This page is for the archiving of information on the creation of specific stubs.

As it is historical, please don't add comments to the existing discussions. If you would like to discuss one of these, please do so on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria and reference a section here if it is relevant.

Discussions leading up to creation of a stub-type are not necessarily copied here in their entirety. Information is preserved from discussions that relates to the requirements that the new stub-type fulfills, usage guidelines and position in the stub-type hierarchy. Preservation of full discussions still occurs; consult the Archive Index to find such full discussions and additional archived material not represented here.

created without discussion, Courtland 00:20, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

note: shown on editing to be >47K (21 May)

• There are currently something like 1300 articles listed in Category:Animal stubs. This is clearly too many for someone to look through easily. Could we add some simple subcategories, such as {{ bird-stub}}, {{ mammal-stub}}, {{ reptile-stub}}, {{ amphibian-stub}}, {{ insect-stub}}, {{ arthropod-stub}} (meant to exclude insects), and {{ worm-stub}} (for all the (albeit unrelated) phyla of worms)? Any leftover groups, if seldom enough, could remain under {{ animal-stub}}. -- Stemonitis 13:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • A good idea, but maybe worth starting with one or two of the obviously big groups first, rather than doing all of them at once. That will avoid creating stub categories when there aren't many stubs (when you remove, say, birds, insects and mammals, you might find there aren't many worms or arthropods in there). Grutness| ^hello? 13:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I would propose a {{ paleontology-stub}} as a sub-group as well; all these dinosaurs et. al. would be more appreciated if there were listed as such, and so receive much more attention... and concerning the proposition above: {{ reptile-stub}} and {{ mammal-stub}} for starters, perhaps ? Lectonar 14:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I have looked through the first hundred or so articles listed in Category:Animal stubs to see which groups were commonest there. I have probably made lots of errors, but the groups with more than 5 members in that 100-odd seem to be:

• Mammals (a huge group, even without breeds of domestic animals)
• Fish
• Birds
• Reptiles (excluding dinosaurs)
• Dinosaurs
• Insects
• Arthropods (excluding insects)

There was only one amphibian among them, and few worms, jellyfish, starfish, molluscs, etc. Would it be better to have dinosaurs and insects as subcategories of reptiles and arthropods respectively, as would be logical, or to keep them as equal to the others, because of the numbers of articles involved? -- Stemonitis 15:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Might I suggest simplifying things a little by having Mammals, Fish, Birds, Reptiles, Prehistoric animals*, and Invertebrates? This gets around two problems: 1) people putting non-dinosaurs (such as pteranodon, plesiosaurus and dimetrodon) into a category simply by not realising the difference, and 2) allowing arthropods, insects and things like worms all to go into one slightly larger category. Grutness| ^hello? 06:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Instead of "Invertebrates", I would suggest {{ bug-stub}} for insects and arthropods. This will prevent jellyfish and other aquatic invertebrates from being grouped with land dwelling insects. -- Allen3  ^talk 11:46, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree (quite strongly). Bug, as well as being an Americanism for any arthropod, is also a globally-accepted term referring solely to Hemiptera. {{ Bug-stub}}, were it to exist, should refer to hemipterans only (aphids, cicadas, etc.). Also, the fact that its use is geographically restricted (it is not common British usage, for instance; I don't know about Australia) speaks against it. I would rather list jellyfish alongside insects in {{ invertebrate-stub}} than call all terrestrial inverts "bugs". Terrestrial lifestyle is just not a good enough criterion. Using a more familiar word may be an advantage to {{ bug-stub}}, but I see no need to dumb the categories down; if someone doesn't know what an invertebrate is, they could always click on the link and find out. Similarly, I would vote against suggestions like {{ creepy-crawlie-stub}} or {{ things-that-make-you-go-eeugh-stub}}... -- Stemonitis 08:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I have created {{ mammal-stub}}, {{ bird-stub}}, {{ reptile-stub}} (for reptiles and amphibians), {{ fish-stub}} and {{ invertebrate-stub}}. I think they work, but it's something I've never done before, so please correct them if necessary. -- Stemonitis 10:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Should Category:microorganism stubs be a subcategory of Category:invertebrate stubs? Grutness| ^hello? 13:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • No, because some microorganisms are protists and archaea and bacteria and fungi, which aren't animals. So we have a little problem--some small animals (like rotifers) are also microorganisms. I guess we could double-stub cases like that. A2Kafir 21:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • (truncated contribution) Microorganisms include all sorts of non-animal life forms, so I don't think they belong in invertebrates (even though none of them has a spinal column!). -- Stemonitis 07:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Would it be possible to create a redirect that's shorter than {{ invertebrate-stub}}? Something like {{ invert-stub}}? I find myself skipping invertebrates instead of reclassifying them because of the length of the stub name. So I'm lazy. Sue me. A2Kafir 21:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC) reply
        • As a redirect, it wouldn't bother me. I deliberately chose not to name it {{ invert-stub}} in the first place because a) that seemed too colloquial, and b) "invert" has many meanings, the abbreviation for "invertebrate" being only one. I suppose it wasn't very likely that people would use it as a category for upside-down things, but I didn't feel like taking that risk. Consider it done. -- Stemonitis 07:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC) reply

I propose an Arch-stub for architectural terms and building types and features. Currently there are just over 50 stubs in Category:Buildings and structures stubs that could take this new template. These articles range from the likes of Archivolt (architecture term) to Folly (building type), and Bedroom (building feature). If anyone can think of a better name for it, or description of it, I'd like to hear it! Grutness| ^hello? 11:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As a subcategory of Category:Musician stubs. Would it be enough of a distinction to pull out bands into a separate category? (They're not really biographical articles about musicians, so that categorization is somewhat ambiguous.) This could easily have several hundred articles (no, I am not going to list them all here). - Aranel ("Sarah") 03:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and created {{ Band-stub}} (which is currently worded so that it can go for all musical groups; the category is Category:Musical group stubs). If you're bored, try weeding out the band articles from Category:Music stubs, where it seems folks have been putting them. (Yet another reason to create needed templates ASAP so we don't have to sort stubs twice...) - Aranel ("Sarah") 22:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The stub category is curently at 11 pages and growing. Before it becomes the next {{ bio-stub}}, I propose two subdivisions:

1. {{ Bank-stub}} for banks, brokerage houses, insurance companies, and other finacial businesses.
2. {{ Retail-stub}} for retail businesses.

-- Allen3  ^talk 14:33, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

• There are certainly a huge number of bank stubs, and the parent cat does need splitting. You;d have to be careful with the wording of retail-stub though, to make it clear that it is the shops not the products Grutness| ^hello? 00:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I had planned on "This retail business article is a stub." If anyone has better wording I am willing to change. -- Allen3  ^talk

comment transplanted (and trimmed) from crater-stub discussion

{{ Bank-stub}} isn't just for banks; it covers any financial institution (insurance, stockbrokers, etc.). But {{ Bank-stub}} is easy to remember, so we stub-sorters use that instead of {{ financialinstitution-stub}} or something. A2Kafir 19:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

I would like to propose the implementation of Template:beer-stub (I created it already, but have not yet used it). This would be used in association with beer and brewery articles that fall under the WikiProject Beer. Would it include articles like Fermentation lock? Grutness| ^hello? 00:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of it, really: my mind was really on beers and breweries. Upon consideration, however, I suppose that it might include such articles if they relate exclusively to beer fermentation, and not just fermentation in general. – Clockwork Soul 01:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I was wondering if we could have a biochemistry stub? I don't know if this was discussed already, but I think it could better categorize many stubs. A lot of enzymes -- jag123 18:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• If a biochem stub is added, enzymes, proteins, chemicals with a biochemical purpose (eg. Vitamin B) and processes/cycles (eg. Thermogenesis) could be added. -- jag123 07:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

see Animal-stub_subcategories

I'm getting fed up with working out whether individual books deserve lit-stub or not. I'm sure that there are enough of them for a separate book-stub. Thoughts yay or nay? Grutness| ^hello? 12:44, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yay. Analogous to {{ Album-stub}} and {{ Song-stub}} Courtland 13:14, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
• Yes, please. Anything to get lit-stub down to a more manageable size. - Aranel ("Sarah") 17:57, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay - I realise this has only been here a couple of days, but I went ahead anyway - there is now Template:Book-stub Grutness| ^hello? 02:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Problem: it seems that Book-stub was already there - a redirect to Lit-stub. It may be that a check will need to be made on the articles currently in book-stub to make sure they are not general literature articles! Grutness| ^hello?
      • I've looked over the list and they seem to all be books (except a couple that I removed). Some of them may be better sorted elsewhere, though. (For example, fantasy-genre books are likely to receive more attention in the fantasy category.) - Aranel ("Sarah") 02:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The creation of this as a merger of Angel- and Buffy-stubs is done. See information below. — Courtland 03:07, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

A part of the Transportation stubs. There are ones for trams, Vans and Railways. See Network Colchester for difficulties in catogorising these types of Stubs. TAS 17:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed subdivision of {{ bio-stub}}.

I have been noticing a number of stubs are for people who gained notability for their efforts in the world of business (corporate executives, entrepreneurs, and the like). This stub category is proposed to hold such persons. -- Allen3  ^talk 18:36, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

See Opera-stub

not discussed before, there are numerous stubby weather articles without labels, or are labeled as sci-stub or geo-stubs

• Wrong name Use meteo-stub (meteorology) over weather-stub. -- Circeus 17:39, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nobody is going to remember meteo-stub. Either make it meteorology-stub or weather-stub. When a topic stub is created, it has to be easy to remember or it will never be used. BlankVerse ∅ 09:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I favour weather-stub. Okay, it may not be as precise a term as meteorology-stub, but it's a hell of a lot easier to both spell and type! Grutness| ^hello? 08:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm, what about met-stub? People talk about the met.office, so it shouldn't be too hard to remember... Grutness| ^hello? 08:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Someone has already put up Template:climate-stub, and entered it on Wikipedia:Stub_categories, associated with Category:Climatology_-_Meteorology_stubs. The template was created on 14 Feb by Vsmith ...( Courtland 17:38, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Good template, awkward category name. - Aranel ("Sarah") 01:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Considering a scope note for Template:climate-stub
  • To include: general climate phenomena, specific types of climate, seasons, climate zones, methods, personalities, associations, broadcasters (like The Weather Channel), specific named weather events.
  • To exclude: specific named events such as named hurricanes (though hurricane is a perfect topic), the 2004 Tsunami (though tsunami as a topic, yes), the "Blizzard of '98" (though blizzard conditions and factors leading to blizzards and their severity, yes).
  • Implications: no future "weatherman stub category" or "cloudforms stub category"; possible future "hurricanes by name" or "climate events by name", "climate events by year", etc. stub categories.

this type of detail of what's in, what's out, and what the implications are, might be helpful for more specific stub categorization with less inter-operator variability. Thoughts?

Courtland 03:29, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why the weather category shouldn't include specific instances of weather? (If it starts to get over-crowded with hurricanes, we can create a separate sub-category for them, of course.) - Aranel ("Sarah") 03:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not particularly, except I was thinking of them as either a) historical events or b) geographical items ... however, it does make sense to start out with them generally included ... changed above. Courtland 04:10, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Phew - since I added at least one Hurricane stub to that category earlier today, I'm quite pleased! (I purged geo-term-stub of all weather related items and put them in the new category). Grutness| ^hello? 04:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And then there's colour/color (hence col-stub!). Azure (color), Bistre, Brunswick green, Cerise (color), Cream (color), Fire engine red... Grutness| ^hello? 05:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To be adopted by the newly-created WikiProject Color -- Phil | Talk 10:08, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have remade the template per {{ metastub}} and created the stub category. I've also redirected col-stub to color-stub. Circeus 23:51, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

(Was {{ compu-prog-stub}})

The Computer stubs category is getting to be too big, and programming-related articles just don't fit into {{ compu-soft-stub}} or {{ compu-lang-stub}}. – AB CD 22:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• It is likely that {{ compu-prog-stub}} would be confused with {{ compu-soft-stub}} with people unsure of the difference between programming and software. I would recommend using {{ comp-sci-stub}} for computer science related stubs. Allen3  ^talk 00:31, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good idea, I just changed the proposal. – AB CD 22:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply

This would be a place for any geological features of the Solar System that aren't on Earth. Lots of them are already in {{astro-stub}} and the list will only grow. A2Kafir 01:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It should be named differently, since craters on on Earth go into their respective geo-stub subcategory. Maybe {{ astro-geo-stub}}? --  grm_wnr Esc 22:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not all stub names are perfect; {{ Liberal-stub}} is for politics in democracies in general, for instance. I used "crater" because, when people think of off-planet feature, they think of craters. But the text in the template would be "This article about a geological feature of the Solar System not on Earth is a stub..." "Crater" is just an easily-remembered tag for those of us categorizing stubs. A2Kafir 00:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm pretty strongly against the name astro-geo-stub, since all the geo-stubs relate to places on earth - after all, that's what "geo" means (I know "astro" means star, but it has a much wider general meaning, too). Technically, you should never talk about the geography of another planet (It's selenography for the moon, and IIRC areaography and cythereography for Mars and Venus). using "geo" for that is about as bad as the idea of using "bug" for invertebrates mentioned in a previous section. Grutness| ^hello? 01:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Oops, got geology and geography mixed up. How embarrassing... But I'm still against {{ crater-stub}}. Maybe {{ astrogeology-stub}}?--  grm_wnr Esc 04:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• dance = dance-stub dance stub has been made - thanks Bluemoose 15:47, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I moved this from Template:Dance stub to Template:Dance-stub for consistency with other stub templates (makes it easier to remember). I also updated the category to reflect that it is appropriate for all dance-related stubs, not just specific dances. - Aranel ("Sarah") 18:01, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dance etiquette, Dance marathon i would like to see dance go into art/artists, but i dont think others would agree.

• • I definitely support this. I don't think there are enough for 100 (but there might be), but they don't fit well into anything else and there are definitely quite a few of them. You could put it under art as a subcategory, but putting dance articles under art (without a more specific tag) would be confusing. - Aranel ("Sarah") 20:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• p.s. there are lots more examples for all these, as i am sure a lot of you are aware, and also i have no idea how to make a stub category, so if any of these are approved, could someone more experienced do the honours? thanks in advance. Bluemoose 17:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • sounds like a reasonable request. I'm sure that I or one of the others would be happy to. Grutness| ^hello? 00:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See Russian-history-stub

see struct-stubs

Fantasy genre that is, in parallel to {{ sf-stub}}. BlankVerse suggested this (as part of the Cthulhu-stub discussion) and I think there are definitely more than enough articles to go into it. - Aranel ("Sarah") 01:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This should probably be a more general clothing-stub rather than fashion-stub. BlankVerse ∅ 13:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let's not forget the purpose of stubs here; flag articles that could be expanded. How much is there to say about purses, arm warmers, girdles, sneakers or bras? Short article does not equal stub and stubs don't replace categories. Not only do you not have anywhere near a 100 articles to create a new category, it's probably going to be extremely difficult to expand them. -- jag123 21:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As a subcategory of Category:Math_stubs. There are >500 math stubs right now and this could likely attract >100 stubs of that mass. There exists a standard category Category:Geometry which , with its 28 sub-categories, would be the target for expanded articles.

Proposed stub name: Template:geometry-stub

Proposed stub category: Category:Geometry_stubs

Proposed stub icon: a squared circle? a compass? a canted grid?

Courtland 06:56, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

• jobs/industry = job-stub
  • Definitely. I was thinking of suggestion occu-stub myself, but job-stub is a better name. Grutness| ^hello? 05:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

see UKW-geo-stubs

see Animal-stub_subcategories

Based on the rate of potential classification to this stub I've found in going through -A- general med-stubs, I'm going to create this template and category and place it on the 'stub types' listing. This will be {{ medsign}} and Category:Sign (medicine) stubs. Courtland 18:50, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder whether a currency and coinage stub (money-stub) would make a good subcategory of econ-stub, for articles like Augustalis, Barbados dollar, Ducat, and Egyptian pound. Thoughts? Grutness| ^hello? 09:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good one; would be a place to put obsolete-denomination articles, too. A2Kafir 19:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Created) for New York City Subway stubs, which were being inconsistently sorted as rail or US-geo. -- SPUI ( talk) 03:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another subdivision on music-stub. I didn't create it because there aren't that many opera stubs, and a classical-composition-stub would be more useful (there are much more of those, including operettas). Still, it would be big enough to be of some use to a WikiProject or other interested parties. Any comments? --  grm_wnr Esc 18:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support classical-composition-stub.— Wahoofive | Talk 18:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support keeping opera-stub and also creating classical-composition-stub for non-opera works. (I created the category and template.) I plan to work to improve the opera stubs and also create many stubs for operas that I know only a bit about, but hope that others can add information on. I know that there are opera-buffs out there who are willing to help me in this project. I have not created a WikiProject yet on this, but would be willing to do so. -- BaronLarf 20:37, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

For drugs and other things related to pharmacology. I have already created the stub (and its articles), because I haven't seen the instructions before. If anyone objects or if there are procedural problems, remove it of course. The proposed template would be {{pharma-stub}} , as this is unambiguous and easy to remember. -- Eleassar777 21:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• You already know of the existence of the Category:Medical treatment stubs and the associated {{ treatment-stub}}, yes? This stub/category contains drugs sorted out of Category:Medicine stubs ({{ med-stub}}). Courtland 23:44, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
  • Yes, however this limits the scope of pharmacology. Clinical pharmacology is only one of its branches. Probably it would be better to have a separate pharmacology stub and the "medicine techniques" stub or even only pharmacology and medicine stub. -- Eleassar777 14:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I removed Category:Pharmacology stubs from under Category:Medical treatment stubs as the description you've given suggests that the two are more of siblings than parent-child related. Also, I've added a couple of category see-also's to the description where related stubs might be found that could be sorted into the new category. Courtland 16:07, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

How about {{ Poet-stub}} to start breaking up {{ Writer-stub}}? (Obviously some writers who write poetry would still fit better under writers in general.) And/or {{ Poetry-stub}} to start breaking up {{ Lit-stub}}? - Aranel ("Sarah") 00:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and did {{ Poetry-stub}} because I found some stubs that I wanted to categorize and I didn't want to be recategorizing them in a couple of days. Do we want to separate poets from poetry in general, or would it make more sense to but both int he same category? (I'm leaning toward the latter at the moment.) - Aranel ("Sarah") 02:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A suggestion... once we've all stopped sifting through the bio and geo stubs, the next section that might be worth a look is poli-stubs. there are over 2000 of them. A rough estimate is that about 1/4 of those are political parties and movements, which could possibly do with their own stub category. other than that, it may be another case of sorting by country. Any thoughts? Grutness| ^hello? 10:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Currently consumer goods and services and combined into {{ corp-stub}} with the business entities that provide them. This proposed substub would allow for a division between consumer products and the corporations that make them. -- Allen3  ^talk 12:56, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good move to me. I've always been a bit iffy about putting brand names under corp-stub. Grutness| ^hello? 01:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ooops, I'm sorry; I only discovered this page after I'd created the stub. I did it because there was nothing appropriate for articles related to radio programmes (obviously). If it needs to be deleted until after discussion, could some friendly admin do that please? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 12:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd actually considered suggesting something like this one myself - but it needs to be made clear that it is for radio programmes and not radio stations (which are already covered by Template:Station-stub). I've reworded both the stub and the category name... but that means we now have an empty Category:Radio stubs that will need deletion - unless anyone has any better ideas? Grutness| ^hello? 12:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a way to segregate Category:Chemistry stubs into at least one smaller slice, I've created Category:Chemical reaction stubs and the corresponding template and listed this on the Stub Types page; I'll go about populating it momentarily. Any suggestions as to rewording of stub or category are welcome. Courtland 03:17, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

I have had Category:substance stubs planned in the first proposed hierarchy, but it was apprently never acted upon. It could also potentially segregate various elements for chemistry and biosci stubs. Circeus 04:14, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

see Animal-stub_subcategories

see Bank-stub

Another hopefully useful new stub template added: {{ Rocket-stub}}, for articles on Rocketry and/or Spacecraft. Grutness| ^hello? 10:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We've got an Ancient Egypt stub, and there seem to be a LOT of Ancient Rome stubs, most of which are either getting put in the various european geo-stub categories or into bio-stub. I reckon a Roman-stub or Romanus-stub might not be a bad idea (not Rome-stub, just in case someone wants to sort stubs on the city. Egypt-stub, for ancient Egypt, was an unfortunate name). There might be enough for Ancient Greece to get a stub too, but Rome seems to crop up more often. Grutness| ^hello? 10:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can we merge ( {{ RugbyUnion-stub}} and {{ Rugby-stub}} ) these into one Template:Rugby-stub? Category:Rugby union stubs is not that big (41 articles at present) and people who are unfamiliar with rugby (like me) are likely to find the distinction difficult to make. - Aranel ("Sarah") 00:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense, in New Zealand we call Rugby Union "Rugby", and Rugby League "League" Onco p53 03:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I know this was a case of be bold rather than follow procedure, but I noticed that most of the rugby-stubs were actually rugby league stubs, so I made RugbyLeague-stub, shifted everything over, then deleted Rugby-stub. All articles should say on them somewhere whether they relate to Union or League, so hopefully it will be obvious which of the two templates to use. If this was a bad move, and a merge is better, then merge is still possible from here. Grutness| ^hello? 09:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned this need for this here (came across a lot of these while re-sorting people stubs), but failed to notice there was a formal proposal process -- my bad. So consider this a proposal to retro-approve this, forgive my procedural lapse, and correct the various wiki errors I've made in creating the template {{ Russia-bio-stub}}. (But be gentle, it's my first time...) Alai 04:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Created to solve several multi-stubbing problems with eastern European history articles (one of which was listed as a history-stub, lithuania-stub, belarus-stub, ukraine-stub AND russia-stub!) and because template {{Russia-stub}} seems too broad to the editors. "Eastern Slavic history stubs" cover mainly three East Slavic nations: Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, and, to a lesser degree, events related to the history of Lithuania and, sometimes, Poland (because there was an extended period when Poland and/or Lithuania politically dominated some of what's now Russia, Ukraine and Belarus). The stubs should apply to the articles related to the time when Russia, Ukraine and Belarus didn't yet form as nations of their own out of East Slavic proto-nation of the time of Kievan Rus and somewhat later. Also, some events of a later time are related to all or some of these nations and having an East-Slavic-history stub seems an approprate solution to the multi-stubbing problem. Russia-history-stub may or may not become a subcategory of East-Slavic-history stub. We should wait for consensus at Wikipedia talk:Russian wikipedians' notice board on that. Grutness| ^hello? 03:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) and Irpen 04:48, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Special case here. I did not know about this page until after I made the stub so this is more like a notification.

Proposed stub name: Template:Scientist-stub

Proposed stub category: Category:Scientist_stub

Proposed stub icon: Einstein

It is a stub for biographical articles about scientists

Rationale: There are currently lot of articles marked stub or science stub that could be classified as Sientists stub. -- LexCorp 01:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

see UKW-geo-stubs

Is it just my (admittedly warped) imagination, or do there seem to be a lot of "sexual practice" related stubs around? I'm not even sure what you'd call the stub category, since it ranges from Bondage mittens to child prostitution, via Chinese raping chair and Felching. Any thoughts? Name suggestions? Grutness| ^hello? 01:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are lots of them and they become more prominent as more items are sorted out of general-stub. A stub category congruent with Category:Sexology would be useful, in fact ... it already exists - hmm. Courtland 02:16, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Ah... useful. Shame it wasn't listed anywhere! Grutness| ^hello? 02:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• sociology = socio-stub

some (but not all) of these could qualify under psych-stub (including Johari Window!) Grutness| ^hello? 06:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now that the geo-stubs are organised by country, I'd suggest that it would make more sense to organise buildings and structures by that method than by type of structure. It seems logical to me that someone living in a particular area would have more resources to find out about the structures in that area than they would to find out about all bridges worldwide, say. Given that there are about 500 struct-stub articles, I'm not proposing the large numbers of subcategories that there are for the now over 5000 geo-stubs, but having the following three might be very useful: US-struct-stub, UK-struct-stub, and Euro-struct-stub. Each of those would have at least 50-100 articles. Any others subcategories would only be considered by me if there were more than about 50 from a particular area (Canada might just scrape in, I'd have to check). Any thoughts? Grutness| ^hello? 11:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A quick sample suggests around 170 UK, 110 US, and 60 European struct-stubs, with 160 from elsewhere. Grutness| ^hello?

Sounds logical. They could be listed under country-(geo)-stubs and structure-stubs by categories. Go ahead. (don't forget to edit the final hierarchy accordingly) -- Circeus 14:12, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to add - this doesn't mean that types of structures (such as the museum-stub) aren't also useful. There's nothing to stop a museum in London, say, from being both a UK-struct-stub and a museum-stub, in the same way that a Swedish writer might be both a writer stub and a Sweden-related stub. That way it would feed subcategories of UK-geo-stub, and struct-stub, and museum articles. In fact subcategorising them by region might make it more apparent what types of structures the stub articles are about (I'd be able to tell if there were lots of bridges or stadia, for instance) Grutness| ^hello? 22:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Update: As things stand, there's two days before I start on this... I've looked at all the articles currently in Category:Buildings and structures stubs and the breakdown is as follows:

Total 496 stubs

UK 149 (30%)

US 128 (26%)

Europe 79 (16%)

Asia 47 (9%)

Canada 27 (5%)

All other locations 15 (3%)

Architecture-related 51 (10%)

No doubt there are others within the various geo-stub categories as well. With those figures, I intend to make a UK-struct-stub, a US-struct-stub, and a Euro-struct-stub, to be subcategories of their respective geo-stub categories and of the B&S-stub category. I'll also propose now (below) an Arch-stub for architectural terms and building types and features (see below). Grutness| ^hello? 10:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have today created {{ UK-struct-stub}}, {{ US-struct-stub}}, and {{ Euro-struct-stub}}. I have also entered them into the hierarchy at the top of the page. NB: in doing so, I have also moved building and structure stubs to under geography stubs in the hierarchy, since that is the more logical place for it. (If I was wrong to do that, then feel free to move it back!) Grutness| ^hello? 05:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(started life as proposal for {{tl|Thing-stub}

• objects/materials = thing-stub

Icepick dont like the idea of this one, as a lot of random stuff will be put together, but where else do these things go.

• • I agree that this is awfully vague. - Aranel ("Sarah") 20:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • How about tool-stub? Many of these objects seem to be tools. Grutness| ^hello? 00:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • cane, Chest (furniture), Nut (hardware), Fishing net, Gas cylinder - there are lots more, i think we need an object-stub. Bluemoose 15:47, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • nut and fishing net might both qualify as tools. Taking all the tools out will at least reduce the randomness of an object-stub. I'd suggest putting in a tool stub, then seeing whether what's left makes any more sense than the random load that's there at the moment. Grutness| ^hello? 00:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Gazumped! I was just about to create tool-stub and it was already there! Thank you User:Elf! (Next time tell someone!) BTW, you may well find a few "tools" in the tech-stub category... Grutness| ^hello? 11:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a subcategory of Category:Medicine stubs. There are >800 medicine stubs right now and this could likely attract >100 stubs of that mass. There exists a standard category Category:Medical_treatments which, with its child-categories, would be the target for expanded articles.

Proposed stub name: Template:treatment-stub

Proposed stub category: Category:Medical_treatment_stubs

Proposed stub icon: picture of a pill?

Courtland 06:29, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Does that include drugs? If so and excluding drugs, could the category have >100 stubs? If not, perhaps we should make a drug stub. -- jag123 03:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking it to include drugs. I'm not sure without drugs if it would reach >100 stubs or not. I made a comment about deletion of a drugs_list category a bit ago which would clarify my thinking a bit; see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Empty_Orphans_Detected_7_Jan_2005. My thinking about making a drug stub is that many treatments consist of multiple drugs or drugs + another treatment mode; also a significant number of drugs are combinations of pharmacological agents. Courtland 03:46, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a new stub template and category to allow reduction of stub numbers in the television stubs category. The new items are Template:tvseries-stub and Category:television series stubs. My reasoning was that a) the Category:television stubs has >800 stubs in it and b) a large % of those stubs relate to television series.

Last update on stub counts ... Category:Television stubs 296 versus Category:Television series stubs 582. Courtland 03:32, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea to break up the TV series category while it's still a remotely manageable size. - Aranel ("Sarah") 20:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

see UKW-geo-stubs

see struct-stubs

There are now three and a half thousand UK-geo-stubs. There's also already a NI-geo-stub for Northern Ireland. A logical solution would be to make stubs for Wales and Scotland, to at least ease the strain on the main category (if there's a London WikiProject, then that could probably be pared off, too). Thoughts? Grutness| ^hello? 07:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Whoof. I'd suggest all three of those then, and just for starters. This'll almost certainly leave 2000+ in "UK" though -- perhaps also Regions of England stubs? One could even go so far as to suggest stubs by county, which'd appeal to the traditionalists more, but is probably too bitty, and has its own definitional issues at that. Alai 03:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• UPDATE: I have created {{ UKW-geo-stub}} and {{ UKS-geo-stub}} for Wales and Scotland respectively. Since I realise that these are easy for converting from UK-geo-stub, but not so easy for new creation from scratch, I've also added two redirected templates at {{ Wales-geo-stub}} and {{ Scotland-geo-stub}}. I've left any other subdivisions like London for now. Is there a London WikiProject? If so it might be worth adding that too. Grutness| ^hello? 02:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There is indeed a Wikipedia:WikiProject London. I've mentioned this idea there. BTW, wouldn't it be slightly more aesthetic to reverse the above template and redirect? Alai 05:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I shall add {{ London-geo-stub}} as well before I go any further. You're right about the order of redirect and standard. The reason I've done it that way is that - for the sake of my hands - I will be using UKS and UKW as I go through the parent category, so chances are the first few hundred in each category will have those template links. I don't know whether that makes any difference as far as the servers are concerned, but if it does, I don't want to cause them any more strain than I have to!. Grutness| ^hello? 05:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point. Can always swap them around if the "new" stubs ever predominate, I suppose. Alai 05:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oddly, about half of what's left seems to be (a) villages in Durham; (b) villages near Daventry, Northants; (c) docks on the Mersey (this group I'm moving to UK-struct-stub until someone comes up with somewhere better!). A WikiProject on each of them, and the UK-geo-stub problem would largely disappear! Grutness| ^hello? 08:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

see struct-stubs

see UKW-geo-stubs