Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2016/December

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Proposals, December 2016

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

Geographic breakup of Mexico radio station 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 .

Recent efforts (mostly by myself) to add more Mexican radio station articles to the encyclopedia have left this category bloated, at 1300 articles/7 pages, and with an impending auction of 250 new stations and the continuing award of new community services, this number will keep going up. I'd like to suggest breaking this up into stubs by state, so 32 new categories, potentially with a regional grouping as is used at Category:United States radio station stubs. Raymie (t • c) 23:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Holy moly, you're right about the size of the category! How about 32 templates with regional categories, upmerged, until each template gets its 60+ ?? Her Pegship (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Upmerged stub tags, creating first the regional categories (as defined by Category:Mexico geography stubs), and subsequently individual state categories, when each category would reach 60 stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu: I've created the regional cats. These states have 60 or more separate radio stations/xmtrs (though not necessarily as many articles) and may be in the running for their own: Baja California, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Mexico City, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Michoacán, Nuevo León, Oaxaca, Sinaloa, Sonora and Veracruz. Veracruz has some 100 stations and so it will need to be a priority. All but a handful of articles can be sorted based on the navbox they contain. Raymie (t • c) 08:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gaelic Football 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 do not create.

{{Gaelicfootball-stub}} / Category:Gaelic Football

There's a stub for every other football code and there are several bio stub templates for Gaelic football currently there. South Nashua (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

How many is "several"? Can you find 60+? --Redrose64 (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the permcat is Category:Gaelic football, and the bio stub type is {{gaelic-football-bio-stub}} / Category:Gaelic football biography stubs (and it has 4 well-populated sub-types). The rest of the sub-cats of Category:Gaelic football are host to fewer than a dozen articles in most cases; even the category for Gaelic football clubs is pretty thin. If ever there's a sufficient # of articles under Gaelic football, I will support a stub template, but I think today is not that day. Her Pegship (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

But wouldn't the bios be a subcat, justifying the stub category for Gaelic Football? I'd support this. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The bios would be a subcat, but I don't think that justifies creating a parent cat, though it appeals to my sense of order. Any other opinions, folks? Her Pegship (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2010 singles genres

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.
Propose creating:

To break out the overpopulated Category:2010s single stubs. I haven't run hard numbers on this, since such sorting usually needs to be done semi-automatically or manually, but the 2000s categories are so well-populated (>300 stubs each) that there's no doubt we can reach 60 stubs on each of these. Probably many more. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moths again

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.

{{Calamotropha-stub}} / Category:Calamotropha stubs (109)

One more genus to break out Category:Crambinae stubs. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

{{Bombycidae-stub}} / Category:Bombycidae stubs (286 - 74 = 212)
- {{Apatelodes-stub}} / Category:Apatelodes stubs (74)

Breaks out Category:Bombycoidea stubs. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.