Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Stub sorting
Puzzle stub cropped.png
Project page talk
- Stub types (sections) talk
- Stub types (full list) talk
- To do talk
- Naming conventions talk
- Redirects category talk
Wikipedia:Stub talk
Proposals (A) talk
- Current month
Discussion talk
Criteria (A) (discontinued) talk
Deletion (Log) (discontinued) talk

On this WikiProject Stub sorting subpage, you can propose new stub types (please read the procedures beforehand!), as well as the reorganization and subdivision of existing stub types. You can also discuss anything else related to stubs on the talk page.

Proposing new stub types – procedure[edit]

Important: If you wish to propose the creation of a stub ARTICLE you've come to the wrong place. If you don't have a username yourself, please go to WP:AFC for proposing a new article. If you already have a username, you can create the article yourself. If you don't know how, add {{Helpme}} to your user talk page to request help from other editors. This page only deals with stub TEMPLATES and CATEGORIES; we cannot help you with creating articles.

Proposing new stub types
If you wish to propose a new stub category and template, please follow these procedures:
  1. Check the List of stub types or under Category:Stub categories to make sure that your proposed new stub does not already exist.
  2. List it at the top of the current month's section, under a header, like the ones shown (if any). Sign it with a datestamp (~~~~).
    • Please bear in mind that a stub category isn't about the importance or notability of the topic!
  3. Find a good number[1] of stub articles, as many as you can, that will fit that template. You may use this tool to scan through categories; tagged stubs are always in Category:All stub articles and transclude {{asbox}}. Each of these articles can be:
    • currently marked with {{stub}};
    • currently marked with another type of stub tag (in which case you should justify why your tag is better for the article than the current one);
    • a stub whose categorisation is highly ambiguous or questionable;
    • not marked as a stub.
  4. If you use any category scan (from the tool mentioned above or from any other), please link to it so that other users can confirm that the results are still accurate.
  5. Others may do the same, if they so desire.
  6. 5 days after listing it here, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new category and/or template following the format on Wikipedia:Stub. List the new stub type on the stub types list in an appropriate section. If consensus is not clear, or discussion is still ongoing, the proposal will remain open until consensus can be reached.
  7. If you wish to propose a stub type which does not currently have 60 articles that could use it, you may propose an upmerged template in a similar way. An upmerged template would feed into currently existing stub categories until such time that there are enough stubs for a separate stub category. At that point a category for it may be separately proposed. Some times, it may be difficult to be sure how many stubs would get a tag - in which case you can also start with an upmerged stub tag until you're sure there are enough.

DO NOT place a proposal here for any stub type which has already been created and is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. The proposal page is only for stub types that have not yet been created, and it is better to keep any discussion of such stub types in one place rather than splitting it between different pages. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is the correct page for proposals to delete a stub type.

^ . Good number means about 60 articles or more, or 30 or more if it is the primary stub type of a WikiProject, though this figure may vary from case to case.

"Speedy creation"[edit]

A stub type may be proposed for "speedy creation" if it meets one of the following criteria:

  • S1 - the creation of a category for which an approved upmerged template already exists and is now in use on more than 60 articles.
  • S2 - the creation of an upmerged national-level template for a subject in which other such national-level templates currently exist (e.g., X-bio-stub, X-hist-stub, or X-geo-stub, where X is the name of an internationally widely recognised country) or other instances where a clearly established pattern of similar subtypes exists. The proposed topic may not be controversial in scope. Many templates qualifying for S2 are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/To do/To create.

List speedy creation proposals in the same proposal listings as normal stub proposals below.

Proposals, March 2019[edit]

Please check how many articles qualify for a stub type before proposing it.


2010s single stubs[edit]

Because {{2010s-single-stub}} has more than one thousand articles, I propose splitting the category by year as follows:
--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

My initial effort to go down this road is to change the sub-stubs/categories under Category:Hip hop song stubs, Category:2000s hip hop single stubs and Category:2010s hip hop single stubs‎‎, to Category:2000s hip hop song stubs and Category:2010s hip hop song stubs‎‎, so 1) naming convention matches the parent and 2) re-focus on a higher level "songs" naming convention for this scheme. The nomination is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 26#Hip hop song stubs. I am willing to submit my suggested merge to CfD if people feel it could benefit the project. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, be bold! --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Jax 0677: You did notice the CfD nomination for hip hop singles stub, right? Of course, you did because you've !voted twice already. And I've reduced the number of stub articles tagged as {{2010s-single-stub}} by 200 and I just started, so I think I've been pretty bold so far. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)



Speedy: French politician categories - S1[edit]

Proposals, February 2019[edit]


I propose the creation of 2010s-pop-single-stub, since Category:2010s single stubs is becoming large. Template {{2000s-pop-single-stub}} exists already. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Single stubs would only be needed if the corresponding song stub requires diffusing. Just use {{2010s-pop-song-stub}}. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, using {{2010s-pop-song-stub}} does not help in reducing the size of Category:2010s single stubs. {{2010s-pop-song-stub}} and {{2010s-single-stub}} are parallel paths, which are both directly under {{2010s-song-stub}}. Category:2010s single stubs could also be subdivided by year. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jax 0677: I took a look, {{2010s-rock-song-stub}} has a subcat of {{2010s-rock-single-stub}}. If you can tag 60 articles with both {{2010s-single-stub}} and {{2010s-pop-song-stub}}, and 60 with {{2010s-single-stub}} and {{2010s-country-song-stub}}, you should be good to make your case here with no objections. It would be easier if the articles had genre categories, because then we could just use PetScan to justify that there are 60, but it doesn't seem to be typical for these music articles to be tagged with genre. -Furicorn (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
There probably aren't too many stub articles for pop songs from the 2010s that weren't also released as singles. Basically, creating 2010s-pop-single-stub will effectively empty 2010s-pop-song-stub. I'm sure the same would go for the 202 articles marked as 2010s-rock-song-stub. How many of those aren't singles? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, then the same is true for 2000s-pop-single-stub and 2000s-pop-song-stub. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Yep. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Reply - Then the next solution is to break the category up by individual years. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Do we have any other stub categories - whether for singles/songs or something else - which are split to year level? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Reply - @Redrose64:, {{2000-hiphop-album-stub}} to {{2009-hiphop-album-stub}}. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2017/April#Category:2000s hip hop album stubs in order to split down a category of "over 1200 articles". This one has 1,216 pages (incl. the stub template itself): the size is comparable. Notifying Skr15081997 and Od Mishehu who commented in 2017. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Although, I think a better solution for those would have been a subgenre..."west coast", "east coast", "gangsta rap", etc. over the "by year" option. The problem with going from songs to singles is that most contemporary songs with articles are also singles, so the moving one to the other doesn't accomplish much. For example, Category:2000s pop song stubs and Category:2000s pop single stubs have about the same amount of articles. I wouldn't doubt if 95% or more of the articles tagged with {{2000s-pop-song-stub}} are also singles, and either stub usage is technically correct. If pop song stubs are getting too populated, we should move to pop-rock song stubs, synthpop stubs, etc. before singles because the song/single stubs are too easily interchangeable and really not a big deal if one is used over the other as shown by current usage. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


I propose the creation of 2010s-country-single-stub, since Category:2010s single stubs is becoming large. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

We already have {{2010s-country-song-stub}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Reply - @Redrose64:, using {{2010s-country-song-stub}} does not help in reducing the size of Category:2010s single stubs. {{2010s-country-song-stub}} and {{2010s-single-stub}} are parallel paths, which are both directly under {{2010s-song-stub}}. Category:2010s single stubs could also be subdivided by year. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
There are many articles for rock and hip hop songs marked with 2010s-single-stub which can be moved to the respective 2010s-rock-single-stub and 2010s-hip-hop-single-stub. There are others that are no longer stubs that still have the stub template. That can help reduce the number of articles in Category:2010s single stubs. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, be bold!--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Reply - The next solution is to break the category up by individual years. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Do we have any other stub categories - whether for singles/songs or something else - which are split to year level? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Reply - @Redrose64:, {{2000-hiphop-album-stub}} to {{2009-hiphop-album-stub}}. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Reply - Unless someone comes up with a better idea to split up {{2000s-single-stub}}, I propose either "2010s-country-single-stub", or splitting by individual years. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposals, January 2019[edit]

State governments of the United States stubs[edit]


Apparently, within the government of Hong Kong, there is an entity known as Hong Kong Government, which consists solely of the executive branch of government. There are two stub types associated with the government of Hong Kong, both of which use the capitalized "Government": {{HongKong-gov-stub}} and {{HongKong-gov-bio-stub}}. However, many of the articles tagged with either of these seem to be about non-executive government topics, so I wonder whether we should create a separate, inclusive stub type for the government of Hong Kong as a whole, or whether these two templates and categories should be re-scoped to be more inclusive. Does this make sense?? (P.S. None of these stub types seem to have been discussed anywhere.) Her Pegship (speak) 18:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Her Pegship: this is a fascinating question! I've tried to review the topic and it really made my head spin, but I think it is a holdover of HKSAR being a subsidiary of the UK. It reminded me of when people in the UK parliament talk about "this government" when referring to a particular Prime Minister's regime, and a glance at Devolved national administrations section within the Politics of the UK give additional support to this idea. I guess the next question would be how are stubs related to Scottish Government, Welsh Government, and Northern Ireland Executive handled? -Furicorn (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Looking at it a little more, I think the example of Scotland government stubs is istructive here. {{HongKong-gov-stub}} and {{HongKong-gov-bio-stub}} should be for the Hong Kong government in general, inclusive of the Legislative Council. If enough stubs are created for the Hong Kong Government, i.e. its administrative and executive branch, then maybe we think about something like {{HongKongGov-gov-stub}} and {{HongKongGov-gov-bio-stub}}. I do notice that lists the Chief Executive as a separate part of the governance of HK from the Legistlative council, and that they are all part of GovHK, but the way they phrase things on that page makes me think that this view might be politically controversial in HK. -Furicorn (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Yep, it took me some reading and re-reading to sort out the basics! The only UK country government stub types I could find were for Scotland, and they're of the general government variety. I guess I'll sift through the Hong Kong Government (& bio) stubs and see whether they really belong in a more general inclusive category, then report back with numbers. I have the feeling that the executive department doesn't need to be separated out as far as stub sorting is concerned. Her Pegship (speak) 21:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposals, December 2018[edit]

Ashkezar County geography stubs[edit]

Ice hockey S1 Speedy creation[edit]

Proposals, November 2018[edit]



Just these for now:

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)

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)

Oak species[edit]