Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep

Looks well-formed and well-populated, but it would have been nice if the creator of this had let us know (not the first time with this editor, either, so it's not like s/he's unaware of WP:WSS/P...) Grutness...wha? 00:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

S/he/it did use WP:WSS/P; see here. A bit precipitate, perhaps, but apparently useful. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah - fair enough, I must've missed that discussion. Looks like a keeper anyway. Grutness...wha? 03:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep

Well-formed, logical split - in terms of scope, if not size. Currently has only a couple of stubs. Needs either populating or upmerging. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Has 36 now that I've been slogging through the musician stubs. Let's keep it. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

70+ now. Keep Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep

The following were not listed, but exist:

• Cat:Bufonidae stubs {{Bufonidae-stub}}
• Cat:Caecilian stubs {{Caecilian-stub}}
• Cat:Glass frog stubs {{Centrolenidae-stub}}
• Cat:Hylidae stubs {{Hylidae-stub}}
• Cat:Hyperoliidae stubs {{Hyperoliidae-stub}}
• Cat:Leptodactylidae stubs {{Leptodactylidae-stub}}
• Cat:Mantellidae stubs {{Mantellidae-stub}}
• Cat:Megophryidae stubs {{Megophryidae-stub}}
• Cat:Microhylidae stubs {{Microhylidae-stub}}
• Cat:Petropedetidae stubs {{Petropedetidae-stub}}
• Cat:Poison dart frog stubs {{Dendrobatidae-stub}}
• Cat:Rhacophoridae stubs {{Rhacophoridae-stub}}
• Cat:Salamander stubs {{Salamander-stub}}
• Cat:True frog stubs {{Ranidae-stub}}

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

They were approved here; they are all listed properly in the "science" portion of the stubs list. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep

The following were not listed, but exist:

• Cat:Turtle stubs {{turtle-stub}}
• Cat:Prehistoric reptile stubs {{paleo-reptile-stub}}

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

They are listed properly in the "science" portion of the stubs list. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep

Unproposed creation, with potential for being seriously undersized. Possibly a case of wait and see, and if it doesn't get to a viable threshold, upmerging. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies on the lack of proposal. This stub is already up to 30 articles and that will grow significantly as I continue cleaning out the generic radio-station-stub category. Again, sorry about the presumption. I'll be sure to go through the process next time. - Dravecky 03:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to follow up, after a sweep of radio-station-stub and Australia-bcast-stub there are now 88 unique article stubs properly using this stub. That number may go up a bit as I continue to comb through categories as part of the Radio Stations project. - Dravecky 06:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

88 is well above the usual threshold for a separate stub category (60), and it does look to be a reasonable way to split these (paralleling similar nation-station types (hm... nice rhyme), so this looks like a likely keeper. Grutness...wha? 09:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was renamed and kept

Probably a fairly useful upmerged template, but oh the name! If - like me - you haven't a clue what an omed is, this is for osteopathic medicine. Probably a keeper, but with a new name (Osteopathy-stub would be good). Grutness...wha? 01:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for educating me a bit on how this process works. One thing to initiate the discussion, osteopathy does not equal osteopathic medicine.OsteopathicFreak 01:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

How about {{Osteo-med-stub}}, then? Would that cover it better? As I said, as an upmerged stub type it sounds quite a reasonable split, so the main thing (at least IMHO) is changing the current unintuitive name. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

{{Osteo-med-stub}} sounds great to me! Can I go ahead and edit the template and start using that? Or is there a process I should wait for first? OsteopathicFreak 02:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd wait a couple of days - just in case someone objects or comes up with a better idea. I must admit I don't know the hierarchy of med stubs that well, it could be that osteopathic medicine is better covered by an existing stub. if no-one objects, though, go ahead and move it (note also that WP:WSS practice is that the older, non-convention-compliant name will be deleted rather than used as a redirect once it's been orphaned). Grutness...wha? 13:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed discovery today. It has 50 stubs, which is almost up to the threshold, but we rarely split mass media stubs by company (and have deleted several similar ones in the past, such as ABC-stub and NBC-stub), since it crosses the hierarchy, including TV and radio stations and programmes. May need watching, at the evry leasy, but it's likely to be less than helpful overall. Grutness...wha? 03:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• List; now contains 92 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerged to university stubs & Mexico stubs

Unproposed, and no real sign of it reaching threshold any time soon. No objection to an upmerged template, but it's fill or delete as far as the category goes. And if it stays, it will need to be formatted! Grutness...wha? 02:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! It didn't even occur to me when I was going through the WP:UNI page today that my edit was creating a new stub (though I suppose it should have, duh). It was redlinked in a list of other stubs, so I just opened it up, copied and pasted from another stub, and saved it. You guys do whatever you need to with it. I don't have any feelings one way or the other. :) Esrever 03:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

On a related topic: Cat:Mexico education stubs seems to be very small and shouldn't it have been "Mexican ..." ? Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was redirected to Serbia-politician-stub

Unproposed, and hardly necessary since there are only 75 stubs on Serbian politicians overall. Mostly harmless, I suppose, since it's upmerged - although if it sets a precedent for splitting Serbian politicians by region it may prove messy further south... Grutness...wha? 01:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Splitting by national subdivision is not my favourite cup of tea, although the U.K. material is indeed split this way. I'm moderately negative towards this one, but I don't think it'll cause any actual harm. We should avoid templates for Kosovo until the situation there clears up. Leaving the political / NPOV issue aside, the Kosovo material is far below the size threshold. Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi everybody! Sorry but I didn't know that I should propose the creation of a new stub. I have made this stub to avoid ambiguity. In Eastern Europe national identity is usualy equal to ethnical identity. Because of that if someone said that someone is a Serbian-Hungarian person people in Serbia would think that his or her father is an ethnic Serb and his or her mother is an ethnic Hungarian person. And to say that someone is a Serbian-Croatian or a Croatian-Serbian is more risky than to say Vojvodina-Serbian or Vojvodina-Croatian. So I thought that would be a good idea to put these people into two stub-cathegories. One should refer to the region where they live and another should refer to the ethnicity (or nationality) of the person. About Kosovo: Don't you find ridiculous that all politicians from Kosovo is categegorised as European politicians? This is I think the total political paralysis. Most of them are ethnic Albanians from Serbia. The best solution of this problem would be a Kosovo politician stub. AND MY FINAL PRO ARGUMENT: IF THERE ARE NON-STUB VOJVODINA AND KOSOVO POLITICIAN CATHEGORIES WHY DO YOU FIND MAKING STUB ONES A BAD IDEA?--HunTheGoaT 17:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, to take your three points separately - first, as far as stub categories are concerned, national and regional boundaries is all: we don't divide people by ethnicity. A "Serbian politician" is one who is a politician within Serbia or who was born in Serbia. The same thing applies to other biography stub subtypes, too. As such - to answer your second comment - Kosovan politicians, since they are politicians within part of Serbia - should be marked with Serbia-politician-stub. That they are not is due to edit-warring on those articles - the only solution which all sides could afgree on was that these politicians were European. technically, they should be marked with Serbia-politician-stub, but if anyone was to change the template on the articles, I would guarantee that other editors would change it straight back. This brings use to the third point. Permanent categories are added to articles by literally adding the category. Stubs are added by template. As we have found in the past, some stub templates are susceptible to edit wars, and edit wars on templates have far wider ramifications than edit wars on articles, as they can affect large numbers of articles at any one time. We used to have a simple Kosovo-stub, and it caused an immense amount of problems due to edit wars. For that reason, we don't have stub templates relating to either countries that are not internationally recognised or regions of countries where those regions are undergoing likely constitutional change. If and when a permanent agreement is reached on the future of Kosovo, either as part of Serbia or independent from it, Kosovo stub types will be a reasonable idea. Until then, though, they would be edit-war targets. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, newly created... currently has one stub. There might be another 59 to reach threshold, but if not an upmerge is probably in order. Grutness...wha? 01:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

as a bit of a newbie, I was unaware that there was a procedure for proposing one. It seems a bit 'unanarchistic' to have one. Nevertheless, excuse the mistake. There is a stub for every other kind of ice hockey related topic, except for league, so I assumed it was a bit of an oversight and added one. I would never expect it to be a stub with a lot in it, but it would be useful for catching the new league artices. Alaney2k 00:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alaney2k - there are good reasons why there is a specific proposal process for stubs - it's a bit long-winded to go into here (though a search of the site should find them). To cut a long story short, having an upper and lower limit on the size of stub categories makes it easier for stub sorters to sort stubs easily and also helps editors to find articles on specific topics without being swamped with thousands of articles or having to pick through dozens of nearly empty categories. In the case of this stub type, though, it's possible that there are enough stubs to warrant a separate stub category (60 is the standard threshold in these sorts of cases, hence my comments earlier). Grutness...wha? 01:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: now contains 76 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, no stub or permcat parents, no stubs currently, but this is at least a logical split. Probably a case of sorting and if necessary upmerging. Grutness...wha? 02:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I created this stub tag because there are other ones such as {{Theatre-stub}}, {{US-theat-stub}} and others for individual countries/nations so I thinks its acceptable for the United Kingdom to have one, I apologise for creating this without consensus as I didnt realise they have to be discussed here. Regards --The Sunshine Man 14:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a logical split in terms of subject matter - the main concern is size. Unlike permanent categories, which can be of any size, there's a threshold level before a stub category is created of 60 current stubs (due to the different purposes of stub categoriues from main categories). I'm sure there won't be any problems with this one if it reaches 60 stubs - which it's likely to - but if it falls short of that it might not be worth having a separate category. The category also needs a bit of tidying up, as I noted earlier. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We should have the template at least (though probably canonicalise it to {{UK-theat-stub}}, leaving the redirect). This might require some work to populate, since existing article are likely to be scattered hither and yon (theat-, euro-theat-, <county>-geo-, etc), but I'm sure it's in theory doable. If it's not happening in practice, upmerge. Alai 16:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

They're not likely to be among the geo-stubs, A. struct-stubs, maybe. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you'd be surprised... Alai 13:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As theatre stubs had creeped into the oversized bracket, I populated this from Cat:theatre in the United Kingdom. That's scoping on the basis of 'the theatre' though, as distinct from just 'theatres'. Alai 13:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Now contains 74 items and the template has been properly redirected. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was redirected to ElectronicArts-stub

Never proposed, currently has three stubs. A whole host of parent categories to this cat, though surprisingly not Cat:Maxis, which I would have thought was the obvious one. Looking in Cat:Maxis reveals only 67 articles in total, so this would require 90% of those articles to be stubs before the stub category reached the required level. Looks like a clear case of upmerging to me... Grutness...wha? 01:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I am sorry I created this stub without proposing. I didn't know that was needed, and I saw other stub types like for instance the Doom Stub, so I figured a Maxis stub was possible to.

Again I am sorry for any inconvenience :-) --Jort227 15:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed to rename this and {{Doom-stub}} at Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2007/July/16, to {{ElectronicArts-stub}} and {{IdSoftware-stub}} (respectively) JohnnyMrNinja 08:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was redirected to ElectronicArts-stub

Unproposed, created on 6 Jun 2007, has two articles. Pagrashtak 20:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
...and is already noted further up this page :) Grutness...wha? 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerged

Unproposed, and used on 17 articles. There is a Wikiproject Tajikistan, but this is far from their primary stub type (given that there are T-geo, T-bio, and T-standard), so 60 would be the threshold. The bio-stub categpory's nowhere near needing splitting, either (only 76 stubs). Probably useful double-upmerged, but not with a stand-alone category. Grutness...wha? 05:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy upmerge, due to aforementioned present categorylessness. Alai 18:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Y Done I've cleaned up the code and it links to the proper categories now. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerged

Yipes. Television stubs have been sorted according to genre, people, episodes, stations, countries, etc. but never by "type of technology on which it appears". Unproposed, only 1 article in it. I don't like it One Bit. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• And it's listed earlier on this page, as of March 2007. Oops. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge

Unproposed, redlink category. Seems a reasonable idea, though, given the size of Cat:Databases. Mind you, that doesn't guarantee 60 stubs (well, 30, since there seems to be a nascent WikiProject - the same person who created that created this stub type ten minutes later, surprise, surprise). May well be a case of fixing it up and seeing whether or not it grows. If it does, fine. if not, there's still SFD... Grutness...wha? 01:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Might be worth upmerging to {{database-software-stub}} or seeing if there are articles tagged with that stub that aren't about specific programs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it. There are literally dozens of Cat:Databases articles that are naught but stubs. Use {{database-software-stub}} on all database stubs, even those that are unrelated to database software. BTW, the nascent WikiProject was suggested a week ago (Look It Up, surprise, surprise). For an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit, you bureaucrats sure give hell to people who are trying to do the right thing. Delete the stub, delete the project, do whatever you really feel like doing. Enough of this nonsense, trying to improve Wikipedia by wasting ridiculous amounts of my time bringing articles like Null (SQL) from a one-paragraph stub up to Good Article status, and trying to help bring some badly needed attention to the extreme lack of good, solid database-related articles on this thing. Be Bold! Right? Apparently it only applies to vandals, and not to people trying to do the right thing. You need to get rid of that God Awful article since that's not how it works in reality. If it's not there already, you should add Wikipedia as a prime example of Bureaucracy. Please feel free to remove it all, there are way too many bureaucrats and dictators running around for me to try to do anything more. Peace. SqlPac 02:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Read WP:BOLD. It makes it clear that it applies to articles, but not to templates or categories. The nascent Wikiproject may have been suggested a week ago, but no stub type was, and that is what we are discussing here. We are not bureaucrats, nor are we dictators; we are people trying to keep track of what stub types are available and sort stub articles accordingly. unproposed stub types do nothing to help with that - in fact, they can seriously hinder the work of editors on wikipedia. You =might also want toread WP:CIVIL. Grutness...wha? 02:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Get rid of the stuff I've done, and you and I are through WP:CIVIL. BTW, here are a couple of Database-related stubs for you. Many are already indicated as stubs under a very wide variety of labels, a few are not currently labeled stubs even though they are stubs. Some are software-specific, some are not. Some do not currently exist. You might want to get crackin' on those. Update (SQL), Merge (SQL), Create (SQL), Drop (SQL), Begin work (SQL), Commit (data management), Rollback (data management), Truncate (SQL), Alter (SQL), View (database), Table (database), Index (database), Partition (database), Database storage structures, MyISAM, Deductive database, Distributed database management system, Relational_calculus, Database normalization, Referential integrity, Relational database management system, Superkey, Candidate key, List of object-oriented database management systems, Online transaction processing, Data Mining Extensions, SuprTool, Molecular Query Language, SPARQL, CODASYL, QUEL query languages, Object Query Language, Poliqarp Query Language, Data Definition Language, Data Manipulation Language, Data Control Language, Bulk Load, SQL:1999, SQL-92, SQL-96, SQL:2003, SQL:2006, Order by (SQL), Group by (SQL), Having (SQL), Where (SQL), From (SQL), PL/pgSQL. Peace. SqlPac 03:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • What are you so angry about? The only person here who has suggested deletion as a first course is you - and presumably you were being sarcastic. Both I and Caerwine have suggested that it may be worth keeping in some form. The 41 existing stubs listed would be quite enough to qualify for a stub type, given that there is a wikiproject. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      • What am I so angry about? Because Ignore All Rules and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy are patent lies. You are enforcing an apparently non-existent Bureaucracy which I don't have time nor interest in dealing with. Don't presume. I'm not being sarcastic, you can honestly do whatever you like with all of my contributions so far. Though I would prefer you just delete all my contributions and be done with it. I've removed myself from trying to do anything beyond spell-checking an occasional article, and I couldn't care less (surprise, surprise) what you do with stubs or anything else beyond that. Those 41 existing stubs were located in the course of a 10 minute search. There are literally hundreds of database stubs that could potentially be categorized as such (I located over 100 on my first search a few weeks ago, as well as about 3 dozen articles that haven't even been created yet), but I'm not interested in continuing to document, organize, create new articles, or having anything else to do with these items. I'll continue making occasional edits to correct spelling errors in articles, but I have no reason to put myself in a position where I can be called to task for trying to contribute anything more to your Wikipedia. In the meantime, please delete the stub and let someone who understands/cares about the Bureaucracy do this type of thing in the future. I've come to the conclusion that beyond spell-checking an occasional article, Wikipedia is not interested in attracting subject matter experts and writers. It appears that recruitment efforts should be aimed at attracting the bureaucrats so desperately needed to avoid stepping on people's toes around here. Be Afraid!. SqlPac 17:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

This material is now 60+ so I've been bold and given the template a category right away to cut the Asian category down a bit. The category is parented by both Cat:Asian politician stubs and Cat:European politician stubs as agreed back in November 2006.[2] Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Serbia is above the mark as well, so I'm listing both categories on WP:WSS/ST. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Never proposed, not really needed, except maybe as a parent for the {{india-university-stub}} and {{india-school-stub}} types which have been in long and continual use. Grutness...wha? 02:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly could use the category Cat:India(n) education stubs more than the template as a parent for the university and school stubs. Probably worth keeping and catting assuming we can agree on the name for the cat. We have Cat:Japanese education stubs and Cat:Mexico education stubs so we don't have consistency in the existing sub categories (without even considering the British / United Kingdom issue). Caerwine Caer’s whines 14:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was take to sfr

Unproposed. Not about the car, but about Austin, Texas (and should therefore be named as such). Currently has one stub, which is also (correctly) marked as a Texas-geo-stub. Might be able to get to the threshold of 60 stubs for this one, but will need renaming to t:AustinTX-stub/c:Austin, Texas stubs for reasons which should be obvious if you look at Austin. Category will also need tidying, since it has no parent categories, stub or perm. Probably a "wait and see" for whether it should be kept or not. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's now been moved by its creator to {{Austin-TX-stub}} - another incorrect name :( At least the category now has a stub parent... Grutness...wha? 02:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Should this name stay the same, or would you like to change it to {{AustinTX-stub}}? There are now 60 stubs categorized under it, with more to come I'm sure. Joe I 04:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Give us a chance! :) Not everyone checks this page every day. I'd continue using the current names for nowGiven that there are 60 stubs, it seems likely to be worth keeping under some name, so it will be simply a matter of using a bot to do any necessary changeover. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 88 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Not sure if this quite qualifies as a stub template... Probably speediable as strange and unused. Alai 02:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's speediable, and if not, definitely SFD fodder. Any page which simply has {{stub}} needs "placing a more exact stub template where the stub currently exists in this article", so it's redundant. Also the pedant in me rankles at "I.E." Grutness...wha? 02:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Unproposed, redlink category, used on just two articles - seems like overkill and is badly named too (we don't have single-stubs, we have song-stubs, and we also don't divide out "indie" songs from the rest, as the dividing line of this subgenre is just too subjective). Looks remarkably like SFD-bait... Grutness...wha? 02:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• No, we also have {{single-stub}}s; oversized cats of them, in fact. And we split albums into {{indie-rock-album-stub}}, etc. Keep if popula/ble/ted, upmerge if not. Alai 06:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected. Odd - why would we have both song-stub and single-stub? Seems like the two cover very much the same ground. Yes, I realise not all songs are released as singles, but it still sounds like the sort of articles which would attract the same groups of editors - and many of the "single" permcats have been subsumed into "song" ones over the last few months. Grutness...wha? 05:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure there's any deep thinking behind it; we've ended up with both, hence we've started splitting both. (The original single-stub was created by someone who never even ended up with a talk page, and it went to SFD at the start of 2006 and survived.) WikiProjectwise they'd both be covered by the Songs people, we could ask them if they have any feelings on that. Of course, if we merged them both we'd have yet more re-splitting by decade, genre, and whatever else to do, but other than that... Alai 00:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Links only to userpage and WPSS discussions. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge

Seems quite a reasonable split - if there are the numbers for it (which there may be, though the current one stub there doesn't necessarily guarantee that it will be followed by 59 more. At least the parent cat has enough articles to suggest that it's likely). The template has the largest stub icon I think I've ever seen, and the category has no valid parents, stub or otherwise (apparently, the category is a template, but that's all it is!). If kept, those items will need tidying up, but an upmerge may well be in order anyway. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Biggest stub template image I ever did see: 75px... on the short side. Shouldn't that be -ism, rather than -ist, to match the cat? Other than that, and the "small matters" G. mentions, sensible enough in principle. Cleanup, move, and possibly upmerge. Alai 00:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I wondered about the -ist/-ism thing, too - but it looks like most of our religion templates work that way (T:Anglican-stub/C:Anglicanism stubs, etc). Grutness...wha? 06:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Links to 2 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Probably a reasonable idea for a stub type, if there are the necessary number of stubs. Would be nice if it had a category, though... Unproposed, and currently used on just one article. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Never proposed, no category. I can't see any way this is going to get within cooee of threshold - Cat:Newspapers published in Afghanistan has only four articles, so I doubt there are 60 stubs. May be better to upmerge it than to delete it outright, though. Grutness...wha? 10:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if its only 4 newspapers from Afghanista, then a generic Newspaper stub should be used. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I created that stub template. I'm sorry, I didn't know that there was any formal procedure for making them. Basicly, I saw the "Asian-Newspaper-stub" template and modified it for Afghanistan. Go ahead and delete it if I did something wrong.--Kirby♥time 00:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 3 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Created today, 22 April 2007, as a subcategory of Category:Aromatic compound stubs. Currently populated with 4 stubs (there are 56 in the parent category). I don't know anything about aromatic compounds, so I can't speak to this category's potential, but I'm bringing it here for your consideration. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 4 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

• {{Scotland-footy-goalkeeper-stub}}
• {{Scotland-footy-striker-stub}}
• {{Scotland-footy-midfielder-stub}}
• {{Scotland-footy-defender-stub}}

All created in the last 24 hours, along with their respective categories, shortly after Italy was split in this way. Italy was proposed for this split since the parent category was very oversized, and it must be admitted that the Scottish equivalent is also fairly large. Probably a good split. Grutness...wha? 07:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep We've recently split France and Italy this way with a proposal to split Brazil the same way currently unoppsed and all three categories were/are smaller than this one is. Waacstats 12:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep - category is larger than Brazil etc. WATP  15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The categories look rather small to me. Three of them have a mere 20-30 stubs. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Update:
• {{Scotland-footy-goalkeeper-stub}} - 59 articles
• {{Scotland-footy-striker-stub}} - 103 articles
• {{Scotland-footy-midfielder-stub}} - 160 articles
• {{Scotland-footy-defender-stub}} - 171 articles
• Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, though a logical split. Not convinced yet that it will reach threshold - if it doesn't upmerging of the template and deletion of the category would make sense. Grutness...wha? 07:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction - it seems that it already has over 50 stubs, so threshold worries seem assuaged. Looks like a keeper. Grutness...wha? 07:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Created around a month ago. I've cleaned up the code. Potentially useful I guess. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and create cat - A quick look at transclusions for {{Palestine-bio-stub}} shows about 25 relevant articles. I also see about 75 articles currently tagged as {{Palestine-stub}} that are actually biographies. That would put about 100 articles in Category:Palestinian people stubs, leave 100 in Category:Palestine stubs, and leave 250 in Category:Middle Eastern people stubs. There are undoubtedly {{MEast-bio-stub}}s that could be restubbed as well. So, I propose full stub and category. — jmorgan (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Mentioned by the creator on the stub list talk page. Currently used on three stubs. Well formed template which effectively acts as a custom redirect for {{horror-novel-stub}}. I'm a little leery of the small size, as the parent has only 120 stubs, but the scope is clearly defined and Cat:Horror does have subcats for zombies and vampires in fiction. Recommend that we keep and list as a redirect. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Doesn't look well-formed to me (like most of the "novels" templates, in fact), and there's no Cat:Zombie novels. I'd be more inclined to delete. Alai 16:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• I would agree that it should go - but for reasons of volume - I don't think this will ever be large enough to be warrented. Also I don't know that many consider this a separate genre. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was redirected to gastropod-stub

Newly created, and a bit of a case of putting the cart before the horse. Mollusc-stub isn't yet at a stage where it requires further splitting, and if it was, surely creating Cat:Gastropod stubs would make far more sense than leaping in to create a subtype of it. There is, BTW, a gastropod-stub - it was created then moved to this "correct name" and now redirects to orthogastropoda-stub. There also isn't a Cat:Orthogastropoda - there is, however, a Cat:Gastropods. If we want to split the molluscs, then I suggest that deleting this and replacing it with a more widely-scoped gastropod-stub would be the way to proceed. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• My apologies, I wasn't aware of the "new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals" ruling. I created the gastropod-stub, then moved it when I realised I was only working with Orthogastropodas and not also Eogastropodas. As there has been a trend lately to remove the Cat:Molluscs from Orthogastropoda pages I assumed people didn't want them appearing in the mollusc category so was doing what I could to change the situation. There are numerous articles, with more coming, in the Subclass Orthogastropoda so was doing some forward thinking.

The guidlines ask:

1. Is there a stub for this topic already? *No
2. Will the new type be well-defined enough to help editors identify articles that they have the expertise to expand? *It will narrow the field from the generic Molluscs to the true snails which is a narrower field to concentrate on.
3. Does the new stub type cover ground not covered by other type, or create a well-defined subtype that does? *It creates a well-defined subtype that is not easily confused with the larger type.
4. Will there be a significant number of stubs in this category; are there enough article stubs to warrant this new type? *There are at least 75 articles currently classed under Category:Mollusc stubs that would fall under the new stub type.
5. Would your new stub type overlap with other stub types? *No
6. If you are breaking a subcategory out of a pre-existing category, will the new stub reduce the size of the parent category by a significant amount? *Absolutely

Again, my apologies. Good day. Nashville Monkey 03:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: just noticed that Wikipedia:Stub states

{{guideline}} so is not in fact a policy as I was led to believe... Just an observation on my part. Nashville Monkey 03:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oookaaay. let's tackle a few of your points one at a time:

1. My apologies, I wasn't aware of the "new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals" ruling - Apology accepted... but please note that much of what you quote above is in the very next paragraph on from the notice about proposing stub types, at Wikipedia:Stub#New stub types. It's also at several other places on the same page in big red letters, and at the top of most stub categories.
2. As there has been a trend lately to remove the Cat:Molluscs from Orthogastropoda pages I assumed people didn't want them appearing in the mollusc category - Well, did you consider that they have been removed from that main category because they are already in a subcategory of it? It is silly to have something marked in the main part of Cat:Molluscs if they're in a subcategory of it. Currently it appears that orthogastropoda articles are in Cat:Gastropods, which is a subcat of Cat:Molluscs.
3. The guidlines ask: Is there a stub for this topic already? - yes there is - Cat:Mollusc stubs, which is far from needing a split. It is not normally the case that a stub category is split if there are only about 300 stubs in it (though I'll admit that point isn't spelt out at WP:Stub, where it perhaps should be).
4. As to it being a guideline rather than policy, yes it is, but guidelines are there for a very good reason, and I stand by my comment that new stub types should be proposed prior to creation because of that fact. Most people consider making new stub types a form of being bold, not realising that being bold is actively discouraged when it comes to templates and categories, since they take considerable work to fix if there are any problems with them. Problems such as, for instance, making a stub type which may at first seem reasonable but which on closer inspection has problems with its format or scope (such as creating a subtype rather than a more useful, more broadly scoped type, or accidentally creating a stub template with the wrong name and having to move it to a new name. Or making sure that the new stub category has a parallel permanent category associated with it). Consider, too, that the people who need to know about stub types in order to be able to use them are the people who do the stub-sorting work. Without knowing that a particular stub type exists, a parallel type could easily have been proposed and created by someone at WP:WSS, leading to even more work setting things straight once your stub type was discovered. And without knowing about orthogastropoda-stub, how would we be expected to use it for stub-splitting in the first place?

Grutness...wha? 04:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Point taken Nashville Monkey 04:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As to your point #1 the Stub page is where I got it, after you pointed me to it. Nashville Monkey 04:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Grutness...wha? 11:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• With 75+ stubs you've identified, there certainly is a case to be made for a {{gastropod-stub}} if you're willing to take the time populate it. So while {{Mollusc-stub}} is not in dire need of splitting, but there is no problem if as in this case, someone is willing to take the time to populate it. Rather the question is whether going directly to the subclass and bypassing the class is desirable here. Given that the other existing subtype of {{mollusc-stub}} is {{cephalopod-stub}} which is at the class rather than the subclass level, I'd say it would make more sense to start with the class and break that into smaller groups if needed. Given what is already done, I'd recommend making the primary stub here be {{gastropod-stub}} / Cat:Gastropod stubs with {{orthogastropoda-stub}} feeding into Cat:Gastropod stubs as either a redirect of {{gastropod-stub}} or as independent template upmerged to share the same category as its parent until such time as there are enough to stubs to have both {{gastropod-stub}} and {{{orthogastropoda-stub}} be well populated. Given the way the gastropods are organized and their current state of flux in that organization, I'm not certain that breaking up the class at the subclass level instead of the order level if future splitting should be needed (which given the number of gastropod species is certainly a possibility). Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay Caerwine, what do I need to do now? Nashville Monkey 07:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• I can live with that, too. Grutness...wha? 11:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the stub types' creator agrees to the changes, theoretically it can be speedied - but I'll wait a day or so in case there are any objections (if so, make them here!) It just means reversing the redirect, making a new category and deleting the old one. Grutness...wha? 11:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hopefully I haven't screwed things up, I've already reversed the redirect and made a new category: {{gastropod-stub}} / Cat:Gastropod stubs so all that is needed will be for {{Orthogastropoda-stub}} /Cat:Orthogastropoda stubs to be deleted. Nashville Monkey 11:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, that's fair enough. The 24 hours was just in case - to be honest, I doubt anyone will object. Grutness...wha? 12:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Completely done with the sorting, 188 stubs retagged as "Gastopod-stub" thanks for the patience. Nashville Monkey 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • S'alright - sorry for grumbling in the first place! The orthogastropoda stubs category's gone now, BTW. Grutness...wha? 04:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Is it too soon to get it listed at WP:STUBS? Nashville Monkey 07:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Given that the stub has been amended after debate here to something which the members of WP:WSS (or at least those who took part in the discussion) find appropriate as a stub type, I don't see anything wrong with listing it. Go for it :) Grutness...wha? 11:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Done deal. Nashville Monkey 16:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Unproposed. Mismatch of category and template names, permcat parent for the category that the template is really named for has only seven articles, so getting the required 60 stubs seems a remote hope, to say the least. What's more, Cat:Hip hop stubs is pretty well split as it is, with no cat or subcat of it with over about 160 stubs. Likely deletion material. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Prior to this circumstance I was unaware of the proposal policy for stubs. If you truly think there is no need for the stub, then you can delete it, but there are many Christian hip-hop groups on wikipedia, and I am sure that many of them are likely stubs. --Merond e 13:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Empty category. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

A nascent WikiProject's first act - make a stub template. Unproposed, of course, and with all the usual problems associated with state-road-stub naming. Strangely, the edit summary says this was created in lieu of creating a WikiProject page, which makes little sense. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I'd like to apologize for not going through the normal proposal protocol. Honestly, this is my first time developing a new WikiProject page, so I wasn't aware of the issue with that. In regards to its usefulness, there are over 100 Delaware State Routes, many of whom, while not created as of yet, will be part of the new WikiProject's job to upkeep and manage. (hence the "in lieu of" statement). See, there is no WikiProject Delaware yet (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Delaware), and I'm in the process of creating one. Since this type of article would fall under this project's jurisdiction, it would be necessary to identify its place as a stub of our project. Template:Maryland-State-Highway-stub and Template:New-Jersey-road-stub are just a few examples of other State WikiProjects (and sub-projects) having their own stub templates for their highway systems. I just felt it appropriate, seeing as there is none currently in existance, for one to be created for Delaware. If anyone objects, please let me know why. Otherwise, while I once again apologize for not following the correct procedure (and please check my contributions, as this is the first stub template I've ever made) and won't make that mistake again, I definitely feel this temp is warranted and necessary if the WikiProject's to become successful in fulfilling its goal of maintaining all Delaware-related articles. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 02:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I should have said "in prep of"...that was bad grammar on my part, so again I apologize for the confusion. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 13:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem with not knowing the procedures is probably because you made the stub before you made the WikiProject (all the details about coming here first are in {{wikiproject}}). As far as problems with the template, it's just that we have a hotch-potch of state-road-stubs and State-Highway-stubs which we've been trying (without too much success) to rationalise and make into a uniform system. If there are likely to be enough articles (30+, since there's a Wikiproject), there shouldn't be too much of a problem with having some form of stub for Delaware's roads, though you might want to consider a WP-specific talk-page template, since they are often more use to individual wikiprojects. I wondered about the "in prep/lieu of" :) Grutness...wha? 04:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool; thanks for the understanding and the tips. This WikiProject's just getting underway, so it'll be a little while before we get our act together, but it'll definitely be 30+, so it'll be worth it. And I'll be sure to take your advice about setting up the secondary project. Let's just get off the ground first, though ;-) EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 13:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 1 item, upmerges to Cat:United States road stubs. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Now links to 53 articles and is nicely upmerged to Cat:Southern United States road stubs. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed - created and populated within the last 24 hours, to the tune of 48 stubs. Possibly useful, though the category needs shaping up (no parents of any type, stub or permcat). Could be useful, though Cat:Bowed-string musician stubs is hardly over-full. A likely keeper, but an upmerge is still plausible. Grutness...wha? 04:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• A definite keep on the template, and I suspect that there will be enough violinists who aren't notable for playing other stringed instruments to make the category a keeper. However a quick look indicates that the creator has been adding rather replacing the bowed-string template to stub articles. No way an article should have both templates. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Now contains 73 items; keep. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Isn't listed at WP:WSS/ST. Used a lot. Ignorant of procedure here, so listing and leaving! Splash - tk 21:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It was proposed, but for some reason it wasn't added to the list when it was finally made. Grutness...wha? 21:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep

One of two unproposed stubs created today by Willow. This one may be useful, if there are the required number of stubs - which is unlikely since there are only 37 articles in Cat:Archaea and its subcats. A more general prokaryote stub might be more useful and more likely to reach a sensible size. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Every day I'm amazed at the number of processes Wikipedians have managed to create. 'Required number'? Anyway, the MCB and microbiology projects are planning to substantially expand coverage of recognized taxa, so this will probably have many more articles in the near future. Opabinia regalis 03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, required number. You did read WP:STUB, I take it? That mentions that there is a required number, and why. I'd still be inclined to upscope it to prokaryotes. If there will soon be more articles, all well and good - but if they don't eventuate, don't be surprised if this one gets nominated for deletion at some point. Grutness...wha? 05:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the general recommendations in that guideline. I suppose we've got our {{shrubbery}} now, but I don't know how it isn't obvious that a group of organisms with their own taxonomic domain ought to have a stub category. Opabinia regalis 01:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was either get the shrubbery or have lots of people going "Ni!" Sure, something with its own taxonomic domain deserves a stub type - assuming there are enough stubs. At the time this was brought here, not only were there only a handful of stubs, but there were only a handful of articles in total. It doesn't make sense to have stub categories cut down to unmanageably small sizes, for the sake of editors and for the sake of maintenance. Grutness...wha? 05:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Grutness, please let me apologize for having transgressed our community norms. I was innocently unaware of the proposal process; it never occurred to me that there would be a problem with making a much-needed stub. It was not an act of defiance, but of ignorance, and I hope that you will forgive me for it.

There is definitely a need for this stub. I've created Wikipedia pages for 151 Archaea taxa higher than species that are not presently in Wikipedia, which I'm about to start uploading. That falls within the 100-300 limit specified on WP:Stub, right? Once I start creating the archaeal species pages, that number will grow further. This stub fills a significant gap in the presently available taxonomic stubs; aside from the bacteria and the eukaryota, the archaea are the third major branch of life. Willow 06:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There are now 31 articles tagged with {{Archaea-stub}}, which exceeds the established threshold of 30 articles; this stub is associated with the Microbiology WikiProject. In addition, there are still 20 archaeal families to upload, plus a host of genera and species. I hope that these data satisfy the concerns about the usefulness of this stub-template; thanks! :) Willow 10:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Grutness, there are now 66 articles tagged with {{Archaea-stub}}, which exceeds the higher threshold of 60 articles for stubs that have no sponsoring WikiProject (which is not the case here). Please let me know whether your concerns have been addressed; thanks! :) Willow 20:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, given that there are now plenty of stubs, it seems reasonable to keep this (unless there are any objections). BTW, the 30 for a WikiProject is for a basic stub for that WP (in this case, that would be something like microbiology-stub). But since there are 60, there's no problem with that. Good work, BTW! Grutness...wha? 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

The other of Willow's stubs, though, is far less likely to get within cooee of threshold. To be honest, I can't see any use for it at all, so unless there's something I've overlooked, this is potentially SFD material - especially if it is intended to cover what the category says (for any articles with a taxobox), which machetes its way straight through the stub hierarchy. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some explanation is in order here, too. I created this stub before I hit upon the idea of making the more specific {{Archaea-stub}}. Its purpose was to give a "catch-all" for taxonomic stubs that weren't covered by other stubs and WikiProjects, rather than using the general {{biology-stub}}. I do not believe that our present taxonomic stubs — even with {{Archaea-stub}} — cover the whole tree of life, so it's convenient for, say, the hundreds of starfish or diatom species not yet in Wikipedia. If you insist on proof to avoid deleting this stub template, I will generate and upload >100 Wikipedia pages on starfish, but I'd much rather finish the Archaea first; will you grant me some time to do that? Thanks very much! :) Willow 06:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Starfish would be covered by {{invertebrate-stub}}, and diatoms by {{protist-stub}}. I believe the tree of life is sufficiently well covered by stub categories to enable what remains (if indeed there is anything) to be treated under {{biology-stub}}. --Stemonitis 09:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I see the sense of that, Stemonitis, and thanks for alerting me to the appropriate stubs. It'd be helpful for me to know the maximum number of stubs in a category, before that category should be split. For example, suppose that there were roughly 900 starfish stubs sorted under {{invertebrate-stub}}; that might suggest that we should make an {{Echinoderm-stub}}, right? It would be nice if there were fixed quantitative criteria according to which one could make a sub-stub template without having to go through a week-long vetting process. For example, if there are over, say, 200 stubs in a single taxonomic phylum or class, can I assume that I'll be allowed to make a sub-stub template for them? Thanks for your time and thought on the issue, Willow 10:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Most likely, yes, though proposing it first is still recommended, just to see whether a better scope or naming is possible (and it's only five days now, not a week). Often, though, that process will just rubber-stamp anything that's an obvious split. The usual maximum for a category before we really look hard at splitting is about 600 stubs. Above that size and it begins to get difficult for editors to wade through. Having said that, we still have several stub categories well over the 1000 stub mark in the process of being split up. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Contains 9 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep

Created a couple months ago, only 21 articles. Eli Falk 13:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• This was proposed and accepted in October. Waacstats 12:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename metabolism-stub?

Unproposed, badly named, badly formatted, inappropriate wikiproject message, no category at all. Moderately-well populated, but I'd wonder if it doesn't cut across existing stub types. Then again, all plans to reduce {{biochem-stub}} in size are worth considering... Alai 19:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly a subset of the intersection of Cat:Biochemistry stubs and Cat:Cell biology stubs, so I wouldn't mind placing it a child of those two. It marks only 33 stubs at present, but luckily since there is an associated wikiproject it needs only 30, so take this to SFD for renaming and give it an appropriate parentage (including existing permcat Cat:Metabolic pathways). If it weren't for the wikiproject I'd suggest upscoping to Cat:Metabolism stubs, but maybe a discussion with the WP would get them to consider upscoping their project as well. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 32 articles, but still badly named and doesn't link to any category. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was taken to SfD

Never proposed, some issues with the way the category is formed, but seems quite reasonable, if there are enough stubs 9which at the moment, is still doubtful). Grutness...wha? 06:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 11 items; I have proposed a change at SfD. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Created one month ago. This template was below the 60 mark, but an editor has given it a distinct category anyway. It is at 45+ so I doubt it is worth the while upmerging it again. Valentinian ^{T / C} 12:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Contains 52 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, but probably useful, if there are the required number of stubs, which - judging by Cat:Syria stubs - there may well be. The category will need renaming, though (should be "Syrian people stubs"). Grutness...wha? 04:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Trust me, there are a lot of stubs for this category. Stub-related work is not my thing, but I created this as part of WP:SY and I believe it is a vital stub category and is used widely in other countries ({{Germany-bio-stub}}, {{Scotland-bio-stub}}). You're right about the category though, I've created another category and tagged this one for speedy deletion. Give it sometime and this category will be filled with stubs. - Anas ^talk? 11:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • OK - I've speedied the earlier one. Be warned, if this doesn't get to a reasonable population in the next couple of months it may yet be proposed for deletion, but I'm pretty sure you're right, there seem to be quite a few Syrian bio-stubs around. Grutness...wha? 12:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't worry — I'll make sure it gets populated by tomorrow. Thank you! :-) - Anas ^talk? 12:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is 70+ now. Keep. Valentinian ^{T / C} 07:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was reverse redir or rename

Can anyone here guess what this is for? Why its a stub for British royalty. What's that you say? We already have one? No, we had one. {{UK-royal-stub}} got moved eight months ago to this by a member of Wikiproject British Royalty and left as a redirect. Now to be fair WP:BRoy is in the habit of using BRoy at the start of the templates it uses. But this one violates the naming guidelines for stubs in several ways. By the way, a quick glance indicates that there appear to be enough pre-Jamesian stubs here to warrant an {{England-royal-stub}} if anyone is so inclined. I'll leave Grutness and Alai to fight over the category name if they want, but since the permcats here use British rather than United Kingdom, I'm inclined to leave the category as it is and send this to SFD to be set aright after gently informing BRoy of the alternatives. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Contains 179 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was listed

Proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2007/March#Juggling. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

...in which case, it's hardly a discovery! Why did you list it here? Grutness...wha? 06:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, um, I thought it was the thing to do. Sorry then. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

S'alright. This page is for templates and categories discovered by WP:WSS that hadn't been proposed and which need discussing to see whether they need any tidying up. Grutness...wha? 22:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed. I almost sfd'd this, thinking it was a duplicate of a stub type we already had. On closer inspection of WP:WSS/ST, though, it looks like geophysics is, surprisingly, an area we haven't a specific stub type for. If this reaches threshold, it will almost certainly be worth keeping - but the category issue certainly needs tidying up - at the moment, it feeds into three categories 9of which two are redlinks) - definite overkill. Grutness...wha? 04:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 4 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Presumably this was created as a result of this SFD - my comment "when it gets to [threshold] size, propose [a Frasier-stub] at WP:WSS/P" somehow must have been interpreted as "make a Frasier-stub now!". Needs work - no category of any kind. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction - this seems to be the coincidental work of a completely different editor. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 2 articles; category has been created as Cat:Frasier Stubs. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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