Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2011/June

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting‎ | Proposals‎ | Archive‎ | 2011
(Redirected from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2011/June)

Proposals, June 2011

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.

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 following upmerged templates are ready for categories

speedy? Waacstats (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:00, 1 July 2011 (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.
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.
Please approve the following speedy categories:

Please also approve the following two templates to upmerge to both of these new categories:

Dawynn (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2011 (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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create as revised.

Proposing the following:

Templates built first, and used for exploration of the topic. Categories to be built only when templates filled.

Would these be better limited to programs rather than including channels and other things? Waacstats (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Oops! Corrections made to original proposed templates. Propose the following in addition:
I know the template still says prog, and the category limits this to a series. One could argue that *anything* shown on TV is a program (including one-off movies and specials), while the concept of series typically denotes a recurring program, whether weekly, annual, etc. But the precedent had already been set by ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Drama television series, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Comedy television series, and others. Dawynn (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Support. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:01, 1 July 2011 (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.
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 of these will be upmerged to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United States television program stubs, along with the indicated category.

Dawynn (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Another good move Waacstats (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks good, Support ~Gosox(55)(55) 17:07, 1 July 2011 (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.

{{SouthAfrica-tv-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.
Propose template for exploration. Not sure if enough for a separate category, but can upmerge to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:South African media stubs for now. Dawynn (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Support Waacstats (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Support. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:02, 1 July 2011 (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.

Epidemiology

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.
{{Epidemiology-stub}} iology with less than 512 bytes or less than 4 links: 2000s medical outbreaks 2005 Outbreak of E. coli O157 in South Wales (10247 bytes) (10247 bytes) (3 links) Epidemiology American College of Epidemiology (1377 bytes) (1377 bytes) (3 links) Epidemiology Area compatibility factor (910 bytes) (910 bytes) (3 links) Epidemiology BioSense (2636 bytes) (2636 bytes) (3 links) Epidemiological study projects Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program (663 bytes) (663 bytes) (3 links) Clinical trials Data confidentiality in clinical trials (1632 bytes) (1632 bytes) (3 links) Epidemiologists David Waltner-Toews (2689 bytes) (2689 bytes) (3 links) Epidemiology Deprivation index (418 bytes) (418 bytes) (11 links) Epidemiology Epizoology (380 bytes) (380 bytes) (3 links) Epidemiology Essence (Electronic Surveillance System for the Early Notification of Community-based Epidemics) (571 bytes) (571 bytes) (3 links) Epidemiology Mutual standardisation (710 bytes) (710 bytes) (3 links) Epidemiology National Outbreak Reporting System (3297 bytes) (3297 bytes) (2 links) Epidemiological study projects National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (412 bytes) (412 bytes) (2 links) Epidemiology Rate ratio (525 bytes) (525 bytes) (2 links) Epidemiology Recidivism (medicine) (442 bytes) (442 bytes) (3 links) Epidemiology Reed-Frost model (250 bytes) (250 bytes) (4 links) Epidemiology Regression (medicine) (273 bytes) (273 bytes) (2 links) Epidemiology Sibship (274 bytes) (274 bytes) (3 links) Epidemiology Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (1639 bytes) (1639 bytes) (3 links) Epidemiologists Thomas Rowe Edmonds (877 bytes) (877 bytes) (3 links) Epidemiology WAIFW matrix (349 bytes) (349 bytes) (2 links) Epidemiology Weighted Capitation Formula (451 bytes) (451 bytes) (2 links) Epidemiology Welsh Resource Allocation Formula (346 bytes) (346 bytes) (4 links) found 23 articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geofferybard (talk • contribs)

Possibly useful, though several of the articles you list are not stubs the number of links to an article is completely irrelevant when talking about stubs). Others are people, who would not normally be put into a subject category but rather into a bio category. Tentative support, though I'd like to hear from stub-sorters working on med stubs in general. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 30 June 2011 (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.

Nuclear energy

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.
{{Nuclear energy - stub}} n 512 bytes or less than 4 links: Nuclear energy in Albania Albanian Nuclear Agency (1393 bytes) (1393 bytes) (2 links) Radiation effects Alpha strike (engineering) (584 bytes) (584 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear technology Atomic fountain (575 bytes) (575 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear power stubs, Nuclear reprocessing Bismuth phosphate process (431 bytes) (431 bytes) (3 links) Fusion power Bootstrap current (986 bytes) (986 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear organizations CANDU Owners Group (3104 bytes) (3104 bytes) (3 links) Radioactive waste CASTOR (381 bytes) (381 bytes) (6 links) Nuclear reactors Calandria (505 bytes) (505 bytes) (10 links) Nuclear organizations Canadian Nuclear Association (349 bytes) (349 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear warfare Collective protection (1600 bytes) (1600 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear power stubs, Nuclear safety Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations (831 bytes) (831 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear materials Defence Nuclear Material (450 bytes) (450 bytes) (8 links) Nuclear research centers Department of Applied Science, UC Davis (2353 bytes) (2353 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear organizations European Nuclear Energy Leadership Academy (432 bytes) (432 bytes) (7 links) International nuclear energy organizations European Nuclear Lobby (1028 bytes) (1028 bytes) (2 links) International nuclear energy organizations, Nuclear organizations European Nuclear Society (919 bytes) (919 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear power stubs, Nuclear reactors Exclusion area (557 bytes) (557 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear reactors FBNR (466 bytes) (466 bytes) (2 links) Nuclear energy in Ghana, Nuclear organizations Ghana Atomic Energy Commission (305 bytes) (305 bytes) (1 links) Fusion power Glasser effect (383 bytes) (383 bytes) (2 links) Nuclear energy in India, Nuclear technology Global Centre for Nuclear Energy Partnership (2196 bytes) (2196 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear warfare, Nuclear weapons Improvised nuclear device (1037 bytes) (1037 bytes) (2 links) Nuclear research centers Institut für Nukleare Entsorgung (306 bytes) (306 bytes) (1 links) Nuclear regulatory organizations International Nuclear Regulators’ Association (768 bytes) (768 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear organizations International Nuclear Safety Center (1438 bytes) (1438 bytes) (3 links) People associated with nuclear power Kenneth Monroe Carr (2675 bytes) (2675 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear regulatory organizations Kernfysische dienst (566 bytes) (566 bytes) (1 links) Nuclear power stubs, Nuclear vehicle propulsion Kuznetsov NK-14 (433 bytes) (433 bytes) (39 links) Nuclear liability Legal channeling (678 bytes) (678 bytes) (3 links) Fusion power Macron (physics) (383 bytes) (383 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear technology Nuclear Knowledge Management (22845 bytes) (22845 bytes) (1 links) Nuclear energy by country Nuclear energy by country (174 bytes) (174 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear energy in Iran Nuclear energy in Iran (297 bytes) (297 bytes) (68 links) Nuclear energy in Luxembourg Nuclear energy in Luxembourg (248 bytes) (248 bytes) (79 links) Nuclear energy in Malta Nuclear energy in Malta (456 bytes) (456 bytes) (81 links) Nuclear energy in Yemen Nuclear energy in Yemen (470 bytes) (470 bytes) (65 links) Nuclear technology Nuclear engineering computer codes (1275 bytes) (1275 bytes) (3 links) Radioactive waste Operation Groundhog (863 bytes) (863 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear weapons Paranuclear (493 bytes) (493 bytes) (5 links) Nuclear stockpile stewardship, Nuclear weapons Project on Nuclear Issues (2607 bytes) (2607 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear stockpile stewardship Quantification of margins and uncertainties (2011 bytes) (2011 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear power stubs Reactimeter (355 bytes) (355 bytes) (2 links) Nuclear industry organizations Rostekhnadzor (3813 bytes) (3813 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear energy in Ukraine SKALA (461 bytes) (461 bytes) (7 links) Nuclear power stubs SS Charles H. Cugle (367 bytes) (367 bytes) (5 links) Nuclear accidents, Nuclear energy, Nuclear safety, Nuclear technology Safety code (nuclear reactor) (629 bytes) (629 bytes) (2 links) Anti-nuclear movement, Nuclear energy, Nuclear power Smiling Sun (2856 bytes) (2856 bytes) (3 links) Anti-nuclear organizations Sortir du nucléaire (349 bytes) (349 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear safety Special Power Excursion Reactor Test Program (1020 bytes) (1020 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear technology Steel plate construction (1682 bytes) (1682 bytes) (1 links) Books about nuclear issues The Atom Besieged (969 bytes) (969 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear energy in the United Kingdom Tier 1 – UK Nuclear Site Management & Licensing (390 bytes) (390 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear technology Time-dependent Neutronics and Temperatures (486 bytes) (486 bytes) (149 links) Nuclear energy in the United States Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (714 bytes) (714 bytes) (1 links) Nuclear research centers Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center (1716 bytes) (1716 bytes) (2 links) Nuclear sector Wild Horse (mining company) (946 bytes) (946 bytes) (3 links) Nuclear industry organizations Young Generation Network (2045 bytes) (2045 bytes) (2 links) Nuclear power stubs, Nuclear reactors ZPPR (619 bytes) (619 bytes) (1 links) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geofferybard (talk • contribs)

Dear me. It would have been so much easier to say "At least 58 stubs" and then sign your name. Mind you, since this stub already exists at ts correct name - {{Nuclear-energy-stub}}...and many of the articles you loist already use it! Grutness...wha? 00:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Please specify -- are you proposing a split from ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Nuclear power stubs? How would you differentiate between nuclear energy and nucelar power? Dawynn (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2011 (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.

Antarctica, Part the third

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.
Slowly, slowly, the Antarctica geo-stubs are coming under control... but there are still a few categories that are or will soon be massively oversized. So, here are a few more splits:

The first of these should finally bring East Antarctica geo-stubs below the 1000 stub mark, the other three should reduce the pressure on the soon-to-be-enormous Antarctic Peninsula geo-stub category (currently not big, but soon likely to be well over 2500 stubs). Grutness...wha? 05:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Support all of these. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding a couple more:

Hopefully that should well and truly get Antarctic Peninsula down to size. Grutness...wha? 08:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

All look good to me. Waacstats (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops - apologies; IO made another one as well which I thought I'd proposed:

Grutness...wha? 00:50, 2 July 2011 (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.
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 the following basic templates:

Dawynn (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. Might I also suggest some redirects using "Curacao"? Might be useful. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Support This whole area's become a mess since the change of political status - any clearing up will help. Grutness...wha? 14:12, 28 June 2011 (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.
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 large propose the following

the CDA and VVD are the shortened version of the names used in the Netherlands in case you are wandering. Waacstats (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. Wandering included. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:15, 27 June 2011 (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.
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.
Oversized. The following genera look like they can support categories:

Doesn't look like that will clear enough. So, propose splitting by subfamily, categories to be built only if templates filled to 60 or more:

Dawynn (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

looks good to me. Waacstats (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Support all. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Delaying retagging as there is a question out to the mollusc wikiproject. Dawynn (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods#Split_of_Category:Turridae_stubs. --Snek01 (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Complying with the wishes of the mollusc wikiproject Dawynn (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2011 (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.
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.
Oversized. Propose split into the wide, sweeping basic categories:

Although I wouldn't classify this as a "basic" category, there seems to be enough to support this also, especially since we already have two subcategories:

Since each of these already have a subcategory, I assume its safe to build the categories right away, after the usual discussion waiting period. Dawynn (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you proposing making the tags mentioned (‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:The West Wing stubs, for example) subcats, or redirects? ~Gosox(55)(55) 12:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The existing categories (West Wing, Star Trek, Simpsons, etc) will stay categories, but will be subcategories to the indicated new proposed categories. Dawynn (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Support then. ~Gosox(55)(55) 02:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Support all. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:17, 27 June 2011 (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.
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 oversized. Proposing the standard split by county for this state:

Proposed Wisconsin county geography templates

Dawynn (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Support looks like a good move. Waacstats (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Support all. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:19, 27 June 2011 (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.

Antarctica, part II

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.
Some good news, some bad news, some good news, and some even better news.

First, the good news. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Antarctica geography stubs is now almost empty, and one of its two (very) oversized subcategories has dropped from 4500 stubs to about 2000 stubs. Now the bad news - ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ross Dependency geography stubs is already over 2000 stubs and will probably peak at around 3000 (RD is the most widely explored part of the continent).

Now for the other good news. About 35-40% of those stubs are Victoria Land stubs, so a {{VictoriaLand-geo-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Victoria Land geography stubs is more than viable - it will mean there are still oversized categories, but they will be a Ross one of 2000 and a VL one of 1000, rather than a Ross one of 3000. Further splitting that that would be pretty difficult, but at least they will be a fairly manageable size. A split-out of Ross Island stubs ({{RossIsland-geo-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ross Island geography stubs) would probably be worthwhile too - it would remove about 150 stubs. Even better news - I've been categorising all the Ross Dependency stubs as I go, so it should be an easy task for a bot to find anything categorised in one of the Victoria Land and Ross Island categories and swap the stub templates over. Sound good? Grutness...wha? 09:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well done on the sorting of Antarctica, and support this further sorting. Waacstats (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Support, as one of the prime offenders in getting it all to this size in the first place. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:19, 27 June 2011 (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.
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 modern-art-stub tpl & cat.
A broad but useful division of the art stubs, with many editors specializing in this area. This would be the first chronological/movement type of art stub, the others being focused on medium of expression (painting, sculpture, etc) which I would consider a complementary classification. Part of the working role of this would be at Wikipedia:GLAM/MoMA, which is interested in developing modern art articles very broadly.--Pharos (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I think there are too many already [1], a
     

    This modern art-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

    is ok, lets do it, but then who gets it? a Picasso type artist? what about Jeff Koons? or James Turrell? then we might need a {{Post-modern-art-stub}} or an {{Installation-art-stub}}, I think the stub is a temporary tag and should be kept as simple and broad as possible...Modernist (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pharos, the two notions are not contradictory, as you point out - but the question is what do the people arguing here want? Elekh's comments made it clear that what he's looking for is NOT a stub template. Modernist seems a little confused, too, in that the notion of having "too many" stub templates is not something that is because of any desire to have more stub templates, but simply through the orthogonal splitting of stub types and the proliferation of art-related stub articles - it is in part forced by the necessity of keeping stub categories at a reasonable size, and is also useful in terms of attracting editors from different backgrounds (a Bulgarian biographer might stumble in through Bulgaria-artist-stub, for example). I'm not against the proposed stub type, but at the moment, I'd oppose the proposal as it stands, simply on the grounds that it sounds as though there's a general misunderstanding here of what a modern-art-stub would be, why it would be needed, and who would be primarily using it. It's not primarily for use by the task force of a WikiProject in order to organise articles for that task force - you'd use an assessment template for that. It's primarily for use by WP:WSS in order to organise stub articles across the whole of Wikipedia for all editors. There is also the quite justifiable question of what "Modern art" actually is, though that is largely determined by the permcat ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Modern art, itself determined by the key article Modern art. I'd suggest this needs a bit more thought, both in terms of what is required and also in terms of how any such split should proceed. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay - conversations offlist with Pharos have convinced me that this is worth doing, but please, any others who may be using it - read up on what a stub template is! Grutness...wha? 00:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm well aware of what a stub template is, hence my comment above. Regardless, the problem you raised about what is defined as "modern" is also an important one, as the limits are not easy to set clearly. For instance there has been over the last months a tendency to add all 20th and 21th century art articles into modern art categories (often together with postmodern and contemporary art categories), and the same is being carried out on Commons. --Elekhh (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oops - apologies - I seem to have completely misread your original comments. It seems we were in agreement on that point all along! :) As to what modern art is, it is a problem, though with any luck the article and permanent category give some indications (it's a problem I'm well-acquainted with in my non-wikipedia job as an arts reviewer and painter!). My own personal preference is that it relates to styles which have developed since (and including) impressionism, but there are as many definitions as there are writers on the subject. I'd suggest that a basic modern-art-stub template would be the best immediate solution, using the definitions at Modern art, with more templates for particular movements if and as required. Grutness...wha? 08:30, 1 July 2011 (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.
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 no consensus.

There are 326 US Senators who have articles that are stubs. While it is normally customary to sort US politicians by state and then by office, I don't think that any state would ever be viable. This category would be in addition to the state/office template/category, and would be a subcategory of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American politician stubs. Thoughts? See catscan: [2]

Support - I tend to agree. Especially as the number's never likely to get any larger, given the depth of coverage of any new senators in the future. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm fairly neutral on this but would the template be better at {{US-Senator-stub}} as it is conceivable that at some point in te future we may want {{US-senate-stub}} for articles about the senate in general? Waacstats (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm flexible. I did it the way I did because of the state tags, for example {{Massachusetts-MASenate-stub}}. But there's also {{Massachusetts-Representative-stub}} for members of the US House, and I suppose that your alternative is closer to that. ~Gosox(55)(55) 21:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm tentatively changing proposed category name to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Members of the United States Senate stubs per recent STfDs. Thoughts?~Gosox(55)(55) 17:09, 1 July 2011 (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.
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 currently includes articles about the former (pre-2010 dissolution) Netherlands Antilles. Some are related to the Caribbean Netherlands (Bonaire, Saba, and Sint Eustatius), but others are related to Curacao, Sint Maarten, or Aruba, which are separate entities not part of the Caribbean Netherlands. The category should be split into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Caribbean Netherlands stubs, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Curaçao stubs, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sint Maarten stubs, and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Aruba stubs. Maybe we need to restore ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Netherlands Antilles stubs--having it replaced by ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Caribbean Netherlands stubs is like replacing ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Yugoslavia stubs with ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Serbia stubs. Goustien (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Dawynn (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with Dawynn - a NA template would be appropriate, so I support that, but there aren't enough stubs for a separate category for it or for Sint Maarten, so they should be/remain upmerged. Grutness...wha? 01:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Support per Dawynn. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
After reviewing the articles, I would support a restoration or rebuild of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Netherlands Antilles stubs, as long as the verbiage reflects that this is a historical entity. The following templates can be placed under this category:
Total of 71 articles. Dawynn (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. Now that the Netherlands Antilles articles have been removed, the Caribbean Netherlands will be struggling to make a full category. 36 articles currently. Dawynn (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I think I found the problem. No one had connected the -geo- stub for the BES islands to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Caribbean Netherlands stubs. I think, once the job queue catches up, it should be just over the minimum now. Dawynn (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2011 (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.
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 realize that ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Smerinthinae stubs is yet to be built, but it was approved last month. Proposing that instead of one single category with over 450 articles, that this be split by tribe:

I don't see any further nice breakdowns for the Smerinthini. Dawynn (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.
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.
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.
Hello stub sorters! I've returned from a 5-month WikiBreak! I found this category that needs some work, it's almost to 600. As I said, i've been on wikibreak, so let me know if there's any changes to these that should be made. I'd like to have these done by the start of July, as I'll be going on vacation for a while, so approval speed is greatly appreciated.

~Gosox(55)(55) 22:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Support all. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Sadly made too quickly, before the plural error could be pointed out (which is why one of these is now at SFD for renaming!The discussion period is there for a reason... (but welcome back, for all that :) Grutness...wha? 01:29, 24 June 2011 (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.
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 is getting pretty sizable, and just shy of 1000 stubs. I can think of one nice, simple way of splitting it in two:

The other alternative would be more comprehensive - geographically Labrador seems to be divided into five geographical areas:

Astoundingly, Newfoundland doesn't seem to be split in any way other than its ten census divisions (the eleventh is Labrador), names for the ten stubs, if we use this method, could be difficult to assign. For now, perhaps just splitting out the redirect and coming back to the problem later is the easiest way...Grutness...wha? 05:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Support all. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I only created the basic Labrador one. Sadly, N&L seems to be a neglected area of Wiipedia. There are lots of stubs for towns, but almost nothing on lakes, rivers, mountains... very sadly neglected. Because of that, only abut 100 of the stubs were in Labrador. Grutness...wha? 04:41, 3 July 2011 (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.
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 politician stubcat heading in the wrong direction, propose

Should bring this down to a managable level. Waacstats (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Support all. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:44, 20 June 2011 (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.
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 politician stubcat heding in the wrong direction, propose

Should bring this down to a managable level. Waacstats (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:47, 20 June 2011 (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.
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 Canadian politician stubcat heding in the wrong direction, propose

Should bring this down to a managable level. Waacstats (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:46, 20 June 2011 (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.
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.
Speedy proposal. To pick up {{Spain-sculptor-stub}}. 61 Pages. Dawynn (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2011 (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.

Antarctica

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.
SUBSEQUENT NOTE: AntarcticPeninsula-geo-stub and its category were created and later deleted via SFD after they were found to be superfluous. If working through this page to see what need creating, DO NOT recreate them. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Antarctica geography stubs and its subcategories are still a nightmare of epic proportions, stubwise. I'd like to propose the following stub types, each of which should reach threshold several times over, which will hopefully reduce these massive cats:

Hopefully, that should at least start to solve this mammoth problem! Grutness...wha? 02:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This should help with one of the hardest areas of the world to split in terms of geo stubs. Waacstats (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: In case anyone's wondering why I've made three but not the rest, I'm starting with the East Antarctica ones before doing the West Antarctica group... sifting through 3500 EAntarctica stubs takes time. There will be more splits proposed once these are done, BTW, including dealing with the brimming South Shetlands category. Once this is done, I'll never want to see another Antarctica stub as long as I live. It feels a bit like rearrangeing the deckchairs on the Titanic, only there are thousands of stubby icebergs (literally!) The good news is that the main ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Antarctica geography stubs now has only about 50 unsubcategorised stubs! Grutness...wha? 11:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Four types done now - only some 7250 stubs that will need manual sorting to go. East Antarctica down to 1700 stubs. Now for the west (over 4000!)... Grutness...wha? 12:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Another update: Looks like Antarctic Peninsula will require a split once this is done. NB - for anyone silly enough to help out with this (not a hint, I'm quite happy chugging away at it), whoever made the stubs originally was either very sloppy with applying details of where they are or the boundaries have changed (very probably the latter). A lot of the articles categorised as Ellsworth Land aren't anywhere near Ellsworth Land, for instance. I'm working by the Lat/Long coordinates rather than trusting the text for most of the stubs... Grutness...wha? 08:52, 28 June 2011 (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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.

upmerged templates have past 60 any objections to speedy cats. Waacstats (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2011 (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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.

upmerged templates have past 60 any objections to speedy cats. Waacstats (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2011 (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.
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 heading in the wrong direction close to 800 propose

Should bring this down to a managable level. Waacstats (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2011 (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.
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 heading in the wrong direction close to 800 propose

Should bring this down to a managable level. Waacstats (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2011 (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.
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, could probably do with a spring clean but the following should be viable

Waacstats (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Support, but not at that name - make it {{NewZealand-Liberal-politician-stub}}, and you've got a deal! No objection to a {{NZ-Liberal...}} redirect. Note however that there have been two separate parties with that name, one in the late 19th-early 20th century, and one in the 1980s-1990s. I doubt you'd find enough politicians (or even supporters of the latter to pass threshold, though!) Grutness...wha? 01:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
In that case we need to rename the templates for the existing two subcats as these are at {{NZNational-politician-stub}} and {[tl|NZLabour-politician-stub}}. Waacstats (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Mmmmm. Didn't realise we had them (though it makes sense that we do). If this is regarded as the appropriate way of naming NZ politician templates, then I'm happy enough for it to stay this way... just looks odd compared to other countries - we have {{UK-Labour-MP-stub}} and {{Australia-Labor-politician-stub}}, for instance. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 12 June 2011 (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.

A handful more astronomy stub types

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 working through the eclipse stubs, I've uncovered what could be a few more useful stub types. Two of them seem pretty straightforward:

Sun-stub would have at least 35-40 stubs, though ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Solar eclipse stubs (of which there are about 400) would be a subtype, so it could probably survive as a separate category even if it only reaches 50 or so. Meteoroid-stub would have at least 48 stubs, possibly quite a few more - it probably wouldn't take much effort to get it close to 60.

A third possibility is one I'd want to run past WP:Astronomy before committing to it - {{Astrophysics-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Astrophysics stubs. I think it would take a large number of the remaining astronomy stubs, but I'm uncertain as to twhat the boundary of what counts as astrophysics is.

Grutness...wha? 11:26, 10 June 2011 (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.

Templates for Lower Silesia 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.
Propose upmerged templates for the remaining land counties for ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Lower Silesia geography stubs, namely:

Categories only if 60 articles are reached - CatScan puts them all in the 40s and 50s. This leaves only the city counties using the voivodeship level template. SeveroTC 20:12, 9 June 2011 (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.
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 I'm on this topic, the following seem viable:

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.
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 following were oddly left off of the February 9th request for European sculptor templates:

Dawynn (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2011 (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.
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 the following:

Will leave two families with a total of 16 articles under the Crambidae tag.

Dawynn (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2011 (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.
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.
Speedy request. To pick up {{Germany-sculptor-stub}}. 96 articles. Dawynn (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Support speedy. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:48, 8 June 2011 (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.
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.
Speedy request. To pick up {{Canada-sculptor-stub}}. 63 articles. Dawynn (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Support speedy. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:48, 8 June 2011 (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.
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 the following for speedy creation:

Dawynn (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Support speedy. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:49, 8 June 2011 (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.
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'm still filling the Sphinginae stubs. But the following will be able to break out on their own:

Dawynn (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:49, 8 June 2011 (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.
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.

Creating new stubs based on County board (geographic region of control) as required. Such as
 

This Dublin GAA club related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

or {{Limerick-GAA-Hurling-bio-stub}} Gnevin (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes to the first, a split by region seems a reasonable idea - less sure about the second. The usual scheme wth sports bio-stubs is to split by player position or by year of birth - don't know about hurling, but in most sports it's possible for a player to represent any number of clubs during a career but far less likely they'll shift their playing position too much, or their date of birth at all! See the English football split further down this page for an idea of how sports splits normally work. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
In hurling is very unlikely a player will move counties. There is no transfer system in Hurling, the only time a player can change county is for economics reasons. This is very rare. Of the teams that play at the highest level the All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship I can only think of 1 transfer in the last 3/4 years Gnevin (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
In that case splitting by region makes more sense, so no objections from me. Grutness...wha? 02:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Support both. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Gaelic football people stubs basically same as above Gnevin (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense, and it looks like it's been pre-empted... Grutness...wha? 01:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Pre-empted, how so? Gnevin (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Uh - my fault. I misunderstood - you want to split that category in the same way. Yup - support. Was thinking you wanted to create the category, but it's already a blue link (which is why I thought it was pre-empted). Grutness...wha? 01:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why we have these at people rather than biography stubs (i.e. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hurling biography stubs or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Gaelic football biography stubs) as is the norm at ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sportspeople stubs by sport? SeveroTC 10:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not that I know of Gnevin (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the cat to reflect the norms Gnevin (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2011 (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.
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.
Catscan seems to suggest that almost 400 articles could be marked with the existing {{RC-cardinal-stub}} as I am planning on adding the nationality stub tag to these I was thinking maybe an idea to have a

which according to catscan would take almost 200 articles. Waacstats (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Support - but should the category have a small c? Grutness...wha? 00:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Well spotted it should indeed be ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Italian cardinal stubs. Waacstats (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Support. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:50, 8 June 2011 (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.
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 following are viable based on upmerged tempaltes

also the current parents will need renaming. Waacstats (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:51, 8 June 2011 (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.
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 has almost no articles sorted to nationality stubs so I hope to rectify this however the following look likely

others may follow following tidy up. Waacstats (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Support templates, categories if appropriately filled. Dawynn (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Support. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:52, 8 June 2011 (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.
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 above would pick up over 60 articles from {{Israel-musician-stub}} and {{Israel-singer-stub}} assuming only a few are double stubbed. Speedy? Waacstats (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Support speedy. Dawynn (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Support speedy. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:53, 8 June 2011 (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.
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.
Speedy proposal.

Dawynn (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

speedy Support Waacstats (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2011 (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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United States company stubs in grossly oversized - largely through undersorting - but this template and category could alleviate some of the pressure on it (category only if it reaches 60 stubs, of course...). Grutness...wha? 01:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a good split. Waacstats (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Support. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:54, 8 June 2011 (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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Astronomy stubs contains about 1250 articles, and over 350 of them relate to eclipses... ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Solar-eclipse-stub might be a better name - thoughts? Grutness...wha? 01:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

given that catscan shows over 400 solar eclipse articles and over 200 lunar eclipse articles under 1500 bytes I think we might be worth while having both a {{Lunar-eclipse-stub}} - ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Lunar eclipse stubs and {{Solar-eclipse-stub}} - ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Solar eclipse stubs. Waacstats (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Support both. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:54, 8 June 2011 (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 Albania-geo-stub

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

The result of the debate was create.
There are just over 1000 articles in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› [[:Category:Albania geography stubs|]] - time to split by the 12 counties of Albania, methinks...

Plus categories in the form ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Foo County geography stub for any which reach the 60-stub mark. Grutness...wha? 01:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. Dawynn (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Support all. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
All done - most just sneaked past 60 - sadly the last two are quite small. Grutness...wha? 06:56, 17 June 2011 (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/2011/June&oldid=1142556674"