Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/August 2008

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting‎ | Proposals‎ | Archive

This is an archive of discussions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals for the month of August 2008. Please move completed August discussions to this page as they are closed, add discussion headers to each proposal showing the result, and leave incomplete discussions on the Proposals page. After August, the remainder of the discussions will be moved to this page, whether stub types have been created or not.

Those who create a stub template/cat should be responsible for moving the discussion here and listing the stub type in the archive summary.

Stub proposers please note: Items tagged as "nocreate" or "no consensus" are welcome for re-proposal if and when circumstances are auspicious.

{{Cold-Formed Steel}}

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.
I would like to propose a stub for the cat. "Cold-Formed Steel".

--Thefolks (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Thefolks

  • See How to propose a new stub type, and take better note of the comment posted at the top of every "new proposals" section: "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." Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:29, 4 August 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.

{{Canada-museum-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.
We currently have {{US-museum-stub}}, {{UK-museum-stub}}, {{Africa-museum-stub}} and {{Australia-museum-stub}}. I don't know how to generate a cross-referenced list but there are a good number of articles that overlap: Category:Museums in Canada and {{museum-stub}} and a sub-stub would be appropriate. For a good sample, see List of museums#Canada, most of which are stubs. TravellingCari 16:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It was already created a couple of months ago. SeveroTC 16:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Whoops don't know how I missed that. Thanks for helping run AWB on those that need the stub! TravellingCari 17:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't actually find where it was proposed, but it has plentiful articles for an upmerged template (around about 50). SeveroTC 17:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Me either, and it wasn't me doing it accidentally out of process either. I'm happy, makes life a lot easier. TravellingCari 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
It was implied in a June '08 proposal. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, must have been offline. I knew Bloe was creating some articles but I missed the stub proposal. TravellingCari 18:46, 5 August 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.

{{Turkey-footyclub-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 never mind!.
upmerged template with more than 60 articles - speedy propose ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Turkish football club stubs. Waacstats (talk) 15:44, 5 August 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.

{{University of Cambridge 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 see discussion at sfd.
I apologize for having gone ahead and created this stub category without having seen this page - this was pointed out to me by Stephen Turner on my talk page. I created the stub to encourage people to expand pages relating to the University of Cambridge, particularly as a part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Cambridge. I have already found 30 articles which would come under this category, and I am confident that many more will soon be found or created as a part of this Wikiproject. A.C. Norman (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As the primary stub type of a WikiProject, it satisfies how many articles are needed for its existence. The name is all wrong though. I would think {{cambridge-university-stub}} would be better. SeveroTC 21:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
This is already being discussed at WP:SFD - it's probably best that we keep all the discussion in one place (proposals, by definition, are before the fact anyway). Grutness...wha? 23:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it says in the instructions not to propose a type already listed... I've just made that instruction a bit more prominent on the page, since lots of people seem to fail to see it. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Going by the timestamp it was actually posted here first but I agree that as it has already been created the discussion should continue at WP:SFD. Waacstats (talk) 08:20, 5 August 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.

{{Cold Formed Steel-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.
I would like to propose a stub template for Cold-Formed Steel. I do not want to create an article but a stub. I believe I'm in the right place.

--Thefolks (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)TheFolks

I'm struggling to see what kind of articles such a proposed stub type would cater for. Can you please show which articles would be tagged with this stub? SeveroTC 18:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We are part of the AISI Committee (American Iron & Steel Institute) and I am proposing a stub for Cold-Formed Steel. And others members of our committee would contribute to these articles under the stub proposal. I have the stub template which I would propose and could copy that here for your review. This stub would include Definition, History, Applications, Design Specifications, Material Properties, Theory and Research, References, and External Links which we believe would be very beneficial to Wikipedia.

--Thefolks (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Thefolks

Sounds interesting, but unless there are 60+ existing stub-sized articles that would qualify, per stub sorting guidelines, it is not feasible to create such a template. Please re-propose after the articles have been created. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:48, 8 August 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.

{{Mexico-film-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.
Over 60 stubs on Mexican films. Many of the films are not even stub tagged which needs sorting ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Support, also is it worth a ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Film stubs by nationality for the 17 existing and this proposed categories similar to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Film stubs by genre and the like. Waacstats (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Support both Bond's nemesis and Waacstats proposals. Grutness...wha? 09:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Mmm. on second thoughts, perhaps "nationality" is the wrong word - "county of origin" or similar, perhaps, more in line with Peg's comment below? Grutness...wha? 03:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Support, and how about ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Film stubs by country of production? Her Pegship (tis herself) 02:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Happy with any of the suggestions, perm cat would be ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Films by country so prehaps another option would be ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Film stubs by country. Waacstats (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
That would be an excellent idea mis amigos ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:51, 10 August 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-railstation-stub}}, {{Norway-tram-stub}} and {{Oslo-tbane-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 as revised.
Proposing the creation of three upmerged templates: {{Norway-railstation-stub}}, {{Norway-tram-stub}} and {{Oslo-tbane-stub}}—the metro in Oslo. Calling on speedy criteria 2 for all three templates.

  1. Norway-railstation-stub: Railway station templates and categories at national level, for instance United Kingdom railway station stubs. There are 282 articles in Category:Railway stations in Norway—most of these are stubs.
  2. Norway-tram-stub: Tram-related stubs have been created at national level, for instance United Kingdom tram stubs. Currently about 30 Norwegian tram-related stubs.
  3. Oslo-tbane-stub: Stub templates and categories related to a specific rapid transit have been excepted for eleven other systems, for instance Prague Metro stubs. There are currently 106 articles in Category:Oslo T-bane stations, and for every non-stub in that category there is about one other Oslo T-bane article that is a stub. Arsenikk (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Support' I've noticed these new articles coming in fast. Keep up the good work, I did some work on some roads in oslo a while back and I know how frightening the amount of content missing is ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Creating the templates as {{norway-rail-station-stub}}, {{norway-tram-stub}} and {{oslo-metro-stub}} to remain within established naming conventions. Arsenikk (talk) 19:33, 14 August 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.
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.
Upmerging counts 56 stubs + another category.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:46, 9 August 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.
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.
{{OutlyingNZ-geo-stub}} is now in use on 60 articles. One slight complicating factor is that the parent category is at ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New Zealand outlying islands and the article is at New Zealand Outlying Islands (i.e., all caps). Some confirmation of which is right would be useful. Grutness...wha? 06:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Solved - NZ government websites use "New Zealand outlying islands", and the WP article has been moved accordingly. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
PS - please note that this is not a precedent for various "Foo-island-stub" types - NZOI is an official administrative division of New Zealand, similar to the United States Minor Outlying Islands. Grutness...wha? 08:33, 12 August 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.
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.
One of the upmerged templates has passed 60. Propose speedy creation of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Chiapas geography stubs.Waacstats (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Guess what? (I'm the guilty one who developed Chiapas surprise surpise) ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:02, 10 August 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.

{{Herb-stub}}

{{Spice-stub}}

{{spicemix-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 three templates and one category (‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Herb and spice stubs).

Three sub designation to go with the articles found in templates {{herbs & spices}} and {{commercial herbs & spices}}. I tried with {{herbs-stub}} but wasn't successful. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 21:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with the name change. I would prefer them to be separate because that conforms with the structure of the three related articles articles, Herbs, Spices and Spice mix, as well as the layout of the template {{herbs & spices}} which is partitioned along the same lines.
As for the categories, you are correct, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:spices, as well as ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Herb and spice mixtures, should be on par with ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:herbs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:food additives. They should not be subordinate to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:condiments as condiments are added after cooking while herbs and spices are added during the preparation. All four should be a sub group of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:food ingredients. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Medicinal herbs and fungi should not be included with ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Foods. The other cats should be done away with. I will work on this. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
In that case I'd support all three as templates (using the revised names) but upmerged (i.e., without separate categories) unless any of them reach 60 stubs. The spicemix and spice ones can be upmerged to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Food ingredient stubs... open to suggestion as to whether herb-stub should upmerge to there as well (or if not where to) given that it will likely contain both food and medicinal herbs (would ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Plant stubs be a possibility, or does that remove it too much from the realm of food?). An alternative might be to create a combined ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Herb and spice stubs with all three templates leading into that, since between them they'll likely reach the 60-stub threshold. It's a bit of a kludge but might be the best solution for the time being, at least until they're each large enough for their own stub category. Grutness...wha? 01:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
That would be excellent. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 09:15, 12 August 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.

{{electronic-music-instrument-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 as revised.
‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Musical instrument stubs contains (at first count) 105 stubs on electronic instruments, of 383 total. There are more in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Electronic music stubs. As a very easily defined category that seems to be expanding comparatively quickly with a profusion of model names and numbers, it looks a good one to organize separately where it can attract specialist attention.

Long name though - suggestions for a wieldier one are invited.  • Lainagier • talk • 02:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It should in fact be slightly longer - {{electronic-musical-instrument-stub}}! There are longer stub names, and it's easier to change articles from {{electronic-music-stub}} and {{musical-instrument-stub}} in this form. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Happily agree with that case.  • Lainagier • talk • 01:57, 10 August 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.
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.
{{France-tennis-bio-stub}} has passed 60 so propose ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:French tennis biography stubs. Also to help cut the french down to size I propose {{France-wintersport-bio-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:French winter sports biography stubs. Waacstats (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Support A necessary organisation-wise step to make. ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 12:10, 10 August 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.
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.
90 articles tagged with {{denmark-struct-stub}} and {{euro-rail-stub}} or {{rail-station-stub}} - S2 speedy? SeveroTC 11:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

{{Denmark-rail-station-stub}} may be preferable - we currently have the parent at {{rail-station-stub}} but the child templates at {{Japan-rail-station-stub}} (okay), but then at {{US-railstation-stub}} and {{UK-railstation-stub}} (plus all child templates from these two at {{foo-railstation-stub}}. Wouldn't it make sense to just have one style? SeveroTC 11:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Support. I agree one style would be better, and rail-station seems more aesthetic. However I think there are about 25 railstation stubs temps out there, against about two rail-station stub temps.Arsenikk (talk) 13:56, 13 August 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.
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 template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Dinosaur stubs is getting to be pretty big (more than 500 stubs). Looking through the first pagfes in the category, it seems that a lot of the articles are about Theropods. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

173 of them by my reckoning. Support. SeveroTC 14:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. Such a stub type has been mooted before - looks like its time has come. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 17 August 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.

{{private-equity-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.
Also:

I am proposing the creation of three distinct stubs labels for stub articles within the private equity space. Currently private equity related articles are serviced by a a series of different stub types:

The above categories are largely over-crowded and make it difficult to identify topics where an editor can contribute. Additionally, there had historically been less consistency among private equity articles and stub tags varied greatly. By creating a uniform stub type for private equity concepts, companies and people, this will allow members of the Private Equity Task Force to better focus their efforts.

The following page lays out the articles that would fall under the various private equity stubs.

  • General: Although the general bucket had the smallest number of articles currently, many articles were recently upgraded and we removed the stub tag (those efforts and the difficulty in finding all of the private equity stubs was a major motivation for this request). My expectation is that long term there are a good number of articles that will be created and this expedites the process of identifying and upgrading these new articles. This stub could also be used generally for articles within the private equity space whether firms or people.
  • There are well over 128 current and identified (i.e. articles identified for notable PE firms by members of the PE Task Force) private equity firm stubs at present
  • There were well over 60+ stub articles within the private equity investors group.

The full discussion of applicable articles is located here.

Submitted by: |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 19:48, 17 August 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.

{{China-cuisine-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.
Suggest a template upmerged to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Cuisine stubs. There are plenty of stubs that could go here, currently scattered between ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Cuisine stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:China stubs. Although the China stubs have been overpopulated recently, they're not right now... so, not urgent. Fleebo (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. Category:Chinese cuisine shows there are enough stubs within them to qualify The Bald One White cat 17:11, 22 August 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.
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.
These stubs have been sorted into the district templates now. I have no tools to tell whether some of those have reached the threshold yet, can someone please tell me how or just check it out please? Cheers! Fleebo (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The following are at threshold:
I just generally click on "What links here" when looking at the stub template, and if it's a good number more than 50, I know there are 60 ;). Low tech but generally does the job! Good work on the sorting btw! SeveroTC 23:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Given that there are a massive number of articles to write on Kerala geography, there are likely to be over 60 for each district easily. The Bald One White cat 17:13, 22 August 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.


{{Tunnel-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.
For stubs specifically for tunnels. I'd imagine there should be enough tunnels on wikipedia and in the world for several sub categories for this too. Easily 60 stubs in all of the sub categories of Category:Tunnels by country. If there are enough i would propose two sub categories {{Euro-tunnel-stub}} and {{Asia-tunnel-stub}} depending on how many stubs there are in total. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable - from my memory of what struct-stubs we have, a {{US-tunnel-stub}} may be useful too. I think that the basic tunnel-stub would have easily enough for its own category (though it would be best to check first...). The other three are reasonable as upmerged types at least. Grutness...wha? 12:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Support both Blofeld and Grutness. Waacstats (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Norway has at current 35 tunnel articles (all but about five are stubs); would there be opposition against an upmerged {{Norway-tunnel-stub}}? At the current rate of growth 60 stubs would be reached in about a year. Arsenikk (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
No objection here - it may well save effort later. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 15 August 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.

Azerbaijan geo-stub split

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 has been a flurry of activity in the now greatly-oversized ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Azerbaijan geography stubs. The bad news is that Azerbaijan is divided into a very large number of administrative divisions. The worse news is that - given the number of new stubs - most of them would probably reach threshold (there are now over 2800 articles in this category!) Grutness...wha? 01:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Urgent creation needed We now have well over 3200 stubs. Split by Category:Districts of Azerbaijan and upmerge the rayons that don't have 60. The Bald One White cat 19:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Make that 4,650 stubs--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Straightforward, support, speedy. There appear to be fairly well-defined developmental regions if some degree of upmerged "lumping" is required, but that may not be worth bothering about if most are already over threshold, as a back of an envelop calculation would indeed seem to imply. Crunching the categories, it looks like around 20 of the rayons aren't guaranteed to be immediately viable, so we could be left with a moderately large rump. On balance I'd favour regional categories in additional to the individually-viable rayon cats, by way as belt and braces. Alai (talk) 02:04, 21 August 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.
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.
Upmerged templates count over 60 articles.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy. SeveroTC 22:24, 19 August 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.

{{brazil-road-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.
Just to let you all know I created Category:Brazil road stubs earlier. Given that there are at least 200 highways in that state alone there will clearly be many more added than the 64 it has at present. The Bald One White cat 16:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be time to divide the geographical subcats of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Road stubs into continental level subcats. SeveroTC 17:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Might be time to stop using Stub Grammar(TM) for these category names, too. Other than that, seems OK. Alai (talk) 18:36, 22 August 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.

German rail transport

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 the following:

Seem sensible to me. How many more German U-Bahn are there? Would it be practical to create upmerged templates for them all? (Though it seems logical to have the catch-all, too.) Alai (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
There are two more U-Bahn systems (Frankfurt and Hamburg). Unlike the other three though, neither have close to 60 articles. In addition come the S-Bahn that are in 13 cities; these I would classify as rapid transit too, but not all of these have close to a significant number of articles.
On closer research I would then propose an upmerged {{Hamburg-U-Bahn-stub}} and {{Frankfurt-U-Bahn-stub}}, as well as {{Foo-S-Bahn-stub}} for S-Bahn systems in Berlin, Hamburg, Munich and Rhine-Ruhr (those are the five with enough articles to actually have a category, not just one article). Or has this become too extensive? There seem to be somewhere between 35 and 95 stub articles in each of those systems.Arsenikk (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not a big deal either way: I'm just thinking of the convenience of those playing "guess the template name". Best to make them as consistent as possible, so that someone doesn't try to extrapolate from existing template names, and get frustrated by getting a redlink. Redirects would suffice, if the numbers for a given city is small, and seem unlikely to be viable at any time in the foreseeable future. Alai (talk) 20:07, 1 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.

Cat:Oslo T-bane 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.
Speediable since {{Oslo-metro-stub}} has reached 70+ transclusions. Arsenikk (talk) 09:35, 31 August 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.
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.
As I suspected, sorting the >= 60 rayons doesn't quite take care of this. Partly this is the 250+ articles that don't sort by rayon, or woul need sorted by hand; partly it's the 20ish rayons that don't hit 60. Do we want to lump some or all of these into economic regions? Alai (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That would probably be the sensible thing to do for those with around 20 or 30 in. See what User:Carlossuarez46 the creator of the stubs thinks The Bald One White cat 15:58, 30 August 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.
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.
Speediable, now that {{Oceania-footy-competition-stub}} is used on 60 articles. Grutness...wha? 09:07, 29 August 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.

Some more Pakistan templates

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 discovery of an unproposed Pakistan-lit-stub (listed at WP:WSS/D prompted me to have a look at ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Pakistan stubs which, though not oversized, is getting that way, with some 660 stubs. There are several upmerged templates in there, but two more look like they'd be useful: {{Pakistan-struct-stub}} and {{Pakistan-newspaper-stub}}. Both look like they'd have at least 30-40 articles - and that's just from the titles I can understand (my knowledge of Urdu is nil). Each probably would approach threshold, but I won't propose categories yet. There's also quite a bit of undersorting in the category, so it may drop to below 600 even without a split. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: There are also now well over 60 articles marked with {{Pakistan-gov-stub}}, so the creation of a separate category for that seems speediable. Grutness...wha? 01:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Second follow-up - some tidying of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Pakistan stubs has also put {{Pakistan-org-stub}} over the 60-stub threshold, so it too could now have its own speedied category. A third possible new upmerged template would be {{Pakistan-party-stub}} - looks like at least 30-35 political party stubs in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Pakistan stubs. Grutness...wha? 09:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, three days is a bit less than the standard five, but these are technically speediable (S2) anyway)... Grutness...wha? 09:54, 1 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.
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 around 800 geo stubs and rapidly counting given that both I and Editor of the wiki are working through Nepal. Split by Zones of Nepal which are the first level divisions. There may be a greater number in some zones than others but eventually they should be all complete. If some need upmerging let me know and I'll ensure each has hit 60. Proposed: The Bald One White cat 15:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds straightforward to me, suggest we speedy. If any of them would need upmerger, we can hold off for a while while BoS pads 'em out... Alai (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Bheri Zone and Gandaki Zone just passed 60 too The Bald One White cat 08:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Well that comment is totally uncalled for as I only start places these days if they can be expanded afterwards and have population and other data available and if there are government sources available. It is based on a Nepal Village Government Census Report under Digital Himilaya not basic coordinates from a database. Some articles like Sandhikharka have been expanded already and these are the sort of size settlements being started with 2,000-10,000 people which in country like Nepal is quite a lot for a village or town not unverifiable hamlets with 3 people. I find that quite insulting as it basically indicates my own work is not geared to an improvement of notable real content and that I am somehow working to no end. Would you find it a "pain" to go through articles in Template:Chiapas which I started and can all be fully expanded? Altamirano, Chiapas etc etc. Even that article could be expanded two fold from what it is at present! The Bald One White cat 09:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
If Azerbaijan were ever covered in the detail that the UK and US are, I imagine these places would all end up with 'real' articles. On what timescale that's likely to happen in these cases would be harder to say. These aren't creating any sort of "unsortablity" issue (unlike, say, the asteroids...), so this might not be the best place for a discussion on their notability, and/or the general prudence of their creation. Alai (talk) 20:02, 1 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.
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 as revised.
Category is approaching 700 with only 3 subcategories, I think we should split them by international subdivision (i.e. Western European basketball biography stubs etc). All stubs are sorted to their appropriate categories so I forsee a very easy sort.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd reocmmend splitting a few by country and upmerging other which don't hit 60 to the sub regional European areas The Bald One White cat 13:39, 27 August 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.
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 recent proposal to split this category left one province and one city out. I propose

Category for Yerevan iff another 21 articles are found. Waacstats (talk) 10:27, 8 August 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.

{{Kyrgyzstan-geo-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.
Over 700 stubs in Category:Kyrgyzstan geography stubs. Would advise splitting by the Provinces of Kyrgyzstan.

{{Batken-geo-stub}} {{Chuy-geo-stub}} {{JalalAbad-geo-stub}} {{Naryn-geo-stub}} {{Osh-geo-stub}} {{Talas-geo-stub}} {{IssylKul-geo-stub}}

. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:32, 7 August 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.

{{aomori-railway-station-stub}} etc.

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 upmerged templates.
There is {{japan-railway-station-stub}} which make links to [[Category:Japanese railway station stubs]], and there are 17 prefecture railway-station stub tags ({{hokkaido-railway-station-stub}}etc.) which make links to [[Category:Hokkaido railway station stubs]]etc. which are subcategory of [[Category:Japanese railway station stubs]]. There are 47 prefectures in Japan. For other 30 prefectures, there do not exist tags and categories. Stub articles for stations in those prefectures are categorized directly to [[Category:Japanese railway station stubs]] which has 1306 articles now. So I want to make {{aomori-railway-station-stub}} etc. and [[Category:aomori railway station stubs]]etc. for deviding them into prefectural subcategories. Thank you. Penpen (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be {{aomori-rail-station-stub}}, not {{aomori-railway-station-stub}} (though see the proposal below). A lot of prefectures have templates, but they're currently upmerged because they do not havee the required number of stubs (there are actually 29 prefecture-level stub tags of this sort). I'd definitely support giving all the others upmerged templates, but I would oppose new categories until we know for certain which prefectures reach threshold. Grutness...wha? 04:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I have counted how many articles link to template etc. I show them here. (It has some error margin.) There are 2 types of templates. One of them makes link to sub-category and the other does not. Some articles link to sub-category without using template.Penpen (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand everything in that table, buit it supports what I thought was the case. Most ofhe prefectures which have enough stub articles for their own categories all have them (some that have categories shouldn't have: Akita and Niigata should be upmerged). The prefectures which probably should have separate categories but don't are Saitama, Toyama, Gifu, Shizuoka, and Okayama (two others, Tottori and Chiba, are very close to threshold). Aomori should have a template, but doesn't have enough stubs for a separate category. And no articles should ever link into stub categories without using templates! It sounds like a serious amount of work is needed to sort this category tree out...
I propose making all the remaining prefecture-specific templates (all in the form prefecturename-rail-station-stub):
Once all of these are made and sorted, it should be obvious which ones require categories (better than depending on a table with "some error margin") Grutness...wha? 01:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The very partial state of the templatisation is probably mostly my fault, since on several occasions the parent has crested 800, at which point I've split off the then-viable provinces, declared victory, and gone home. I support creation of all the remaining templates, and re-upmerging of the undersized couple that were prematurely "un-upmerged". We could also create some regional categories, to get greater splitting down, sooner, but it may not be strictly necessary to keep it below the upper threshold. (But it might be useful to the end-users, perhaps.) I can help bot-populate once the templates are created. Alai (talk) 18:43, 22 August 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.

{{Italy-film-stub}} by decade

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 upmerged templates.
Looking through ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Italian film stubs I think it would be best to reorganize by decade seems as there are several editors adding new articles too. At present there are 420 stubs but when I also get around to concentrating on Italian film again there is likely to be well over 1000. I'd propose {{Italy-silent-film-stub}} {{1930s-Italy-film-stub}} {{1940s-Italy-film-stub}} {{1950s-Italy-film-stub}} {{1960s-Italy-film-stub}} {{1970s-Italy-film-stub}} {{1980s-Italy-film-stub}} {{1990s-Italy-film-stub}} {{2000s-Italy-film-stub}} ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Support templates only for now. 9 Categories for 400 odd articles seems a bit much lets wait till the articles exist. Waacstats (talk) 09:35, 4 August 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 {{gymnastics-bio-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 by discipline without gender distinctions.
I'd like to propose splitting {{gymnastics-bio-stub}} (which has in excess of 500 stubs) into:

These subdivisions are based on the way the Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique split the sport up, and are treated as separate disciplines at the Olympics -- ratarsed (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Are there even enough for all of the above? I can't readily tell, because there don't appear to be any by-discipline permanent categories: just "gymnasts" and "Olympic gymnasts" cats, which makes me wonder if such a split isn't getting somewhat ahead of ourselves. (It's not clear to me why there are no such permcats, so that's not necessarily an insuperable objection by any means.) As do the numbers, which make this pretty non-urgent. Wouldn't a by-country split be more practically useful, anyway? I'd tend to reflexively favour the latter course, since it's how we deal with most such cases, and it'd cut down on some double-stubbing, but I'm open to arguments for the former. Alai (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend by country or continent rather than by discipline The Bald One White cat 17:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks for pointing out the by-subdiscipline cats: I missed those, indeed because they're not yet in heavy use. In almost all sport, the sexes compete separately (equestrianism being the main exception that springs to mind). Nonetheless, in no other sport are the stubs split by gender (and indeed, no other biography stub type at all, AFAIK). Arguably gymnastics is a highly "gendered" sport in that different apparatus is also used for each, but I'm not at all sure it's either a useful split (are there editors that only work on female gymnastics articles, or vice versa?), and it seems a dodgy precedent to set. I can only report that a by-country split is feasible: here's the top three, by category (likely to be slight undercounts):
            • 93 Norwegian
            • 77 Swedish
            • 57 Italian
          • In addition to this, a "European" category would be highly viable (via upmerged by-country templates), and a North American and an Asian one would be well on the way, perhaps even already hitting 60. (Are we lumping the Americas into a single grouping, two by continent, or by UN geoscheme, this week?) Alai (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support country types, as more easily defined and populable than style types and less precedent-setting than gender types. :) . Plus what if someone competes in more than one style? Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not aware of any gymnast competing across disciplines, in the same way I don't know of any rally drivers that race Formula 1, or any soccer players that play Australian rules football... There is also a proposal to split the by nationality gymnasts cats into their respective disciplines (over at WP:WikiProject Gymnastics) -- ratarsed (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Haven't some artistic gymnasts "converted" to rhythmic? I'm fairly sure some people have competed in both F1 and NASCAR, for example. (Though that hasn't stopped us from making that split, it must be said.)
      • I'm not dead-set against splitting by discipline, and sooner or later it sounds like the sort of thing we'll end up doing. But it's not "urgent" by our normal standards, we haven't established which of them are numerically viable, and we're presented with a choice as to whether to split by country or by discipline, since for the foreseeable future there's clearly not enough to be doing both. Alai (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If all gymnasts are categorized according to discipline, and don't move between them, then it is a viable split. Is this the case? (I have no idea, it's a real question!) If so, it will come down to what is more useful - by discipline or country. Are there more editors who only edit by type of gymnast, or where the gymnast is from? I would guess that right now, most articles are stubbed with gymnast- and nation- stub, so sorting by nation would reduce double stubbing. SeveroTC 22:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • As discussed above, the discipline categories exist, but are underused, so they don't help directly with the logistics of this at the present time. I don't think they move much, but it's bound to happen occasionally. Just as, for example, some divers are "converted" gymnasts. I agree that utility by way of differential editing seem the most sensible ways to proceed, subject to consistency with the permcats. Alai (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
      • There is a proposal to cat sort into the perm cats, which would stop them being undersized; it would make sense to do at the same time as stub sorting (if this goes ahead) -- ratarsed (talk) 08:15, 26 August 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.

{{Asia-theatre-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 as Asia-theat-stub.
Would help diffuse the theatre main stub category and follow the convention with Europe-theatre-stub. There should be 60. Would possibly include both structures and general theatrical content from asian countries The Bald One White cat 20:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

To follow the convention used with the European equivalent, it would need to be {{Asia-theat-stub}}. Other than that, I support the template, category as well if it reaches 60. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
But redirects from both of the actual English spellings would seem like a plan. Alai (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I agree - as there are, IIRC, with the Europe one. Was that semicolon a typo or are you deliberately shouting , Alai? Grutness...wha? 23:27, 28 August 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.

{{Iran-musician-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.
Well over 60 stubs on Iranian musicians. There appears to be a very higher number of musicians from Iran on a wide range of instruments. The Bald One White cat 13:37, 27 August 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.
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 despite kludge factor.
{{China-RC-diocese-stub}}

Subcategory of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Asian Roman Catholic diocese stubs, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:China stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in China, yes? 114 of these currently - would really tidy up the China stubs. Fleebo (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This one needs a little thinking about... ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:China stubs is generally for historical things that cover all/both Chinas. I'd be far happier to see us start off with separate templates for {{PRChina-RC-diocese-stub}} and {{Taiwan-RC-diocese-stub}} and work from there (with, if necessary, other - little-used - ones for HongKong- and Macau-). Grutness...wha? 00:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Further comment - it appears that "‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in China" is actually entirely for the People's Republic (and surely should be named accordingly, though that's a subject for a different forum...). Grutness...wha? 00:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I hereby change the proposal, to instead create template {{PRChina-RC-diocese-stub}}. I am still confused about the stub category name though; are you suggesting something different? Fleebo (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm just unsure about the permanent category - why a category which is solely for Roman Catholic dioceses in the People's Republic of China is simply called ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in China, especially when there is a separate ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Taiwan. Given that it's a sub-sub-category of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:People's Republic of China it shoudl surely be named in accordance with that category. As I said, though, that's more a problem for CfD than for here. Trouble is, we tend to use permcat names as a basis for stub categories. If we wanted to make it clear this was for the PRC, then we'd have to use the traditional kludge of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:People's Republic of China Roman Catholic diocese stubs (which will annoy at least one stub sorter, I know). Grutness...wha? 06:36, 28 August 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.

{{Italy-church-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 upmerged tpls.
Seems there are a great number of churches in Italy which are gradually getting articles on here. Should be well over 60. Seems a plausible stub from church stubs and italian build-structure stubs The Bald One White cat 20:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A template would certainly be appropriate - actually, looking at ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Church stubs several nation-level templates might be a good idea - particularly for Canada, Russia, and several central/eastern European countries - though there's also considerable undersorting in there. A category can always be speedied later once we're sure this will get to 60 stubs. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And sort to the existing {{UK-church-stub}} and {{US-church-stub}} s'more. Alai (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea to me. Well done! The Bald One White cat 13:37, 27 August 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.
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.
{{Germany-chemist-stub}}. There is already a Germany physicist stub and we all know how huge the number scientists that have come from Germany throughout history. I would imagine there are near 200 stubs on German chemists on here, and many more likely to come, re organizing the current structure would seem like a good step to make ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

According to catscan there are 64 articles in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:German scientist stubs and under ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Chemists, not quite 200 but certainly enough for a category and more are probably hiding in other categories. Waacstats (talk) 07:48, 12 August 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.

{{Asia-hospital-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.
Considering how many hospitals there are in asia and how bloated the asia structure stub categories ar elikely to become. I'd imagine there are over 60 current asian hospital stubs on wikipedia? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:41, 5 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/August_2008&oldid=1085545499"