missed/forgotten the proposal procedure. Sorry about that. I had simply copied the basis for Template:BJP-politician-stub, and changed to apply for the CPI and CPI(M). I would urge for a keep on both. Both have a potential to be fully used, especially due to the many stubs of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha members. I'll populate the two for clarity during the day. --Soman (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, renaming is needed for the templates - CPI could easily be, for example, the Communist Party of Ireland. BJP is so named because it is well-enough known worldwide not to be overly ambiguous. As far as the categories are concerned, what usually happens in these cases is if it can be shown that there are enough stubs during the counrse of the SFD debate, then they're kept. So... start tagging! (and don't worry whether you're tagging with templates that will need renaming - when renaming is done, it will likely be by bot :) Grutness...wha? 00:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Conditional Keep - I agree with a CPIM cat (they are a notable political force and there is probably enough population for the cat) but not the CPI stub (which means Consumer Price Index).Bakaman 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 8

[edit] {{San Francisco-stub}}/redlink

This one's been around for three months and has gained about a dozen stubs in that time - and it's needed a rename since day one. Worse, many of the stubs seem to be bio-stubs, which shouldn't have a locational template other than for nationality. If it can be populated, it needs renaming to {{SanFrancisco-stub}}, along with a category. If not, there's no point in having it. Grutness...wha? 10:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This should be combined with the SFBay Area stub below. Benjiboi 21:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. A Frisco stub is useful to sorters who don't know and don't care what exactly constitutes the SFBA. An SFBA stub is only useful to specialists already familiar with the SFBA and as such should be considered only if Cat:California stubs was getting too large to manage save by such a specialist oriented split. Cat:California stubs isn't getting too large at present, though it was in need of a thorough sorting which I have been doing. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I give up, you can wikilawyer circles around anything I say so do whatever you want. Sorry i bothered to offer any insight here. Benjiboi 23:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Rename and make the category. I know it's marginal in size after I finished sorting Cat:California stubs, but it should grow to a reasonable size soon enough once it has a standard name for people to find. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{San Francisco Bay Area-stub}} (upmerged)

By strange coincidence, this one was created hours after I nominated the previous one. Seems to have been cut and pasted from California-stub, with all links still as with that template (including interwikis). Even worse than the previous, naming wise, and with a more ambivalent scope. If the one above this is plausible, this one certainly isn't. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This actually is more inclusive than San Francisco-alone stub although I understand the misunderstandings. The 9 counties of the SF/Bay Area are quite interlinked and starting projects for San Jose, Oakland, Marin and dozens of other cities/areas does seem premature. Also similar to New York City, SF is landlocked so people and events specific to the city also have strong ties to the communities across the bridge with folks often moving from one to another or working in one while living in another. Also disagree that bios shouldn't be included as people often are tied to a specific city, is that really a problem? Benjiboi 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It depends on how tied people are to a locale. If a person's notability is limited to just that area then it may make sense, but except for politicians, few people are so limited, even if that is where they have always lived. To take a hypothetical example, Bill Gates would not warrant a {{Washington-stub}} if his article was a stub article. As for the comparison with NYC, we have an {{NYC-stub}}, but we don't have one that includes the area beyond the five boroughs. Stub sorting isn't intended to be a complete categorization scheme, just a way to get things into small enough yet easily comprehendable bits to enable casual sorters not tied to a particular project to bring articles to the attention of more knowledgeable editors. An SFBA stub, while it might work well for people focused on the SFBA as a whole, would fail at being useful for the stub sorters who have no idea what constitutes the SFBA and no easy way to determine it. Cat:California stubs isn't large enough to need an arbitrary split just yet. Its at 262 stubs right now and I'm in the middle of sorting them (to help see if the SF and LA stubs are worth keeping) and expect that it'll be down to a 1 page category when I'm through. Besides, talk page templates, such as {{SFBAProject}} are better suited for keeping track of articles of interest to Wikiprojects. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I give up, you can wikilawyer circles around anything I say so do whatever you want. Sorry i bothered to offer any insight here. Benjiboi 23:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of very good practical reasons for the way stub categories are arranged, as far as such things as size and split are concerned. It isn't "wikilawyering" - it's simply ensuring that the stub types have the maximum possible usefulness for the minimum possible number of stub types and minimum possible number of templates/categories per article. It's been fairly thoroughly established that the easiest size of category for editors to hunt through is between about 60 and 600 stubs. It's also not very useful to split a stub category into types that will have an "everything else" type (which is why US states are generally split by counties - and also generally split by all counties simultaneously). With other circumstances,w here there is a specific interest group working on articles, then Caerwine's suggestion of a WikiProject-specific talk page template is by far the most practical and useful mapproach - it can be used to assess all articles, not just stubs, that relate to a WikiProject. As far as bio-stubs are concerned, most people are not specifically tied to one city or ever one state - if they are notable, they are usually notable primarily for their occupation and nationality, and many people live in several different places within the course of their lifetime. It's the same with sports teams. We don't have stub templates for players for a particular sports team because chances are we'd have to tag some articles with six or seven different templates - it's far more sensible to stub them by a variable that will likely only have one template needed, like field position or decade of birth. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Los Angeles-stub}} / Cat:Los Angeles stubs

Also created today, equally badly named (it would be {{LosAngeles-stub}} if it were needed), and also created with links as California-stub. Worse, many of the stubs seem to be bio-stubs, which shouldn't have a locational template other than for nationality. Either rename and populate it properly, or delete. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I can agree to the naming thing, fair cop to that, and i must admit I was oblivious to the whole stub proposal scheme, fair cop to that to, but i have to say, that a Los Angeles stub was needed as the only one that was closely related to an LA stub was about LA geography or particular neighbourhoods. Not Really useful when its not related to the article. (♠Taifarious1♠) 00:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A LosAngeles-stub is probably a reasonable idea, though it shouldstay upmerged until we know it's reached the normal splitting threshold (there's certainly no sign yet of the 60 stubs that it would need for that, though for a city the size of LA, it shouldn't take much effort). Grutness...wha? 01:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone created a category for this stub as well. I've been going through Cat:California stubs and doing a manual restubbing (including using this stub and San Francisco-stub. (Not bothering with the Bay Area stub as California stubs was not in sufficient need of pruning as to make such a potentially ambiguous stub necessary.) Looks like the two city stubs will be large enough to warrant keeping correctly named versions as upmerged stubs, but until someone goes trolling through the sub categories of California stubs, I can't see either stub being large enough to warrant a stub category of its own. Caerwine Caer’s whines 09:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Rename and keep the category. I know it's marginal in size after I finished sorting Cat:California stubs, but it should grow to a reasonable size soon enough once it has a standard name for people to find. We might wish to make the scope be the county rather than just the city. It's likely to get a number of false positives from the county anyway, and the increased scope isn't that much of a problem. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly favour scoping templates by county, since that's how the geos work. It would also faciliate upmerging and later splitting of the somewhat-nebulous Areas and Regions. Alai (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Has anyone looked here Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California#Stub templates? --evrik ^(talk) 20:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] November 2

[edit] Various Cat:Ohio Registered Historic Places building and structure stubs templates

From Discoveries: There are 46 templates which are of the form Ohio-countyname-NRHP-struct-stub and 8 of the form Ohio-countyname-NRHP-dist-stub for structures and districts respectively in Ohio. These should be renamed to countynameOH-NRHP-struct-stub to conform to the precedent set by the split of Ohio-school-stub, Florida-NRHP-struct-stub and vaious other splits of US states. Note when announced at discoveries I did not realise that some were for districts do we split these out in any other state. (PS I think I tagegd them all 54 with sfd-t.) Waacstats 14:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Districts of what sort? Which templates would those be? Alai 01:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• The district ones worry me a little, too... certainly go ahead and rename the others to standard form, though. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The district ones appear to be for places on the NRHP list and designated as districts, but I'don't know much about the NRHP.Waacstats 12:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you give an example? Alai 19:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
      • {{Ohio-Ashtabula-NRHP-dist-stub}}. Waacstats 20:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Aaaaah. OK, that does seem a little wonky: it doesn't appear to be a B&S type, so it should be upmerged to Cat:Ohio Registered Historic Place stubs, or else perhaps to a Cat:Ohio Registered Historic Places geography stubs, if there's the numbers for it. Perhaps the templates should also be -geo- ones, though having them on a per-county basis looks like massive overkill, at this point. Alai 21:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• For that matter, the parent category should be renamed {{Ohio-NRHP-stub}} / Cat:Ohio Registered Historic Place stubs (it's currently {{Ohio-NRHP-struct-stub}} / Cat:Ohio Registered Historic Places building and structure stubs). Do we need to nominate that separately or can it be addressed here? Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops, I get it now. It wouldn't need renaming, but we could certainly create {{Ohio-NRHP-stub}} and Cat:Ohio Registered Historic Place stubs to house the district/county/non-B&S types. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{1948s-novel-stub}}

[edit] To orphan

Stub types in this section have been deemed deletable and have to be removed from all articles using them, so that they can be deleted.

[edit] To delete

Stub types in this section have been orphaned and can be deleted.

[edit] Listings to log

Stub types with completed discussions which have not yet been logged; remove from this page entirely when logged. Anyone can do this, not just an admin; please see the directions at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log.