{{ psychology-stub}} or {{ psychologist-stub}}

The field of psychology is also hard to sort. -- Joy [shallot] 16:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blah, found it at Template:Psych-stub, will make redirects. People need to start using normal names in stub names, it is tiring to have to remember all the silly little contractions. -- Joy [shallot] 16:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Psych" is also ambiguous because it can expand to "psychiatry" rather than only psychology. -- Joy [shallot]

...which is why it's called that. The two terms, although different, do overlap, and to many people they seem difficult to differentiate. Psych-stub deliberately allows both to be covered. As for {{ psychologist-stub}}, I'd suggest doing the same thing there and creating {{ psych-bio-stub}}, especially since the fields weren't differentiated at all until the early to mid 20th century Grutness... wha? 01:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The distinction between the two is more on training and tools than the maladies that they treat, so I think it's fair to keep them together under {{ Psych-stub}} and {{ Psych-bio-stub}}. Courtland 17:54, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Well... not quite. Eaiest way I know of thinking of it is roughly translate the Niugini Pidgin for the terms, (IIRC psychiatry is "fixing the brain", psychology is "fixing the soul"). Mind you, we need to change the wording on the template a bit, since it does only say psychology at the moment. Grutness... wha? 00:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uh... editors definitely aren't supposed to need to guess the proper intent of an article from an ambiguous title and contradicting content. D'oh! :)

Having said that, I don't think that the psychologists and the psychiatrists would quite agree that they can all be lumped together into the same category. Not all psychologists are clinical psychologists, and even clinical psychologists don't have pharmacological training that the psychiatrists do need to have, AFAIR. While these differences may not seem large in absolute terms, in relative terms they are quite important. -- Joy [shallot] 00:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In particular research psychologists don't treat anyone, they investigate how the brain and mind work. My father was a research psycologist, specializing in Color vision (my first serious work was doing some statistical analysis for one of his studies) and where he taught, the Psycology department had little or nothign to do with medical issues. DES 23:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, (putting on former academic hat) as a former psychology researcher (and no, not in a clinical field - my specialty was visual perception), I'm sure that - while there is a rivalry between the two professions - most would not mind one stub category being used for both vocations. There is a great deal of overlap, particularly in historical subjects. And many stub sortters would almost certainly have problems deciding which template to use. What's more, I'm unconvinced there would be enough articles for two separate categories for psychiatry and psychology. Grutness... wha? 07:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

People related to terrorism, militia, paramilitary, revolutions, anarchy...

I know it's a can of worms, but something needs to be done so that we can sort these out of bio-stub. -- Joy [shallot] 16:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An obvious question: Could they be sorted to their resective country-bio-stub bins? I'd understand if not all could. Also, I don't think one stub-type would handle all the folks you suggest; an anarchist needn't be a terrorist, for instance. There already is the {{ military-bio-stub}} which could be used for some of these folks, in the cases where there is state-sponsorship or affiliation. Courtland 17:51, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Many of the people with Arabic on top of People stubs category have articles related to terrorism. I guess I could drop them all to {{ US-bio-stub}} but that's just going from one generic category to another.

Furthermore, there are many articles on activists and anarchists and whatever. I really haven't a slightest idea how to categorize those. -- Joy [shallot] 11:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The revolutionaries could be put in the same category with what one might call statesmen, warlords and others. Leader-stub? -- Joy [shallot] 13:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{ motorcycle-stub}} (*created)

I've come across one or two motorbike stubs, and I'm not at all sure what to do with them. Is road-stub the catch-all here? Seems a bit too general, and also not a good fit for "sports bikes". Any idea how populated a separate category would be likely to get? Alai 02:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I proposed this one in about February or March (It'll be in the archives somewhere), but ISTR we could only find about ten of them then (there may be more now). There's still a list of a handful of them on my talk page if you want to see how many you can find. Grutness... wha? 05:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been putting any I find, under auto-stub. Though that doesn't quite feell correct. -- TheParanoidOne 05:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seems iffy even definitionally, not to mention that category's already over 1000 stubs. I've found a handful under miscellaneous things like product-stub, germany-stub... This seems at least as viable as van-stub and bus-stub, and one would like to think at least as good for expander-attraction purposes. Several articles, on a random sampling, already in the "motorcycles" category look rather stubby. I'm inclined to suspect this is likely to be of a decent size (if not 100 immediately, then not far off): would anyone object to motorbike-stub or motorcycle-stub? (I suppose the latter, to better fit the name of the existing category.) Alai 05:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By sheer co-incidence I just placed Honda VFR750F (which I picked up by random) under Road-stub, and then saw this page under recent changes. I don't think auto is an appropriate placing for motorcycles, none-the-least because no self-respecting motorcyclist would tolerate that little Porsche gif as anything indicative of a motorcycle. I am surprised there are not more motorcycle stubs than Hong Kong underground stubs, maybe it's because "enthusiasts" write longer articles? L-Bit 06:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had much the same thought, though I was trying to be diplomatic, rather than being seen to openly goad the opposing factions of petrol-heads into combat. :) There may be any number of such stubs lodged in other stub categories, un-stub-tagged in category space, or completely categoryless, I wouldn't be surprised. Alai 07:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was just about to propose this, having come across a number of stubby motorcycle articles (just look in the manufacturer categories and you'll find dozens). What's the problem here, we have a van-stub but not a motorcycle stub!?! Leithp 20:15, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: created (finally!) Grutness... wha? 11:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC) reply

English and Language Stubs

I propose that a stub category in English and Language be created. -- Admiral Roo 18:08, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

{{ lang-stub}} already exists, so are you proposing {{ english-stub}} as a child branch of lang-stub? The Language and literature section of the stub types page might be worth taking a look at. -- TheParanoidOne 22:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More work with astronomy and space stubs

Right now, {{ Space-stub}} redirects to {{ astro-stub}} which isn't a good fit. We have a {{ Rocket-stub}} for both rocketry and spacecraft, also not a perfect fit.

I propose:

• new stub: {{ Spacecraft-stub}} for satellites or any space probes;
• restrict {{ Rocket-stub}} to rocketry;
• change {{ Space-stub}} from a redirect to its own stub to account for space-related articles (space programs, space training/engineering facilities, anything space-related that ISN'T astronomy or spacecraft or rockets)

I volunteer to do the cleanup to move the stubs around to their proper places. A2Kafir 00:37, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Though I'm inclined to trust your judgement on the astronomy-related stuff, I wonder if this is needed yet - there are only about 200 stubs in rocket-stub at the moment - is a split really needed? Grutness... wha? 29 June 2005 00:34 (UTC)

Some satellites are hiding in astro-stub, perhaps marked at the moment as space-stub. That makes the number a bit higher than 200. I also think it's a better logical division--a rocket is not necessarily a space-launch device, after all. A2Kafir 29 June 2005 12:54 (UTC)

{{ observatory-stub}}

A new division of {{ astro-stub}}, for specific telescopes, observatories, or other established astronomical facilities. Many currently in the still-large {{ astro-stub}} at the moment; many more (both current and historical) do not exist yet and would find a home here. A2Kafir 00:37, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are a few in struct-stub as well (ISTR one Indian one with asia-struct-stub at least).

Good call; I'll scan those stubs too. A2Kafir 28 June 2005 14:59 (UTC)

{{ disaster-stub}}

For disasters such as massive fires, poison gas leaks, or any large-scale death situations. Such stubs that could be placed in this catogory are matsumoto incident and Bradford City disaster, to name a few. Coolgamer June 29, 2005 21:31 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start with something like {{ event-stub}} first? -- Joy [shallot] 8 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)

Well, we've basically got that - hist-stub, which would fit both of the items mentioned above, since they are historical events. Grutness... wha? 9 July 2005 05:00 (UTC)

{{ music-technician-stub}} and {{ songwriter-stub}}

To cover recording engineers, producers, managers, and the like in the first case, and people better known for writing songs than performing them in the second. I believe these could be useful categories that may just reduce musician-stub and music-stub further. Grutness... wha? 1 July 2005 05:25 (UTC)

{{ explorer-stub}} *created*

Something about the various explorers and sailors is necessary. -- Joy [shallot] 1 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)

Hmm...Explorer-stub sounds good, though would you include those that purely traveled by land in it? How about travelers such as Marco Polo? This might be fuzzier than one would like to think.

I think explorer-stub is better for that reason. In fact, I must say the whole idea of profession-bio-stub isn't that good, really, since we're also splitting by nationality profession-stub enables you to later split as nation-profession-stub. Explorer-stub has the other advantage that...erm...someone suggested above: not all explorers were naval. Burke and Wills, Amundsen, Byrd, Polo, Speke, Livingstone... all explorers, none naval. Grutness... wha? 9 July 2005 10:11 (UTC)

Okay. explorer-stub was my primary idea, the rest would really just be topping on the cake.

A bio-stub about naval matters would also be problematic because navy implies military. Perhaps a better idea for that would be marine or maritime, but again, we can leave that for another section/discussion later, one day when we analyze if mil-bio-stub could be split further. -- Joy [shallot] 9 July 2005 11:05 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't add my name on my comment above. -- YixilTesiphon 03:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Done. -- Joy [shallot] 23:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC) reply

{{ economist-stub}} (*R {{ econ-bio-stub}}) *created*

For economists - can't decide where to put them right now. It could also take other economy-related people such as accountants? Not that we have many of those, but still :) -- Joy [shallot] 2 July 2005 22:56 (UTC)

Economist stub is easier on the eyes, but if there aren't many possibilities then why? -- YixilTesiphon July 7, 2005 23:30 (UTC)

Why what? -- Joy [shallot]

Why make it? -- YixilTesiphon July 8, 2005 23:09 (UTC)

Because there are many economists that can't be sorted out of bio-stub without it. Some can go into academic-bio-stub because they're mainly oriented towards academia, but many worked as advisors in companies and such things but aren't simple business-bio-stub material.

(I meant that we don't have many accountants; we have a fair few economists.) -- Joy [shallot] 9 July 2005 11:00 (UTC)

As far as the name is concerned, please also note the comments I've made on the talk page. Grutness... wha? 9 July 2005 10:21 (UTC)

In this case, agreed. Amended above. -- Joy [shallot] 9 July 2005 11:00 (UTC)

Done. -- Joy [shallot] 22:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

{{ royal-stub}}

The current royal stub currently links as follows This biography of a member of the nobility is a stub. It is ineffective. Many of those who might want to expand the large number of small royal biographical articles don't want to work on articles on the nobility and find it alkward trying to find the royal articles far larger numbers of nobility articles. The current royal stub should be changed to refer simply to royalty so that those interested just in adding to royal articles can do so easily. FearÉIREANN ^(talk) 5 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)

royal-stub was debated at length when noble-stub was created. The two categories are far too intertwined to be able to easily separate one from the other easily. Personally, I'd be against reviving a separate royal category. In any case the current method of splitting noble-stub (by nationality) is probably far more effective. Grutness... wha? 6 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)

Except that it doesn't work. Not all royals are nobility (eg, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, the current queen of Sweden, etc and the vast majority of nobles aren't royal. So you have a choice of using what in many cases is the wrong stub, or nothing. Royalty are a different category. They follow different naming conventions, have articles differently structured, and the articles are read in many cases by people who don't want and won't read nobility articles. There are many people who will fix royal stubs if they can find them but won't go near nobility stubs. It makes logical sense to have a stub that brings together a set category of people rather than tagging them on to another category that they don't belong in and may not get fixed by being in. It is like attaching a unique group like feminists to a stub on human beings, or linking historians to fiction writers. The whole point of stubs is to increase the chance that those who are able to expand an article getting a chance to do that. Tagging them into a category that most of those interested in writing about royalty won't go near is pointless, a waste of time and utterly counterproductive. FearÉIREANN ^(talk) 6 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)

You should have argued this out a couple of moonths back with the people working on royalty and nobility articles who argued that royalty was, by definition, the highest form of nobility and thus belonged in the same category. As it is, splitting off royalty from the nobility articles - even making it a subcategory - would be a tricky business, since the split by nationality has already been started. Grutness... wha? 6 July 2005 02:18 (UTC)

A bit of "I told you so": I agree with the guy with the strange Irish-looking signature, and I actually argued at the time that a stub of this type risked being misused. I wrote:

There is a certain set of people interested in the genealogy of European royal houses and that kind of thing, but an all-purpose royal stub-tag might end up getting applied to Indian maharadjas and Sumerian city kings, which should come to the attention of entirely different people. As for a noble-stub tag, I wouldn't be surprised if it will lazily get used on anybody who seems to belong to some kind of petty nobility, even if the people who actually should find the stub are those interested in, say, Baroque architecture or French military history. --Uppland 12:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...and that is exactly what we see now, with, for instance several kings of the Hittites (e.g. Hattusili I) and at least a couple of kings of Babylon (e.g. Marduk-apal-iddina II), being added to the nobility stub category. The latter is stubbed thus, but is not even categorized in any meaningful way. The people who like to browse Burke's Peerage or the Almanach de Gotha are, in most cases, not the people capable of adding meaningful content to articles such as these, or all the other stubs on Persian, Ethiopian, Korean or Arab rulers now included in the category. This makes this category completely useless for its purpose. We need culture-specific stub-types for these articles, such as {{ ANE-stub}} (as in Ancient Near East) etc. Uppland 6 July 2005 09:32 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Gruntness, I was not around when that stub was created or I would most definitely have argued against it. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. When I first used it I thought something had gone wrong. I could not understand why a royal stub reference produced a non-royal tag. It made no sense. And clearly others believe it is all wrong too. It is time to change this ludicrous stub to make it relevant to the topic.

FearÉIREANN File:Irish flag.gif File:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\ ^(caint) 7 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)

While in some sense, perhaps, royalty is a form of nobility, a king of the Hittites, or even a King of Denmark, should not be described as "a member of the nobility." While perhaps not technically inaccurate, it is, at least, deeply misleading, and royals, so far as I am aware, are never described as "nobleman." I agree that the line can get hard to determine - was a medieval Count of Anjou a member of royalty? But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have any kind of line. john k 7 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

Grutness, I second the comments above. The "consensus" you worked out a couple of months is irrelevant because it was incorrect then and now. Conflating the two categories-- though they are indeed often closely intertwined-- is simply inaccurate. 172 7 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)

Let me note that I have changed the template text so that it is at least not horribly stupid. It now says "

" I still think that it would probably be best to separate it out, especially for category purposes, but for so long as it's not separated, I don't see why it should be actively wrong. john k 7 July 2005 23:37 (UTC)

I recall making similar arguments a month or two ago, and I agree with what has been said above. Nobility and royalty aren't the same thing and they don't belong in the same category. Mackensen (talk) 8 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)

As this seems to be a major problem, you're free to bring this up on WP:SFD, as it could help to build consensus Lectonar 8 July 2005 10:42 (UTC)

To be honest there does appear to be a consensus that the current link is wrong. There is no need to delete a stub, merely stop {{royal-stub}} redirecting to {{noble-stub}}. FearÉIREANN File:Tricolour.gif File:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\ ^(caint) 8 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)

I agree, nobility and royalty are quite distinct concepts and I don't see how having two stub categories is a problem. Deb 8 July 2005 11:56 (UTC)

• • Also agree, no reason why we can't have 2 distinct entries. Astrotrain 14:12, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

In view of the unanimous agreement that it was wrong to redirect royal stub to noble stub and consensus that they should be separate I have separated them and linked the former to a large number of relevant articles. Many articles already had it in place already. More work is needed to redirect the rest of the royal pages to the royal stub and away from the ludicrously inaccurate noble stub. Separated, both should be able to be used by people interested in either topic to easily find and so expand articles. Up to now, there was just an undefined mess of articles all bunged in together. I didn't realise quite how much a mess the original redirect produced until I tried to untangle it. No wonder the royal articles remained as stubs. No-one could find them!!! FearÉIREANN File:Tricolour.gif\ ^(caint) 22:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

A few more geo stubs

I've just done my monthly tally of all the geo-stubs which don't have individual categories and there are about ten which are close enough to criterion and could do with a split. Grutness... wha? 7 July 2005 07:23 (UTC)

FrenchPolynesia-geo-stub (*Created)

...or maybe simply Tahiti-geo-stub, although that would be a less accurate name. 30% of the 250 Oceania-geo-stubs could be tagged with this. Grutness... wha? 7 July 2005 07:23 (UTC)

Created as {{ FrenchPolynesia-geo-stub}} - cat is a child of both Oceania and France geo-stubs. Grutness... wha? 06:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Egypt-geo-stub, Ethiopia-geo-stub, Algeria-geo-stub (all created)

These have around 70-80 stubs each, and are in the heavily populated African region categories. Grutness... wha? 7 July 2005 07:23 (UTC)

All three created. Grutness... wha? 08:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Illinois-geo-stub, Florida-geo-stub, Ohio-geo-stub, NCarolina-geo-stub

All at 80+, again in heavily populated regional categories. Grutness... wha? 7 July 2005 07:23 (UTC)

Agree with split. Let's call it NorthCarolina-geo-stub, though (with maybe a redirect at NC-geo-stub). — Fingers-of-Pyrex July 7, 2005 18:00 (UTC)

What about NCarolina-geo-stub? NC could stand for many places in the world - Nomadic1 7 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)

US-NC-geo-stub might be acceptable, but if you make NC-geo-stub, then you're likely to get stubs for New Caledonia and various other places. I have no objection to NorthCarolina-geo-stub, but would object to NC-geo-stub. Grutness... wha? 7 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake. I meant US-NC-geo-stub. — Fingers-of-Pyrex July 8, 2005 13:02 (UTC)

Well - to cut a long story short, the original intention with both the US state stubs and the Canadian province stubs was to have redirects named like that. For some reason, the US ones were never made, and the Canadian redirects have never been used and have recently been taken across to SFD. I've got nothing against having US-NC-geo-stub as a redirect to NorthCarolina-geo-stub, but all the other states have the state name as the name of the template itself. Grutness... wha? 9 July 2005 13:03 (UTC)

Why not NCarolina stub, so as to take in everything having to do with NC, like the Texas stub? -- YixilTesiphon July 7, 2005 23:33 (UTC)

For the same reason that there is likely to be a Texas-geo-stub soon. X-stub and X-geo-stub are completely different types of category - which is why states and countries with only X-stub shouldn't have geographical items listed by that stub, or should at least be double stubbed (everywhere is listed as part of one geo-stub category or another). At the moment Texas has below the threshold number of geo-stubs (it's very close - I've been using 80 as a cut-off for US states, and it and Pennsylvania both have over 75). If you're wondering about the other Carolina, BTW, SC has only 1/4 of the stubs that NC has! Grutness... wha? 7 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)

Implementation of split

I ran across a North Carolina article when sorting stubs, so I went ahead and created {{ NorthCarolina-geo-stub}}. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 03:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Good-o. I'm hoping to have time to start some of the others up between now and the end of the weekend. Grutness... wha? 04:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The other three states are done, but I did not update Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types because I don't know the counts. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 13:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Anyone willing to make a start on the changeover, I've put a list of all the stubs for each of the states up at User:Grutness/Ongoing geo-stub splits. I'll try to help out, but I'm going to be fairly busy for the next couple of days. They'll all end up with <100 as the count (each has between 80 and 100) Grutness... wha? 02:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The North Carolina is complete. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 01:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Newfoundland-geo-stub, NovaScotiaMaritimes-geo-stub (created)

These two are a bit more problematical. Both have experienced huge growth (there have been a LOT of new Canada-geo-stubs in the last three weeks - over 150 new ones, in fact). The problems are different for each of these. In the case of Newfoundland-geo-stub, the name is a problem, since the province is Newfoundland and Labrador, but that would be a huge name. In the case of Nova Scotia, it might make more sense to have a Maritimes-geo-stub for NS, New Brunswick and PEI (a total of 125 stubs between those three). Grutness... wha? 7 July 2005 07:23 (UTC)

• We could just go with Newfoundland-geo-stub and wait to see if the excrement hits the fan, then deal with suggestions for improvement. I like Maritimes-geo-stub but is "Maritimes" unambiguous to be only Canada? Perhaps both problems could be solved by merging in Newfoundland and Labrador to something like AtlanticCanada-geo-stub. ( Atlantic Canada) DoubleBlue ( Talk) 09:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I considered that, but N/L is big enough for its own category (Nova Scotia probably is, too, but NB and PEI may never be, so Maritimes made a bit more sense). Maritimes is, I think, a widely enough known term, but I'd like to hear a few more non-Canadian views on that. Grutness... wha? 10:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • The issue with Maritimes is that it could potentially refer to the Maritime region of another country, as DoubleBlue stated. (I don't know how likely this is, though.) Mindmatrix 13:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • How about the template at {{ Newfoundland-geo-stub}}, with a redirect at {{ Labrador-geo-stub}}? The category would, of course, use the full title of the province. That would even allow for the possibility of making a split into two categories possible, in the extremely unlikely event that it would be worth doing later. Grutness... wha? 12:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • That sounds good, though you may find most will be in Newfoundland, not Labrador. Mindmatrix 13:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

How's this then (summarizing the notes above):

• {{ Newfoundland-geo-stub}}
• {{ Labrador-geo-stub}} points to {{ Newfoundland-geo-stub}}
• {{ AtlanticCanada-geo-stub}} contains all Eastern Canada stubs, excluding N&L

The latter would be a catch-all similar to the way {{ Canada-geo-stub}} behaves.

Aside: should we raise the issue of {{ Ontario-geo-stub}} for a separate discussion? It has nearly doubled to 731 stubs in just a few weeks, and there are many red-links of the form XXX, Ontario (minimum 400) that I've found. Mindmatrix 13:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Looks fine to me but if "Maritimes" is unambiguous enough, it's a better choice over "AtlanticCanada". DoubleBlue ( Talk) 17:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Actually, doing a google search for Maritimes and the lack of disambig at Maritimes convinces me that it is clear enough identified with Canada. I vote for {{ Maritimes-geo-stub}}. DoubleBlue ( Talk) 17:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks for checking that DoubleBlue; I prefer {{ Maritimes-geo-stub}} too. Mindmatrix 19:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

I'd leave splitting Ontario for now - deal with the major Canada categories first. It's likely that all Canada's province categories will become overpopulated soon - there seems to be a major drive on led by User:Earl Andrew and others to get at least stub articles written on every canadian settlement (a good idea - I did the same thing with new zealand last year). Also, I can't see any easy way of splitting Ontario that will be easily understood by non-Canadians - or even by the majority of Canadians. Looks like {{ Maritimes-geo-stub}} and {{ Newfoundland-geo-stub}} (with redirect at {{ Labrador-geo-stub}}) is the plan... I'll get onto creating it shortly. I'll also re-do the list of locations of Canada geo-stubs on my page at User:Grutness/Canada geo-stub list Grutness... wha? 00:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Two stubs plus one redirect created, and new list is in place. Grutness... wha? 10:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC) reply

I've re-stubbed many articles, as has User:HJKeats. All articles that belong to these stub categories that were previously in {{ canada-geo-stub}} have been marked with the appropriate template. Mindmatrix 18:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Excellent work! Well done. Grutness... wha? 05:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Also, some suggestions needed about the UK

discussion moved to its own section further down the page

{{ moon-stub}}

A quick Googling revealed approximately 4000 hits, and while some of these will probably not fit I imagine there will be more than enough to warrant a subcat of astronomy-stub. -- YixilTesiphon July 8, 2005 13:53 (UTC)

• 4000??? That's several times the total number of astronomy stubs! I got a similar number searching moon+stub in wikipedia, but of the first few pages of items only about 10% related to astronomy. Most of them were film titles, songs and band names. if you do decide to do something with this you'll also have to specify whether you mean the moon, or any moon (i.e., natural satellite). Grutness... wha? 9 July 2005 05:07 (UTC)
• About the naming - I was considering calling it "Luna stub" and saying "This article about Earth's Moon..." -- YixilTesiphon 02:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Luna stub"?... "Lunar-stub" would be far better, IMHO. Grutness... wha? 06:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • But that would once again relate to all moons, not just Earth's. -- YixilTesiphon 13:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but Luna isn't exactly a intuitive name for the stub. As long as it's made clear in the template what it's for it shouldn't be a problem. And people are going to get it wrong no matter what happens (the number of lunar/martian/etc features I keep pulling out of geo-stub...) is A2Kafir out there somewhere reading this? He's usually the one dealing with Astro-stub-stuff... Grutness... wha? 13:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for the heads-up. Let me take a look at it later today and then maybe I'll have some suggestions.......... A2Kafir 14:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • OK, this is what I get from Google: "Results 1 - 50 of about 45,700 from en.wikipedia.org for moon." The second article is Sun Myung Moon; the third is Keith Moon. "Moon" is just a really common word and name and I think the vast majority of the articles will not be related. Of those that are, some will already be marked {{ crater-stub}} (surface features) and others aren't even stubs. What's left? Looking in Category:Astronomy_stubs, I see only a few that relate to Earth's moon. There are few others relating to the more obscure moons of other planets ( Kiviuq (moon), for instance), but there aren't many. I considered proposing {{ comet-stub}} a while back, but not very many comets are listed in {{ astro-stub}} at the moment. I don't think morphing {{ asteroid-stub}} into a catch-all for comets, asteroids, and moons is the answer ({{ minor-celestial-body-stub}} or something).
      

I guess what I'm asking here is, what problem does this solve? Are you looking for all the features on the Moon? Start at Category:Moon and explore from there. There are only 100 or so articles in {{ crater-stub}} right now. If that were 1000, I might support {{ Moon-crater-stub}} and {{ Mars-crater-stub}} for starters. But for now, that really doesn't help. A2Kafir 02:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC) reply

So to cut a long story short, you don't think this category's worth it for now? Grutness... wha? 01:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Exactly so..... A2Kafir 01:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

{{ quaker-stub}}

This stub was actually created by someone else working on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), we were asked to list it here so here it is. There are already 22 articles with this tag on them, and the project has been able to put that to good use on sorting the articles we've been working on. -- Ahc 9 July 2005 06:29 (UTC)

This one was actually proposed for deletion here a couple of months ago (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria/Archive9), but nothing was done about it (SFD wasn't running then, and deletions tended to get put on the back burner). Since there's a WikiProject it's connected with though, it's likely to be allowed to survive. Grutness... wha? 9 July 2005 10:02 (UTC)

Stubby section

OK, this will take a bit of explanation and I'm not even sure if the software would work with it. So, the idea is that if one section of an article needs attention, it can be marked as a stubby section without the whole article being marked as such. Thus, the "History" section of the Roxbury, New Hampshire article would be marked as a US history stub (Or whatever the appropriate stub is) without the entire article being marked as such a stub, and the category would have a link to that section of the article. This make sense? -- YixilTesiphon 03:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it does, and what you want is {{ sectstub}}. An article with one section that needs expansion is beyond the scope of WP:WSS. Section stubs aren't split up by subject - you'd need a separate WikiProject to handle that because there'd be a huge amount of work involved - far more than we could manage here on top of the work load we've already got! Grutness... wha? 06:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Fantastic, I feel ignorant now. -- YixilTesiphon 20:02, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

No need to, there are so many things in this project that you'd have to be mad to try to keep track of it all (now...where's my straitjacket?) Grutness... wha? 01:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Frivolous proposals

Note: All four submitted by User:JIP -- TheParanoidOne 8 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)

BJAODN? -- YixilTesiphon 02:02, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Best laugh all day. BJAODN. DoubleBlue ( Talk) 10:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Um. I think I did that correctly. -- YixilTesiphon 13:38, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

{{ scientology-stub}}

We've just started WikiProject Scientology, and the project template says to come here and ask for a stub :-) So shall we go ahead and create this one? I will be starting a bucketload of articles as soon as we have a stub of our own - David Gerard 15:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Looks like it's a bit late! The stub and category are already there... I've added Religion stubs as a parent category. Grutness... wha? 00:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Yeah, someone dived right in ;-) We've only got a few so far, but the project is only just getting started, so we expect a pile more in reasonable order - David Gerard 22:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

{{ current-stub}}

General current event stubs where no other category fits. For instance, as of right now Lindsey Germaine (alleged UK suicide bomber) would qualify, since there is no {{ terrorist-stub}}. -- Bk0 02:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Technically, they could use hist-stub, since they're historic events now and will be regarded more so the more time passes, but I see your point. However, further up this page there are suggestions for a stub category which would cover terrorists. It's just that the debate on it has slowed down. Grutness... wha? 11:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC) reply

I don't see a need for this stub at all; current events are usually well covered in the wiki, so why use a stub which is obsolete after, say, some hours? and we have plenty of others stubs to choose from by now Lectonar 12:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC) reply

And yet none of the existing stubs are appropriate for current (as opposed to historic) events. How long they continue to be stubs is more or less irrelevant. -- Bk0 12:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Let's take the elections for US-presidency in 2004 as an example: would you have used a {{ current-stub}} there, or perhaps a {{ US-poli-stub}}; btw: stubs are used to get attention to articles; wouldn't you concur that an ongoing event is of great enough interest to many users to have a look at it directly, and not look for a stub notice? Another problem: when do we change from current to historic: after a day ? Lectonar 12:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Might be irrelevant to you how long they remain stubbed as current, but it isn't to the people who have to change the stub templates! As soon as something has happened it becomes a historic event. Why have it as "current-stub"" for a couple of weeks and then change it again to "hist-stub"? Most of these items are unlikely to stay stubs anyway - current event articles usually get swiftly expanded. I note that the article on Lindsey Germaine, which you mentioned only a dozen or so hours ago, is now three times the length it was and no longer a stub. Grutness... wha? 12:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Fishing-stub

used on no articles. No associated category and clearly created by someone who hasn't a clue how stubs work. See for yourself!

• If fixed up it could be useful, I've spotted quite a lot when sorting. Joe D (t) 15:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Okay, well, as I said with the other ones, I'm only interested in moving those where no-one objects at the moment, so I'll add "keep and clean up" at the top. Grutness... wha? 01:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Cleaning. Please help. Wikiacc (talk) 19:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

MSDN-stub and developer-stub

Both now on WP:SFD. -- TheParanoidOne 6 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

Medicalstub

Folklore stub

{{ folk-stub}} is a new one that seems to almost exactly duplicate the existing {{ myth-stub}}. It also has a very poorly worded template: "This legendary folklore is a stub." (I bet it's the article, rather than the folklore, that's the stub!). The only article it was on is Bilocation which had an amazing five stub templates on it (despite our guidelines of "no more than two") - christianity-stub, para-stub, Newage-stub, Folk-stub, and - inexplicably - Iceland-geo-stub. It now has para-stub and myth-stub. The template leads to Category:Folklore and legend stubs which, through a wonderful piece of regression, was only a member of Category:Folklore and legend stubs. Do we need this one? My vote would be no. Grutness... wha? 06:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are three more in the category now: Scop, Skaldic poetry and William Thoms. The stub was added to WP:WSS/ST but I have removed it. -- TheParanoidOne 10:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...and of those three, two were poetry stubs, and one was a UK bio stub. None of them were legends or folklore. I get the feeling it won't be long before someone (probably me) suggests taking this one to sfd. Grutness... wha? 11:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was right - it's off to SFD. Grutness... wha? 5 July 2005 02:07 (UTC)

{{ Nepal-geo-stub}} / Nepal geography stubs

Added in the last couple of days by User:Danny. There are currently 39 Nepal geography stubs that I know about which could use it (and all of them have been given the stub). Previously they were in a small category (Asia geography stubs, which had about 100 stubs in it). I can't see it being used on many more stubs than those which have it. Grutness... wha? 4 July 2005 06:13 (UTC)

First of all, I want to say what a great job you people are doing. I did not realize that there was a criteria for adding new stub categories when I made this. I started by trying to categorize some of the people stubs, got frustrated, and skipped to geography. That said, I think this category is extremely useful, even though it does not meet the 60 stub criteria. Nepal is a country with 27 million people, a major tourist attraction, and a largely rural society. We should have a lot more articles about it, and hopefully we will. That said, I want to suggest a few more categories, such as Jewish-hist-bio-stub. Please let me know how to best go about suggesting them. Danny 4 July 2005 10:35 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive thoughts. Taking your points one at a time. yes, Nepal is a country that will probably have a lot of articles. The way That this project works, though, is by looking at what stubs currently exist, and only creating new categories when they become necessary. For the purppose of ease of editing, this is generally when a category will have between about 60 and 600 articles. It may sound odd not to prepare categories for which there may be eventual use, but this does save editors from having to wade through many nearly empty categories to find articles to extend. Say (for example) you are interested in geography articles on Qatar, but ere able to work on geography items on the Persian Gulf area in general. Currently there is only one geo-stub from Qatar, five from Kuwait, 18 from Bahrain and about the same number from the UAE. It makes far more sense to keep these together in one smallish stub category until such time as there are enough to split the category, rather than create several tiny categories, some of which you could empty completely (and if you did, what then? Delete them, or keep them ready to fill again?). For this reason we have thresholds. As far as geography stubs are concerned, all the countries which do not have their own categories are listed on one of my user subpages with tallies which I update every month to see which ones are most likely to need splitting.

As to your second point, the place to propse new stub types is here on this page! Just follow the directions at the top of the page. Jewish-history-bio-stub might not be viewed too favourably, though, since bio-stubs are being split by profession and nationality (also, to keep the naming in line with other stubs already in existence it should be JewHist-bio-stub, but JewHist-stub is fairly badly named anyway). Also, Jewish history-related stubs is still a very small category (only about 90 stubs). However, there is nothing to stop an article being double-stubbed - Joel Samuel Polack for example, has both {{ JewHist-stub}} and {{ NZ-bio-stub}}. Grutness... wha? 4 July 2005 11:42 (UTC)

{{ christmas-stub}} / No category

Created today by an anon user. Used on only one article ( Adelaide, North Carolina) but I have replaced it now with a more appropriate one. This does not feed into any category and I have no idea what the stub is meant to be for. -- TheParanoidOne 14:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC) reply

{{ kiwi-stub}} (kept)

This links to New Zealand stubs, which is good, but...kiwi-stub? Last time I checked there was no alternative stub or redirect for New Zealand related stubs. *Kat* 06:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

There isn't. Sigh - this had to happen eventually... this is the first template I ever made - long before I knew the naming standards. I'd suggest making {{ NZ-stub}} and redirecting kiwi-stub to it, until such time as the population of kiwi-stub drops (currently there are a couple of hundred of them). At least try to keep my kiwi icon :) Grutness... wha? 06:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC) reply

LOLOL, of all the people. Why did you call it Kiwi-stub? *Kat* 07:55, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Us New Zealanders call ourselves Kiwis. Just seemed to make sense at the time. :) I'll move kiwi-stub to NZ-stub - that'll make kiwi-stub a redirect. Grutness... wha? 08:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC) reply

That's interesting to know! Why do y'all do that? BTW: I have family in Perth, Australia, ever been there? *Kat* 00:27, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Because it's the national bird, and one of NZ's three national symbols (along with the silver fern and Southern Cross constellation). It would be a bit like a US sports team calling themselves "The American Eagles", which I'm pretty sure has happened... Never been to Perth - then again, it's a long way from New Zealand (about 4000 miles from here). Grutness... wha? 02:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC) reply

IIRC, the US rugby (union) team does just that (or has done, on occasion). Alai 00:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Ah - yes... that'll be where I've heard it. Grutness... wha? 12:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC) reply

{{ WPSS-cat}}

The recent proliferation of new unproposed stub categories (notably the 20-odd nationality-bio-stubs) has led me to create {{ WPSScat}}. Please use it at will! Grutness... wha? 6 July 2005 01:30 (UTC)

Nice. :) Might I suggest a hyphen before cat, though. Otherwise I keep reading it as Scat which is ... not so pleasant. (Or is that just my bizarre mind?) -- TheParanoidOne 6 July 2005 05:27 (UTC)

You could think of it as a type of jazz singing :). Okay, I've moved it and left the previous name as a redirect. Grutness... wha? 7 July 2005 05:34 (UTC)