Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2009/November

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting | Proposals | Archive | 2009
(Redirected from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2009/November)
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Salmankhanpisces in topic Proposals, November 2009


Proposals, November 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago87 comments16 people in discussion

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

If (after approval) you create a stub type, please be sure to add it to the list of stub types. This page will be archived in its entirety once all discussions have been closed; there is no need to move them to another page.

Split of Category:Portugal geography stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Nearing 1000,. Oversized. Recommend we create new templates by district and upmerge into regional categories until viable. The confusing thing is that some districts may overlap regions... Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Propose:


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

Category:Afghan politician stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Template is now used on over 60 articles - time to split out the cat, I'd say. Especially as I'm sure there are a few more lurking about - I've just added the template to four or five articles that didn't have it previously. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Himalayan 13:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And from me too - this one's speediable S1. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split of Category:European newspaper stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Category is approaching 600 and there seems to be more than enough articles for a by country split. Propose creating upmerged templates for those with under 60 articles and corresponding categories for those over 60.--TM 00:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Support templates by country and split when viable. Himalayan 13:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Category:2010s science fiction novel stubs and {{2010s-sf-novel-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
As 2010 is fast approaching, and more and more novels are known to be released in the upcoming year (many of the articles are already created), I think it would be good to create the support structure now for what will inevitably be a large category. They would have the same basic structure as Category:2000s science fiction novel stubs and {{2000s-sf-novel-stub}}. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Support template only for now. Category when there are 60 articles. Waacstats (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It's very likely there are 60. I haven't had time to go through the 200 or so articles in Category:2000s science fiction novel stubs to see which ones should actually be in Category:2010s science fiction novel stubs. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Support template definitely, if there are 60 then I also support speedying of a category with no further proposal necessary - the template can remain upmerged while sifuting is going on and be switched over to a new category with no fuss if the threshold is reached. Grutness...wha? 22:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I've create the stub and placed it on a few novel stub articles. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{NewZealand-sports-venue-stub}}/Category:New Zealand sports venue stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Looks like about half of the 100-odd stubs in Category:Oceanian sports venue stubs are in New Zealand, which suggests that a separate template at least would be a good idea. Catscan suggests there are 58 stubs, and I doubt it would be too difficult to find another two - so a separate category might be worthwhile, too. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

PS-I found two more which weren't marked, so there are 60 NZ ones and still 40+ left for the parent Oceania category. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support as per mulitple precedants. Waacstats (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Himalayan 13:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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

{{Bulgaria-writer-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Most are not stub sorted... Starzynka (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it might be worth checking to see what other templates we are missing by country for writers, especially Europe. Himalayan 13:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Category:Tanzanian sportspeople stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Potential category would contain more than 60 stubs based on current upmerging. Speedy?--TM 14:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(nods) Grutness...wha? 22:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK. Himalayan 13:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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

{{Cue-sports-vg-stub}} / Category:Cue sports video game stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
(or {{Cue-sports-videogame-stub}} if we want to be longwinded) Don't have 60 yet, but something like 1/3 of all cue sports non-bio stubs (that's a separate stubcat) are video games. Driving me nuts (I'm pretty much the only one who ever bothers looking at cue sports stubs, except maybe for User:Fuhghettaboutit, and I go looking for articles to watch and work on that are more important to the goals of WP:CUE). As for 60, there are certainly way more pool/billiards/snooker video games than that. I've noted at least 10 new ones released this year alone, for everything from Wii to mobile Java. Their swamping of Category:Cue sports stubs is only going to increase. Finally, it would be helpful to have these all in one place so I could point the video games WikiProject at them. Gamer editors work on these articles much, much more than cue sports editors do; in fact, I'm fairly certain that I'm the only regular cue sports editor to have ever touched a single one of these articles! The new stubcat would be a sub-cat of both the cue sports and relevant video games ("sports" and "simulation"?) stub cats., I suppose. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: Still finding more of them; many are not even classified under cue sports at all yet, just video games. I'll report findings when I get a chance, maybe afternoon (US Mountain Time) on Sun. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: 32 33 stub articles found for this category so far, now all classified in Category:Cue sports stubs, out of 75 total stubs in the category, plus 2 more in the Category:Snooker stubs subcategory. I have yet to even scratch the surface of looking in non-stub categories of existing sports, simulation, etc. video game articles for pages that should be tagged as stubs but which are not. There are also 2 or 3 redirects to article sections on videogames that are in articles on other videogames (preceding games in a series) that should be their own articles, plus there are 25 more redlinks to should-be stubs of this sort, listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Wanted cue sports miscellany#Video games – a list that could probably be tripled. Counting all of this stuff together, it's about 59 or 60, without yet looking for stubs that aren't stub tagged. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Revised 13:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: I have identified, but not yet catalog[u]ed close to two dozen new cue-sports-oriented Wii games and game accessories that can (surely will, given Wii's popularity) yield additional stub articles forthwith, just tooling around on Amazon.com for 10 mintues, and found a number of PC and PS games that were not yet listed in our to-do list. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

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

{{Japan-waterway-stub}} or {{Japan-river-stub}} / Category:Japan waterway stubs or Category:Japan river stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was do not create.
I'm leaning toward "waterway" as that would include canals and locks as well as rivers. There are currently about 72 river stub articles in Category:Rivers of Japan and its subcats. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose in proposed form. We deliberately don't have stub types for specific natural landforms - this has been a long-standing rule in stub-sorting. Rivers are simply marked with the relevant geo-stubs, in the same way that mountains, lakes, seas, hills, beaches, and valleys are. Canals, however, are another matter, since they're man-made and therefore technically struct-stubs rather than geo-stubs (the line between the two is a bit blurry, I'll admit). The correct name for that would be {{Japan-canal-stub}} - which, as the name suggests, would deliberately exclude rivers. Grutness...wha? 05:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Um...why? How are landforms any different than any other type of thing that gets a stub? They are physical objects (albeit very large in most cases); they are just as real as a state, country, car, building, person, or anything else that has a stub. Being able to sort them makes it easier to find specific types of stubby articles needing work. Additionally, I don't remember ever reading a rule anywhere that says stub types for natural landforms are verboten. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
You will if you check earlier versions of WP:STUB (e.g., here), which used to list rivers and mountains specifically as types not split out. These examples were removed when the page was streamlined (no-one was proposing those sorts of splits, so it seemed unnecessary to mention them, and removing them shortened the page). As to why, there are several reasons:
  1. splitting by nation then region means that all stubs get covered and split. Splitting out individual features will inevitably leave a small number which can't be split because there aren't enough of a specific type of feature, so it's not as neat from that point of view;
  2. it's more likely that with geography, editors will be more likely to know about their local geography than a specific type of natural feature worldwide, so splitting by region makes sense. This is less likely to be the case with structures, since certain types of construction and factors relating to use are likely to be used worldwide, so knowledge about these will be at least as useful, of not more so, than local knowledge;
  3. with many countries, there is such weighting towards stubs of a specific type of geographic feature that splitting stubs in this way makes no sense - splitting mountain-stubs out of switzerland-geo-stubs, for instance, would be of no use, since so many of the stubs are on mountains (this is also the reason why towns, villages, and cities aren't split out, since so many geo-stubs are related to inhabited places).
  4. it would also suggest that each country should have separate stub types of the same sort (which is what we're trying to achieve with a lot of stub types), so we'd be likely to either need such unlikely, little-used (or unused) stub types as Netherlands-mountain-stub and Mongolia-island-stub - either that or we'd end up with an overall Mountain stubs (or Island stubs) category which could never have everything permanently subdivided by nation. In contrast, all countries, no matter how small, have geography of some sort, so a standard geo-stub split by country again makes sense.
This is one of a number of types of stub-sorting which initially looks sensible, but which isn't as useful as it seems to editors or to stub sorters (e.g., sorting sportspeople by team, people by subnational region). Grutness...wha? 07:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with much of the reasoning behind this undocumented decision (especially the part where you indicate that all countries would basically be required to have a standard set of stubs even if they didn't have a particular feature (such as mountains in The Netherlands), but since this project maintains a de facto iron-fist stranglehold over stubs, my opinion on the issue won't really make any difference. I'll just drop it. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Grutness to a point. However I draw the line if there is an actual group of editors actively working specifically on say Japanese rivers and would find it more useful to work through the stub categories that way. In my view whatever helps get the articles de stubbed is the most important. If you can show me that a group of editors are working specially on Japanese rivers or lakes I might support. The problem of course though is that is will interfere with territorial geo structuring and in most cases is probably not a good idea as Grutness said with Switzerland etc.. Himalayan 14:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Himalayan Explorer. Cf. the similar cue sports video game proposal elsewhere on this page (I haven't been able to dig up 60 stubs yet, but putting them in their own bin would genuinely help both the cue sports and video games projects keep track of and improve the stubs on either side of the proposed divide). I wouldn't support a split in either case just to have a split for the heck of it, only if there was some evidence that it would be genuinely useful to active editors. While I (early on) had my own disagreements with the stub sorting "project" (I think it might as well just be called a WP process now, like the XfDs and RFA, i.e. Wikipedia:Stub sorting) and how it did things, I think "stranglehold" is a bit much. Grutness and other long-timers here have a method to their "madness", and it really does help keep stubs and their management viable and smooth. That said, H. Explorer has a prevailing point, which basically is grounded in our WP:IAR policy: If bureaucracy genuinely gets in the way of improving the encyclopedia, go around it. All that said, it's been my experience that few citations to IAR are actually necessary (discussion usually works better), and process is usually on-target provided it is flexible enough to handle outlying odd cases (which in my experience WPSS largely has been). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I've tried the IAR approach, and it never works. This project just tags the categories and templates for deletion and says they didn't approve them. The main issue I have here is that one project basically controls all stubs on Wikipedia, and woe be unto any editor who disagrees with them. It's very frustrating to have them basically tell me that it's their way or the highway in some cases. I don't mind them providing a basic structure for the creation of stubs, and offering support for keeping things organized, but it frustrates me that they often refuse to allow a project or other group to create a stub which would be useful to them just because they either don't like it for some reason or another, or they say that a project shouldn't have exclusive stubs (even though creating a stub for a project to use hardly prevents another editor from working on the stub). I'm not trying to be mean here, just to explain my sometimes frustration with this whole process. It often seems to be process for process' sake. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I can understand the frustration, but in order for stub-sorting to work across Wikipedia it is vital that there is some sort of weak, partial control. And it's not as if the "control" exercised by WP:WSS is particularly strong - 90% or more of the stubs created out of process are simply tidied and kept - it's only if there are problems with them that SFD comes into play. Similar forms of control (often muich stronger) are exercised in numerous other areas of Wikipedia. And let's face it, stub sorting isn't the only place where on the face of it there seems to be at times a lack of logic to what is and isn't allowed. There is logic there if you look more deeply, but you often need to examine the whole system overall to grasp why some things are done the way they are. It's worth remembering that stub types aren't for use by specific wikiprojects - they are for use across wikipedia by all editors. Realistically, there's no reason why any wikiproject should care one way or another whether there are specific stub templates for its area of expertise. If a Wikiproject wants to tag its articles, there's nothing to stop it doing just that with a talk-page banner - that's the entire reason that those templates exist. They are far more use to individual projects that stub templates, since they enable all articles relating to a subject to be tagged, not just stubs. The main reasons for stub templates to exist at all is that the majority of wikiupedian editors aren't members of wikiprojects and may still be looking for articles to edit. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Japan-protected-area-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
This would upmerge to Category:Asian protected area stubs until it had enough to have its own category. There are at least two other national-level stubs here as well. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I should note that I counted around 35 articles within just the category above which would use this stub, and I'm sure I can find others not currently in that category, too. Japan has quite a number of national and quasi-national parks which are not in this category, and many of those articles are currently stubs. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me - probably speediable, in fact. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Speedily created. If I find more than 60 articles that apply, is it okay to create a category Category:Japan protected area stubs to hold them? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't see any reason why not. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorting Category:Anime and manga stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
This category currently has over 1200 articles in it. I propose the following:

  1. {{Anime-magazine-stub}} and {{Manga-magazine-stub}} (which would redirect to the first one) templates to sort into Category:Anime and manga magazine stubs. There are about 70 articles I've found which could use this template, and there may be others I've not found yet.
  2. {{Anime-bio-stub}} which would sort into Category:Anime industry biography stubs. Biography stub articles in Category:Anime industry would be targeted with this stub. There are about 135 articles which would be affected.

There may be others, too, as I'm trying to find other commonalities between the articles remaining. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Split of {{India-politician-stub}} / Category:Indian politician stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.

The Indian politician stub cat is too large at present. Even after creating {{DMK-politician-stub}} and {{AIADMK-politician-stub}} to take care of a lot of the Tamil Nadu politicians, another 200 or so remain in this master cat. This split will identify them to the right level. The first division is large enough currently to be a cat, but the other have the potential, so I'm proposing placing the second and third to the first's category and the fourth to the INC cat as that party has been merged. -SpacemanSpiff 02:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, this proposal is connected to a recent discovery listed at WP:WSS/D. Grutness...wha? 03:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Spaceman and support the creation of PMK and MDMK stubs. I am not sure if TMC stubs are necessary since the party had originally branched off from INC and is defunct now and merged largely with INC again. --CarTick 15:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Which is why I'm suggesting that we keep it in the INC category. Just a different template. -SpacemanSpiff 17:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Basque stub

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was do not create.
A generic stub for Basque related stubs. At the moment there is only Basque-geo-stub for geography related articles. The search tool returns 84 stubs for a search on Basque though I suspect there are more than that and more are of course being created.

It's needed because the territory is split between France and Spain but constitutes a cultural sphere distinct from the French/Spanish cultural sphere. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That (the national split) is exactly the reason why it doesn't exist -stub types for ethnic groups or for cultures are almost always arranged on a purely "internationally-accepted-national-boundary" basis. Groups and cultures that stradddle borders are arranged as part of the nation-specific stubs in which those cultures exist. That is why, for instance, Basque-geo-stub is specifically for the Basque Country of Spain, and is not used for places within the Basque sphere of influence in southwestern France. While I can see the point of having stubs arranged on cultural grounds, it dos lead to inevitable problems of multiple stubbing, and often to case of edit-warring over which stub should be on an article. If there is a Basque-specific WikiProject, I'd suggest that using a talk-page assessment template might be a more useful option than a specific stub type anyway. Grutness...wha? 23:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Although the main political articles touching on the Basque region are subject to edit warring, I've encountered it on few culturally related articles and as far as cross-national stub categories of stateless peoples go, there's Romani-stub for one, which is about as multi-national as you can get.
I did try and read the background docs for stubs but I must confess not seeing anything that says that but I'll assume you have more experience in this. So you're suggesting that for a page like Baserri I use the architecture stub on the front page and use the talk page to link it to toe Basque WikiProject? Akerbeltz (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes - that would make sense - and you'd almost certainly find the banner assessment template far more useful that a stub template anyway, since it can be used for all articles relating to the Basques, not just stubs. Romani-stub is the one exception, since the Roma cover so many different nations. Where a people is split by one boundary, though, we try to avoid it (no Tamil-stub,. Inuit-stub, Sami-stub, Kurd-stub or the like). I agree that it is a bit of a problem, but for the ease of stub-sorting it does make sense. Grutness...wha? 22:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hm ok... what's the procedure for removing this proposal then? Do I delete it off here or does it get closed routinely at the end of the month? Akerbeltz (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Just leave it - it'll be closed at some point soon. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Multiplex Music Electronics stub

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was do not create.
Multiplex music was prevalent in the 1970s in the Philippines as a music sold in two formats: (1) music with vocals; and (2) music only without vocals of the same song. The music would be available as a cassette tape recording and normally sold with a hardcopy print of the song lyrics that would be read by the user as he would sing-along while playing the tape with format (2).

The cassette tape could contain a number of music that would come in those pairing formats with an accompanying booklet of hardcopy song lyrics that could be considered the successor of 'song hits' that were popular in the 1960s.

Not quite sure what you're asking for here - you've headed this with a category, but the name looks more like one for a template, and what you've written underneath looks like the start of a stub article (in which case, you don't want this page, you want WP:AFC, as was explained in the section of this page you would have opened to add this here. If you're looking for a template or category, I'd have to oppose it unless it can be shown that there are 60 stubs on this topic (I can't find any at all). Grutness...wha? 23:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Yukon politician stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
upmerged template {{Yukon-politician-stub}} has 60+ articles, spedy category? Waacstats (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good as usual--TM 22:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split of Category:Golf stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
pushing 700 and another one that looks like it will grow yet further. We could go with Category:Golf tournament stubs \ {{Golf-tournament-stub}} but as most of the remaining articles are tournaments I suggest we also add something along the lines of Category:Men's major golf championship stubs fed by {{USOpen-golf-stub}}, {{TheOpen-golf-stub}}, {{MastersTournament-golf-stub}} and {{PGAChampionship-golf-stub}}. Waacstats (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable - though is there a less potentially ambiguous name than TheOpen-...? Would BritishOpen-... offend golf purists? Also it's probaboly worth noting that most of the world talks of the US Masters rather than the Masters Tournament, so perhaps USMasters-,..., as a redirect at least, would be useful. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I just went with the article titles but have no problems with those as redirects or as the main templates with the others as redirects. Waacstats (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

split of Category:United States track and field athletics biography stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
This is quite at the moment but will grow again next season, we have already split out the Olympic medalists and are still over 600 articles, propose that we split by event, templates first and categoris only if they reach 60

Waacstats (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Category:Russian boxing biography stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
upmerged template {{Russia-boxing-bio-stub}} with over 60 articles. speedy? Waacstats (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Category:Romanian football club stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
upmerged template {{Romania-footyclub-stub}} with over 60 articles. speedy? Waacstats (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Category:San Francisco Giants season stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Category and template {{SanFranciscoGiants-season-stub}} should be over 60 articles. Waacstats (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Split of Category:Chess biography stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Starting to grow again up to 650 articles propose we split out the euros by upmerged template creating

and any {{foo-chess bio-stub}} for all European countries that we need to. Waacstats (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support as long as you addf the hyphen in the template foo-chess-bio-stub :) Grutness...wha? 05:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

slit of Category:Soviet Olympic medalist stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
over 700 articles, propose the following

both should be comfortably over 60 articles. Waacstats (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Split of Category:Tennis competition stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Knocking on the door of 800 propose we split by tour unless anyone else has a better idea.

both would be over 60. Waacstats (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Split of Category:Hungarian football biography stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
As per usual split by position

I would expect all to make it to 60+. Waacstats (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Split of South Korea/Romania/Norway Football biography stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
All are over 600 and would suggest splitting by position as with Hungary above, templates first and categories iff they reach 60 (might struggle with the goalkeepers). Waacstats (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Split of Category:European canoeist stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Category oversized (895) currently fed by upmerged templates. The following are all viable based on those existing templates

speedy? Waacstats (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Category:German tennis biography stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Upmerged template {{Germany-tennis-bio-stub}} has 60+ articles. Speedy? Waacstats (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Category:Vermont Registered Historic Place stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Upmerged template {{Vermont-NRHP-stub}} has over 100 articles propose category. Waacstats (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Support; this is an easy one. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stub Type: iTunes Albums

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.
This is a semi-proposal for general discussion - a new stub type might not really be needed. iTunes is releasing special compilations of audio files that could be considered albums, some of which are starting to appear in their own WP articles. Here are some examples:
Bob Dylan: The Collection
The Complete Stevie Wonder

There is no corresponding stub type for this in the Albums section of the stub sorting list. A new stub type might be necessary... IF nobody categorizes a stub article under the appropriate genre or other subcategory. Then a new stub type of this nature wouldn't be necessary. On the other hand, we can probably assume that iTunes will expand this new marketplace, which might give us many new articles requiring accurate stub classification rather than just "Album" which is disdained by Wikipedia: WikiProject Albums. Consider this to be a "what if" proposal for a new stub type that may or may not be necessary depending on how things turn out. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  • ISTR we do have {{Compilation-album-stub}}, which would probably cover this, at least until such time as there are enough of these to consider something separate, and then it might be better to split the compilations by genre than by means of distribution or medium. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I can agree with that. Separate stubs for compilations by genre would be a good idea, but we can wait until some sort of critical mass is reached at Wikipedia: WikiProject Albums. Thanks for your input. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Asia basketball team stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Category will contain 65 stubs as of a count just now with obvious room for much expansion.--TM 13:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon, Iran, the Philippines, China and Turkey all have their own templates. Some are still covered by the Asia- stub. We also need to be create a double-upmerged {{Israel-basketball-team-stub}} for the Europe and Asia categories. Turkey would also be double-upmerged.--TM 23:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/2009/November&oldid=1089907296"