Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WikiProject Stub sorting
Puzzle stub cropped.png
Information
Project page talk
- Stub types (sections) talk
- Stub types (full list) talk
- To do talk
- Naming conventions talk
- Stub redirects talk
Wikipedia:Stub talk
Discussion
Criteria (A) talk
Proposals (A) talk
- Current month
Discoveries (A) talk
- Current month
Deletion (Log) talk
Category

On this WP:WSS subpage, you can propose new stub types (please read the procedures beforehand!), as well as the reorganization and subdivision of existing stub types. You can also discuss anything else related to stubs on the talk page.

Contents

Proposing new stub types – procedure[edit]

Important: If you wish to propose the creation of a stub ARTICLE you've come to the wrong place. If you don't have a username yourself, please go to WP:AFC for proposing a new article. If you already have a username, you can create the article yourself. If you don't know how, add {{Helpme}} to your user talk page to request help from other editors. This page only deals with stub TEMPLATES and CATEGORIES; we cannot help you with creating articles.

Proposing new stub types
If you wish to propose a new stub category and template, please follow these procedures:
  1. Check the List of stub types or under Category:Stub categories to make sure that your proposed new stub does not already exist.
  2. List it at the top of the current month's section, under a header, like the ones shown (if any). Sign it with a datestamp (~~~~).
    • Please bear in mind that a stub category isn't about the importance or notability of the topic!
  3. Find a good number[1] of stub articles, as many as you can, that will fit that template. You may use this tool to scan through categories; tagged stubs are always in Category:All stub articles and transclude {{asbox}}. Each of these articles can be:
    • currently marked with {{stub}};
    • currently marked with another type of stub tag (in which case you should justify why your tag is better for the article than the current one);
    • a stub whose categorisation is highly ambiguous or questionable;
    • not marked as a stub.
  4. If you use any category scan (from the tool mentioned above or from any other), please link to it so that other users can confirm that the results are still accurate.
  5. Others may do the same, if they so desire.
  6. 5 days after listing it here, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new category and/or template following the format on Wikipedia:Stub. List the new stub type on the stub types list in an appropriate section. If consensus is not clear, or discussion is still ongoing, the proposal will remain open until consensus can be reached.
  7. If you wish to propose a stub type which does not currently have 60 articles that could use it, you may propose an upmerged template in a similar way. An upmerged template would feed into currently existing stub categories until such time that there are enough stubs for a separate stub category. At that point a category for it may be separately proposed. Some times, it may be difficult to be sure how many stubs would get a tag - in which case you can also start with an upmerged stub tag until you're sure there are enough.

DO NOT place a proposal here for any stub type which has already been created and is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. The proposal page is only for stub types that have not yet been created, and it is better to keep any discussion of such stub types in one place rather than splitting it between different pages. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is the correct page for proposals to delete a stub type.

^ . Good number means about 60 articles or more, or 30 or more if it is the primary stub type of a WikiProject, though this figure may vary from case to case.

"Speedy creation"[edit]

A stub type may be proposed for "speedy creation" if it meets one of the following criteria:

  • S1 - the creation of a category for which an approved upmerged template already exists and is now in use on more than 60 articles.
  • S2 - the creation of an upmerged national-level template for a subject in which other such national-level templates currently exist (e.g., X-bio-stub, X-hist-stub, or X-geo-stub, where X is the name of an internationally widely recognised country) or other instances where a clearly established pattern of similar subtypes exists. The proposed topic may not be controversial in scope. Many templates qualifying for S2 are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/To do/To create.

List speedy creation proposals in the same proposal listings as normal stub proposals below.

Proposals, June 2016[edit]

Please check how many articles qualify for a stub type before proposing it.

NEW PROPOSALS[edit]

Retool {{Mil-philres-stub}}[edit]

Don't know if this should go to WP:TFD. I came across it while checking redlinked stub code; it feeds into Category:Military unit and formation stubs but isn't big enough for its own category yet. My guess is that it should be re-formed as {{Philippines-mil-unit-stub}}. Any other ideas? Her Pegship (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Category:American military unit and formation stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.


{{US-mil-unit-stub}} is at 61, speedy? Her Pegship (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2016 (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.

Categories for upmerged India geography stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

S1 speedy creation proposing:

– Nocowardsoulismine (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Support all of them based on these numbers. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:40, 15 June 2016 (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.

Categories for upmerged India university stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

S1 Speedy creation proposals:

Nocowardsoulismine (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Since it's been 5 days without objection, I went ahead and created the categories. Nocowardsoulismine (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2016 (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.

Proposals, May 2016[edit]

Please check how many articles qualify for a stub type before proposing it.

eSports[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 no consensus.

There should be a new stub category for eSports related articles. In around 2007-ish there was a proposal but at the time it was defeated because there weren't enough esports articles. Relevants stubs can be found in Category:eSports.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2016 (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.

Yet more moths: Template:Carposina-stub/Category:Carposina stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

Moth-stubs subcategory Category:Copromorphoidea stubs: there are more than enough Caprosina articles at stub-level to justify getting their own template and subcategory. 134 stub-level articles: 133 of them in aforementioned Copromorphoidea stubs + the un-stub-tagged Carposina itself (it's a 10-word sentence, a taxobox and a species list, so that makes it a stub in my book, size-due-to-long-list be damned, but even if excluding that one, there's plenty). AddWittyNameHere (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Support. A mere list, which you would be unlikely to change to prose, doesn't count for the length of an article in determining whether or not it's a stub; even without that, 133 species stubs is plenty for a stub category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:12, 3 May 2016 (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.

Proposal stub category Category:18th-century painting stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create when 60+ articles qualify.

New to proposals like this so hopefully doing it right, noted in working on Time Unveiling Truth (Tiepolo) that it was in the Category:Painting stubs but I've seen century stubs before, in clicking on that category you can see there are subcategories for each century from the 15th to 20th except the 18th. Those other categories have maybe 150 entries on average. I'm not sure how to find more for the 18th but the painting page I was working on is one example and I'd imagine there are similar numbers that could be found. I've never created a stub category before so if someone else wants to do it or offer advice on that process, happy to have it. Phil (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC) More examples from a quick browse of Painting stubs, it appears a significant number of them are from the 18th century. Christ_on_the_Cross_(David), Apparition of the Virgin of the Pillar to Saint James and his Saragossan disciples, Adoration of the Name of God, Apotheosis of Palermo, Battle of Yesil Kol Nor, Ancient Rome, Sarah Siddons as the Tragic Muse, The Death of Seneca (David), Saint Roch Interceding with the Virgin for the Plague-Stricken

Welcome! The short explanation is that currently the 18th-century painting stub template is used on 34 articles, and the template doesn't get its own category until it hits at least 60 articles. Until then, they're filed in the generic painting stubs category. I'll keep an eye on it and create the category when appropriate. Thanks for the heads up. Her Pegship (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2016 (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.

Proposal stub category Category:proteins in venoms[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 no consensus

Not only proteins, but subcategories of proteins are already unacceptably large, (and watch this space!!!) Also, I had difficulty finding any categories dealing with toxicology, venoms etc. In the end i looked up the categories in use in other venom articles. Obviously i am not au fait with your indexing system. Pharmacology, particularly as a subcategory of health, is far too oblique in most useful contexts. I don't mind being invilved in any discussions that this question provokes, but am unwilling to tackle it off my own bat. I am creating a stub on Fasciculin, and cannot wait for clarification, but for now I shall use {{med-toxic-stub}}. JonRichfield (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2016 (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.

Proposals, April 2016[edit]

Speedy proposal (S1): Cat for upmerged {{Epermenioidea-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

Figured that I might as well do some more Lepidoptera stub-sorting as I wait out the customary five days on my open non-speedy proposal below. Wouldn't have come here for yet another proposal while that's open, except this one's a pretty obvious case: {{Epermenioidea-stub}}, currently upmerged to Category:Moth stubs, now is transcluded on over 60 pages (and still rising. Suspect it'll end up with ~125-150 articles with {{Epermenioidea-stub}} transcluded on it.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Done sorting all with the upmerged template. 165 transclusions. Can I get the okay to make the category? :) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Speedy away! Her Pegship (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2016 (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.

Cats for upmerged Category:Philippines geography stubs templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create cats for BicolR & WVisayas. Category:Philippines geography stubs contains over 1,000 articles and there are upmerged regional templates. I've been going through them and there are now 60+ articles with {{BicolR-geo-stub}}, {{MetroManila-geo-stub}}, {{ZamboangaP-geo-stub}}, and {{WVisayas-geo-stub}}. I plan to tackle the rest of the templates as well; for now, may I propose categories for these three?

Speedy? Her Pegship (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Support speedy creation on {{BicolR-geo-stub}} and {{WVisayas-geo-stub}}, which indeed show a transclusion-count above 60 on the Template transclusion count tool. Textbook S1 for them.
{{ZamboangaP-geo-stub}} is at 47 transclusions both by my own count and by the tool. Are there at least 13 more articles that need it?
{{MetroManila-geo-stub}} is at 53 transclusions (again, both per tool and per manual count). Are there 7 more articles that need it? (Suspect so, mind, but still) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I coulda sworn I sorted more than 60 articles for Zamboanga. I need lunch.s XD I'll keep sorting and propose the Zamboanga and Manila cats later, and speedy the other two. Thanks for the catch. Her Pegship (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome, and it happens. XD I'll see if I can help with some of the stub-sorting if I can find some spare time. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2016 (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.

Category:Adelidae stubs/Template:Adelidae-stub; subcat Category:Ceromitia stubs/Template:Ceromitia-stub[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

Adelidae-category should be a subcat of existing Category:Incurvarioidea stubs, as that's the superfamily Adelidae belongs to.
Ceromitia-category should be a subcat of the proposed Adelidae-category, as it's a genus in that family. I'm skipping the subfamily-step here due to lack of taxonomic clarity; while it is clear Ceromitia belongs in the Adelidae family, the exact taxonomy within the Adelidae family as a whole (not purely pertaining to Ceromitia) is less clear.

Well in excess of 60 applicable articles:
In Incurvarioidea stubs:

  • Adela (moth) + 29 stub-level species at scientific name & Green longhorn (common name of Adela reaumurella, which redirs there) 31 articles
  • Cauchas + 16 stub-level species at scientific name, none found at common names 17 articles
  • Ceromitia & 90 stub-level species at scientific name, not checked for common names yet 91 articles—large enough for its own category&template, hence above proposal
  • Nematopogon & 12 stub-level species at scientific name, none found at common names 13 articles
  • Nemophora & 51 stub-level species at scientific name, not checked for common names 51 articles
  • Trichofrons pantherella 1 article

Elsewhere:

Total: 206 articles if Adelidae is accepted but not Ceromitia; 115 Adelidae articles and 91 Ceromitia articles if both are accepted. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Support both assuming numbers here are correct (which I didn't check). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Should be, or within a reasonable distance—can't guarantee that I'm not slightly off in either direction due to typos, miscounting or what-have-ye. Can guarantee numbers are within a ~1-2% margin of what I noted above, so maybe 1-3 off at most. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2016 (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.

Category:Nagorno-Karabakh Republic stubs and Template:Nagorno-Karabakh Republic-stub[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 both deleted per discussions at CfD and TfD.

I came across these which were created by User:Harut111. There has been a previous SFD discussion in 2006 for Nagorno-Karabakh. I have no dog in this fight, other than perhaps prefering the short form rather than the specific republic, I guess the question would be is whether the region has become better recognised as an independent country in the last ten years. Conversely, with recent fighting, it's become even more controversial and I am struggling to assume WP:GOODFAITH. Le Deluge (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that, until the Republic is recognized by the U.N., we should err on the side of caution and either delete both template and category, or delete the category and upmerge the template to Category:Azerbaijan stubs. If the latter, the template should be restructured as {{NagornoKarabakhRepublic-stub}}. Her Pegship (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I've left a note over at WikiProject Armenia, after following links from the user and from the template. Her Pegship (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2016 (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.

Category:British Empire stubs and Template:British-Empire-stub[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

Request speedy creation. While I have not done a stub count, this is a large and well-established subject which should have, certainly, its own stub listing. Glacier2009 (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you be specific as to its scope? I see that Category:British Empire has many, many sub-cats, most of which I believe have their own stub types. Not sure a separate, generalized type is needed. Her Pegship (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Problem is, many, it not most, of the subcategories do not have their own stub types. I have checked this. Moreover, because Category:British Empire is a parent category, some of its subcategories will never be large enough to justify their own stub cats, let alone the stub articles in the parent category itself. Glacier2009 (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
If there's a way to provide readers/stubbers with a ballpark time period, say, 1500-1945 (or however you want to define it), I cautiously support a {{British-Empire-stub}} OR {{BritishEmpire-stub}} (can someone vet the template for me?) - upmerged until it's used on 60+ articles.
Thanks, I am going to create this template, with said description. Glacier2009 (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2016 (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.

Template:Eriocottidae-stub and Category:Eriocottidae stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

Well over 60 applicable articles. Category should be a subcategory of the existing Category: Tineoidea stubs‎, because that's the superfamily Eriocottidae belongs to.

Articles it's relevant to:
Currently tagged with generic Moth-stub template & in Category:Moth stubs:

Subtotal: 89 articles

Currently tagged with Tineoidea-stub template & thus in Category:Tineoidea stubs:

Subtotal: 2 articles.
Total: 91 articles, and that's on the presumption all of them are listed at scientific name and have either been sorted into Tineoidae-stubs (which they should have been in...though I'm not going to sort them there now just to redo it in a few days if the template-and-cat is agreed to) or at least into its parent Moth-stubs. If anything has either been mistagged, remained untagged or is tagged yet further up the stream than moth-stubs, it's not listed here. (Once the template & cat are there, I'll be systematically going through the relevant genera and its species just to make sure, but again, not doing stuff now just to redo it all in a few days time) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support per body count. Her Pegship (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done as six days have passed with one support, no objection - created template and category, adding it to the list of stub templates now. Will have to go away-from-keyboard after that for an hour or two, will start tagging the abovementioned articles after that. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC) EDIT: And all articles listed above are now properly sorted. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2016 (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.

Template:Pharmacy-stub[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

There are at least a few articles in Category:Pharmacology_stubs that should probably be under Pharmacy stub rather than Pharmacology stub, which while related are quite different from each other. For example, Auxiliary label, British Society for the History of Pharmacy, Pharmaconomy , maybe even Clark's rule. I couldn't look through many of them but I am sure there are more. Is it possible to create Pharmacy stub template that upmerges into Pharmacology for now? Thanks. -- TOW  07:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I am going to go ahead and create this. -- TOW  23:09, 23 April 2016 (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.

Proposals, March 2016[edit]

Category:South African radio station stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

{{SouthAfrica-radio-station-stub}} now tags 72 articles. Speedy? Pegship (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2016 (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.

Template:Ceroplesini-stub[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

Although there are only 12 pages currently in the category there are more than 60 pages that should be there (but aren't categorized directly). I propose the following stub categories, but only to be created if they have more than 60 articles in them:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gug01 (talk • contribs)

Currently there are 26 pages in Category:Ceroplesini and 30 pages in Category:Ceroplesis. The putative parent category, Category:Lamiinae stubs, is ginormous and probably needs re-sorting. I cautiously support the creation of this template for now, upmerged to Category:Lamiinae stubs. Pegship (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Looks like you're good to go! Pegship (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2016 (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.

Category:American game show stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

{{US-game-show-stub}} has reached 60+ articles; speedy category? Pegship (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2016 (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.

Category:Brazil literature stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

Proposing {{Brazil-lit-stub}}; precedent is {{Canada-lit-stub}}, among others. There are easily over 100 stub articles in Category:Brazilian literature and its subcategories. giso6150 (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2016 (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.

Proposals, February 2016[edit]

Accipitriformes stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 created.

Within the birds of prey, the split of biological order Accipitriformes from Falconiformes is now well-accepted. This makes the {{Falconiformes-stub}} look anachronistic when placed on an article for a bird that belongs to the other group.

Of the 145 articles currently tagged, most are Accipitriformes and only about 23 28 are true Falconiformes. What would be a good way to handle this? Can we create a "diurnal raptors" parent category and redirect or upmerge? I'm thinking that a temporary redirect would be good until the Accipitriformes can be re-tagged with a new template.

Most of the other bird stubs are grouped by Order, so I'd prefer to see a separate Falconiformes stub category, even if it has less than 30 pages. But if that's not allowable, we should at least have separate templates for Accipitriformes and Falconiformes to improve the presentation of the articles on which they appear.

Suggestions welcomed, Pelagic (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like other opinions from bird experts about this. Assining it's correct, though, I think the best route to take is to take to CfD with a "Reanme and purge" proposal; explicitly state that the stubs being removed should be tagged with {{bird-stub}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Od Mishehu. Would I be understanding you correctly to say that the creation of Accipitriformes-stub template and category is uncontroversial, but upmerging Falconiformes-stub category into bird-stub would need to go through CfD?
As for acceptance by bird experts, the article Accipitriformes details (with references) the adoption of this taxon by major ornithological associations, and the genetic research that led to this. Cas Liber and I have been updating taxoboxes to read "Order: Accipitriformes", and Wikispecies has used it for a long time. So I'm confident the taxon is sound. I've also posted a message at Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Birds#Accipitriformes stub template inviting members to comment.
Pelagic (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Creating any stub category for a valid full-level taxon (order, family) is uncontroversial, provided that there are at least 60 stubs to go there; upmerging any category, however, needs to go through CfD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead and created Category:Accipitriformes stubs and moved the relevant articles. Decided not to do a super-category for diurnal-raptors-stubs or birds-of-prey-stubs because it wouldn't fit in with the current schema. Pelagic (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2016 (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.

River stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 . There are over 23,000 stubs in WikiProject Rivers and 2095 in Brazil alone. Has there been some decision made about not creating stub templates and categories like {{Brazil-river-stub}} and Category:Brazil river stubs? The only similar categories that I'm finding are for Queensland and China. I'd be happy to build out the South American countries if there is some consensus to do this. giso6150 (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Support; you may also want to do Australia, as the country which Queensland belongs to - even if there are 5 rivers, it woulld be enough for a normal stub category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that I will end up nominating the China category for upmerging, as undersized; hpwever, I'm not ready to commit myuself to such a nomination until the tree is more or less populated. 15:35, 25 February 2016 (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.

Proposals, December 2015[edit]

Category:Geologic formation stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

This stub category is still oversized, so I propose a few upmerged templates to help:

Based on the numbers here, and the fact that Category:Geologic formation stubs is over 900 articles, I would even support categories for Greenland and Ireland, placing the minimum for any other region at 50. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:29, 23 February 2016 (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.

Proposals, November 2015[edit]

Colobotheini stub template & category[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

I propose created a stub template and category for Category:Colobotheini, which has around 90 or so stubs at least. Gug01 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy creation Gug01 (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2015 (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.

Russian footballer midfielders[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

Both speedy eligible for their own category by S1:

Note that the parent category is currently misnamed, it should be birth (singular) stubs, not births stubs. (See, for example, Category:English football defender stubs or Category:American business biography, 20th-century birth stubs.) CFDS coming when I have time, because there a whole bunch with the same issue. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 00:28, 4 November 2015 (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.

{{PRChina-bridge-struct-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

Speedy eligible for standalone cat, per S1. 124 transclusions. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 22:49, 3 November 2015 (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.

{{Nebraska-geo-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

Same again, heavily populated (dead on 888 right now). Suggest upmerged templates by county, giving own category to any with 60+ (unlikely to be many given 93 counties for an average of 10>), then grouping where appropriate to actually diffuse. Initial idea is to use the three metro areas with their own articles: Grand Island metropolitan area, Lincoln, Nebraska metropolitan area and Omaha–Council Bluffs metropolitan area (but only for those in Nebraska, as otherwise the category structure will get weird; this is the format Category:Louisville metropolitan area, Kentucky geography stubs uses despite some counties in Indiana being within the whole metro area). Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 20:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Support I support a split only with any category 60 or above stubs. For the other ones, I would prefer for each category with less than 60 stubs to be discussed one by one. Gug01 (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2015 (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.

{{NewJersey-geo-stub}} split[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create. Cat with 4 figures-worth of stubs. Suggesting the standard split by county, upmerged to start with, then any with over 60 be given their own category. Since there are 1200~ articles and only 21 counties, giving an average of 57~, a fair few should well qualify for their own category. Nonetheless I think a regional split makes a lot of sense here: North Jersey, Central Jersey, and South Jersey, while not officially defined, do have reasonable splits given. Each of them has lists of counties contained within each, off of which I would base the structure. The only issues are the counties of Hunterdon (north/central), Ocean (central/south) and Union (north/central). Given Hunterdon is in Category:Central Jersey and neither of the other two are, I would suggest we follow that, with Ocean in south and Union in north. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 18:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Support as proposed. Pegship (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2015 (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.

Rumeshkhan geo stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

Rumeshkhan County was created 2 years ago, in a split from Kuhdasht County. Someone has created {{Rumeshkhan-geo-stub}} as a redirect to the natural parent {{Lorestan-geo-stub}}, but that seems kinda awkward -- I would suggest an upmerged template would be a better way of handling it, given that every other county in the province has its own stub tag. This currently isn't used widely enough for a full stub -- the redirect has 38 transclusions -- but it's entirely possible that many Kuhdasht County articles have not yet been renamed/retagged, so the potential to grow into a standalone category is there in the future. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 23:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, no objections, created. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 03:27, 12 November 2015 (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.

Proposals, October 2015[edit]

{{Iowa-geo-stub}} / Category:Iowa geography stubs split[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

This category has one populated sub-cat (Category:Iowa Registered Historic Place stubs) with 400+ articles; the parent category has 1,364 articles. I propose we create templates for counties per List of counties in Iowa, with categories where appropriate and upmerged templates otherwise. Pegship (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, although given there are 99 counties and 1200 articles, that's an average of 13~ per county -- nowhere near enough to warrant individual categories in the majority of cases. As such it's unlikely to actually diffuse the category very well. Longer term I think it would be best to split them up by region a la Category:California geography stubs, as I've come to conclude wrt Minnesota below...! The metro areas are probably the obvious place to start (if for no other reason than they tend to have more articles, and by extension more stubs, than rural areas), but beyond that I don't really know. Perhaps worth getting some input from WP:IOWA? Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 21:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Will alert WP:IOWA and look at regional divisions. Thanks! Pegship (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2015 (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.

{{Minnesota-geo-stub}} split[edit]

Very large stub cat at the moment. I just finished populating all the upmerged stubs and there's still 1,255 sitting in there (although now only 250~ of them use the generic, parent stub). There is now one which can be speedily given its own category: {{CookCountyMN-geo-stub}}, which has 68 transclusions and so is eligible under S1. None of the others are, however, but I still think we need some to be given their own subcats, at least. There were a few more with 40+, but most sit in the region of 20~ transclusions. Is that enough to warrant their own subcat?

Now, there are already two subcats based on regions (the Twin Cities metropolitan area and the Arrowhead region) into which several counties are sorted, which would be a useful model to follow, but I'm not really seeing many other suitable ones to use as they aren't defined on county lines. Would having 62 subcats of the main area suffice?

There are also seven counties without any stubs at all: the counties of Dodge, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Nobles, Stevens, Traverse, Waseca. While some won't be particularly well populated I still think having them upmerged into {{Minnesota-geo-stub}} would help for futureproofing. (And though I don't have specific numbers, there were plenty for Morrison and a fair few for Mille Lacs & Waseca, which would mean the tags were more densely populated than some of the existing upmerged ones...!) Any input on how to proceed (other than the obvious speedy candidate) would be most welcome. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 14:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, been 5 days without objection, so I created the upmerged ones and the speedy eligible one, but I think the best model to follow is that for Category:California geography stubs -- well-defined regions given their own category, which then have the upmerged templates feeding into them. As such I'll ask someone from WP:MINNESOTA if they could offer any advice as to how best we can sort out regional groupings... Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 20:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
This seems like a fine idea. I wish I could say there was a simple and generally agreed upon way to divide Minnesota up into regions but, sadly, there isn't any that I'm aware of. If you wanted to just be bold about it, this map through the Minnesota Department of Health meshes with my conception of it and also seems to fit some of the regions noted over in Geography of Minnesota. Nsteffel (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Having just run through some of that category to do some WikiProject tagging, another idea that came to mind would be splitting it out thematically. It looks like most of the stubs are either lakes, rivers/streams or populated places. Perhaps dividing it up along those sorts of criteria would be a little more cut-and-dried and still get things down to more manageable sizes? Nsteffel (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
IMHO we should stick to using regions, however defined, as that's the way the rest of the US geo stubs are sorted. The trick, as you say, is finding out what the regions are according to reliable sources. Just saying. Pegship (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Aussie Rules competition stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create. There's a pretty big intersection of Category:Sports event stubs and Category:Australian rules football stubs. The second of those makes plain that there are loads; the wmflabs tool says 104 applicable stubs at this point in time. I believe {{AFL-competition-stub}} would fit our naming scheme? (Haven't dealt with stubsorting for yeaaars so bear with me if I'm mistaken :)) Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 12:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, 5 days, no objections, can't imagine it being too controversial, and meets the population minimum, so I went ahead and made it. (Hopefully no error, don't think I've ever done this before...) Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 16:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Linking for administrative purposes: stub at {{AFL-competition-stub}} and cat at Category:Australian rules football competition stubs. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 03:45, 12 November 2015 (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.

Proposals, August 2015[edit]

New Zealand transport[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

There are a lot of stubs relating to New Zealand transport which currently are just in larger parent categories. I'd like to propose the following:

These should all be speediable. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Support --Redrose64 (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2015 (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.

New Zealand/South Africa law[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

A {{NewZealand-law-stub}} and a {{NewZealand-case-law-stub}} both useful. Each of them should cover over to 100 articles, in which case a Category:New Zealand law stubs and a Category:New Zealand case law stubs should also be useful. A {{SouthAfrica-case-law-stub}} and equivalent Category:South African case law stubs also looks similarly useful. All should be speediable. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 26 August 2015 (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.

Split of {{Painting-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

Hi all, long time no see... a suggestion about the currently overpopulated Category:Painting stubs: splitting paintings by century. Though I haven't done a thorough count, it looks likely that {{17C-painting-stub}}, {{18C-painting-stub}}, {{19C-painting-stub}}, and {{20C-painting-stub}} would easily make the threshold for separate categories, and if not they'd be useful as upmerged templates anyway. Other centuries could easily be split out in the same way. Grutness...wha? 09:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Support - not a bad idea, at that. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I've made the templates and started sorting... the 19th and 20th century ones have already reached threshold (and I'm just past C in the painting stubs cat... so I'm speedying Category:19th-century painting stubs and Category:20th-century painting stubs (uniform with Category:19th-century paintings, etc.) Grutness...wha? 02:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Ditto Category:17th-century painting stubs. the fourth one (18th) doesn't look it'll quite reach threshold, but it will be close. Grutness...wha? 06:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

a couple more[edit]

{{15C-painting-stub}} and {{16C-painting-stub}} also look very useful, and should be speediable given the others already exist. Grutness...wha? 06:23, 23 August 2015 (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.

{{Nemacheilidae-stubs}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

Hello, lately I have been sorting through Category:Cypriniformes stubs and I have come across a lot of articles that are in the Nemacheilidae family. At a rough guess I would say more than 200. This category is definitely needed so we can further reduce the size of Category:Cypriniformes stubs. TheEditor867 05:59, 15 August 2015 (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.

Proposals, June 2015[edit]

{{SouthAfrica-hospital-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

S2 - and, if there are 60 stubs, S1 as well. Although Category:African hospital stubs only has about 140 stubs, I'd estimate that around 40-50 of them seem to be in RSA. Category:South African building and structure stubs is closing in on 300 stubs, so I wouldn't be surprised if it'll need a split at some date in the not-too-distant future. Grutness...wha? 04:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Can add the category Category:South African hospital stubs too - Category:South African building and structure stubs contains at least 79 hospitals. Grutness...wha? 04:36, 3 June 2015 (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.

A split of Category:French castle stubs and creation of building stub templates by French department[edit]

My thinking is this. For some departments there might not ever be 60 chateaux, but for all departments there will definitely be over 60 buildings worthy of starting in each if you think churches, museums, theatres etc. I say create castle/chateaux templates by region and also create struct-stub templates for each department of France. Each chateau stub then can have two stub tags. One for castle in region and one for structure in department. Should there be more than 60 chateaux in one department, at a later date that can be stub sorted into castle in department. @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: and Rosiestep sound good?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Works for me if it works for you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
At the very least, a template would be useful. I wonder, though...might it not be better to create a stub tag for Category:Official historical monuments of France and go from there? This one I suspect will be a bit more limiting if we try to break down the castle category - with 27 regions I'm not sure we'll ever get to any subcats. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I think it's best we get the ball rolling on this. A start would be to split Category:Official historical monuments of France by department and region and stub sort at the same time I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed - that should be the way to proceed, I think. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Create category equivalents for the above if reach 60. One problem is that many of the regions will merge on 1 January 2016. I think we can still use the traditional regions here though.

Presumably we'd split Category:French building and structure stubs by region and organize the department stub templates to feed into the regional category until 60 can be created in its own right. I really think long term we'd be better off creating the department structure templates now as our coverage of chateaux and churches in particular is going to increase significantly in coming years.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

So proposing these stubs categories if hit 60. if not then I'm sure we can create a few to make them worthwhile:

Support templates, categories as needed. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Support templates, categories as needed as this helps get things better sorted and organized. After the renaming in January and July 2016 we can deal with new name issues if necessary. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposals, May 2015[edit]

{{RiversState-gov-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 do not create

Proposing template {{RiversState-gov-stub}} to add all government-related stubs of Rivers State to Category:Nigerian government stubs. There's a possibility that government related articles of Rivers State will grow beyond 60 soon and will need a category of its own. Thanks. Stanleytux (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2015 (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.

Category:Fantasy writer stubs[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drauv (talk • contribs) 17:37, 16 May 2015

@Drauv: Which articles do you intend using this for? See WP:WSS/P#Proposing new stub types – procedure, particularly item 3. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Article on David Hair, a fantasy author from New Zealand. Currently working on as a user-space article. --Drauv
That's one, we really need another 59. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Although this is stale, for the record, we have Category:American fantasy writer stubs, which means this may actually be a useful idea. Could help display intersections to potentially be given their own categories down the line. Will need further thought, though, especially as I'm not sure the naming of that is right -- British writer stubs went and diffused by using Category:British novelist stubs, so there's a bit of inconsistency in our stub tree... Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 23:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposals, April 2015[edit]

Category:Indian actor stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

Oversized but thankfully two upmerged templates have over 60 articles

should reduce the parent category. Waacstats (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy support Gug01 (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2015 (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.

Category:Baronet stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.


Category is oversized looks like splitting out the Baronetcy should bring it down to size.

this of for articles like Bagot baronets rather than the actual people who held the title. Waacstats (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2015 (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.

Speedy cats[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

The following templates have all reached 60, propse creating relevant categories for them.

Waacstats (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2015 (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.

Category:British Christian clergy stubs[edit]

Category is oversized, no existing split other than for bishops, I propose the following (categories only if the templates reach 60, split looks odd on catscan)

not sure which one to go for on the last two, clergy matches stub parent while minister matched perm cat. Waacstats (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's oversized because it contains non-notable people? I see a lot of priests in there below the level of bishop (or equivalent); do they all warrant articles? I was under the impression that regular parish priests needed to be notable in some other way to warrant an article (see WP:CLERGY) - in which case some other (non-religious) stub template would be more suitable. We didn't create an article for Libby Lane until her appointment as Bishop of Stockport was announced: as a parish priest, she was probably not notable; as a bishop, she's automatically notable (even if she hadn't been the first female C of E bishop). --Redrose64 (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Tentatively support UK-RC and UK-Anglican templates, until it looks like a category is viable. Her Pegship (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:French cycling biography stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

Oversized and we have already split out the Olympic medalists, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of permcat splitting by road, track, mountain bike etc so the only thing I can come up with is either French Tour de France stage winners, which I don't like or by decade of birth similar to US basketball or leave as is. My prefered choice would be

and further back if deemed necessary, categories only for templates that pass 60. Waacstats (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy support Gug01 (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2015 (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.

Category:Year stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 do not create

Another oversized category, the following appear viable

unless we want upmerged by country templates. Waacstats (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Personally, I haven't understood the concept behind tagging these year articles as "stubs". The overwhelming majority of these articles, is simply a list of events that happened during that year. And lists, as I understand it, are a different classification from stubs. Thus -- my preference would be to remove the stubs off of all year articles that amount to nothing more than an event list. I expect this would make Category:Year stubs a barely occupied, underpopulated category. Dawynn (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2015 (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.

Category:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa geography stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

Oversized, most articles appear to have the district in them so propose a split based on districts seems viable.

I have added PK to templates where I have found places outside of Pakistan with the same name and added Pakistan to categories where I found districts elsewhere, do we need district in the template to distinguish the district from the capital of the district? Obviously categories only for those that reach 60. Waacstats (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment Can you please say how many stubs there will be in each category? Gug01 (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Not easily, but I suggest the templates be created and populated and only those templates that pass the 60 mark get a category. Waacstats (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
OK. I suggest that is done. I will support. Gug01 (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2015 (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.

Split of Category:Lamiinae stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

Uhhh! It's happening again! Lamiinae is skyrocketing upwards. I will also create the permanent categories too. To combat this, I propose the following:

{{Astathini-stub}}/ Category:Astathini stubs - 99 pages, not including the following:

{{Bacchisa-stub}}/ Category:Bacchisa stubs - 80 pages

{{Batocerini-stub}}/ Category:Batocerini stub - 141 pages

Gug01 (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2015 (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.

1920s silent Western film stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 no consensus

Category:1920s Western (genre) film stubs currently has 227 articles. However, 183 of those also have the stub tab {{silent-film-stub}}: [2]. I think that there should probably be a new stub tag that covers both, such as {{1920s-silent-Western-film-stub}}, since Category:Silent film stubs is in danger of becoming overpopulated again. There used to be a {{silent-Western-film-stub}}, but it was deleted in favor of the decade stub tags for Westerns. And most of the other silent film stub tags have retained the decade when being split, such as {{1910s-short-drama-film-stub}} and {{1920s-silent-drama-film-stub}}. Thoughts? Fortdj33 (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

There are several upmerged decade stub templates under Category:Western (genre) film stubs, some of which once had their own categories. Perhaps it would make sense to ensure the pages in the parent category are tagged according to decade first, at which point we can see what sub-cats can be made and whether Category:1920s Western (genre) film stubs is truly oversized. Pegship (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2016 (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.

Split of Category:Asia transport stubs by region[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

Category:Asia transport stubs has over 200 stubs, excluding subcats. I recommend splitting it by region (as defined by Category:Asia stubs, with the possible exception of the Caucasus region - we do have a transport stub category for at least one country in each region (Kazakhstan in Cerntral Asia, Japan in East Asia, Iran in the Middle East, India in South Asia‎, Vietnam in Southeast Asia). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:51, 12 April 2015 (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.

Propose {{Ommatidae stubs}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 do not create

Propose a stub template for Ommatidae stubs. Note that this is only the template and not a category, since there are only 11 Ommatidae articles. Gug01 (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Opppose. Approval already granted in July 2011, and template created. In May 2012, the beetles were reorganized under suborder. {{Ommatidae-stub}} exists, and can be used, but it is a redirect to suborder tag {{Archostemata-stub}}. There are only 22 articles tagged in the suborder, so no need for subdivision (i.e. revival of the family tag) yet. Dawynn (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know that. Gug01 (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2015 (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.

Some Lamiinae subcategory splits[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create Nealcidion and Jordanoleiopus only. I propose the following:

Gug01 (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. I'll just create the Nealcidion and Jordanoleiopus templates/categories for now. Gug01 (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2015 (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.

Religious structures[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

I propose creating a category tree for Category:Religious building and structure stubs/{{reli-struct-stub}}, which would cover (among other things) churches, mosques and synagogues - which would include stub tags for any geographical region (e.g city, U.S. state) which has at least one of {{church-stub}}, {{mosque-stub}} and {{synagogue-stub}}, as well as any country with at least a dozen stubs where such a tag would be appropriate; and a category for any such area with at least 60 stubs for it (including any region with a Foo church stubs category). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:57, 8 April 2015 (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.

Category:Medical biography stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.

Needs a subcategory for African medical biography. There are 353 in the residual category and a good proportion are AfricanRathfelder (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Gug01 (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals&oldid=723250702"