I am asking you to rethink your position on this one. If any category is to be renamed Category:Motor vehicle industry it should be Category:Automotive industry and not this one. Caerwine Caerwhine 07:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between industry and companies in existing Wikipedia categories (and this distinction goes way beyond the automotive/motor vehicle sector) is that industry categories deal with the process while companies categories deal with individual firms. Thus an article that for example dealt with how the assembly line changed how cars/motor vehicles were assembled would go in the industry category while an article about the Fnord Motor Company would go in the companies category. Caerwine Caerwhine 07:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've editted by response slightly to make it clear that if the rename is to Category:Motor vehicle companies, I'm neutral. I find both Category:Automotive companies and Category:Motor vehicle companies understandable, so I'll leave it up to those who have an actual opinion between the two alternatives to make it known. Caerwine Caerwhine 08:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but since I can't say that from first-hand knowledge, and I'm not interested enough to acquire the first-hand knowledge, I'll leave it to those who do to debate the point. Caerwine Caerwhine 08:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good News

I've started sorting the US-writer-stub with the new stubs and it looks like by the time I'm done, it might actually be all way down to less than overlarge.

Bad News

It's going to take a while to slog through all 15 pages, especially since I'm taking the time to add categories.

Ugly News

A fair amount of double (or more) stubbing, and I'm trying to be conservative. Caerwine Caerwhine 11:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was hoping you'd ask ;-)

The formal scope is actually right on the project page: "any article related to the history of warfare or of military affairs" (emphasis mine). There are two basic ideas that are used to interpret this statement in practice:

• Anything not a current event can be considered, for our purposes, to fall under "history".
• Anything related to either the (formal) military or to warfare in general (but not necessarily to both) can be considered, for our purposes, to fall under "military".

Obviously, the vast majority of topics will be things like Napoleon or Battle of the Bulge: nice, traditional military history. However, there are a variety of fringe cases that we're also including; for example, the Iraq War (arguably not history yet), or Abraham Lincoln (not formally military—or at least unlikely to be found under Category:Military—but certainly related to warfare in a very major way).

Various other names have been suggested at times—"Military and warfare" was a recent one—but the consensus within the project has been that (a) "military history" is clear enough, at least to the people who'd be interested in taking part in the project and (b) the practical costs of renaming the project aren't worth the minimal semantic gains.

One point that I think should be stressed here: WikiProject scopes and stub or category scopes are subtly different. With a stub or a category, precise definition is beneficial; there is no gain in creating vaguely-defined categories, and no loss in splitting categories apart. With a WikiProject—when dealing with people rather than with articles—the opposite is true: a broad and somewhat hazy-around-the-edges scope^[1] is actually a good thing, since it prevents dozens of tiny projects springing up in semantic gaps between existing ones and allows people to join without worrying whether their subject fits within a precisely limited scope. Indeed, there are substantial benefits to having large but active WikiProjects over more narrow—but consequently perpetually undermanned—ones.

1. ^ But not too broad, of course. All I have in this regard are individual data points: "military history" (by our interpretation of the term) works as a functional project, while something even broader, like "history", doesn't seem to.

There's little reason, in my opinion, to try and make the two types of scopes match exactly, because they're trying to group different things (articles versus people) that don't act quite alike. Kirill Lokshin 06:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's something you're probably in a better position to answer: which of the relevant stub types (if any) would you say exclude fictional topics? Those are the only significant group of articles that could be tagged with the various mil-*-stubs but wouldn't be in our scope. (It's possible that there are other articles there which are simply tagged with a wildly inappropriate stub type; but there's no real way to predict these, I think.) Kirill Lokshin 06:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that's a significant issue. If it's not actually a current event (as in a few days old), we'd have no problems tagging it into the project (or haven't in the past, anyways). Kirill Lokshin 15:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on CFD - proposal to merge all subcats of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies up into the main cat. Relevant categories which would be deleted are:

• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Aberdeen constituencies
• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Dundee constituencies
• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Edinburgh constituencies
• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Fife constituencies
• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Glasgow constituencies
• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Highland constituencies
• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Orkney and Shetland
• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Paisley constituencies
• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Stirling constituencies

I think that this is a rather important discussion for editors interested in Scotland-related articles, especially Scottish politics and Scottish biographical articles (particularly local history). Please have a read and ponder, and contribute to the debate if you like. Thanks. --Mais oui! 17:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be relevant in this context to consider the discussions in the parent category for the UK parliament: Category talk:British MPs. I find it regrettable that Mais oui! has engaged in a restructuring of that category without entering into the discussions there. --BrownHairedGirl 17:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_23#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_Scottish_constituencies is just about to close. I would really appreciate your contribution, because this debate needs some serious input. --Mais oui! 09:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have changed no one's comments. I did change the way the stub was listed in the chart. No one in Pennsylvania, that I know of, was notified about the impending deletion, so in fact I was making the change to note that people from PA want the template. I hadn't stumbled across it, it might have gone unnoticed. Civily yours. --South Philly 02:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You can write three paragraphs an still be wrong. Please leave me alone and stop harassing me. --South Philly 03:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find anything Mountie-like, but I think you need one of these. Cheers! ♥ Her Pegship♥ 05:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I've instigated a new barnstar for stub sorters, so much more attractive than a billy club... If you like, you can see it at The Stub Sorting Barnstar. Thanks for considering it. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never really put anything up for deletion at SFD, so I need some help with the state stubs now that the 7 day period is coming to a close. The consensus falls at keep, somewhere around 13-2. You and Valentinian suggested keeping the templates and reviewing the categories in a month or so. How should that be handled? If we're keeping these, should they be listed on WP:STUBS? If so, how? My thoughts would be that it would be similar to the schools where it says "you can use {{State-school-stub}} for any state". Bleh, I don't know what I'm doing, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks, ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and suggestions. Sorry to bug you during a fun weekend. =) I've made a note at the SFD page that lists what I've done. I hope that works. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see you were mentioned in the news at theatlantic.com excerpt below --Trödel 02:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I created a one-line biographical entry on “Marshall Poe.” It didn’t take long for my tiny article to come to the attention of Wikipedia’s self-appointed guardians. Within a week, a very active—and by most accounts responsible—Scottish Wikipedian named “Alai” decided that … well, that I wasn’t worth knowing about. Why? “No real evidence of notability,” Alai cruelly but accurately wrote, “beyond the proverbial average college professor.”"

I think you did the right thing - and Wikipedia comes off well. We have to delete that stuff and his one sentence entry was probably not enough to find out more about him. I think the article is one of the best I have read - he seems to really understand the culture - and his experiment shows how the process works quite well. I think the recap of the Larry/Jimbo thing was interesting - as I already knew most of the material it was interesting to see how he interpretted the events. --Trödel 16:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Scotland article has just been put up for Wikipedia:Peer review. This is a crucial step in getting this article up to WP:FA status, or at least closer to it, which can only have positive effects on all of Wikipedia's Scotland-related coverage. The best way to get the most out of peer review is to monitor for any comments made and try to respond to them promptly. I hope that you may have some possibility to assist in this task? Thanks. --Mais oui! 16:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your question on the bots page, cheers —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 19:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please protected arcicle: Rapcore. User:Egr / 85.18.14.4 is vandal. Some users reverted edits by User:Egr / 85.18.14.4. Please protected arcicle and block users and this IP. LUCPOL 20:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One revert user Egr / 85.18.14.4 - please block this users and this IP and protected arcicle. LUCPOL 21:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is edit war as a result new change - shift back change for arcicle non edits war and resume in discussion arcicle. Duty administrator: take care and block user/s which load new "their" version. LUCPOL 22:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Alai, believe me. The problem is that I am only trying to simplify its intro and adding extra paragraphs (see also Talk:Rapcore), but Lucpol is convinced that I am a vandal. -- Egr, 8/4/2006

I have no familiarity with User:Hans Schwarc. It seems strange, but as you stated he apparently wants "an appearance of age." Thanks for the FYI. -- Dcflyer 02:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverted edits old version arcicle (when there was edit war) and allow protected page. Your dishonesty administrator and sharper. That is excusable. Your bad "administrator" breaking principles at conflict instead introduce to judicature. Never you thereof no condone and be enemy until reverted your edition for when there was edit war. LUCPOL 09:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you logged it for deletion you didn't follow up on it right away. I've done that, so both the template and the cat are ready for deletion now. Caerwine Caerwhine 12:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does

consider upmerging it to the parent on the basis of size

mean, exactly? (See this.) Sorry..... --RFBailey 17:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have broken down the protected area stub with a new Template:Montana-protected-area-stub which covers protected areas in the state of Montana....are there plans to do this for every state in the U.S. as well as the numerous other countires that are part of the protected area stubs? If this is the case, where can I add my voice and maybe help out?

Oops, sorry about not signing above earlier...I'll take a look at the links you provded. Thanks.--MONGO 19:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-script: we are currently undergoing peer review, see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland.

I am beginning to think that the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board is not the best vehicle for pushing up the quality of the Scotland article (we ought to try to get it to WP:FA, in order to get into Wikipedia:Version 0.5, or, failing that, Wikipedia:Version 1.0), and the other key Scottish articles. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that we really ought to start up the long-mooted WikiProject Scotland.

Most of the stuff at the notice board (at least on the bottom half) is actually WikiProject material anyway, and the Talk page is really being used as a WikiProject talk already! The notice board should be just that: for bunging up brief notices and signposts. I am thinking of launching a Wikiproject and correspondingly radically clearing out, and chopping down, the noticeboard (a re-launch if you like). The Scotland Portal concept is fine (but currently mediocre/undynamic content), but in stasis: it needs a good kick up the jacksie.

For comparison, have a look at:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia
• Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Peru
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Hong Kong
• etc.

And, if you are at a loose end, have a look at:

• Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Nominations
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WPPlaces
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medieval Scotland articles by quality
• Wikipedia:WikiProject
• Wikipedia:WikiProject/Best practices

Thoughts? Please express them here. --Mais oui! 18:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Discoveries as being ameniable to bot archiving. Stubs that haven't been put on the list or sent to SFD need to stay on Discoveries until they are dealt with, and a bot can't know that. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that ideally stubs shouldn't be staying on Discoveries so long. You may have noted that as I have been archiving Discoveries, I've been sending some of these stubs to SFD or adding them to the stub list or the redirect list. If you can somehow get a bot to do that, go for it, but I'd rather not have to have stubs be re-discovered. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why your bot has removed the {{Protected-area-stub}} from a bunch of National Park System articles? Thanks. --Nebular110 05:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the explanation. --Nebular110 05:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I posted a query about a couple of stubsorts your bot is running at the bot's talk page; just dropping you a note here to let you know. Thanks. Mike Christie 19:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll take a look this evening at the categories. Thanks for the pointer; it sounds fine but I'll check out those categories and see if I can find anything constructive to suggest for stubs. I appreciate the quick reply. Mike Christie 19:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alaibot retagged Disney Magazine from mag-stub to trade-mag-stub. I don't think it quite falls under the trade magazine description, since it was sent primarily to customers rather than colleagues. What criteria were used to retag it? Powers 20:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Curious. The article's non-template categories are Category:Defunct magazines, Category:Entertainment magazines, and Category:Quarterly magazines, none of which are in the Category:Trade magazines hierarchy. Powers 21:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, weird. I wonder if Category:Fortune 1000 ought not be a subcat of Category:Fortune. Powers 01:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it was on the "to-do" page as "approved, not yet created". I thought the format was a little weird. I'll delete it from the list, but I can't delete the template. Can you, or should I put it up on sfd? thanks - ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, please go ahead & obliterate it. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I guess I should thank you for inadvertantly participating in our beta test =). alphaChimp ^laudare 01:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The population of articles might be healthy enough though not exorbitantly large. Briaboru

Alai,

You're still the only person to post on my User Talk where you welcomed me to Wikipedia. I thoroughly enjoy Wikipedia, and am grateful for your hard work.

If you've a moment, I'm embroiled in a touchy editing process on Talk:List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning. No flames yet, but it seems that educating our fellows about accreditation could turn heated. I've provided sources upon User:CaliEd's request and am awaiting a response.

I don't anticipate problems - but a pair of friendly eyes would be welcome.

Many thanks for your hard work.--Ezratrumpet 02:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you passed judgement on the stub below mine on the stub proposal. In my case, Indian food stubs are the majority in the stub section on Indian-culture. Could you please voice your views on this page [2] Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the stub request page, you said "Sounds like you're there or thereabouts; were there a wikiproject, you'd certainly be over the minumum of 30 that generally applies in that case (hint, hint)". I'm kinda new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what you are hinting at. Do you mean that I should create a Wikiproject rather than (or before) a stub? Isn't a Wikiproject a lot more work? Could you spell it out for this new kid? Thanks! --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 12:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• hi this is regarding artillery-stub. you say the guns have a history of undersized splits can you please elaborate? I am a new user and will find a few guns that can be put under the stub category, however i do feel that categorizing them as firearms stub is also not appropriate.

• Ok, which means that after the creation the first thing that needs to be done is to populate the category, but i do think this category is wide enough to encompass a lot of articles. I am currentl trying to make a tentative list. I hope i will get some help from you in this regard

Kaushal mehta 14:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi this is strange, there is an artillery related stub category, it is arty-stub.

and the template is arty-stub in two curly brackets. {{arty-stub}} please delete the stub after reading regards Kaushal mehta 15:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• kindly tell me what to do, i feel the earlier category needs to properly maintained though i am ready for that but i have no idea as to how to go about it.

Kaushal mehta 15:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sure, go right ahead, I in my overzealous way of a new-comer, have created both faulty categories. Should I start adding pages to the (corrected) category? Kaushal mehta 11:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• not at all, will start populating that stub cat soon

--Kaushal mehta 21:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it fine to put chemicals in artillery related stubs? Though they are used in making artillery but i am not very sure of the appropriateness.--Kaushal mehta 15:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• very well, we share the same opinion. I would then add the stubsense link on the discussion page and put that since these chemicals are not only used for artillery they have not been added. One more doubt what about the units like 1st artillery... i am in a bit of a doubt though have an inclination to include them. regards.--Kaushal mehta 16:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...mentions you in the second paragraph of its September 2006 edition and has a link to your user page -- watch out for vandals...

BCorr|Брайен 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alai. Thanks to you and wiki admins for protecting the article. I'm sorry for the previous edit wars, the next time I'll try to propose edits in the talk page instead of making repeated reverts. BTW, the link "hip hop" in the current version should go to hip hop music. -- Egr (Talk), 8/12/2006

Thanks again, Alai. -- Egr (Talk), 8/12/2006

This is vandal. Please administrators of block with you. LUCPOL 23:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Portal created recently by Mallimak (talk · contribs) - the Orkney Portal - has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion please contribute at:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney

Thanks. --Mais oui! 08:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I take note of your comments and they are correct for the time being but I am in fact slowly expanding them to include a great deal more information. If you go to Ss Mary & Everilda, Everingham you will see what I hope every entry will look like in the not too distant future. Roydosan 12:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently created {{Ukraine-hist-stub}} and Category:History of Ukraine stubs without realizing that these should be proposed initially. I will go ahead and post the proposal, however should I delete the created template/cat? Thanks for answering this, --Riurik 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Shifting through all the WikiStub proposals and allowing me to enrich Wiki with a needed stub category. Awarded by Bakaman

. I noticed your barnstar box was organized so I did not want to mess it up.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I THINK THIS ARTICLE Republic of China NEED MORE AND MORE PICTURES , SEE People's Republic of China ANDSouth Korea ANDJapan ANDSingapore , THESE ARTICLE HAVE A LOT OF PICTURES ,SHOULDN SOMEBODY TO ADD MORE PICTURES FOR Republic of China?

Thanks, I fully intend to base myself on some of the more 'obscure' admin areas such as SfD, although it did seem a rather complex process and I'll only be doing things occasionally till I get more familiar with it all.... --Robdurbar 18:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the drivers I removed it from are primarily NASCAR drivers. They may have driven one or two races in NASCAR, but overall they are far more noted for their exploits in other racing series, primarily sports cars and open-wheel. Slapping a "NASCAR-bio-stub" on those drivers is NASCARcentric in the extreme. FCYTravis 21:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alai, as the creator of {{UK-current-MP-stub}}, I have just posted a reply to the SFD for Current British MP stubs, and wondered if you would like to take a look and reconsider your vote to delete. As posted there, having populated the category, it contains over 300 articles, and there are many reasons why I think that this stub category is both viable and useful. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl 15:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this, because I am sure that you are "sick to the back teeth" of it too, but you have been "mentioned in despatches":

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment_by_Mais_oui.21

and please also see:

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mallimak

--Mais oui! 01:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I wanted to comment on your Software split proposal, but it seems to have disappeared! The very next edit is you again, regarding econ-stub splits and it clearly shows the Software split heading at the bottom of the diff area, but the actual content is nowhere on the page. Does that make any sense to you or is my lack of sleep making me miss the blindingly obvious? --TheParanoidOne 05:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, a huge swath of them seem to have vanished. Namely:

• Software split
• US-athletics-bio-stub
• Org-stub splits
• Native Central and South Americans
• TV bio split
• US basketball bio split
• Canada-tv-bio-stub
• Composer stubs split
• The last two South American national geo-stubs!
• Cat:Roman Catholic theology and doctrine stubs
• Organic compounds split
• Website-stub split
• US-singer split
• Rugby bio split
• Split of School Stubs
• Some semblance of organization to theatre stubs

--TheParanoidOne 05:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see that it wasn't anything too serious. Nice to also see that I'm not losing my mind! --TheParanoidOne 21:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alai. About the article, the part:

"The first dedicated rapcore band was probably the little-known Dutch group Urban Dance Squad, who inspired the founders of Rage Against the Machine ^{[citation needed]}." ,

should be changed in this way:

"The first full-dedicated rapcore bands to gain some mainstream popularity, were Urban Dance Squad and Rage Against the Machine (respectively from Netherlands and California), in the early 1990s ^{[citation needed]}." .

-- Egr (talk), 8/19/2006

But it's only a simple grammar edit. -- Egr (talk), 8/19/2006

A better solution: give up proposing it. I would eschew arguments with admins. -- Egr (talk), 8/19/2006

for the notice on my talk page--Jaibe 22:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alai. Is there anyway that you could use your bot to remove the {{Wisconsin-stub}} from all the articles that you recently placed the new {{Wisconsin-radio-station-stub}} on? If you could eliminate the {{Wisconsin-stub}} from the highway pages if your new stub type goes through as well, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks --BaronLarf 00:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alai! (Couldn't resist that one.) I keep hearing about how StubSensor is so useful...but I can't figure out how to use it! Is there code I have to run, or something form-based like CatScan?? How do I get there from here? Curiously, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thanks for noticing that - I was actulally trying to add a comment to the footy-stub debate. Not sure what happened there... Grutness...wha? 09:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the Republic of the Congo stub, its geo and their categories. However, I don't know how to do the instructions you put for them on on the stub proposals. If you could do them, that would be greatly appreaciated.--Thomas.macmillan 20:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Speedy delete seems in order. --Thomas.macmillan 01:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the category page for this as well, but since you were the person who created the category and stub, I would like to ask if WikiProject Minnesota State Highways could maintain the stub category. Also, could I change the image to a Minnesota State Highway shield. I could see that changing the image on the stub might make it sound like it was only for state highways in Minnesota, so if that is a problem, I understand. --Station Attendant 03:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the creation of {{Prowrestling-bio-stub}} and the addition of it to WPSS's To-Do list, I created the type and added the entries to the list. Although proposals for new stub types are recommended before their creation, it looks like they're only suggested as per WP:STUB. I created the type after discussion on WP:PW.

I was looking for a way to get the stubs sorted and adding an entry to WPSS's To-Do list seemed like the way to go - the list didn't say anything about having to go through a particular process to add anything so I went ahead and added it. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alaibot seems to have miscategorized [Beijing This Month] from magazine to trade magazine. It isn't a trade mag. Is that an error, or am I misreading the cat? Shannonr 15:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that {{Minnesota-road-stub}} says, "This Minnesota road or road transport-related article is a stub. You can stub Wikipedia by expanding it." Is the objective to stub Wikipedia, or to help it? I'm assuming it's a typo.

If it needs to be changed, would you do me a favor and make the change? I'm no longer being bold on Minnesota highway articles, mainly because User:SPUI wants it to be known that he's the expert on all highway articles. In other words, if he decides one of my edits is wrong, then it's wrong. I'd prefer it for someone with more authority than myself -- and a better editing record -- to make changes in these instances. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an edit of mine because of several things you deemed unnecessary - which is fine. I felt it a suggestion. The problem that I have is several other stub templates for the highway WikiProjects

(here are three examples)

{{NewYork-State-Highway-stub}}

{{Pennsylvania-State-Highway-stub}}

{{Vermont-road-stub}}

IMHO we should be consistent with this. If the WI stub (and West Virginia as another example) are to be as such, they should all be as such. Just a suggestion. Thank you. --master_son^{Lets talk} 01:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused. What's wrong with the link to Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub? The link to Wikipedia:WikiProject New York State routes seems useful too. Powers ^T 19:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I should have checked Wikipedia:Find and fix a stub before mentioning it. =) As for the WikiProject link, that's fair enough, but I'm curious why you removed it from {{NewYork-State-Highway-stub}} and not {{California-State-Highway-stub}}. Powers ^T 11:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was mostly worried about consistency. =) Powers ^T 15:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not a problem - there are plenty more stub templates for state highways that don't meet that anymore - see Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Stub templates --master_son^{Lets talk} 05:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create any new classifications... I only created one stub category for a template that was dumping everything into the parent cat... yeah I'll get back to stubs soon once the NC mess is over. Sorry about the mess that is at U.S. road stubs... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to take the time to get back to you, I've been away.

I estimate that there are about another 730 Swiss municipalities to create. It's no problem to modify my article creation tool to places them in a subcategory such as Category:Vaud geography stubs, and any appropriate further subcategories to be created. I do however notice that there is some inconsistency with the naming conventions: Category:Canton of Berne geography stubs and Category:Aargau geography stubs, for example. Can we agree on some standard naming scheme for these sub-categories? Regards, BillC 17:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done like dinner. Aelfthrytha 20:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you moved back Bressa to Brescia. We share the same motivations, so it's funny this eventually led to opposite conclusions. You can find 'Bressa' in the Oxford dictionary, and, as far as I know, it's a widespreadly accepted English name (maybe only UK?). Thus I think we shouldn't use a stranger name. Surprisingly enough, I found only this evidence in the web:

• [3]

So I am afraid I have to insist upon Bressa. No rush, however; we could try a mediation as well. And, most important, before settling this question, I plan to write some articles. Nevertheless, I will interpret yoour silence as consent. Sincerely yours, --Lombard06 14:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I didn't know about that matter (I am able to read a little bit Lombard wikipedia, but I didn't find anything about this: nor seems it yet as reliable as English wikipedia: it's only one year old, according to its main page...). Maybe -just for this reason- it seems better walking away from that, at least for a while. But, (if you know) how should it be pronounced Brèsa (maybe /BrEza/? SAMPA). I am confused, so I have decided to go on to write articles about other subjects. Many thanks, --Lombard06 07:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alai, I would like to add that... I am not Lombard! Lombard is my surname. Now I plan writing elsewhere; perhaps when dealing with Lombard things, a more neutral username (Smith?) would be better. Best regards--Lombard06 13:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you are not LDS. In the spirit of my user name, I am concerned about the impression that innuendo and missing information give regarding the LDS temple. I have proposed some additional content on the referenced page, and I would appreciate (should you feel what I have done has any merit) your support. Agape bright 00:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about any of them, including Stub Sense (which I hear about all the time on WPSS. Could you give me some clues? Every edit I've done has been done manually and I'm looking for a way to speed it up. Aelfthrytha 06:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]