Club

Go to The Main Page Add Club to favorite!

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals 

Before proposing or creating a new type of stub, please read
How to propose a new stub type.
Shortcut:
WP:WSS/P
WikiProject Stub sorting
 v • d • e 
Information
Project page talk
- Stub types (sections) talk
- Stub types (full list) talk
- List of stub redirects talk
- Naming guidelines  
- To do talk
Wikipedia:Stub talk
Discussion
Criteria (A) talk
Proposals (A) talk
Discoveries (A) talk
Deletion (Log) talk
Category

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

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 at 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. 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. Others may do the same, if they so desire.
  5. 5 days after listing it here, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new category and 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.
  6. 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.

DO NOT place a proposal here for any stub type which is already being discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries or Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. 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.

^ . 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"

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.

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

Proposals, October 2008

If you create a stub type, please move its discussion to the October archive, add it to the list of stub types, and add it to the archive summary.

NEW PROPOSALS

Cat:moth stubs families

Parent is oversized. Alai (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Cat:writing system stubs split

Oversized; several of the corresponding subcats would make numerically viable types (such as the diagraphs, the trigraphs, and such like), but the most coherent looking to me would be Cat:Latin alphabet stubs and Cat:Cyrillic alphabet stubs, each of which seem to be well over 60. Alai (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Split of Switzerland-geo-stub

Cat:Switzerland geography stubs has about 1100 articles - propose canton-specific templates, with categories speedied for any passing the 60 mark. We already have about half of them - the others would be:

Grutness...wha? 23:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Split of Cat:Malaysia geography stubs

Split Category:Malaysia geography stubs by state of Malaysia The Bald One White cat 10:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Seems to be what has already been started so don't see any problems. Waacstats (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Cat:Analytical chemistry stubs

Proposed for speedy create - There's already a template. The category got upmerged into physical chemistry stubs 2 years ago, presumably for lack of entries... There are currently 67 stubs for this category, after a not-really-complete sorting process, and several people to actively work on sorting & improving the articles. The category would focus and accelerate that. -- Jaeger5432 | Talk 16:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Recreated under WikiProject Chemistry as {{analytical-chem-stub}}, with category and hierachy. Physchim62 (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Cat:Artistic gymnast stubs

Recently created - already oversized, propose the following splits

all will be over 60. Waacstats (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Infosec-stub}}

There are a great number of information security related articles which need care to knit them together and flesh them out. Currently, the articles are spread across financial/economic, business, risk analysis/management, and other topics. One of threads that binds these together is information security which is often under-represented as in the following articles. These are not all stubs, but the parts relevant to information security may be considered stubs in some cases. Single loss expectancy, Risk assessment (I've begun to add infosec information to the article), Risk management, Information assurance, Information security, Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Vulnerability (computing), Exploit (computer security), Computer security, Computer insecurity. Thanks. DavidBailey (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Perhaps this should be scoped more as "computer security"; there is already a {{crypto-stub}} but I imagine there are lots of other sub-cats to be considered. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Information security is actually a broader topic than computer security. It encompasses things like communications systems and networks, security awareness training, and even things such as physical building security. The problem is that there are many more specific-type stubs, such as cryptography, but nothing that encompasses this broader discipline. As a result, there is no cohesive information security sections within relevant articles. Basically, the information security aspects of relevant articles are being overlooked, or added only disjointedly and intermittently. DavidBailey (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What would be the permcat for this type? The closest I could find was Cat:Information sensitivity, which I believe is not the same thing. Also, if it's portions of articles which need further development on information security, it's {{sectstub}} you need. I can try to get a count for you if you can nail down where I should look. Thanks - Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Or {{expand-section}}, as it's canonically called these days. I share all the above concerns: one person's broader topic is another's more loosely-defined one, I fear, and this could cut across existing types in a way that might not be helpful for other editors coming at the same topics from different disciplinary scopings. Likewise, 'numerosity' could be a concern. Perhaps a talk-page template would be a better way to go. (Is there a Wikiproject/Task Force/Work Group to cover this area?) Alai (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, it's not just expanding the section, it's that there isn't one, regarding information security, in a lot of these articles. I was wondering if a Wikiproject would be the way to go instead of a stub tag, but I'm less familiar with the administration and operation of those. In my efforts to locate a Wikiproject regarding information security, I came up empty. Under Computing, the closest would be "Computer Science". Under Information Science, there really isn't anything related. DavidBailey (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
        • If push comes to shove, you can always create an empty section, and add {{expand-section}}... Though if the article is otherwise-complete looking, that might be a little jarring, but it seems preferable to labelling the whole article a stub, if it isn't. Alai (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
      • However, I did find a proposal for Computer and Information Security taskforce that looks promising. I'll redirect my efforts there. DavidBailey (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Norway-gov-stub}} and Cat:Norwegian government stubs

I count ca 70 stubs for government agencies, ministries, affairs etc in Category:Norway stubs, so should be speediable per S2. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There certainly seem to be a few, though my knowledge of Norwegian is not good enough to know at a glance whether there are 60, and Cat:Norway stubs isn't crammed full (seems to be a bit of undersorting, too). A template's a good idea, and if there are indeed 60 then I've no objection to a category either. Grutness...wha? 22:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up on the undersorting- I've gone through A-J the lot sorting any that could have gone in subcats - and the main cat's down from 460 to 430 375. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC), updated 00:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Korea-writer-stub}}

The Bald One White cat 15:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Adhesives Stubs

I think there should be a category called Adhesives Stubs because many articles about adhesives are stubs: Cat:Adhesives stubs Monkeyman389 (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

With only 79 articles in Cat:Adhesives and its subcategories, I'm not convinced we'd reach the threshold of 60 stubs for a separate stub category. I've certainly no objections to an upmerged template (either {{adhesive-stub}} or {{glue-stub}}) pointing to somewhere like Cat:Tool stubs, though. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Specific sorting of American films

I know the convention at WP:Films is to stub sort by genre, but myself and other editors i know like to work through years in film. I don't think the sheer number of American films is a reason not to organize it. What for instance if I wanted to work through American films of 1941?. How would I know which are stubs, I;d have to plough through them all and check each one. Given that US subjects however many thousands of articles we have are stub tagged shouldn't this be the same for US films too? Why are they exempt from US tagging? I know that many people would probably see this proposal as too extreme but I think it is a valid one given the considerable improvmeent needed on many notable American films and would be a very useful tool to organizing exactly what needs improving and working towards a situation where we can actively work at getting them all up to start class. As an example {{2007-US-film-stub}}. Naturally a bot would be used. If some years don't hit 60, which I would find highly unlikely for later years then they could always be upmerged e.g Cat:1900s United States film stubs. I propose the following:
The Bald One White cat 10:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support + Comment I know when I've been working on films from 1930-1940 in the past, of the 200+ articles per category, most of them have been American films (as you'd expect). I think this is a good idea to identify the stubs per year, as per Blofield's rationale. A question though - most of these will alread be stubbed by genre (1930s-drama-film, etc) - what is the policy on how many stubs an article should have? I've seen some articles in the past with 3 or 4 stub tags, and to me that just looks messy (I don't know how other editors feel on this). If these stubs were created, what would happen to existing stubs on the articles? Lugnuts (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep anything over three stub categories begins to look awful and cluttered. Basically I think there should be one genre stub cat {1930s-drama-film-stub} and one country template e.g {1933-US-film-stub}. Occasionally the film may clearly be in another genre so it may need 3 but gneerally I think it is possible to have two stub templates per article. In terms of organization and content building I know it would be a very useful tool and may even encourage editor to work at devleoping the years and also the lists The Bald One White cat 14:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong feeling of despair and hopelessness. This is a proposal to split a category that does not currently need to be split, on an axis totally at odds with the basis it's currently organised. With no rationale as to why it it's at all likely to be in any way more useful. Suppose you didn't want to work on all the films of 1941. Who exactly does, anyway? This would inevitably give rise to both more multi-stubbing clutter, and to inconsistency in tagging between those that only get a by-year tag, those that only get a by-genre tag, and those that get both. As I recall, the original point of splitting by country was on the basis that various countries had their own distinct, indigenous film industries, characterised by a particular film industry. So why did we end up with Cat:British film stubs? That seems to me to be a poorly thought-out notion entirely. The distinction between a "British" and an "American" film is often entirely inobvious, if not to say pretty subjective. (Nationality of the cast, the director, the crew, the location, or the money?) Come to that, why is the category at Cat:British films when the main article is at cinema of the United Kingdom? Given the size of the UK-film- type, it may be a little late to try to get rid of it, but adding a US- type would be throwing good effort after bad. Alai (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
In your opinion yes, not fact. Equally how are you do know the film work group wouldn't find it useful as a way to develop the articles? You and a number of others persist that genre categories are of vital importance, but basically you are assuming that editors would be more interested in working through e.g "2000s drama film stubs" which includes films not only from the United States but just about everywhere else China, Philippines, Thailand, Brazil, Mali etc. Do you think it is more common for editors to want to work on films from every country in one stub category which are often barely related in terms of cinema, language and style? Or is having stub categories for US films which is completely in keeping with other US-stub sorting on wikipedia, which many more are interested in and focus almost purely on would be an absurd idea as a tool for the film project?? As for your justification that it is invalid because there is often an overlap between American and British film, you must surely know that there is in every way a strong overlapping in production between Italian and French films, and spanish and argentine films yet we have a decent country structure in place for each of these. The Bald One White cat 09:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I must admit I agree with Alai - this sounds like it will simply complicate matters. And things are more complicated than even he suggests, since the "by nation" split is often a confusion of "by nation" and "by language". I think this may need considerable thought. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong feeling of despair and hopelessness????? . In that case if thats your attitude thats the last time I ever list a stub proposal here. The Bald One White cat 09:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoabackupthereabit. It was a valid suggestion for a split, and it was also a valid rationale why it wouldn't be the best idea. I appreciate that the "strong feeling of despair" line may not have been the most appropriate, but we all get feelings like that about stub splits every now and again and sometimes they come out (I know I'm one of the first to say things that others can take the wrong way - it happened recently at SFD). Please let's just assess the options and try to find a good way of splitting things. Both of you are important stub workers, so no talk of stalking off, huh? Grutness...wha? 11:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Haven't thought this through completly but how about splitting the American films out of the current genre/decade categories so we would have something along the lines of {{2000s-US-drama-film-stub}} - Cat:2000s American drama film stubs etc. I'm sure that in the same way that the people working through Cat:drama film stubs may not know much about say spanish films, those working through a Cat:1900s United States film stubs may not know much about horror films. Waacstats (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
That would be an excellent idea I think and would solve my concern about the generalisation. Naturally we wouldn't want to have that category split too much but making American films more distinct from them would be a good move The Bald One White cat 13:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Nepal-school-stub}}

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


Create as upmerged template for {{Asia-school-stub}} and {{Nepal-stub}}. Most of the 26 articles in Category:Schools in Nepal are stubs. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support Create upmerged template. As long as it doesn't encourage the creation of non notable school articles The Bald One White cat 17:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yup - an upmerged template here makes a lot of sense. Grutness...wha? 01:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Split of Cat:Romania geography stubs

We already have templates for all(?) the counties upmerged to regional cats. Someone has been busy and the following are all viable on the basis of those templates.

Waacstats (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy. Alai (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Singapore-struct-stub}} and {{SouthKorea-struct-stub}}

Much needed. Would also take many out of the geography stubs cat. How we are missing one for singapore I have no idea The Bald One White cat 21:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Note that we do have a {{Korea-struct-stub}}, currently upmerged -- we seem to mostly have "conjoined" stub types for (the) Korea(s). I'd be happy to see an upmerged Singapore tag, and I think we could speedy that. Alai (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Cat:Central American writer stubs

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 Bald One White cat 21:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support with by nation templates. Waacstats (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
There are many missing articles from spanish wiki which I have and will be adding further so that seems like a logical idea. Upmerge the ones that don't qualify? The Bald One White cat 18:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposals:

Could somebody offer a stub count and which need upmerging, me has to go to beddy boys. Cheers The Bald One White cat 22:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Change to {{ElSalvador-writer-stub}} and add {{Guatemala-writer-stub}}. Probably best to upmerge all of them till we have an exact figure.Waacstats (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, but one comment - Mexico is rarely if ever described as being in Central America, so hopefully it will reach threshold. Grutness...wha? 22:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah - I see it's already got its own cat... and I've just removed the vandalism from it :/ Grutness...wha? 22:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Norway-politician-1740s-stub}} and {{Norway-politician-1750s-stub}}

The thing is, while there are not 60 stubs of Norwegian politicians born in the 1740s or 1750s, this is meant to be categorized in the large Category:Norwegian politician, 18th century birth stubs. Categorizing here, and not in the vague Category:Norwegian politician stubs, would be good. Punkmorten (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy support per precedent. Waacstats (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy, and might as well throw in the remaining decades, too. Alai (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposals, September 2008

If you create a stub type, please move its discussion to the September archive, add it to the list of stub types, and add it to the archive summary.

More templates reach 60

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

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

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

Cat:Cook Islands geography stubs

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

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

{{Copenhagen-stub}}

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

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

Various upmerged templates reach 60

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

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

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

Add to that

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

Split of Cat:Texas geography stubs

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

254 counties! I think we need to look at a few dozen regions. Waacstats (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Few dozen would likewise be too many. What about this as a starting point? Or some non-overlapping selection of the geographical regions of Texas? Alai (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

{{Taiwan-school-stub}}

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

I was wondering when this one would appear :) A separate template is a good idea, upmerged for now to both Cat:Taiwan education stubs and Cat:Asian school stubs. Grutness...wha? 23:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Speediable, I think. Alai (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Cat:Vietnamese building and structure stubs

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

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

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

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


{{Norway-film-stub}}, {{Iceland-film-stub}} and {{Czech-film-stub}}

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

  • Support upmerged templates per Sir B; aren't we using RCzech- rather than Czech- ?. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Nope - {{CzechRepublic-film-stub}} would be the name (after that edit war between Czech Republic and Czechia blew itself out). Support all three, BTW. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The reason why I purposefully didn't link it that way is because there are very few films post 1993 at present. By "Czech film" it implies both "Czechoslovakian" film and "Czech Republic film" and basically "Czech language film". Perhaps it might be best to have it as Czech-language-film-stub to avoid the political mess. The Bald One White cat 15:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Split of Cat:Documentary film stubs

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

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

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

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

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

Split of Cat:Tennis stubs

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

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

Split Cat:Restaurant stubs

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

Split Cat:Asian sports venue stubs

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

{{Dam-struct-stub}}

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

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

There are probably more than enough for a {{US-dam-struct-stub}}, too. Sounds reasonable. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Split of Cat:Prison stubs

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

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

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

IIRC there are oprobably enough for an upmerged Australia-specific template, too. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
We already have an Australian category. Waacstats (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
There has to be a joke in there. Alai (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Heh. Indeed so - and I hadn't noticed the subcat already existed. My dad (a New Zealander) always used to say that Aussies were inherently superior to Kiwis; back in the old days anyone could become a Kiwi, but Aussies were hand-picked by the best judges in Britain... Grutness...wha? 00:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Split of Cat:Asian football club stubs

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

When you say by regions, which regions? for most things we use the UN geoscheme, however for football-bios we have gone with FIFA regions, I know that the AFC is split into regions so Is it the UN or AFC regions. note we currently have a bit of a mess on the Asia-footy-bios because we seem to have both for MEast/West Asia.Waacstats (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I was thinking about middle east, central asia, south asia, far east and south-east asia The Bald One White cat 13:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Based on that where does Australia go? The current split has them in Asia. I don't necessarily disagree with that split just throwing up an obvious problem. Waacstats (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

{{Asia-bridge-struct-stub}}

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

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

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

{{EV-stub}}

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

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