A complete list of stub-types (the one formerly at User:Grutness/Stubs) is now available at Biocrawler:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types. It is an easy-loading page with links to the templates but doesn not have the templates themselves on the page. Please update it when new stubs are created! The order is not as per the new hierarchy or per the old hierarchy, but somewhere between the two. Any improvements to that are also welcomed. Grutness|^hello? 08:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Proposing new stubs - procedure

	Proposing new stubs
If you wish to propose a new stub category and template, please follow the following procedure: List it at the bottom of the current month's section, under a header, like the ones shown (if any). Sign it with a datestamp (~~~~). Find a good number of stub articles, as many as you can, that will fit that tag. Each of these articles can be: currently be 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. Others will do the same, if they feel like it. One week after listing it here, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new category and template. List the new stub type on the stub types list in an appropriate section.

[edit]

Proposals, April 2005

[edit]

Category:Rail stubs is getting pretty large. A significant fraction of the articles in there are about railway stations, so I'm thinking about adding a new subcategory of Category:Rail station stubs and an associated stub tag. Let me know if there are any objections. JYolkowski // talk 01:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What proportion of those stations are in London? A London-rail-stub might solve a lot of the problem, and save having a stub that cuts into the subcategories of struct-stub (it might well take things out of both UK-struct-stub and US-struct-stub as well as the main struct-stub category). Grutness|^hello?

06:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's a lot of them from London proper (underground stations should be in LUL-stub anyway), although I think I see what you're saying in that separating them out geographically is probably a good idea since the structures stub category is as well. JYolkowski // talk 13:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about {{ukstation-stub}} and {{usstation-stub}} (and ones for other countries) to help people to find them from their countries. TAS 09:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. I'll go with that unless there are any further objections. {{australiastation-stub}} is another big one. One more little thing, would it be better to have a dash between the country name and station in the template name or not? JYolkowski // talk 13:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason I was wondering about London is I came across 30 or 40 London rail (not tube) stations while going through UK-struct-stub, and there is now a London WikiProject. UK-station-stub would probably be a reasonable compromise though. With a dash, as in UK-geo-stub and UK-bio-stub. Note the capitals, too. As with US-geo-stub and US-bio-stub, the capitals are where they are in the name of the country. Grutness|^hello? 11:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cool, I'll create US-station-stub, UK-station-stub and Australia-station-stub shortly. JYolkowski // talk 13:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually I didn't create the Australia one (yet) since there isn't an Australian structure stub category. I'll see how much I can get out of Category:Rail stubs first and then see whether I still need it. JYolkowski // talk 13:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't make an aussie struct-stub category when I made the other two... I'll have a look at the generic struct-stubs sometime soon and see whether there are enough Australian ones for their own category. Grutness|^hello?

22:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update - not really. Only 20 Aussie structure stubs in the Struct-stub category. Then again, there are probably quite a number in Australia-geo-stub... Grutness...wha? 09:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Pleased see the note below at Biocrawler:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#proposing changing station about problems relating to the naming of these categories! Grutness...wha? 06:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

update: See note under Biocrawler:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#AU-depot-stub, below.

[edit]

Proposals, May 2005

[edit]

Category:Station stubs

I'm slowly running through this category systematically and collecting information in preparation for this and other splits. For access to an Excel spreadsheet with this information, see User:Ceyockey. Courtland 12:30, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

[edit]

00:53, 2005 May 23 message altered Courtland 04:34, 2005 May 27 (UTC) To assist in segregation of the swollen {{station-stub}}. This was brought up by Grutness under the {{BBC-stub}} discussion. I don't think there is sufficient population available for separate {{UK-radio-staion-stub}} and {{UK-tv-station-stub}}. An examination of the Category:Station stubs resides at .

At present I would only recommend the creation of {{UK-station-stub}} as it is the only one that beats the 100-article threshold. As making new stub types is easier than destroying them, additional stub types according to country can be made as they cross the 100-article threshold.

Courtland 00:53, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

OK, well what the hell, I might as well not bring up making stub types here any more if they're just going to pop up willy-nilly without discussion (which this one has). Might as well just go on my merry way and toss stub types left and right ... happy template creation! Courtland 00:56, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Turns out {{UK-station-stub}} is a rail staion-related stub ... well, not for much longer ... Courtland 00:57, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

see the discussion of this at Biocrawler_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria#Problem_with_the_new_station_stubs - there was talk of changing station-stub to broadcast-stub, so this could get a little messy. Grutness...wha? 02:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

yes yes, I saw that ... I oppose the change to broadcast-stub if only on the basis of precedent. We don't have to have perfect names for the stubs. Courtland 02:43, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

At c.500 stubs looked at, there are 165 stubs that could have a {{UK-station-stub}} template affixed. Courtland 04:34, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

[edit]

Having looked at approaching 500 stubs, there are 122 stubs that could be affixed with a Canada-station-stub template. Courtland 04:45, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

[edit]

proposing changing station

In order to avoid any potential confusion, I propose the following:

Moving {{UK-station-stub}} railway articles to new {{UK-railstation-stub}}
Moving {{US-station-stub}} railroad articles to new {{US-railstation-stub}}
Using the two former names for broadcast stations, as per Courtland's suggestions above.

Any comments, positive or negative? Grutness...wha? 03:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay... I see they've already been changed to UK-depot-stub and US-depot-stub. Problem with that, of course, is that depot doesn't mean railway station in the UK, it means the place where railway engines and buses are stored for maintenance or when not in use (the "shed", if you like). Grutness...wha? 08:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

alternate naming convention

After going through (very slowly compared to the speed I've seen others accomplish) close to 900 stubs in this group, it looks like it would be best to abandon the "station" moniker and go for "broadcast" or "media". The reason I feel this is that the mix of stubs includes a) individual stations, b) broadcast towers, c) station networks, d) companies and e) looser groups of stations. This arrangement would also provide an outlet for some stubs from under the {{corp-stub}} and {{org-stub}} templates, and likely some from under the various struct-stub categories ... broadcasting structures seem to be treated in the category system distinctly from building structures; for instance, there's the whole Category:Guyed masts. At present the following could be made: {{Canada-broadcast-stub}}, {{UK-broadcast-stub}}, {{US-broadcast-stub}}, {{Broadcast-stub}} (to which {{Station-stub}} could redirect for eventual retirement). Further, I'd suggest {{Tv-stub}} and {{Radio-stub}} be placed as children of {{Broadcast-stub}}. {{Tvseries-stub}} could eventually be resorbed by {{Tv-stub}} so that {{Tv-stub}} and {{Radio-stub}} would become semantically identical but for the difference in medium, i.e. both containing programs. The eventual hierarchical organization would look like this:

Broadcasting-stub (Broadcasting stubs) <=NEW
  *R Station-stub (Station stubs)
  Tv-stub (Television program stubs)
     *R Tvseries-stub
     US-tv-stub (United States television programme stubs) <=NEW
        Buffyverse-stub (Buffyverse stubs)
        ST-stub (Star Trek stubs)
           ST-ep-stub (Star Trek episode stubs)
        Nickelodeon-stub (Nickelodeon stubs)
        PBS stub (PBS stubs)
     UK-tv-stub (United Kingdom television programme stubs) <=NEW
        Doctorwho-stub (Doctor Who stubs)
     Tv-bio-stub (Television biographical stubs)
     Soap-char-stub (Soap opera character stubs) <=NEW
        *R SoapChar
  Radio-stub (Radio programme stubs)
  Canada-bcast-stub (Canada broadcasting stubs) <=NEW
  US-bcast-stub (United States broadcasting stubs) <=NEW
  UK-bcast-stub (United Kingdom broadcasting stubs) <=NEW
     BBC-stub (BBC stubs) (also subcat under UKTv-stub)
  Singapore-bcast-stub (Singapore broadcasting stubs) <=NEW
     *R Singapore-tv-stub
  HK-bcast-stub (Hong Kong broadcasting stubs) <=NEW
     *R Hong-Kong-tv-stub
     *R HK-tv-stub 
  Website-stub (Website stubs) (would include things like podcasting stations and internet only radio)

This is a lot to digest, but I think it provides an extensible platform that, I hope, doesn't need to be extended much at all.

Courtland 23:53, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

The overall hierarchy looks good, but why UKTv-stub, UScast-stub, etc., and not UK-tv-stub, US-cast-stub, etc? You're splitting things by a second variable, so there should be a second hyphen, surely, and television isn't a proper noun, so why upper case? The names youve suggested don't follow the (extremely tentative, sure) naming guidelines... (This would also be a good opportunity to change the name of SoapChar to soap-char-stub or similar) Grutness...wha? 01:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-editing advice ... I've changed things in the box above to match, introduced soap-char-stub, and highlighted new additions. Courtland 03:36, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

A distinct improvement :). And as I said before, the hierarchy looks good, too. Grutness...wha? 02:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh - given that some of the abbreviated country names seem to be being used for precedents for confusing names (see mv-stub below), I'd also suggest not using Ca- or Sg-. I know it needs a bit more typing, but... Then again, we can probably do without the xx-broadcasting-stub redirects, too, which would remove five lines from the list! Grutness...wha? 09:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK. I removed the long names and changed the short names to "country-bcast-stub", bcast so as to not confuse with cast as in list of players. Courtland 13:55, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

No complaints from me this time :) sorry about all the revisions etc above! Grutness...wha? 11:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Suggested changes from another quarter

User:Lifeisunfair has provided a lot of input and opinion on this matter lately, including a different organization and stub type set from that proposed above and now partially enacted. The conversation that has ensued is at User_talk:Lifeisunfair#About_.26.23123.3B.26.23123.3BTv-stub.26.23125.3B.26.23125.3B. I'm suggesting there that further discussion take place here. Courtland 16:29, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

picking up the thread...
One fundamental that we seem to differ on is the priority of geography over mode of transmission. I think we can have it both ways by taking advantage of double stubbing. In cases where a country is not split out into its own broadcasting sub-stubtype category, I double stub to {{Broadcasting-stub}} and the country stub, such as {{Japan-stub}}. In the case of the United States, the number of states with stubtype categories is rising, so we could double stub to {{US-bcast-stub}} and the state stub, such as {{Texas-stub}}. Granted, not all states (or in the case of Canada, provinces) have their own stubtype categories.
to be continued Courtland 17:16, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

[edit]

Street

Moved from where it was listed under "Newly-discovered..." to here

I'd like to propose a stub for city and town streets: {{street-stub}}.

Some of these are mistakenly listed under {{road-stub}}, there abandoned ignominiously to wither among rural roads, highways, and the like. Stubbing them for what they are—streets, not roads—would make them likelier to catch the eye of urbanists and Jane Jacobs types knowledgeable in urban planning and interested in such matters as street life, the street wall, the sidewalk, pedestrian activity, and so on.

Streets in List of carfree places (e.g. those in Venice) are especially likely candidates, as not even a suburbanite could possibly mistake them for "roads."

Typogfk 22:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Support. Reasonable (having walked on a couple of those streets), though easily overused ... there's a tendency for there to be at least one person out there who will dump a database into Biocrawler in the form of stubs ... and if that happens with this stub type, woe be our band of stub-warriors here. Which reminds me about the debate as to whether zipcodes are encyclopedic a while ago (not here, but elsewhere). Courtland 01:51, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

support - with caveat. Currently, we have road-stub, UK-road-stub, and US-road stub. You'll probably need the equivalent categories here, too, otherwise you'll be moving artciles out of a more specific category and into a less specific one. Also, as to not even a suburbanite could possibly mistake them for "roads.", in some countries "road" means leafy suburban avenue whereas "street" means busy car-laden main thoroughfare. In those countries, highways are bigger than streets, streets are bigger than roads. Grutness...wha? 08:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point about "street" and "road" being prone to local flavoring and inconsistent usage. Maybe there is a better term that get's across the message. One generic term might be "way" (way-stub, whey-stub, weigh-stub ... good thing we work in text here). Courtland 22:22, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

What if we went from the other direction, and marked the main routes {{highway-stub}} (or {{mway-stub}}, or {{hiway-stub}}, or {{route-stub}}), making them the subcategory? Would that work? Grutness...wha? 03:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right. I am interested to know how to draw the distinction between streets and roads. Some roads kept the word "street" in their names, while being expanded from a street in history. Some streets have the names "road", but are not actually roads. Abbey Road (street) given above is categorised as a street. — Insta ntnood 08:29, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Again, it's a definition thing. I too would argue that Abbey Road is most definitely a road, but is not a street, since it isn't one of the busier thoroughfares in London. Which is why I'd suggest going the other way - there can be some confusion as to what is a street and what is a road, but a term like highway or motorway is a bit less ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 02:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've always seen road and street as synonymous, so I'd be hard pressed trying to figure out where to stick a stub if those two categories were to exist. --TheParanoidOne 10:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Creation proposal: environ-stub

This one was discovered elsewhere on the page and moved into its correct place

for anything related to environmental issues. It would be suitable for articles likeminister of the environment or ecolabel or toxic waste. It may be very wide in its use but then why not use many stub categories for the same article? e.g. toxic waste is already industry stubbed but the environ-stub would equally suitable. BedrupsBaneman 30 May 2005 15:25 GMT

I could have sworn we already had something like that (envir-stub, or ecology-stub, or something like that). It would probably be useful - sustainability stub could possibly be redirected to it, too, since that one's fairly useless. How many stubs are there that could take this new template though? Grutness...wha? 00:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I have not found any other stubs related to environmental issues, i.e. environ-stub, envir-stub,eco-stub, ecology-stub and environmental-stub are not defined, although there are sustainability-stub and climate-stub. Having read the article environment again the subject may be too diverse and is partly covered by other stubs. In Category:Sustainability_stubs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sustainability_stubs) it is stated that "Sustainability is an economic, social, and ecological concept" so it may not be useless but rather useful. This also huge, but then probably many stub articles can be viewed both as an x-stub and an sustainability-stub. So I suggest that we drop my suggestion for an environ-stub. Bedrupsbaneman 11:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK - and if you can do something with sustainability-stub to make it serve your purposes, please do so! Grutness...wha? 06:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Splitting {{Org-stub}}

This category's getting several pages long. I have already started with {{UK-org-stub}} and I propose the following to go on with:

Joe D (t) 01:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Beware of making such a distinction - there exist articles on many US political organizations, so you'd end up with a mess if you left people the free choice. --Joy [shallot] 09:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - just split things along one dimension (which in this case would be by country). If there seem to be too many stubs in one country, then consider splitting it by a second dimension (type of org) later. Grutness...wha? 02:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Proposals, June 2005

[edit]

Lace Stub

As part of the newly created Wikiproject Lace I'd like to propose the creation of {{Lace-stub}}. Pages that would be designated as lace stubs are currently:

Not yet created, like most of the articles linked from Template:Lace_types
Currently designated as art-stubs (too general), like Needle_lace
Not yet designated as stubs, like Chantilly_lace

Julie E. 00:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to have some sort of category, since these things aren't categorised elsewhere, and having a WikiProject does help the case, but normally categories are only created if there are already a large number of stubs. Perhaps a compromise like fabric-stub, for fabric and needlework in general, might help? I think there are quite a few other fabric related articles which could be stubbed with that, and it would make the hunt for stub articles considerably easier. If it later turns out that there are plenty of lace-related stubs, then a lace stubs category could easily be made as a subcategory of it. Grutness...wha? 11:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Part of the reasoning behind creating a Lace stub, despite the lack of current articles in need of such a stub, is that there is the projected creation, through the Wikiproject Lace, of a large number (I would estimate between ~~20 and 40~~ 65 and 100) of articles which would then need the lace stub, so instead of creating a textile crafts stub (which i agree is probably needed) and then coming back here in 4 weeks and asking for a Lace stub again, we should either create both or just the Lace stub (and leave the textile crafts one until someone with the drive to implement it asks for it). Certainley the art stub which is currently being used is innappropriate

See [1] (http://lace.lacefairy.com/ID/laceID.htm) for an idea of how many types of lace there are. -- pcr^talk 07:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This last bit isn't really relevant to the argument. There may be 10,000 types of lace, but if there are only two stub articles, the template's still not needed. It's far more important if there were currently lots of lace stubs - how many are there? Grutness...wha? 08:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Currently about a dozen, but I plan on creating at least another 50 in the next few days. If this is a case of "talk is cheap" then I'll shut up and come back here when they have been created (by which time I'll also have been bold and created the lace stub :) -- pcr^talk 17:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you can find or make 50, then since there is a WikiProject, I can't see anyone here objecting to the new template. Let us know when it's done, though! Grutness...wha? 09:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

School-district-stub

I think there are a lot of these already, and Biocrawler:schools encourages people to create school district articles for any school that doesn't have one. Apparently there are over 1,100 school districts in California alone. Kappa 04:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly strongly opposed to this one. All current school district stubs are (or at least should be) marked with US-geo-stub. There's already a proposal further up the page to split that by state, which is a far better idea than splitting it by school-district vs not-school-district. And since the state split has already started due to states with wikiprojects, it would be far easier to hold off on school-district-stub than to stop a split by states. As for there being 1100 school districts, that's as may be, but there aren't 1100 stubs on California school districts. In fact, there are only 2500 US-geo-stubs in total. Grutness...wha? 06:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why should they be tagged as geo stubs? I'd think anyone expanding them is likely to be interested in education, not places. Kappa 13:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Because school-stub is for individual schools, and school districts are areas from which the schools draw their pupils (what here in NZ we call the school's catchment area). Since a district is a place, it would make sense if it got geo-stub. The point's fairly moot anyway... I've been going through the US geo-stubs to sort them on a state-by-state basis, and I've only found four or five school districts in there. I also had a look in category:School stubs, and that contains only a little over a dozen in total. So unless someone suddenly produces another 50 or more stubs, it doesn't look like there'd be enough articles for it. I've suggested an alternative way of splitting that category below, BTW... it may be a better way of splitting the category up! Grutness...wha? 13:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, how about tagging them with both {{school-stub}} and {{geo-stub}}, they can at least be googled for that way. Kappa 14:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough - that would make sense (only they'd be US-geo-stub, not geo-stub :) Grutness...wha? 01:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

{{UK-school-stub}} and {{US-school-stub}}? (created)

Is it worth splitting school-stub by making separate US and UK subcategories? I doubt anyone who knows the US school system will be able to say much about UK schools or vice versa, and I'd say that each of these two countries accounts for 30-40% of the school stubs. Grutness...wha? 04:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds like a reasonable split. Courtland 17:59, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Done. Now they just need to be populated... done that, too. Phew. Grutness...wha? 11:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Another further subdivision of {{astro-stub}}. It would be for individual galaxies, galaxy clusters, characteristics of galaxies, etc., which make up at least 100 and probably many more of those in {{astro-stub}}. A2Kafir 03:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggest {{astro-gal-stub}} instead for easier recollection. Actually I wonder if {{star-stub}} ought to be {{astro-star-stub}} as well. --Phil | Talk 14:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I thing galaxy-stub is easier to remember, actually. And we have asteroid-stub too. A2Kafir 22:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Astro-gal-stub is an abreviation that's too hard to remember. Galaxy-stub, is much, much better. (Besides, Astro-gal-stub looks too much like it's for some comic book character, Astro Gal.) BlankVerse ∅ 09:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Food and Drink Specific stubs

[edit]

Basic divisions

There are well over 800 stubs in the {{food-stub}} category. In fact #800 begins with an I. Therefore, I propose the following generalized stubs to help bring this category down to size. Since these are not terribly specific, I am not going to attempt to prove them, unless somebody sees fit to challenge their necessity.

{{drink-stub}}
{{meat-stub}}
{{fruit-and-veggie-stub}}
{{dairy-stub}}
{{desert-stub}}
{{alcoholic-drink-stub}} or {{alco-drink-stub}} for brevity.

Granted, there is a {{beer-stub}} for Beers and breweries, but I saw a lot of other alcoholic beverage stubs in Category:Food and drinks stubs--and I don't even drink!

Also, I propose these specific stubs because as I skimmed through the Food Stubs, I couldn't help but notice them.

[edit]

As a Midwesterner, I request that if {{soda-stub}} is created, that {{pop-stub}} be created as well as a redirect. :) A2Kafir 19:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can't argue with that. We may need to create Template:Cola-stub as a redirect as well. *Kat* 08:31, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

well, I can argue with that! :) The only three things on here that are "soda" are a type of bread, a machine and a slang term for a person! Grutness...wha? 09:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about {{soft-drink-stub}} ? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's what they're called here, so it's fine by me, but is the term widely used in the US, UK, etc? Grutness...wha? 02:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The term "soft drink" is fine for the UK. --TheParanoidOne 05:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whatever it's called, Soda bread and soda jerk shouldn't be labelled with them. Grutness...wha? 07:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. :) --TheParanoidOne 19:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Airhead (candy)--brand
Aero (chocolate)--brand
Big League Chew--brand
Big Red (chewing gum)--brand
Black Jack (gum)--brand
Bottle Caps (candy)
Bubble Tape
Bubble Yum
Bubblicious
Bubbaloo
Bust-up gum--brand
Butterfinger
Chocolate bar
Chocolate chip
Crunch (candy)--brand
Crunchie--brand
Crunchy Frog

[edit]

(best name I could come up with.)

Bottle opener
Broiler
Coffee filter
Cookie cutter
Extractor hood
Food processor
Grater
Heidelberg Tun
Kettle
London grill
Mandolin (cooking)
Oven
Pot still
Potato ricer
Salt shaker
Salt cellar
Slop bowl
Skillet
Sunbeam CG
Waffle iron
Wok with Yan

Thinking a bit wider - {{tableware-stub}} for the tableware and {{cooking-stub}} for everything else? --Joy [shallot] 20:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that while I was searching for enough articles to justify my more specific proposals I came across enough articles to justify a sauce-stub, sandwiche-stub, chicken-stub and hot-drink-stub. It remains up to somebody else to justify these, because I am sick and tired of looking at that food-stub category.*Kat* 05:16, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I found my original edit and have restored it here. *Kat* - I hope that your deletion of my comments was an accident rather than deliberate! Grutness...wha? 08:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd go with a broader split to start with - into just food and drink - after all, it's not like you're talking 3000 stubs here. Then we can worry about the separate parts. As far as drink is concerned, we have {{beer-stub}} and {{wine-stub}} - adding in {{spirits-stub}} and a generic {{drink-stub}} would probably be enough there (and I certainly don't like the name {{soda-stub}} - only about three of the things you had on that list were soda, and of them one was a food!). As for food, there's already talk of a {{fruit-stub}}, so why not add {{vegetable-stub}} and {{sweet-stub}} (or {{candy-stub}}, one to redirect to the other, perhaps?). That should cut the category down considerably without having to worry about cooking utensils (which aren't foods anyway, they're tools!) and subdivisions like meat and dairy. All these subdivisions are probably overkill. Oh, and I hope you meant {{dessert-stub}} :) Grutness...wha? 05:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I support Grutness' proposed stub categories. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:31, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Blank Brazil-stub

Not sure where to mention this. The Brazil stub template is completely empty, no text or flag as with the other country stubs. I assume I can just go add the text using the boilerplate from the other country stubs? If not, what? SeventyThree 23:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear... looks like someone made a mess with it then blanked it rather than reverting it to what it should look like - two weeks ago. I hope it hasn't been used since then. It's back to normal now. Grutness...wha? 03:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Oceania-stub and Caribbean-stub

There are {{Caribbean-geo-stub}} and {{Oceania-geo-stub}} stubs and categories, but there is no related stub that I can find for articles relating to the culture, people etc. of those parts of the world - {{Caribbean-stub}} and {{Oceania-stub}}. I don't know where those stubs might be sorted now - I've sorted them to {{music-stub}} (orthogonal to the region) and {{CAmerica-stub}} (this is not too bad, just non-obvious). --ScottDavis 03:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both are reasonable, I think. It would also allow us to finally deprecate Pitcairn-stub (which we couldn't before, with two bio-stubs that didn't belong anywhere else!) Caribbean-stub has been suggested in the past, and I think it would be easy to find 100 (or close to, at least) articles for each of these categories. As for "orthogonal to region", with bio-stubs I don't think that hurts too much. Some editors will know people by where they're from, others by what they do. CAmerica (why not CentralAm, like the geo-stub???) isn't such a good idea though, since it isn't really the same area at all. Grutness...wha? 11:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{CAmerica-stub}} is pretty bad for Caribbean stubs - sooner put them in a NAmerican stub cat (Caribbean regularly gets lumped into North America, but not with Central America). I think there is room for a {{Caribbean-bio-stub}} (that could probably get 100 articles), but that wouldn't solve the problem of what to do with the other stubs, so I think there should also be a {{Caribbean-stub}}. Guettarda 02:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not as good at this as Grutness, but I've made a go at finding articles for {{Oceania-geo-stub}} at User:ScottDavis/Oceania. I didn't get to 60 stubs that aren't already in stub categories I would expect to become subcategories of this one. Is it OK to create the stub and category anyway? Should I mark short articles as stubs if they are not currently labeled that way? Is it OK to add a regional stub to music, economic, election etc stubbed articles? --ScottDavis 13:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hope you mean Oceania-stubs, not Oceania-geo-stubs! I think that, if the articles are clearly about things relating to Oceania, that double stubbing them is fine. And I dare say that we'll get 60 or so pretty soon, although the small number is a bit of a worry. Personally, I've no objection to the category size, but I'd leave it a few more days to see whether anyone objects on those grounds (or if any more turn up). (BTW, me being "good at looking for articles" is simply because they were geo-stubs anyway - much easier to hunt through geo-stubs looking for a particular kind than to hunt from scratch!). Grutness...wha? 13:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oops - I did indeed mean {{Oceania-stub}}. I had geo in mind because I used them to find my way into the right regions. I'm working up a similar list for {{Caribbean-stub}}, finding a lot of bio-stubs here. --ScottDavis 14:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With no objections and some encouragement, I'm about to try to follow the guidelines to create and populate these two stub categories. Thanks especially to Guettarda for helping populate the Caribbean list. I also managed to find more Oceania articles. --ScottDavis 09:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see Category:Oceania-related stubs is up and running - should Category: Australia-related stubs also be a subcat of it ? It is listed as part of Oceania for the geo-stubs. Grutness...wha? 10:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll accept advice for either way. I deliberately did not as

the heading in Stub types is "Australia and Oceania",
Aus-stub plus its subordinate categories already has more entries than the rest of Oceania
Australia is much less closely associated with the Pacific islands than NZ is.

Perhaps asking for comments on the Australian noticeboard could be in order. --ScottDavis 10:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Whilst going through the list of {{stub}}s, I found the article, lipstick and I have no idea where to put it. Perhaps a {{makeup-stub}} is in order.

The {{fashion-stub}} is the best choice for the lipstick article. BlankVerse ∅ 15:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, that's the best place for it. Courtland 15:38, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

[edit]

{{singer-stub}} created

I think people are putting singers and vocalists into either the {{music-stub}} and {{musician-stub}} categories, but those are only rough fits. There is already an {{opera-singer-stub}}, but I think that there should also be a generic {{singer-stub}}. BlankVerse ∅ 15:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorting any singer I find in {{music-stub}} to {{musician-stub}}. Singers are musicians. But musician-stub itself is hopelessly crowded and should be split up. I'd rather split it by genre than by role, even though some say it can't be done. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that most people are probably like me--when they think of musicians, their first idea is of instrumentalists only. Most singers are known primarily as singers, or maybe singer-songwriters. There are not that many that are really well known as both singers and instrumentalists (Nat King Cole is the first one that comes to mind).

Trying to fit some people into different genres is going to be very easy for some people, but where in the heck would you fit a genre-crossers like Lyle Lovett (singer-songwriter?)? BlankVerse ∅ 04:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I personally think of a singer as a muscian without confusion, the instrument being their voice. Courtland 17:57, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

I'd put Lovett into country-musician-stub without hesitation, since that seems to be his primary genre. If he's really that much of a crossover artist, double tag with jazz-musician-stub. Alternatively, it could be argued that singer/songwriter is a genre in itself - but there are tons of singers (and even more vocalists, which I'd suggest you use if subdivision by role is deemed more workable) that don't fit in there, but somewhere else. -- a non-logged in User:Grm wnr from 84.147.232.130 18:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see singer-stub got added, created by User:Infrogmation.—Wahoofive (talk)

Do rappers go in singer-stub?—Wahoofive (talk) 19:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My personal answer is no. A rapper-stub would actually be more productive, as the differences are substantial enough for editors to be interested in one subject and not on the other. --Sn0wflake 20:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Really? I would have to disagree. I see them all as being forms of musical expression, with voice being the instrument of choice. Having said that though, a rapper-stub child would certainly be a suitable child branch, assuming of course that there were sufficient number of stubs to populate said branch. --TheParanoidOne 21:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

{{engineer-stub}}/{{inventor-stub}} created

From browsing the People stubs category, many such people aren't sorted because they don't fit elsewhere. This could be a single template and category for now, one template name redirecting to the other. --Joy [shallot] 16:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I went on and created this. I also added industrial designers to the description, that's another reasonably popular term. --Joy [shallot] 19:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

{{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)

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)

[edit]

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)

[edit]

{{med-bio-stub}} created

We seem to have a number of physicians and other medicine workers with articles. --Joy [shallot] 16:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{Physician-stub}} is likely needed at some point. For an all-inclusive category, we could consider {{Healer-stub}} which could include physicians, nurses of all kinds, midwives, acupuncturists, holistic healers, shamans, faith healers, etc. There could subsequently be breakouts to handle subcategories, with {{Physician-stub}} perhaps not needing to come into existence if one jumps directly to things like {{Surgeon-stub}} or {{GP-stub}} (General Practitioner) if needed. Courtland 17:39, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

I agree, this would definitely be helpful; I find it quite a bit as I go through some of the bio stubs. Hathawayc 17:21, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I created it, and redirects at {{physician-stub}}, {{nurse-stub}} and {{healer-stub}}. --Joy [shallot] 19:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

{{turk-stub}} created as Turkey-stub

I reckon there should be a Turkey stub because there are many other articles apart from Turkey-geo stubs. - Erebus555...^{natter at me}

If this is to be created, please make {{Turkey-stub}} rather than {{turk-stub}}. Thanks. Courtland 17:25, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Agreed - Turkey-stub is a better name. BTW, I'm moving this to its correct place on the page (it's a proposal, not a discovery!) Grutness...wha? 00:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, got confused. I will move the stub to turkey stub.

[edit]

{{inorganic-cpd-stub}} and {{organic-cpd-stub}}

The cpd stands for compound. These two stubs would help take some of the pressure off {{chem-stub}} (currently over 1000 stubs). At a rough estimate, I would say 200 articles for the former and 300 for the latter. The image from {{chem-stub}} could be retained. Physchim62 01:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why not simply {{organic-chem-stub}} and {{inorganic-chem-stub}}? cpd is hardly intuitive, and these will be children of chem-stub. It would also allow for stubs related to organic chemistry in general (allowing the categorising of, for example, "ketone" - not an organic compound per se, but definitely categorisable as organic chemistry). Grutness...wha? 07:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I support the original proposal. The problem with organic-chem-stub is that it is ambiguous- before long people will apply it to general organic chemistry concepts such as Zaitsev's Rule or aromaticity. We need a specific stub just for compounds, since there are so many of them (see list of organic compounds, which probably has only 50% of them) and they are growing rapidly in number. It may be that we need a more general organic stub, but removing the compounds will reduce the pressure. As for not being intuitive, I take the point, but cpd is a standard abbreviation approved by the American Chemical Society for use in Chemical Abstracts and the like, so it should be understood by the chemists who are likely to be doing the higher level stub sorting needed. Walkerma 15:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. To be my sometimes pedantic self .... The abbreviation "cmpd" is used more frequently than "cpd" and should be used in the stub title. {{Organic-cmpd-stub}} should sit as a child of Category:Organic compounds and should be entitled Category:Organic compound stubs. {{Inorganic-cmpd-stubs}} should sit as a child of Category:Inorganic compounds and should be entitled Category:Inorganic compound stubs. Please use the boilerplate text at WP:Stub to create the templates and categories. Courtland 17:41, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Nah, not good enough: if the stub is to indicate compound, why then making it so cryptic. I propose to write the word out in full: {tl|inorganic-compound-stub}} and {{organic-compound-stub}}. Wim van Dorst 18:57, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC).

The abbreviation "cmpd" is not cryptic to anyone who would be working on these articles, i.e. people with some chemistry-related experience. Courtland 19:38, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

...but it would be to stub-sorters. Remember we're trying to make the template names as easy to understand as possible! I'd agree with Wim's suggestion. Grutness...wha? 06:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I fully support the categorization proposed by Courtland (it seemed so obvious that I forgot to add it in to the proposal). I prefer my original suggestion for the titles ('cos it's quicker to type :), but I will bow down gracefully if others feel this will cause too much trouble for non-chemists! Physchim62 21:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The word compound is already a difficult word. Why making it more difficult to remember by arbitrarily abbreviating it to cpd or cmpd. It needs explanation in the very first sentence of this section! And I have a chemical background and still don't think that comp or cpd or cmpd is good to remember, assess for appropriateness for a give article and handier to type than compound. So I support [[user:Grutness|Grutness (and myself. Wim van Dorst 22:37, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC).

{{Inorganic-compound-stub}} and {{organic-compound-stub}} now created. Physchim62 14:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

LIS = Library and information science. It's an academic field. --Robojames 14:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How many of those exist and where are they sorted at the moment? -- grm_wnr Esc 18:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At least one (Integrated_library_system) is currently unsorted. I haven't gone looking for others, I just happened upon this one while stub-sorting, realized there was no appropriate category, came here to look for a discussion, and found this discussion. --Dante Alighieri |