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

The result of the debate was create.
I've finally finished with the Category:Arizona geography stubs and have found some other miscellaneous S1 candidates for categories as well. Thus I propose categories for the following:

• {{ Chuquisaca-geo-stub}}/ Category:Chuquisaca Department geography stubs
• {{ Mexico-women-footy-bio-stub}}/ Category:Mexican women's soccer biography stubs‎
• {{ AndhraPradesh-university-stub}}/ Category:Andhra Pradesh university stubs
• {{ Assam-university-stub}}/ Category:Assam university stubs
• {{ Gujarat-university-stub}}/ Category:Gujarat university stubs
• {{ Jharkhand-university-stub}}/ Category:Jharkhand university stubs

Her Pegship ( speak) 00:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

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 parent only cat and file breed stub sub-cat categories under it.

Just these for now:

• Proposing {{ breed-stub}} for general use, with category: Category:Breed stubs.
• Proposing {{ dog-breed-stub}}. Both {{ dog-stub}} and the rather disused {{ dog-book-stub}} populate Category:Dog stubs, but it would be more editorially useful to have breeds broken out into its own stub tree.
• Proposing {{ horse-breed-stub}} and {{ cat-breed-stub}} since there are and will continue to be sufficient articles to track these separately, and their commingling with "all stubs on felines and equines" is very unhelpful editorially.

Rationale: Various people (myself included) work intensively on animal breed articles but have little interest in other subjects pertaining to dogs, cats, horses, yadda yadda. While some other dog-foo stub tags could be created (possibly for dog sports, dog-related organizations, and a few other things), I don't have any interest in those, and will leave them for others to propose as they see fit. Another template for breeds exists and its cat. should be a subcat. of Category:Breed stubs: {{ Domesticated-pigeon-breed-stub}} (though this template needs renaming; see below). Regarding horse-breed-stubs, etc., I am not addressing any at this time, pending further digging around, but have added two to the nomination (horses and cats) and am under the general impression that we should probably have such a stub tag and cat. for every species subcat. of Category:Breeds (even if raw numbers might not support a couple of them – the editorial utility factor is sufficient).  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Update: At least eight of the entries in Category:Feline stubs are breeds or alleged breeds (there could be many more, judging from what is listed in cat breed encyclopedias versus Category:Cat breeds; it's just pure accident of editorial attention that we only have 8 at this moment), and between 1/5 and 1/3 of the contents of Category:Horse stubs are breeds or alleged breeds. So, I'm adding those to the nomination as well.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Rename {{ Domesticated-pigeon-breed-stub}} to {{ pigeon-breed-stub}}

Rationale: there is no such thing as a non-domesticated breed; it's explicit in the definition of the word. Ergo, the long name is redundant and pointlessly wordy. The category is already Category:Pigeon breed stubs, not "Category:Domesticated pigeon breed stubs".  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• What would Category:Breed stubs roll up to? It seems fine that {{ dog-breed-stub}} and Category:Dog Breed stubs should just be a subcat of Category:Dog stubs (and same for horses, cats, etc). Once the breed stub articles are tagged, each foo breed stubs category will only have the relevant breeds. I think the renaming of the pigeon breed stub makes sense as proposed though. - Furicorn ( talk) 10:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  @ Furicorn: to take these a point at a time:

  • I'm not sure what you mean by the initial question. What is "roll up", in this context? If you're asking what the parent stub categories would be for Category:Breed stubs, that would probably be Category:Animal stubs and/or possibly Category:Livestock stubs. If one wanted to limit the latter to only farm animals, then Category:Agriculture stubs (even cats and dogs were domesticated and bred for agri-related purposes, though some modern breeds were developed for other reasons like looks, or sporting ability – also true of various "livestock" breeds like many current varieties of horse, rabbit, and even pig). In the animal tree, it maybe shouldn't be more specific, since some domesticates are birds. We could use Category:Vertebrate stubs, I suppose (I don't think honeybees come in breeds, but subspecies, so it probably is just vertebrates). But that and its parent Category:Chordate stubs seem to be just for "scientific" purposes; it's a taxonomic tree, not a general-interest one (while Category:Animals serves both purposes and presumably so does Category:Animal stubs). Honestly, I don't much care how it "trees out", as long as Category:Breed stubs exists.
  • Ideally, Category:Breed stubs would include all the articles in the species subcats, though I guess it could be a container cat for the most part. (I'm just thinking of editorial utility; I haven't spent any time at SSP in years, so I'm not sure what the current norms are. If the idea is to have something like Category:Dog breed stubs to keep dog stubs out of Category:Breed stubs (except as a single subcat. entry) and thus keep that parent cat. smaller, I understand.)
  • There are breeds of things for which we don't have a non-stub breeds category at all yet, just the overarching non-breed category. E.g. Category:Guinea pigs has List of guinea pig breeds but no Category:Guinea pig breeds (yet). So, any guinea pig (BrEng: cavy) stub would just end up in Category:Breed stubs, not a Category:Guinea pig breed stubs (unless one really wanted that, as a subcat. of Category:Guinea pigs unless/until we did have a Category:Guinea pig breeds). Anyway, List of guinea pig breeds is fertile ground for stub development. I think it verges on accident that we have the breed article clusters we do at present. Many of our breed stubs were created in swathes by individual interested editors (as for rabbits and pigeons). A "guinea-pigger" ("cavyficionado"?) could show up today for all we know and create a dozen. :-)

   —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps Category:Breed stubs as a parent for specific breed stubs would do? Her Pegship ( speak) 17:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @ Pegship: I do care about that one more than about species-specific subcats., and it does seem to be a bit of a pre-requisite. When it comes to subcats., I would personally care more about {{ cat-breed-stubs}}, but I was choosing to work on dog stuff recently, so started with that one, especially seeing that we already have {{ dog-book-stub}} which seems far less useful. I'm also, though, a bit of a programmatist about categories. I.e., if we have Category:Dog breeds, and Category:Dog stubs, and Category:Breed stubs, this seems to lead us inexorably to having a Category:Dog breed stubs. If this is wrong-headed, then of course I wouldn't insist on it, but it's how I'm inclined approach categorization, even of the internal, editor-facing kind. If any of this seems badly out-of-touch with SSP norms, clue me in. I haven't been around here since overhauling WP:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming conventions back in 2007. See how grey my hair is now!  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Ultimately, I support Category:Breed stubs as a parent-only category for sub-cats Category:Dog breed stubs, Category:Cat breed stubs, Category:Horse breed stubs, etc., each of which would have their own stub templates if they can be sufficiently populated. Her Pegship ( speak) 18:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Category:Breed stubs created as a parent-only category. If you have numbers to support stub types for dogs, cats, or any other critter, please list 'em here. Her Pegship ( speak) 19:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
      • ETA: I count 68 articles that qualify for a {{ dog-breed-stub}} type, 134 for {{ horse-breed-stub}}. If there are no objections, we can create those to start off with. Her Pegship ( speak) 04:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

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.

The category Category:Fagales stubs contains 385 stubs, of which 179 belong to one genus: Quercus, the oak trees. I propose a template: {{ Quercus stub}} and a category Category:Quercus stubs, for them. Alternatively, these could be called "Oak stubs". - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 17:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe that by the plants project naming convention the category would be Quercus stub. With 179 candidate pages adding that category seems reasonable. However I don't see the motivation for a template; my view is that templates are an obstacle to casual and new editors, and need identifiable benefits to justify imposing that obstacle. Lavateraguy ( talk) 12:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, every stub type has an associated template. That's how stubs are sorted into stub categories. Are you proposing that all of these templates are a problem, and if how, how should stub-sorting work? - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 13:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Lavateraguy: No, it would be Category:Quercus stubs, not Category:Quercus stub - stub categories are always named in the plural, never in the singular: see Category:Stub categories. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 14:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

You're right - the stub categories are innocuous - and I had forgotten that they were in general use. Though I don't understand why templates are used, rather than category markup statements. Lavateraguy ( talk) 16:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Please don't use the stub categories directly, it's really difficult to track them down. Pages using stub templates are easily tracked. Besides that, stub templates display a helpful message like "This Foo-related article is a stub", optionally preceded by an attention-grabbing icon, and include a further message "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.", the last two words being linked, and will edit the page if clicked. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 17:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

All I'm going for is consistency with literally every single other stub category, each of which has an associated template, and a plural name. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 01:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Exactly; but Lavateraguy was asking for a singular name and placing pages the category directly, without using a template. These are both against our accepted practices. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 08:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I misspoke: I meant the stub category templates (templates were meant to be understood in context, but in hindsight that wasn't clear), and I was indicating a preference for using the botanical rather the vernacular name - the pluralisation wasn't intended as dispositive? Lavateraguy ( talk) 10:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Quercus over Oak sounds great. The misunderstanding was totally understandable. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 16:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Done - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 13:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)