Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria/Archive9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Closed for additions - Courtland 02:19, 2005 May 22 (UTC)


Recently, before I was alerted by User:Grutness about this debate process, I created the stub category Category:Manufacturing stubs (with the template {{Manufacturing-stub}}) and went ahead and categorized about 35 articles that I feel fit in the category. Perhaps a name change is necessary (to "Manufacturing processes"?), but I think a new category related to manufacturing processes (such as welding, casting, machining and the like) would be helpful. I expect to find many more articles that would fit. I believe that a category such as this would fit best under the {{Tech-stub}}, but it may conflict with the tools stub category – what is a lathe, anyway? Sorry for creating this category without first suggesting it here; at least no one can accuse me of not being bold :). --Spangineer 03:34, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well, as I said, it's more of a courtest than mandatory, but it is useful to know what's going on, both for yo and for us. Personally, I think a name like "Industrial processes" would be useful, since the current name is a bit vague and some of the processes don't just refer to manufacturing (welding, for instance, is a process in things like panel-beating, which is not a manufacturing industry). It should probably be categorised on the stub-type page under technology, too. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 03:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Renaming to industrial processes makes sense to me. The template could get renamed to Indust-proc-stub or the like, or just Industrial-processes-stub if that would be easier. How long do things stay on here until they are implemented? I saw that it says one week above, but some of the things above this one look like they've been here for awhile, so I'll wait for the go-ahead. --Spangineer 05:15, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

depends on how much debate they generate and how busy we all are :) Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg

Okay - manufacturing-stub is now a soft redirect to the new {{Industry-stub}} "for industry and industrial processes". If the Industrial processes category's wording is anything to go by, there's also a clear division between industrial processes and tools. Processes are things like welding, smelting, and prefabrication; tools are lathes, gauges, and the like. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 00:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More subdivisions of {{music-stub}}[edit]

Category:music stubs is getting huge (18 pages at the recent count). I propose some new subcategories:

  • {{music-genre-stub}}
  • {{music-instrument-stub}}
  • {{music-label-stub}}

Found about 20 of each in "A" alone, so meeting the 100 article requirement should be clear. Also, with stubs moved from {{music-stub}} into {{musician-stub}} and {{band-stub}}, these two might also need subdivisions soon, though I'm not so clear about which ones. I'm currently busy sorting generic stubs, but after that, I'd do the music stubs, and I don't want to have to sort generics that now go into {{music-stub}} again. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) Addendum: {{album-stub}} is also a candidate for subcategorization. Even though I think most album article can be considered non-stubby if they have an infobox and a tracklist. And {{musician-stub}} already has some subcats (composer and opera singer) of course, but these are comparatively tiny. And a question: One-man bands/projects - {{musician-stub}} or {{band-stub}}? I tend towards {{musician-stub}}. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another addendum: The more I think about it, the more I think that the present music subcat system isn't so good at all for stub expansion purposes. Who would know something about albums (in general) but not about bands (in general)? Maybe the most prudent method would be to merge all music subcats once more and divide along genre lines, since musical taste is generally very genre-specific.

Music >> genre >> (people/bands/albums/songs) this last stage might not even be subdivided

This would mean a lot of work though. -- grm_wnr Esc 01:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One problem with this is the genres themselves... there are so many genres and subgenres, and so much music doesn't fit comfortably into any one genre. Where, for instance, would Philip Glass's "Low symphony" (a classical reinterpretation of a David Bowie album) go? Or Eddie Vedder's work with Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan? Or an article on Elvis Costello? Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 01:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm thinking very broad lines here - Classical, ethnic/folk, Jazz, HipHop, Electronic (LOTS of those stubs, let me tell you), maybe two or three flavors of rock, Pop. And if it's really oddball, we can still leave it in music-stub. This is still much better than dividing between albums and artists, because the old system, while being neat and all, doesn't really help anyone. -- grm_wnr Esc 01:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Lots of electronica, yes... and you could pretty near have a separate Finland-Heavy-Metal-stub! Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 03:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, here is a sketch of a possible new, genre-orientated subdivision (bold ones already exist, numbers copied from the last count):

  • music-stub (18 pages, with subcategories: ~8600 articles)
    • classical-music-stub (with subcategories: ~550 articles)
      • composer-stub (<500 articles)
      • opera singer-stub (<50 articles)
    • jazz-music-stub
    • ethno-music-stub (also includes folk and blues(?))
    • hiphop-music-stub
    • electro-music-stub
    • rock-music-stub
    • metal-music-stub
    • pop-music-stub
    • unsorted-music-stub (with subcategories: ~4200 articles)
      • musician-stub (8 pages)
      • band-stub (5 pages)
      • album-stub (8 pages)
      • song-stub (<500 articles)

Each of the genre-music-stubs could have subdivisions like unsorted-music-stub (in the form of genre-band/album/song/musician-stub), so we can preserve some of the effort already put into sorting, but these should only be created if a number (>50?) of those stubs exist, else they should remain double stub tagged with genre-music-stub and band/album/song/musician-stub. Musical instruments, unless they are genre specific, and general musical and compositorial terms would remain in music-stub. I'd go ahead and create this, but I want to ask for opinions first, and would also like to know if others would assist me with this project, since it affects nearly 9000 articles. (P.S. I know that technically, metals-stub should be a subdivision of rock-stub and rock-stub, electro-stub and hiphop-stub should be subdivisions of pop-stub, but I feel that would overly complicate matters) -- grm_wnr Esc 20:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Replace opera singer-stub with classical-performer-stub, a more inclusive category --Wahoofive 06:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since the genre-sorting would be an endless project for me alone, I went with my original proposal and created the following:

I'm now listing them in the appropriate places. Wahoofive's above proposal above looks good to me, but needs more discussion befoe implementation. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I changed my mind; there's no point in mixing other classical musicians (and groups) into opera-singer-stubs, but orchestras and such shouldn't be mixed into bands, either. Not enough for their own category, though; they should just stay in music-stubs for now along with stray classical music titles. —Wahoofive | Talk 04:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{music-stub}}, 2nd pass[edit]

This is not really a proposal, more sort of an announcement, but it fits here: Wahoofive, BaronLarf and I have cut the music stubs down to reasonable size. Some things, however, are still to be done:

  • There seems concensus for a Template:classical-composition-stub (and there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music), so I'm going to create that and sort all those pesky symphonies there ;). Also, this will be the parent category of opera-stub.
  • I'm going to broaden the scope of musical-instrument-stub to include instrument parts, instrument manufacturers and playing techniques. The category is relatively small and I think this related info (which is not huge itself) would fit the same group of editors as the instruments themselves.
  • And just sort the new articles that have come in since the first pass, since that has taken a while.

What will remain in music-stub, then? Mainly composational techniques and terms (or should those be in classical-composition-stub?), and persons that are related to music but not musicians (musicologists and producers are the majority there), as well as concert venues, festivals, tours, studios, a handful of DVDs, and music schools plus the usual miscellaneous stuff.

After that, we should have a look at a subcategorization of {{musician-stub}}, since that one has grown quite a bit. My genre idea above is still the one I would favour, i.e. classical-performer-stub, rock-musician-stub, jazz-musician-stub, electronic-musician-stub and so on.

-- grm_wnr Esc 16:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way we can really clean up those performer stubs; I think you're wasting your time. The band-stubs are much worse off than the musician-stubs. Is such-and-such a band Black metal or Death metal? Or Power metal, Doom metal, Thrash metal, Classic metal (God forbid), or Goth metal? We'd just be setting ourselves up for failure. I know, you're not proposing that level of detail, but is Gershwin jazz or classical? Are the Dixie Dregs jazz or rock or bluegrass? Are The Outlaws rock or country? Would you trust the classification in the stub text?
Another issue is that the division between musician and band seems unnecessary. I categorized a lot of Trance projects as bands, even though they're mainly collaborations between two people (one of which is probably just working the mixing board).
Anyway, I think at this point our time would be better spent determining how much content something should have to merit getting rid of the stub label entirely. A lot of albums, in particular, don't have much potential of going beyond a track listing. —Wahoofive | Talk 00:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
More: I support your other proposals, except that theory items should stay in music-stub, because many of them actually apply to any kind of music. Minor thirds, for example, are used by rock and jazz musicians just as much as classical. Though how much is there to write about a minor third? —Wahoofive | Talk 00:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's all true. Hmm. Cleaning up album-stub seems to have more short-term merit, and the stub messages there can be replaced with the proper categories and Template:Needsinfobox in very many cases. -- grm_wnr Esc 02:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and the reason why I held the creation of classical-composition-stub: Would that include only european classical compositions (...related-stubs, as the template usually goes) or any of the others as well? For example, there's a whole cluster of Indian classical composition techniques in music-stub. I don't want to be caught in any systematic bias-discussions, which can turn out pretty nasty. In any case, the wording of the stub would have to be very precise. What are your thoughts on this? -- grm_wnr Esc 03:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I assumed you meant a category in which to place compositions themselves, rather than techniques or forms. Just like "finnish-botanist-stub" is for Finnish botanists, I assume "classical-composition-stub" is for classical compositions, not techniques, scales, forms, instruments, intervals, etc. I don't know that there are any stubs for specific compositions that are non-Western. But I'm cool with putting non-Western compositions in there if somebody wants it.—Wahoofive | Talk 07:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I meant it for specific compositions, but saw that the term classical-composition-stub was a bit ambiguous. I'm going ahead now anyway, let's see how it develops. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and I redirected {{opera singer-stub}} to {{opera-singer-stub}}, since dashes are usually used and exceptions are really confusing. I already changed all the stubs in that category and updated all places where I found it mentioned, but please use {{opera-singer-stub}} from now on. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Music, yet again[edit]

I'd like to propose a new music substub, music-theory-stub. I'd say it'll hit the 100 mark, though not by much. —Wahoofive | Talk 04:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. About 200 is my wild guess (all those intervals...) -- grm_wnr Esc 10:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 133 on first pass, it turns out, although I simply de-stubbed some serial and set-theory topics which were much more than stubs. —Wahoofive (Talk) 05:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Computer networking[edit]

I've noticed a fair amount of computer networking stubs marked as {{compu-stub}}, but couldn't find a better place for them. Since Category:Computer stubs is very large, I propose creating a new stub category ({{compu-network-stub}}) for them (of course as a subcategory of {{compu-stub}}).

{{wireless-stub}} could then become a subcategory of it.

--cesarb 01:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Created and added to the parent category. Not yet added to the big lists of stubs because I simply cannot get WP:SC to load right now; I would be grateful if someone else added them for me. --cesarb 17:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Added. --cesarb 19:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eletronics subs[edit]

I just created {{Electro-stub}} and got a message to say I should clear it here first. Eletronics is a large catagory and yet all it's subs fall under Technology. Eletronics is a sub-category of technology, like computing or can be made it's own category and things like radio comms, components, etc, etc could be subcatagories once the number of pure eletronics subs becomes large enough. I can see a lot of eletronics subs under tech-sub that would be better linked to the eletronics catagories. Sorry for taking the wrong path, I think I missed the few lines that mentioned about clearing it here first. Hopefully this can be solved to the satisfaction of all. --ElectraFlarefire 09:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. There are a lot of electronics related substubs that do not fit into any of the computer stub categories and are currently going into {{Tech-stub}}. --Allen3 talk 12:43, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)


I've been starting to chip away at the massive bio-stub category, and I've found a few categories that sure would be useful. The first is a bio category for people that have to do with computers or technology. This includes programmers, engineers, or just generally recognized techies out there. Perhaps the category should be named a bit more broadly as tech-bio-stub or something, but there would definitely be plenty to go in there. chris hathaway 06:28, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


We have a WWI and a WWII stub, but nothing for the Vietnam-era stubs...putting them under "Military" seems a bit trite and is filling up that stub category, how about adding some kind of Vietnam stub?--Sherurcij 17:11, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Wonder if we could use the flag of South Vietnam as the icon for this one. Or would that be considered controversial?A2Kafir 00:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Perhaps a group of three flags: South Vietnam, North Vietnam, and the USA? Gwalla | Talk 02:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not that you need an icon (given the server problems), but if you wanted one, "Here's one we prepared earlier!" Viet.png Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 06:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{mil-war-stub}} (military and warfare) and {{WWI-stub}}, {{WWII-stub}} as its subcategories[edit]

I am sure that there will be enough WWI and WWII related stubs after any purge of hist-stub category. Many stubs would perfectly fit into the WW categories right now. I suggest to create a {{mil-war-stub}} ("This military and warfare related article is...") of which two WW stubs would be subcategories. If "mil-war-stub" is created as a subcategory of "Historical stubs", I think it would be appropriate only for a relatively modern military history. Anything older than roughly 150 years is more appropriate for national history articles. Irpen 17:04, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed there is already a {{mil-stub}} with 1000+ articles. Many of them are WW related. So I would modify my proposal. We could just rename {{mil-stub}} to {{mil-war-stub}} as per above creating a redirect. And then we would create WW subcategories of it. Alternatively we could keep both mil and mil-war stubs, making the latter one a subcategory of {{hist-stub}} because military history is definitely a part of history. The mil-stub would then just be used for articles about modern militarize. Irpen 17:23, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Please slow down and wait until I've finished the current first pass of hist-stub, which I'm about half way through! I've suggested WWII-stub above, and UK-hist-stub, both of which should significantly empty hist-stub. WWII-stub should also empty mil-stub considerably, although many items in there are about specific military divisions and the like and should probably be treated like bio-stub (i.e., not assigned to a historical period, but rather treated as subjects that existed separately within those times). WWI-stub is possible (as is Japan-hist-stub), but I'm not yet convinced that mil-war-stub is useful, since it cuts across the current hierarchy in an odd way. Battles will be the main item left in hist-stub after a couple of passes anyway - I'd say that with the current removal of bio-stubs and US-hist-stubs, and a future removal of WWII and UK-hist stubs the main category will be down to only 500-600 items. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 03:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going ahead with {{WWI-stub}} {{WWII-stub}} and (as mentioned further up the page {{UK-hist-stub}}. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 23:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


The Template:Papal-stub was created to deal with articles being written about previous Pontiffs of the Catholic Church, and also to deal with some articles that will eventually be written about antipopes.

There are quite a number of antipope stubs (about half a dozen or so) in bio-stub. I would have been happier with a more general reli-bio-stub, to allow for saints, cardinals, and the heads of other religions, but what's done is done. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 01:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've populated the Papal-stub template with all stubs from Category:Antipopes and the letter A from Category:Popes. If anyone else works on this, you might want to just de-stubify them right away by adding information from the Catholic Encyclopedia located at this website.--BaronLarf 03:33, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I had thought of that, Grutness. In fact, I'll probably toss that one together, too. perhaps a reli-bio-stub as you'd suggested. Vermi 08:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Papal-stubs would be a natural subcategory of it, too. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 08:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the {{reli-bio-stub}} has been created, and is available for use. I agree with Grutness that papal-stub would be a natural subcategory of this new stub category. Cheers! Vermi 22:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note {{Saint-stub}} listed below - it's another perfect sub-category for it. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 01:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pern stub[edit]

Presently, the Dragonriders of Pern series by Anne and Todd McCaffrey is underrepresented in Wikipedia. A stub for articles related to people, places, animals, etc. related to Pern and the Pern books could encourage development. I would make it a subcategory of both sf-stub and fantasy-stub -Acjelen 16:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mm. I think you're going about it the wrong way here. Stub categories are created because there are large numbers of stubs on a subject, not the other way round. It's probably a better idea to find out who has written any articles on the subject, and contact them about setting up a Pern WikiProject. If that produces a large number of stubs, then it will become worthwhile having a separate category for them. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 09:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I created the Category:Pern Category:Dragonriders of Pern, and have read the entire series. Is that good enough? (this from User: *Kat*)
It's a start... but, as I said, there needs to be a large number of potential Pern stubs (60-100 is the usual threshold) for it to become worthwhile. if not, then there's already {{fantasy-stub}} which would cover it well enough (yes, I know, it's plausible to consider it sf as well). If there was a WikiProject dedicated to Pern (or even Anne McCaffrey) it would help sway your case, but at the moment I can't see it really. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 06:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Some of the stubs that could go into a Dune-stub category. *[[Duke Paulus Atreides]] *[[Dune (TV miniseries)]] *[[Dune (fan fiction)]] *[[Dune: House Atreides]] *[[Dune: House Corrino]] *[[Dune: House Harkonnen]] *[[Dune: The Battle of Corrin]] *[[Honoured Matres]] *[[House Richese]] *[[House Vernius]] *[[Legends of Dune]]


We need something general like this to mop up various vaguely cultural articles out of the general stub category, and then we can subdivide it when and if the need arises. --Joy [shallot] 01:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing. We need something to bring to light overlooked peoples and customs, and minor cultures in the world. {{Culture-stub}} is perfect. --ROY YOЯ 03:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering about this, would there be a distinction between this useage (customs, cultures and peoples) and the Ethno-stub? Rx StrangeLove 04:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I envision this as a catch-all for anything that looks to be culture-related but doesn't fit into any narrower category (which should answer Rx StrangeLove's question above). RussBlau 16:18, May 2, 2005 (UTC)


There are plenty of these - for anarchists, groups, books, journals, events, ideas, etc. It would be helpful to have a stub category. 20:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mmm. That would be a reasonable subcategory of Politics stubs, perhaps... you sure there's enough of them? (And am I the only one who thinks it's ironic trying to work out where in a hierarchy anarchy stubs would fit?) Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 23:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Using Edu-stub[edit]

We have a stub for educational institutions, but as I sort I'm regularly finding stubs on educational organizations, philosophy, theory, methods etc. The Edu-stub seems to be meant for "universities, colleges or other education institutions". Maybe we could create\use a stub thats a little more inclusive. Either by opening up the Edu-stub or by creating a General education topic stub. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting the Edu-stub? Thoughts? Rx StrangeLove 04:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If there's no objection, I'll go ahead and make a general education stub. Say {{Edu-general-stub}}? Rx StrangeLove 04:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. I've run into any number of educational technique/philosophy stubs, and had no good place to put them. --Dcfleck 16:40, 2005 May 1 (UTC)


This would be a subcategory of both corp-stub and lit-stub; it would cover publishers and publishing-related articles. A2Kafir 03:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Created A2Kafir 22:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Not exactly "newly discovered" but I made a new Saint-stub before I realized I should have asked first. Sorry about that, please delete as necessary. Kappa 23:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coincidentally, this looks like it ties in with the Template: reli-bio-stub being talked about above (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria#.7B.7Bpapal-stub.7D.7D, above). It might be another viable subcategory of it.


Probably redundant with {{astro-stub}}. Found by accident at featured Pics candidates. Circeus 23:32, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

No category for it, I note... If anything's in there that isn't an astro-stub, it's probably a rocket-stub. It only links to five pages (including this one!), and only one of them is an article (which I've changed to rocket-stub). I've been bold and made it a redirect to astronomy-stub, but that can be reverted if anyone sees a need for this. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 23:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Probably not a bad idea, since Edu-stub is heavily populated. I just wish the creator of this one had made a category for it (luckily it was only on a couple of articles!) Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 02:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Created by the same user as the above. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 03:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I know what you're thinking, but this is for Honor societies. Not sure of the necessity for this one, and the name will be very confusing... Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 03:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


...for Roman Catholic articles. Fits in well with the recently created papal-stub, and empties Christianity-stub a bit, too. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 13:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unless it is restricted to persons, it should likely be named Catholicism stubs. Circeus 13:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Good point. I've reworded the stub, but the category would require more work. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg
This desperately needs to be renamed (with no redirect from the old name). My first thought from the name is RC=radio control as in remote control vehicles. BlankVerse 01:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, this is a very poor name, what would people think about Roman-Catholic-stub? Create a new one, replace the stubs and run it by TfD? I'd volunteer to do the moving. I'd really like to see more descriptive names in the stubs Rx StrangeLove 03:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or just Catholic-stub (or Catholicism-stub)? There will be very few stubs on catholicism that aren't related to "High church", and those that there are would no doubt be edited by the same people. I'd very much like to keep the doubly-concatenated names to hybrid stubs where possible (i.e., things like Euro-royal-stub, with two category "variables") Grutness...wha? 08:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There seem to be more and more stub categories waiting to be discovered every day... This one is a(n unneccessary?) subcategory of Buddhistub. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 23:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zen Buddhism is a significant offshoot of Buddhism (something on the par of how Protestantism relates to Chritianity), so there really should be enough stubs to fill the category. The fact that there are only 10 articles in Category:Zen-related stubs and 97 articles in Category:Buddhism-related stubs could probably added as yet one more example of the systemic bias in the Wikipedia. BlankVerse 06:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But stub sorting is not about fighting systemic bias. We don't create stub types because they should be necessary, but because they are necessary. -- grm_wnr Esc 05:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


...and another one (albeit a more useful one). This is starting to get out of hand! Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 09:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


...and another... Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 05:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure we could use this one. Circeus 13:54, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Similarly {{Bangladesh-geo-stub}}, which has just turned up. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 10:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
but what about...


This one's got a bit of a history. I discovered that it had been created two weeks ago as {{carpentry-stub}}, with (first problem) no category for the stubs to go into. I created the category, and noticed the second problem. there is no Category:Carpentry. Then I checked what articles had the template, and there were - after two weeks - five of them. One was on vfd, one was about an article of furniture, and three were about joinery, not carpentry. So... seeing as there was a Category:Joinery, I reworded the template and moved it to its current location, and added a "Joinery stubs" category for it to feed into. I think it's probably a temporary measure, though. I doubt this will be very useful... Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 10:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{California State Highway Stub}}[edit]

Appears to have been created on April 17 as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways. Currently has 17 entries. --Allen3 talk 02:21, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, if it's got an associated WP, I've no objections... Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 05:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Ungrh. Created April 21. With Category:Stub. Misspelled besides. Two articles marked with it. —Korath (Talk) 10:35, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Blagh. If you think this should be deleted, you've got my vote! Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 13:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Get it through vfd already. Circeus 15:43, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Listed on TFD. WP:CFD is a strange and scary place that I don't grok, so I'll let someone else deal with that half. —Korath (Talk) 19:24, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Done. Not too scary, really! :) Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 01:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


At the very least this one was populated and almost correctly listed (it should also be a child to {{med-stub}}) Circeus 15:43, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)


Another gov stub has just been added to the Stub types list, and a goody too. I think this should get plenty of use. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 06:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{Calif-stub}} & {{Calif-geo-stub}}[edit]

Stub templates created and listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/By region. No categories created yet for either template. --Allen3 talk 11:15, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

In which case they're worse than useless... sigh... Categories created. ISTR we had a discussion here not that long back that individual state-based stubs were not a good idea unless there was a specific WikiProject to go with them... Is there a California WP? I'll also have a quiet word with the creator of these templates... Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 11:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Created April 15 in connection with Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who. --Allen3 talk 11:27, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

{{Inca-stub}} and {{Inca-myth-stub}}[edit]

Two new creations. Note has been sent to the creator. At first glance I am not sure that there is currently enough material to justify these stubs. Maybe a more generalized form covering all pre-Columbian societies. --Allen3 talk 22:53, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree - from the stubs I've seen there are far more Aztec/Olmec/Toltec/other-Mexican-race stubs than Incan ones. And a goodly number of First-nation ones too. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 23:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I had actually planned more on a Maya myth stub than anything else, but I got carried away with the Inca. In Category:Inca religion and subcategories you can see there are around 10 stubs. I know this isn't many, and I am up for a more ambiguous form. I have also considered a new WikiProject, and if that ever gets started I hope we can get things straightened out. For now, though, I think at least a general American culture stub is excellent. This subject definitely needs more attention. --ROY YOЯ 01:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have added entries for potential replacements into the "Proposed new stubs" section. Suggestions for better names are welcome. --Allen3 talk 01:30, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)


Another new one. Had two articles in it (one of which was actually a SouthAm-geo-stub)... not sure how viable it is - I suppose time will tell. Don't think there's an associated WikiProject. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 01:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


This could almost be useful, but might be more of nonsense. Circeus 23:21, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Very unlikely to be useful - very, very likley to be nonsense. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 07:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This stub can and probably should be reworded and repositioned as a stub for all the articles in the Wikipedia namespace that are stubs. BlankVerse 08:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not a bad idea - it could get some work there. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 10:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


A very useful idea, but why oh why did its creator link it back to Category:Stub??? Grrrrr. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 07:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I didn't realise I needed to ask first. This stub category was created because Linguistics stubs and Language stubs were being polluted with idioms and word definitions. Frankly. most if not all of the stubs in that category ought to go to Wiktionary. By collecting them in one place, at least its possible to deal with them coherently. --Diderot 23:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was a good idea anyway... if you look further up this page (or possibly in the archive of it) you'll find that the creation of this stub has been looked at seriously - we just hadn't worked out what to call it. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 01:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(followup) It's in archive 6 - listed as "phrase-stub". Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 01:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But please do not use a normal category on a stub template. Make a stub category as a subcategory of the one used presently. -- grm_wnr Esc 05:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I changed it to Category:Vocabulary and usage stubs. --Diderot 06:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I put that into its proper parent categories :) Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 07:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Any guesses what this was short for? Neither had I... Warhammer 40,000, apparently. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 07:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope, I would have guessed that one -- geek points to me? :) It's a little cryptic, yes, though simply "40K" is a pretty common reference. Mind you, it might also be over-specific: there are a number of Warhammer Fantasy Battle stubs kicking around, I think, and doubtless also the odd Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay one, etc, etc, so perhaps just {{Warhammer-stub}} would be a feasible way to go? Alai 07:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created the stub template because Warhammer 40,000 content is just starting to populate Wikipedia with any sort of depth. While there is some overlap between Warhammer Fantasy Battles and Warhammer 40,000, they are generally highly distinct. Most of the articles currently existing are, in reality, stubs, and this would be a true help to those of us who are attempting to populate, develop and clean this category. --SparqMan 16:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree they're distinct topics, and should remain as separate categories, I'm just concerned that it's likely to be somewhat small as a stub category. The normal criterion seems to be around 100 -- are there now, or is there ever likely to be, that many stubs that are 40K-specific? Alai 16:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say that given the large number of characters, units, factions, technologies, races, historical events and battles that inhabit the Warhmmer 40,000 universe, it is highly likely that at least 100 stubs will be created in the process of populating this topic.
You're assuming just that not are there that many topics, but that there will ever be that many at any given time, before they get expanded, merged, deleted, etc. I still feel that's unlikely, and more to the point it's not happened yet, and thus creation is (at best) premature. (Though mind you, did just find another one.) Alai 05:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Another mysteriously arrived stub. Currently has eight articles, but then the entire Doom category only has 47, so the chances of this one ever reaching viability are slight, to say the least. Only found out about this one when it was listed on tfd... Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 00:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Nicely made, it conforms to all the stub-type standards, just wasn't debated here first. Looks as though it will be useful - Morocco has quite a few stub articles. With the ten or so that the creator of it has added to the category and the 30 or so that were in the North Africa category it got pretty close to 40. It's probably worth mentioning that a couple of other countries in the area (Algeria and Egypt) are getting close to the bottom end of stub consideration (both have between 55 and 60 stub articles). Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 09:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As above, except that there aren't likely to be more than about 15-20 stubs in the category. There are about 30 other countries with more stubs that have yet to be split off this way (in Oceania alone, French Polynesia has three times this number of stubs). No associated WikiProject, either. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 00:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Oh dear. Two major problems here - almost enough to list it in the "delete" section straight away. First, it largely (though not entirely) duplicates WWII-stub (the overlap is very significant). Second, the title of the stub does not indicate that it is about Nazi Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, and could accidentally be added to articles on neo-Nazism. This one, I'd suggest deleting. Of the three stubs that were assigned this template, two could have had (and now have) WWII stubs, the third was a germany-bio-stub Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 01:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My first time trying to invent a stub. Hope I didnt break any rules. In any event, a lot of the Nazi Germany articles pertian to events of the 1930s or even the 1920s. The National Socialist Flyers Corps for instance, was big until about 1935 at which time it dwindled to almost no importance by 1940. To call that a WWII stub would not be accurate. So, thats the primary reason: To stub articles specifically about Nazi Germany that contain info from before the years of the Second World War. -Husnock 01:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And generally, the period is usually from 1933 - 1939, when the war officially began. Six years of history can be covered by one stub. Zscout370 (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mmmm. Okay... if there's some way of making it clear that the pre-war Nazi era is being stressed, I can probably be talked round... Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 02:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{US-road-stub}} and {{UK-road-stub}}[edit]

Very useful, but it would have been nice if the creator of it had let us know... Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 01:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Created by an anonymous user and uses Category:Stub instead of its own category. There is only one article currently using this and it is under VfD. --Allen3 talk 21:57, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • This should certainly be deleted. It's part of a concerted anti-Islamic drive by a couple of newish editors, and has no obvious application beyond the rather unpleasant little articles on Islamofascism and Islamic fascism that they've created. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I removed this from the article; leaving aside the general debate about the concept of "Islamofascism", this ostensible stub is clearly just meant to be offensive. ("You can help by adding to it, as is Allah's wish." [sic]).--Pharos 23:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update. This stub template is currently listed at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. --Allen3 talk 23:47, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like there's been quite an edit war going on with regards to the topic of Islamofascism. I hope it doesn't spread to stub-sorting too. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


No articles have this stub message, and the category (for "Fortean phenomenas" (sic)) has some weird parent links. Already adequately covered by para-stub, which is only lightly populated, and therefore (IMO) this new stub is unneccessary. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the unintentional breach of etiquette! I agree that forteana-stub currently has issues. I had begun to use it, and stopped when it dawned on me that there may be a fundamental flaw in the area of "strange" categories such as anomalous phenomena, paranormal phenomena, perinormal phenomena, forteana, occult, legendary creatures, cryptids, Earth mysteries, medical curiosities or oddities and others. I have some good ideas about how to address this but I want to express them through a WikiProject because it will require careful explanation. If the stub-cat should be retired for now I can go along with that, although I do believe that Forteana is a legitimate category and that there is easily potential for new stubs in the future and that it Forteana and the Paranormal are distinct from one another. This should be self-evident to any Fortean but let me know if I'm being too vague here. FJ | hello 02:24, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
I understand what you mean - then again, I've done a tiny bit of paranormal research (others may not understand the difference witout explanation). Still, I think the two areas are close enough to be covered by one stub, especially since neither is likely to be heavily populated. Stub categories often include similar but not identical fields (for example, bank-stub covered many different kinds of financial institution, and reptile-stub covers both reptiles and amphibians). I think the sort of editors who were able to expand articles on paranormal phenomena in general are more likely to have some chance of expanding articles on Fortean subjects, and vice versa. Grutness...wha? 02:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True enough! I'd like to revisit this again, though, once I've hashed out the category idea in the project I mentioned. It will be clearer and will address every angle of this issue. I realize I'm being kind of a categorical perfectionist, and I have to agree with your point. FJ | hello 03:07, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
I'd suggest - for the time being - turning it into a redirect to para-stub. If there looks like there's enough call for it later, then come back and discuss it further. I don't think it would mean too much work to sift any Fortean stubs out of para-stub if the separate stub is resuscitated. Grutness...wha? 07:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


One of the Australian city WikiProject stubs. However, both it and the WikiProject have been inactive since October. Nothing links to it besides the wikiproject. Remuel 22:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • what's that word - deprecated? Post a message on the WP talk page first and see if it can be stirred back into life. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 23:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Nothing links to it and I think anything relating to the Quaker faith can be contained within the main Christianity-stub. Remuel 22:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Mmm. This one could be useful. I'd hold off on this one for a while. We have a LDS stub (okay, it's a little further removed from mainstream Christian, but it could be seen as a precedent). Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 23:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this would be useful; we haven't started using it yet at the Quaker WikiProject yet, but I think that's just because we haven't known about it. Also, I think it's justified to have a separate stub from Christianity because some Quakers don't identify as Christian, and of those that do many identify as Quaker first. Zach 12:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:UK politicians stub[edit]

Creator asks for the stub to be scraped and it wouldn't be more than a redirect anyway. Remuel 22:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • agree with delete, although a redirect wouldn't hurt - sounds like a variant on one already being created. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 23:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Stands for virtual reality communities. The two pages that link it could easily be re-categorized under the compu-soft-stub. Remuel 22:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Another hyperspecific stub category. Not created by a WP:WSS (otherwise it may well have got the simpler name of stamp-stub). The category has a TOC template, despite being currently on just three articles, and unlikely to be on more than ten or twenty, let alone the 60-100 necessary to be a truly viable stub-cat. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 08:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)