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 sent to sfd.
I apologise, when I made this stub I did not know that I had to list it here, so it at the moment exists, but I will delete it if the general consensus is against it existing. Please note that while there is an existing category Category:Bulgaria geography stubs, the aim of this stub is to differentiate between settlement, i.e cities, towns and villages, (of which there is a lot of articles), and geography related articles. The idea being that articles like Climate of Bulgaria and Petrevene are not classified in the same category. It will also allow us to focus on specific types of articles better. There are considerably over 60 possible articles for this template. - P.Marlow (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I've moved this stray entry to the top of the list, fixed a formatting error, and signed the entry for the user. - Dravecky (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

...and I've already listed it at WP:SFD in any case. Geographical stubs are always divided by subregion, never by type of geographical feature. Climate of Bulgaria should not be a Bulgaria-geo-stub anyway, since the Climate of Bulgaria is not a specific location in Bulgaria - it's a Bulgaria-stub and a climate-stub (the template makes it clear that - similar to all other geo-stubs - this is for Bulgarian locations). BTW, for those of you keen to think on the next split, Bulgaria is getting fairly close to a geo-split at around 550 stubs. There are 28 provinces, which would seem to be the standard split. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 27 November 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.
Category is creeping up, there appears to be 60+ articles for {{Australia-law-bio-stub}} and either Category:Australian law biography stubs or Category:Australian jurist stubs. Waacstats (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for "law biography" - jurist is one of those annoying words that the Americans use differently from (than?!) nearly everyone else - a usage that's slowly creeping in in countries like Australia, I think. Trying to use it as a uniform term across different countries is going to cause confusion. Grutness...wha? 22:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Not even the Americans use "jurist" in any sensible or consistent way, and when they do use it, it's not typically with the scope that the categories purport. IMO the term has no business at all in the category namespace, either perm or stub. CFD 'em all, I say. In the meantime, support Category:Australian law biography stubs. Alai (talk) 05:19, 23 November 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.
still sorting through these and the following will be viable Category:United States field hockey biography stubs and {{US-fieldhockey-bio-stub}}. Waacstats (talk) 20:54, 22 November 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.
I've had a bit of a run on these today (slow day at work, no?), and between politicians and soccer play...er, "footballers", as you folk have it, there are now 62 stubs ready for a category of their very own. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 21:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - good work that man. Grutness...wha? 22:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Danke much. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 00:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Support Count Blofeld 22:18, 7 November 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 with Grenada, so with the Seychelles today. Should be a little north of 70, now I'm done with the soccer-footballers and parliamentarians. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 22:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Support you stub creating devil! Count Blofeld 22:19, 7 November 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.
Both these categories are over 700. the following should help reduce the sizes

• {{US-waterpolo-bio-stub}} - Category:United States water polo biography stubs (40 articles)
  • {{US-waterpolo-Olymipc-medalist-stub}} - Category:United States water polo Olympic medalist stub (61 articles)
• {{US-rowing-Olymipc-medalist-stub}} - Category:United States rowing Olympic medalist stub (103 articles) this would leave the US-rowers a bit small 10-20 articles

2 others that would pick a handfull each out of the US-sportspeople are

• {{US-wrestling-bio-stub}} - Category:United States sports wrestler stubs
• {{US-prowrestling-bio-stub}} - Category:United States professional wrestler stubs

Waacstats (talk) 16:08, 6 November 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.
Creeping up to 700 the following are all viable

• {{Australia-fieldhockey-bio-stub}} - Category:Australian field hockey biography stubs (77 articles)
• Category:Australian tennis biography stubs (80 articles)
• Category:Australian cycling biography stubs (63 articles)

the last two already have upmerged templates but the last one would leave Category:Oceanian cycling biography stubs with 15-20 articles only. Waacstats (talk) 16:08, 6 November 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.
A mountain-article-creating editor got Liechtenstein up to 57 geo-stubs, and I created a final three (it was like pulling teeth... it's a tiny place). So this is now a speediable geo-stub cat. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose speedy. It took you guys long enough, you should all wait another five days in penance! Or in Grutness's case, pennants! Alai (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • (Grutness runs away, whimpering slightly) Grutness...wha? 06:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC) "pennants"... ergh! :p
  • Penance or Penzance? 87.242.138.175 (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Cornwall's probably nicer in summer than in November :) Grutness...wha? 11:25, 6 November 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.
{{Russia-chess-bio-stub}} has over 60 articles speedy propose the above cat.Waacstats (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• No surprises as to the first country to get split out, then. Though it looks like the Germans are slightly more numerous, and the UK is already viable. US is getting close, Poles, Israelis and Hungarians also large. As the parent is quite large, not too early to create cats for the former, and upmerged templates for the latter. Alai (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Second country, the US is already split out, the problem may be that alot of chess players seem to have multiple nationalities (last time I went through 1 guy had 5 nationalites, may explain why Americans are showing up in the parent). Waacstats (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Pesky wonky sort keys... Sorry, as you were, the second. It could also be just undersorting... I'll see if I can re-check for unique nationalities. Alai (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
      • By my count, there are 59 "uniquely German" players, and less of each of the others. Upmerged templates would still seem like a plan, though. Alai (talk) 16:17, 5 November 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.
Creeping up in size propose the following categories

• Category:Central America political party stubs
• Category:Caribbean political party stubs
• Category:Oceania political party stubs
• Category:United States political party stubs
• {{Mexico-party-stub}}

with as many upmerged by nation templates as people can muster otherwise continental tempaltes. Waacstats (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support all. Grutness...wha? 22:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support Count Blofeld 11:05, 8 November 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 below started splitting but never finished propose we continue along by state axis, upmerged to regions. Waacstats (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Grutness...wha? 22:36, 4 November 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.
We seem to have started splitting this by state templates upmerged to regional categories. As the cat is closing in on 800 propose we finish splitting along this axis. Waacstats (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Grutness...wha? 22:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support ~ digx t·c 21:26, 6 November 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.
US sportspeople is creeping up this should take out some of those add in those that have won Olympic medals and we will get to 60. Waacstats (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Grutness...wha? 22:36, 4 November 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.
Anouther category over 750 propose we split out the agencies -police forces etc

• {{Law-enforcement-agency-stub}} - Category:Law enforcement agency stubs
• {{US-law-enforcement-agency-stub}} - Category:United States law enforcement agency stubs
• {{UK-law-enforcement-agency-stub}} - Category:United Kingdom law enforcement agency stubs- not sure this will reach 60 so template first

also we could split out the bios

• {{Law-enforcement-bio-stub}} - Category:Law enforcement biography stubs
• {{US-law-enforcement-bio-stub}}
• {{UK-law-enforcement-bio-stub}}

I am sure these last 2 would reach 60 given a good search of other categories but one stetp at a time. Waacstats (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign earlier)

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.
Over 700 ( a proposal below will help this) and the following all seem viable, not necessarily 60 articles from this cat but from various. templates first to double check that there are 60 then categories.

• {{France-poet-stub}} - Category:French poet stubs
• {{Germany-poet-stub}} - Category:German poet stubs
• {{Russia-poet-stub}} - Category:Russian poet stubs
• {{Poland-poet-stub}} - Category:Polish poet stubs
• {{China-poet-stub}} - Category:Chinese poet stubs

Deliberatly scoped as China not PRC to follow writer parent. Waacstats (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support all. Most of the Chinese ones may well be pre-PRC/RoC anyway.Grutness...wha? 22:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had already proposed this too??? Count Blofeld 22:18, 7 November 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.
I dislike Splitting UK categories by home nation but atleast this one makes some sense in that scotland has it's own legal system. Scottish parent currently over 750

• {{Scotland-law-bio-stub}} - Category:Scottish law biography stubs

currently alot of these a triple stubbed with UK-law-bio, scotland-bio and scotland-law. Waacstats (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support all. Grutness...wha? 22:36, 4 November 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.
looks like alot of US rapid transit articles, propose we create

• {{US-metro-stub}} - Category:United States rapid transit stubs
• {{BART-stub}} (Bay Area) (40 articles)
• {{Muni-metro-stub}} (San Francisco) (42 articles)
• {{Chicago-metro-stub}} - Category:Chicago transit authority stubs (101 articles
• {{LACMTA-stubs}} - Category:Los Anglese County meto rail stubsCategory:Los Angeles County metro rail stubs (65 articles)

Waacstats (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support - but check your spelling! Is that really how LA County is spelt? Grutness...wha? 22:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Any more spelling mistakes. Waacstats (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    • "The Angels", not "The English" - an easy mistake to make :) I'm a little concerned with "Muni", given that Muni is a dab page, but SanFranciscoMunicipalRailway-stub would be pretty horrible. Would it perhaps be better to combine the Muni and BART ones into a SanFrancisco-metro-stub? It would make for a viable category... Grutness...wha? 00:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
      • The two have seperate perm cats but I can't see a problem. Waacstats (talk) 09:20, 5 November 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 do not create.
There are already over 100 articles in the cloud computing category and many more yet to be added and/or created. Currently new cloud computing articles end up inappropriately tagged as computer-stubs, web-software-stubs, internet-stubs, etc. (or a combination). Articles like Mosso (cloud computing) are good examples of where things go wrong (this is a company, web host, storage and infrastructure article, typical of many cloud computing providers). I was going to propose an upmerged stub initially but there doesn't appear to be an appropriate category to upmerge into. -- samj _in^out 06:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Not too sure any of those are "inappropriate", but if there are a significant number for which this would be more appropriate, be more useful, would improve consistency of tagging, could be a good plan. One possibility would be to look at whether a Category:Distributed computing stubs type would be viable, and upmerge there. Alai (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Not a bad idea, but distributed computing != cloud computing. 84.72.91.139 (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not suggesting they're "==" (if we must speak in C), but that distributed computing is a broader, more inclusive topic. Hence the logic of upmerging to that target. Alai (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Right but distributed computing is about parallellism - others have said that centralized computing is a better analogy. Are we saying then that we need to upmerge into something rather than create a new stub type? -- samj _in^out 22:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm unclear on the need, either way: the proposal doesn't make a clearcut case as to numerical viability (and indeed, mentions an upmerged template). Doing it that way would allow us to play it by ear, and create the category on later reflection, once it's clearer how many articles this would be the most appropriate tag for, and/or after further articles have come into being. Alai (talk) 22:52, 18 November 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.
Neither parent is oversized but both are over 700, this would cut both back (tempalte at {{Canada-poet-stub}}. Waacstats (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds very sensible. Assuming numerically viable, speediable. Alai (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Catscan gives 200 poets under Canadian people stubs
    • Coff. We'll be re-splitting these soon enough, then! Alai (talk) 16:48, 3 November 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.
three templates that have passed 60 propose the categories

• {{Devon-struct-stub}} - Category:Devon building and structure stubs
• {{GreaterManchester-struct-stub}} - Category:Greater Manchester building and structure stubs
• {{Ukraine-Olympic-medalist-stub}} - Category:Ukrainian Olympic medalist stubs

Waacstats (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy, of course. Alai (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy. One query though - why does Greater Manchester use {{GreaterManchester-struct-stub}} when it uses {{Manchester-geo-stub}} and {{Manchester-railstation-stub}}? Is some renaming in order, one way or the other? Grutness...wha? 21:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Usual left-hand/right-hand disjunct, one assumes. I'd recommend we standardise at GreaterManchester-, but keep redirects at Manchester-, since our Manchester article is on the City of, not the metropolitan county. It's conceivable we might end up some stub types specific to the narrower scope at some point, though I wouldn't think it would be any time soon. Alai (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I think it would be best to standardise at GreaterManchester, I wouldn't think of the likes of Oldham, Bolton and Stockport as Manchester. Waacstats (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
        • OK - I'll pop them over to SFD. I've also made a "Greater-free" redirect for the struct-stub. Grutness...wha? 23:33, 3 November 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.
Another large moth family. Am going to be so bold as to speedy. Alai (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, pesky blue links... Some confusion as to whether this is a butterfly or a moth, perhaps. What's more, this will very soon be oversized, so we'll have yet another issue of resplitting by subfamily or tribe. Alai (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here we go:

• Theclinae 104
• Polyommatinae 84
• Lycaeninae 67
• Polyommatini 63

I've also dropped a note over at the obvious WPJ. Alai (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strike the Polyommatini, they're a tribe of the Polyommatinae. Alai (talk) 05:26, 2 November 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.
Already large, will be significantly oversized if the Category:Moth stubs are re-sorted. Huge number of articles on entire genera, so we can't split at that level. If there are feasible subfamilies or tribes, I'd have no idea what they'd be. Alai (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• In this case, the subfamilies appear to be: Arctiinae, Lithosiinae and fr:Syntominae. Alai (talk) 18:38, 2 November 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.
Oversized. Looks like this will be splittable by either state, or by taxon. I'd be happy with either: is there a WPJ we could run this past? Alai (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Unless there is and they object, taxon would probably make more sense - even in a place as varied as Ausatralia, many plants exist in more than one state. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The only links to it that I can find are... from TFD and our very own /D. I'll drop the creator a line, for starters. Alai (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Australian biota is inactive; but anyone with an interest in this topic will have seen it on my talk page. Grutness is right that many plant occur in more than one state. I'll get back to you with some data/suggestions on initiating a split by taxon. Hesperian 02:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn't necessarily rule out a split by state, depending on how extensive such overlap is, and whether the "differential editing" on that basis would be productive. Anyhoo, the by-taxon categories look somewhat like this:

• Category:Rosids of Australia 425
• Category:Asterids of Australia 224
• Category:Myrtales of Australia 159
• Category:Trees of Australia 150
• Category:Carnivorous plants of Australia 137
• Category:Fabales of Australia 126
• Category:Proteales of Australia 117
• Category:Asterales of Australia 99
• Category:Lamiales of Australia 95
• Category:Sapindales of Australia 61
• Category:Monocots of Australia 61

With a couple of non-taxons thrown in to keep things interesting. Alai (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You're ignoring subcategory membership in the counts above. There is now an up-to-date table showing category tree membership at User:Hesperian/Sandbox. Hesperian 03:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I most certainly am not. Are you by any chance counting the whole categories, rather than just the AU-plant-stubs? Alai (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am; my misunderstanding; we are headed in different directions. Hesperian 04:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Anyhoo, point being that an Australia-<taxon>-stub for any of the above would, on the face of it, be numerically viable. How many (and which) of them to create would be something of a judgement call, or indeed matter of taste. Alai (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

How about

• Australia-plant-stub (~220 members)
  • Australia-eudicot-stub (117 members)
    • Australia-rosid-stub (425 members)
    • Australia-asterid-stub (224 members)

The 117 members of Australia-eudicot-stub would be the ones listed under Proteales above, Proteales being eudicots but neither rosids nor asterids. Hesperian 04:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fairly sensible to me. It leaves the rosids rather large, but that's only a real worry if the category is likely to grow rapidly. (As it were.) Alai (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Melburnian (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Shall I get cracking then, or is there a protocol to be followed? Hesperian 22:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's probably best to wait the official five days, just in case there are any violent objections - this isn't really speediable given that there were several distinct options - but what's been suggested looks pretty fair to me, too. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Roger that. Hesperian 23:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In theory one should wait five days from the start of the discussion, though the world won't end if one doesn't. Though it might be worth waiting a while longer, in case anyone else notices the discussion and wants to chime in. There's also the issue of whether we'll need more types than this in short order: see my above question above the rosids in particular are likely to increase significantly in number. Alai (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What is a ball-park figure for a stub category being considered "overpopulated"? If 425 members is thought to be too large or almost so, I have no objection to us splitting Myrtales and/or Fabales from the rosids. Hesperian 00:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for appearing on WP:WSS/T is 800. (To declare an interest, it's generally me that updates that portion of that page. 600 has also been suggested as a figure for "too big".) 425 is fine for the moment, especially if it's likely to only grow slowly from there, but if it's likely to be twice the size in a mere trice, we might want to get out in front, rather than be back here soon, and double-handling many of the stubs involved. Alai (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is likely to be at least a year, probably a couple of years, before we have 800 Australia-rosid-stubs... unless Melburnian takes this sentence as a challenge. :-) I vote we leave it unsplit for now. Hesperian 02:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Absent anyone audibly taking up the challenge, that's good enough for me. Heaven knows, maybe someone will actually expand some of them! Alai (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Splitting by taxonomy is a lot better idea than by state that's for sure. With differing bottom levels as Hesp suggests. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Australia-eudicot-stub}}, {{Australia-rosid-stub}} and {{Australia-asterid-stub}} created and populated. There is just a little bit of cleaning up left and I'll be done here. Hesperian 22:16, 11 November 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.
Not exactly desperate but definitly viable given we already have a basketball and baseball templates, I propose {{PuertoRico-boxing-bio-stub}} and {{PuertoRico-sport-bio-stub}} templates be added. Waacstats (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough. Go for it. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 2 November 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 last of New Zealand's regions to have its own geo-stub category(not technically true - two are grouped together, but to all intents and purposes it's true) has finally reached 60 geo-stubs. Speediable, presumably? Grutness...wha? 11:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed. Alai (talk) 15:42, 1 November 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.
medical biography stubs are large and although this wouldn't have ben the first country I would have thought of, this appears to be viable according to catscan Waacstats (talk) 23:56, 30 November 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.
Starting to get a good number of swedish people this one looks viable according to Catscan. Waacstats (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Can't believe this hasn't been created yet? 60 scientists from Sweden? Rather more like 60,000 Count Blofeld 14:23, 1 December 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.
starting to increase in size, first page appears to be units so propose.

• {{UK-mil-unit-stub}} - Category:United Kingdom military unit and formation stubs

Waacstats (talk) 22:39, 30 November 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.
propose we split this along the same lines as those North of the border.

• {{US-icehockey-coach-stub}}
• {{US-icehockey-player-stub}} - Category:United States ice hockey player stubs
  • {{US-icehockey-centre-stub}}
  • {{US-icehockey-defenceman-stub}} - Category:United States ice hockey defenceman stubs
  • {{US-icehockey-goaltender-stub}}
  • {{US-icehockey-winger-stub}} - Category:United States ice hockey winger stubs

Waacstats (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Equally surprised this hasn't been done yet Count Blofeld 14:24, 1 December 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.
getting close to 700 and growing, propose split by decade of birth upmerged to centuries if need be. Waacstats (talk) 16:58, 30 November 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.
2 templates have over 60 stubs propose speedy create

• {{US-screen-actor-1930s-stub}} - Category:American screen actor, 1930s birth stubs
• {{US-screen-actor-1910s-stub}} - Category:American screen actor, 1910s birth stubs

Waacstats (talk) 16:58, 30 November 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 upmerged sensor-stub.
I propose this as a sub-category of {{tech-stub}} to provide a category for all stub articles relating to sensor systems, such as radar and sonar systems, IR cameras, electro-optic sensors, etc. At the moment there is no obvious place to look for sensors-related stubs and no obvious place to put them other than under the generic technology stub. Radar itself has well over 150 articles, many of which are stubs. Paul (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• There's a bit of confusion between templates and categories in the above but... Category:Technology stubs could certainly do with splitting further - it's very oversized at about 1300 stubs. This sounds like a reasonable way of doing it, as long as it doesn't cross through the subcategories already there. If it doesn't, I'd certainly support an upmerged template (which should be at {{sensor-stub}}, BTW, using the singular rather than the plural), and once it reaches 60 stubs, a category (Category:Sensor stubs) would also be good. I'd just like more input from those who'd know whether this crosses existing stub types first... Grutness...wha? 09:39, 29 November 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.
Well over 60 stubs. Should soon be well over 120 Count Blofeld 22:49, 28 November 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.
{{Ukraine-party-stub}} has over 60 articles propose speedy speedy creation of category. Waacstats (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Count Blofeld 11:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support as Category:Ukrainian political party stubs, and likewise rename siblings for the avoidance of Stub Grammar(TM). Alai (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support as Category:Ukraine political party stubs per normal stub naming (permcats are at "X in Foo", so stubcat should be at "Foo X stubs" - it's only if the perrmcats are at "Fooian X" that we normally use "Fooian X stubs"). Nothing to do with your favourite neologism of "Stub Grammar (TM)" (not so much of a neologism, really, given how frequently you trot it out) - just a standardised way of naming things that makes plenty of sense. If the permcats don't use "Fooian", there's often a very good reason why they don't - a reason which we're likely to run foul of if we use it for stub cats. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not a neologism, it's a descriptive phrase. One can determine this by a) counting the number of words, and b) looking them all up in a dictionary. That such torturing of category naming -- not to say the English language -- could be mischaracterised as "normal" underlines the ongoing need for its deployment. Same applies to "standardised": we perfectly sensibly have Category:Ukrainian building and structure stubs, not Category:Ukraine buildings and structures stubs: same logic appears here. Likewise, Category:Ukrainian history stubs. Your alleged standard doesn't exist in /NG, it doesn't exist as such on the ground, and it doesn't follow normal usage. We should be rowing in the direction of actual normality. Alai (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes the thing is it can be confusing when the templates read e.g {Ukraine-struct-stub} and then the category reads {Ukrainian building and structure stubs}. It usually isn't to us lot as we are usually well acquainted with how stub/cats are named but if I wasn't I would probably get them mixed up Count Blofeld 11:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Though of course we always use the noun form in stub template elements, even in cases like the people stubs, where the permcats are at -ian/-ish/etc adjectival forms (including in cases like the UK/US, sadly, which is another issue that we've never managed to completely resolve). So there's always going to be that disconnect, at least in some cases. But since one isn't having to remember the category names off the top of one's head for most purposes, this isn't as inconvenient as it could be (and indeed, is, when trying to remember the exact form of a permcat, when trying to add that directly). Alai (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have created this at the proposed title as the parent is over 800 and there has been no discussion for 10 days, if it needs changing I consider it part of the SFD that was opened regarding the Foo party stubs. Waacstats (talk) 16:22, 12 December 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 mass media stubs.
Strange that this doesn't exist. Various other media-related stub cats exist, such as Category:India media stubs and Category:Florida media stubs.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Those tend to exist largely for "lumping" purposes (or when people have gone off on a flyer, and created them regardless). I think a {{media-stub}} template would be counterproductive, so that would leave it as a container. Alai (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• No objection to it as a container only, per Alai. HOWEVER - and it's a big however (hence the caps), this is the wrong name. It should match the permcat as Category:Mass media stubs - and all Category:Fooian media stubs category should also be moved to the equivalent mass media name. when I first saw the heading, I though "shouldn't that be art media?", so there's clearly scope for confusion. (I'll propose the Fooian ones at SFD). Grutness...wha? 05:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah spod - it's much more complex than I though. The main category is Category:Mass media but all the country-specific types are at Category:Fooian media. I'll leave a note at WP talk:CFD, see if anyone thinks its worth a mass rename... The current proposal here should still be at Category:Mass media stubs, though. Grutness...wha? 06:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with it used as only a sorting tool for other media-related stubs.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I've created the stub as Category:Mass media stubs. However, I am finding it difficult to find stub categories to include within. Take a look and see if you can think of any of the missing.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 17:02, 28 November 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.
Template over 60, European sports venue stubs over 800. Speedy!? Waacstats (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Support. I would also look a tthe others if I was you and find ways that the 800 could be split. I'd probably recommend creating templates by country and upmerging the ones that aren't viable. Count Blofeld 16:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the countries with over 30 articles already have a template. Waacstats (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's some additional counts:

• Category:Sports venues in Ukraine 36
• Category:Sports venues in Belgium 30
• Category:Sports venues in the Republic of Ireland 26
• Category:Sports venues in Hungary 24
• Category:Sports venues in Luxembourg 23
• Category:Sports venues in Croatia 20
• Category:Sports venues in Bosnia and Herzegovina 17
• Category:Sports venues in Belarus 16
• Category:Sports venues in Iceland 14
• Category:Sports venues in Slovenia 14
• Category:Sports venues in Estonia 14
• Category:Sports venues in Montenegro 14
• Category:Sports venues in the Republic of Macedonia 14
• Category:Sports venues in the Faroe Islands 11
• Category:Sports venues in Lithuania 10
• Category:Sports venues in Moldova 9

I suggest we create regional subcats, in line with the UN geoscheme. Alai (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, should finally get it off the oversized list. (Have we split any other euro cat by UN geoscheme?) Waacstats (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of (Asia and Africa yes, Europe no). It's a shame we have to resort to that here, but I can't see any other easy option. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes that looks like the best course of action. According to Patken only Ireland can hit 60 Count Blofeld 16:51, 21 November 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.
While this is a bit hard to count since it has not been sorted, there are about 40 radio station articles for SA, 40 newspapers not to mention the books, broadcasting and other articles in Category:South African media.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds OK to me; suggest separate templates for each medium. Alai (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  Should easily be viable. Yes seperate templates would be advisable. Count Blofeld 16:36, 14 November 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 category Category:African football club stubs has about 754 articles.

Create {{Egypt-footyclub-stub}}, possibly as upmerged. The category Category:Egyptian football clubs has about 25 articles, most of which are stubs.

Create {{SouthAfrica-footyclub-stub}}, possibly as upmerged. The category Category:South African football clubs has 38 articles, some of which are stubs. Some other African countries should probably have their own stubs. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Certainly it looks like a few country-specific templates would be useful (though I must admit it would be daunting to suddenly have 50-60 new stub templates needing creation). All of them would probably been upmerged for now - I doubt any would reach 60 stubs - though it may be worth cranking out five regional subcategories for north, southern, east, west, and central Africa. Grutness...wha? 22:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Here's the top 15 by-country populations, according to permcat-population:
  • Category:Moroccan football clubs 57
  • Category:Nigerian football clubs 42
  • Category:Mozambican football clubs 36
  • Category:Football clubs of the Democratic Republic of the Congo 33
  • Category:Tunisian football clubs 32
  • Category:Algerian football clubs 32
  • Category:Libyan football clubs 30
  • Category:Guinea-Bissau football clubs 24
  • Category:Cameroonian football clubs 23
  • Category:Sierra Leonean football clubs 21
  • Category:Senegalese football clubs 19
  • Category:Malian football clubs 19
  • Category:Kenyan football clubs 19
  • Category:Egyptian football clubs 19
  • Category:Togolese football clubs 18
• Surely someone can shove Morocco over the top... I've no objection to regional subcats, provided we use the UN geoscheme. Alai (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Nigeria I think you'd find could probably go over the top too Count Blofeld 16:26, 9 November 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 with the parent so the child, this one is creeping up, the following seem viable

• Category:Serbia political party stubs (with or without Kosovan parties)

Denmark and Ukraine both seem close enough for templates and possibly categories if a few extra can be found elsewhere, templates for any other countries to help future splits. Waacstats (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest we do not include Kosovar political parties in this category.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 17:44, 4 November 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.
Having just listed a couple of new country-rugbyunion-bio-stubs at WSS/D, I was surprised at some that are missing - I'd like to propose the following upmerged templates, all of which are currently half-way to threshold or more:

• {{Italy-rugbyunion-bio-stub}}
• {{Japan-rugbyunion-bio-stub}}
• {{Romania-rugbyunion-bio-stub}}
• {{Samoa-rugbyunion-bio-stub}}
• {{Tonga-rugbyunion-bio-stub}}

Grutness...wha? 00:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support upmerged <any country that's been heard of playing>-rugbyunion-bio-stub templates. Alai (talk) 03:43, 8 November 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.
While sorting Category:Asian football biography stubs, found over 60 of these. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• I see no reason not to have the remaining templates in Asia and categories for any including this one that reach 60. Waacstats (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Yes I'd support the creation of the remaining Asian templates. If they are not all viable for categories let me know. For some reason though playing football in Hong Kong seems unusual, I tend to think they only love martial arts there! Count Blofeld 16:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • You're slipping, o bald evil one! Easier than letting you know which ones aren't going to reach 60 is our standard system - make the templates upmerged, then only break out categories once they reach 60. And yeah, football's not the first sport you think of with hong Kong (martial arts, table tennis, rugby sevens, even cricket... but not football). Grutness...wha? 21:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What I meant is that some stubs could be created to make the categories viable Count Blofeld 12:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah right - misunderstood - sorry :) Grutness...wha? 22:06, 26 November 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.
Currently, {{Renewable-energy-stub}} has about 250 articles, and most of them seem to be dedicated to wind farms or other renewable power plants. This makes it hard to find stubs for anything else related to renewable energy, such as standards or techniques. It may make sense to have a dedicated wind-farm-plant-stub, too. — Sebastian 06:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted. Seems a sensible move although it might be worth looking into how many we have for each energy medium. I would suggest creating templates by each medium e.g {{HydroElectric-power-plant-stub}} and feeding them into a Category:Renewable power plant stubs category? Sound reasonable anybody? Count Blofeld 11:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but it would be better at {{Hydroelectric-power-plant-stub}} - the E doesn't need to be capitalised Grutness...wha? 22:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC) (who drove past at least four major hydroelectric plants last week)

So is it "plant" or "plants"? — Sebastian 08:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Plant, both for template and category. (Hope you don't mind, Dr. B, but I corrected the redlink in your comment). Grutness...wha? 21:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Made the templates and cats. Please take a look at Category:Renewable power plant stubs and subcategories and see if I did it correctly, since this is the first time I created stub cats and templates. — Sebastian 03:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much right - well done. I removed one redundant parent category from the H/E one (the Environment one - given that its' a subtype of the Renewable energy one which has Environment stubs as a parent, it was unnecessary "double-dipping"). Grutness...wha? 05:36, 8 December 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 do not create.
WikiProject Halloween was created because Halloween-related articles may fall into categories of holidays, festivals, horror, songs, books . . . and many fall through the cracks of other categories because they are of low importance. Category:Stub-Class Halloween articles has 31 articles, and it is very likely that more will be identified as we dig deeper.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 16:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The risk of this is that it becomes extreme cross-category, not to say unrelated to primary notability. For example, your SCA category currently includes Halloween hermit crab and Halloween crab, which I do not imagine would be likely to see much expansion from Halloween WPJers. If there are 30 articles that are primarily to do with Halloween -- and are actually stubs, come to that -- this may be reasonable. Alai (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of the articles were assigned based on the DYK Halloween 2008 project, and yes, not all of them have quite a strong association with Halloween. Halloween does draw together a number of elements not normally associated, however, and those examples aside the articles tagged by the WikiProject will continue to be somewhat eclectic, covering television, parades, music, and customs.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 19:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I had a few minutes and identified another ten articles that fall within the scope, and I do not think you'll find any of the new additions to be as questionable in your judgment as Halloween crab. I expect that the number could easily reach 100 with enough effort.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 19:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well why not actually propose it when these missing articles have been added. Are you sure they are all notable? Perhaps we'd take your word for it then. Count Blofeld 22:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I understand the question about notability. All articles in Wikipedia must be on notable subjects.

The stub tag would be useful now, as it could be used to automatically populate the category. I find that laying the groundwork in advance saves a lot of work later, but I don't know if that's how the process best works with stub sorting. If it's a no go that's fine, the project can function without a stub tag.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 02:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, If you've already got an assessment template (which, judging byb your comment about Stub-Class articles, you probably have), you've already got a template which does more for your project than a stub template could. Grutness...wha? 09:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't know what FWIW means, but I think I understand your meaning regardless. Thank you.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 23:35, 2 December 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.
Propose upmerge templates by country and create categories for those which are viable Count Blofeld 16:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

and any others people think are appropriate. Count Blofeld 16:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Go for it. Alai (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to do an assessment of the other countries to see what the existing vs potential figures are but I know there are also numerous other countries in Latin America and Asia and undoubtedly most other countries in Europe which have or had a number of botanists, certainly those which can be transwikied. Botany is a valid topic in itself and there are sure to be biographies from most places. I'll look into Latin America and Asia later but these are the ones that would seem sensible for now.

For example Estonian wikipedia has 28 biogrpahies which can be transwikied so even if we ar enot yet viable for categories for such countries we can safely assume creation of templates for most countries would not be a bad idea. OK I've done some more research and checking with Spanish wiki and what we have at present and the creation of these all seem sensible as there are a number of biographies that we have covered or will be covereed during the transwikiying I will be doing. Count Blofeld 17:51, 28 November 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 current category has over 600 stubs and probably some of the following are viable or soon will be for categories to accompany them but it seems sensible to create the following templates: Count Blofeld 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good plan. Waacstats (talk) 09:33, 2 December 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.
We have one for French Guianan geo stubs but nothing for general French Guiana articles or people. Probably viable for Category:French Guiana stubs too. Count Blofeld 21:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. About the time all such territories had their own generic stub templates at least. Support the cat, too, especially given that there's already a Category:French Guiana geography stubs. Grutness...wha? 22:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Suport and can we add to that a {{FrenchGuiana-politician-stub}}. Waacstats (talk) 10:13, 14 November 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.
A logical derivative of Category:Asian baseball stubs which I found doesn't exist. Most baseball bios are either sorted under national baseball stubs for Asia (i.e. Korea-baseball-stub) or for much of the rest of the world, with no nationality at all, but instead by position. Granted, the vast majority of baseball players today and throughout history are and were from the U.S., but just sorting through the categories we now have Japanese, Venezuelan and Cuban national baseball biography categories.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. By-country templates, please. Alai (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Currently going through all the pitchers the only Asian country I have seen without a category is Taiwan. I have no problem with templates, category if it reaches 60. Also suggest a template at the minumum for Australia and possibly Panama. Waacstats (talk) 23:33, 2 November 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.