Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria/Archive8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Selected archiving from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria

Summary[edit]

  • Stub-type creation: Bank-stub, Retail-stub, Comp-sci-stub, Crater-stub, Mammal-stub, Bird-stub, Reptile-stub, Fish-stub, Invertebrate-stub, Pre-columbian-stub
  • Stub-type deletion: Shanama-stub, Secur-stub, Lake-stub, Andorra-geo-stub, Texas-stub
  • Stub-type discussions: Important-stub, Corp-stub, Org-stub, Struct-stub, Bio-stubs as a group
  • Stub-type proposals not enacted: Library-stub, Comm-stub, Cerem-stub, Scholar-stub, Professor-stub, Child-book-stub, Greek-myth-stub, Digimon-stub, Fict-char-stub, Fict-bio-stub, bio-fict-stub, Native-America-Myth-Stub, Public-transport-stub

Division of {{corp-stub}} *Created*[edit]

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

{{comp-sci-stub}} (*created*)[edit]

(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}}. – ABCD 22:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A few articles to add here (only checked 0-9 and A, B-Z are unchecked):
– ABCD 22:58, 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. The majority of the stubs you listed are clearly topics that would be taught in a computer science academic program. --Allen3 talk 00:31, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed, and it does sound like a useful category. I can remember umming and aahing about what to do with a stub for something like baud rate a while back - compu-sci-stub would have been very useful for that. Grutness|hello? 01:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea, I just changed the proposal. – ABCD 22:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{crater-stub}}*created*[edit]

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]
{{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. I'm perfectly aware that Earth has craters, both impact and volcanic, but when people think off-Earth, "crater" is the main common item that comes to mind. That's why I used it as shorthand for off-Earth features. A2Kafir 19:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created today; almost 50 in it. A2Kafir 22:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Subdivide animal stubs *all 5 created*[edit]

This one was in the wrong place on the list, so I've just moved it down here Grutness|hello?
  • 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)
  • Firstly, apologies for the misplacement.
I have looked through the first hundred or so articles listed in Category:Animal stubs (i.e. those beginning with A), 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)
  • Instrad of "Invertebrates", I would suggest {{bug-stub}} for insects and arthropods. This will prevent jellyfish and other aquatic invertibrates from being grouped with land dwelling insects. --Allen3 talk 11:46, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Good point. Bug-stub's got a nice ring to it, too! Grutness|hello? 04:24, 28 Apr 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)
You've got a decent point there, of course. "Bug" is definitely an Americanism... invertebrate-stub is a much better name for it overall - the only thing that worries me is that longer template names mean more work :). BTW, I don't know about Australia either, but I suspect that it's not common there either (it's certainly not common here in NZ). Grutness|hello? 08:55, 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]
    • They look good. I think the categories should probably lead into their respective animal types (Category:Mammal stubs as a subcat of Category:Mammals, for instance), but that would cause problems with reptile-stub. Grutness|hello? 13:00, 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]
    • Problem: {{reptile-stub}} places animals in a category called "Reptile stubs" rather than "Reptile and Amphibian stubs". A2Kafir 20:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe make {{bird-stub}}'s text to be bird-related, expanding into genus, families, ornithology and birdwatching?Circeus 00:02, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • All good suggestions. I've listed Category:Reptile stubs to be moved to Category:Reptile and amphibian stubs, the text at Category:Birds has been expanded (although I can't take the credit for that), and I'm adding the categories (e.g. Category:Mammals to Category:Mammal stubs) now. 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]

{{Shahnama-stub}}[edit]

It's got a lovely image on it and everything, but the Shahnama doesn't even have its own category. How much potential is there for expansion? I agree that stub categories should be specific, but is this perhaps way too specific? -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now listed on tfd and cfd. Grutness|hello? 11:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Now deleted by TFD. The category was previously deleted on CfD. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{Secur-stub}}[edit]

Just discovered this one - security stubs - which was hiding a few sociology stubs, military stubs, computer stubs and occupation stubs (now re-templated as such). Doubt if there will be more than a handful of specifically security related articles in total that aren't better suited to other categories. Anyone know anything about this one? Grutness|hello? 07:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • support deletion through Wikipedia:Templates for deletion — It's too bad that the template was created by an IP address rather than a user with an account because it would be useful to hear what the person considered as the scope for this category. My thinking is that a lot could go in here, things like security technology (surveillance, alarms, etc.), computer protocols related to security (encryption methods, for instance), simple security tools (keys and locks), etc. As it is ... sink that battleship. Courtland 04:11, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
Now listed on tfd and cfd. Grutness|hello? 11:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{Andorra-geo-stub}}[edit]

At last count, there were only six Andorra geo-stubs, yet this hasn't stopped someone from creating this template and the related category. There's no Andorra WikiProject, and no chance that this category will ever be heavily populated. The person who created this has also been heavily featured on tfd in the past for his unneccessary Andorra and Switzerland articles. Did I mention that Category: Andorra geography stubs says it is about the geography of Switzerland, by the way? Grutness|hello? 02:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{Lake-stub}}[edit]

Horrible. Cuts clean across the existing geo-stub categories. No connected wiki project. Not created by WikiPorject member. Unneccessary, and likely to lead to sorters listing things as lakes instead of (rather than as well as) where they are. Wish I could speedy it! Grutness|hello? 23:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{Important-stub}}[edit]

  • I've tagged {{Importantstub}} as articles fom the list of encyclopedic topics. That's a nice use for it, I think. Circeus 12:56, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Importantstub: Currently only being used by newbies to tag unimporant articles, such as JanSport. We already have {{attention}}. Any really important articles that are just stubs should usually be improved through the various WikiProjects and Collaborations of the week, rather than sitting around (forever?) with a huge "Importantstub" tag. If it is an article that has been cited in a publication as an example of why the Wikipedia is not a good encyclopedia, then a notice should go in the Village Pump that will result in quick improvements. gK ¿? 04:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

{{Org-stub}} and {{Corp-stub}}[edit]

I don't see the point of org-stub and corp-stub. Virtually any article that is a corp or org stub will also be another stub (although perhaps not one that there's a template for). For example, American Correctional Association is an org-stub but is also (and more properly) a prison-stub (or law-stub, as I've listed it). Who on earth will go around to all the org/corp stubs and say "I think I'll be able to expand a lot of these"? No one; hence they're not a useful templates/categories. I recommend we delete them. —msh210 20:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, better yet, I recommend we delete the categories and have the templates redirect to stub (and remove org and corp from the list of stub templates), so that we don't have to edit all the articles that have these templates in them. —msh210 20:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please don't do the redirect. That makes it much more difficult to resort them. The reason for the organization and corporation stub was that prior to its creation, several organizations and corporations did not have appropriate stubs for them. And I certainly do not want to create a stub for every type of organization. We'd end up with Humanitarian, Federal, Non-Profit, Computer companies, Software companies, etc. If we need to remove the stub, we can ask for a bot to do that for us. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

{{Struct-stub}}[edit]

Another one to get rid of is struct-stub. Much like with org and corp, no one will go through these to find articles to fix. Rather, buildings/structures that are famous in a country (e.g., the Moscow Kremlin, the Gateway Arch, etc.) should be placename-stubs (or other, as appropriate), and architecture stubs should be architecture-stubs (currently nonexistent). Others also have appropriate categories (e.g., christianity-stub for St. Peter's Square), and any that don't will (I'm guessing) be too few to sort. —msh210 17:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See the discussion above about subdiving struct-stub. This should help. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yup, this is covered further up the page - although I think the idea of a arch-stub for general architecture terms is a very good one! Grutness|hello? 05:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bio-stubs[edit]

Since the real goal of stubs is for them to be found and fixed, I believe all biographical stubs should be moved to the stub categories to which that person related: senators to a US Legislature stub, etc. Nobody is an expert on people (virtually impossible) and thus nobody is going to search through bio-stubs. But an expert on the US Legislature or US History might know a lot about a senator, and would find it more easily this way. I recognize bio-stub is a large category; but the end goal is the fixing of stubs, and our goal is facilitating that. --YixilTesiphon 05:33, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose I understand the benefits of this, but I think it is equally useful to have a "holding area" for uncategorized biography stubs in order to segregate them from the unchategorized masses of general stubs. It would be a useful Guidelines addition to discourage sorting to bio-stub and encourage sorting to a more occupation or role-in-history category. Courtland 05:46, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
    • This is exactly where Category:Geography stubs is now, and it seems to work well. All that should be in that category (apat from its subcategories) are the template/stub message pages, cross-continent "Lists of", and any new items that need to have a more specific geo-stub. Grutness|hello? 02:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It might be more useful to create, say a politician-stub. -Aranel ("Sarah") 16:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There are millions of politicians from all over the world. Replay my argument against bio-stubs. --YixilTesiphon 23:20, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but there are not millions of stub articles about politicians. (And if we put all of the politicans in under politics, we'll have the same problem within that category, or whichever category we decide to use.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is where double-stubbing and/or region-splitting becomes a useful tool. My view is create a politician stub, and put that and a country-stub on the article. If a high proportion of politician stubs from any one country, then creating a separate country-politician-stub becomes viable. Canada has split its articles pretty thoroughly (and for the most part pretty well). There's no reason at all why the same couldn't be done with other large items which are distinctly tied to a particular country, and bio stubs in general seem a perfect candidate for that approach. Grutness|hello? 00:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This approach sounds pretty good to me.
--YixilTesiphon 00:27, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
How would this be incorporated into other categories? Say science, would bios be subdivided into areas of knoledge? physics, chemistry, maths, biology, etc...
I think it is a good approach but it could be prone to scattering if not done under supervision. --Askewmind 01:45, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
That's why this project exists. --YixilTesiphon 04:25, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Getting back to the top of this thread, are we generally agreed that out-right deletion of the Template:bio-stub and corresponding category is not something that is desirable, but acting to subdivide those items rationally is the better approach at this time? Courtland 04:34, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
I'm in, hence the title change. --YixilTesiphon 01:11, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Merge Texas stubs[edit]

There's a "Texas stub" category and a "Texas stubs" category. Obviously there's only room for one Texas around here. Even I, from Texas myself, realizes Texas isn't quite big enough to have two stub categories. chris hathaway 06:39, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Oh lordy. I'll start to put things in motion on tfd and cfd about this one straight away, since the longer it's left, the more trouble it will cause. Grutness|hello? 07:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - Category:Texas stub has gone to the great ranch in the sky. Grutness...wha? 02:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{library-stub}}[edit]

Most of the libraries stubs have the United Kingdom buildings or structures stub (or whatever country they're in), see William Brown Library, some have the museum stub, see London Library and in the Pierpont Morgan Library article someone even wanted to include the library-stub, thinking that it already exists! IMO, we need a library stub. --Missmarple 15:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{comm-stub}}[edit]

There is currently no stub category for general communications-related articles such as Drop letter. I don't think a stub category specific to mail-related articles would include a sufficient number of articles to warrant it, but one general to communications would.Kurt Weber 04:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That name's much too similar to {{com-stub}}, which is telecommunications. Grutness|hello? 05:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about {{communications-stub}} then?Kurt Weber 16:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{cerem-stub}}[edit]

There is currently no stub category for ceremony-related articles. There is one for festivals; however, several ceremonies (such as Enthronement) really don't have accompanying festivals.Kurt Weber 04:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-This might cut across other stub types, I can think of a few, religion stubs and ethnology- or ethnic-group-related stubs for example. Might be something to consider. Rx StrangeLove 05:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wondered about that. But really, is there any particular reason why a stub can't be listed in more than one stub category--for instance, one for being a ceremony and one for being related to a particular religion, political unit, ethnic group, etc.? Kurt Weber 16:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, people do it all the time. I just wanted to mention it, I think a good rule of thumb would be that it could satisfy the guidelines by itself, standing alone. Are there enough of them? I don't remember running into that many as I've sorted, but your experience may differ Rx StrangeLove 00:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{scholar-stub}} OR {{professor-stub}}[edit]

The other area I could dump a whole bunch of bio-stubs into are professors and researchers who don't fall into the scientist, biologist, or mathematician categories. Most of the time they are professors at universities, but I imagine there are many out there who are outside of academia, but still should be considered scholars.chris hathaway 06:28, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

{{Child-book-stub}}[edit]

Unless I am mistaken, there is no stub category for children's books. And we need one, badly. Look at Category:Books, and you will see why. Actually the need isn't quite as great as I originally thought, but it does exist. Stubs that could/shoud go into a Children's books stub include:

  • Mrs. Piggle Wiggle
  • Peter Rabit
  • Dr. Doolittle's Return
  • And to think that I saw it on Mulberry street
  • Happy birthday Cookie Monster
  • My friend Flicka
  • Good dog Carl
  • The Boxcar Children
  • Bunnicula
  • The Giving Tree
And I'm sure that there were some that I missed. *Kat* 06:49, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

{{Greek-myth-stub}}[edit]

Category:Mythology stubs is getting huge. Greek mythological stubs account for a large number of these. Other subdivisions would be helpful as well (for example, {{Norse-myth-stub}}); see Category:Mythology by culture for ideas. -Sean Curtin 03:45, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

A good idea. it ties in with some of the things discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria#.26.23123.3B.26.23123.3BPre-columbian-stub.26.23125.3B.26.23125.3B_.2ACreated.2A_and_.26.23123.3B.26.23123.3BNative-America-Myth-Stub.26.23125.3B.26.23125.3B further up this page. I'd say that norse, greek, and possibly also africa-myth-stub are all possibles. Grutness...wha? 05:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{fict-char-stub}} or {{fict-bio-stub}}[edit]

I was having a look at some of the Dune characters stubs and categorised them as book-stub (before I saw there was already a dune-stub proposal here) however I was wondering if it might be useful if there was a stub cat for fictional characters that aren't in books/films/tv shows big enough to have their own stub categories? -- Lochaber 16:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I toyed with this one in the past (it was proposed a couple of months back), but edged away from the idea when I realised how many categories it would cut across (book, film, tv, sf, fantasy, cvg...) if there was a way of separating them out (perhaps fictbio-book-stub and fictbio-film-stub?) Grutness...wha? 02:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is not like the {{fantasy}} stub doesn't cut across a lot of categories. Granted, that is how we got into the mess we are currently in, but still, it is better for a person to sort something into a generic stub category than to have them simply stick {{stub}} at the bottom of it and be done. Taking this one step further: semi-specific stub categories, such as the one proposed, will take the load off of the semi-generic stub categories, like the one I already mentioned. *Kat* 06:29, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

bio-fict-stub[edit]

Just been counting up the lit-stubs to add the total to the Stub-types list, and I noticed a lot of stubs for fictional characters. Would a fictional biography stub template (bio-fict-stub, fict-bio-stub, fict-char-stub or similar) be useful to anyone? And which is the best name for it? Grutness|hello? 04:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Would existing templates like {{sf-stub}} and {{fantasy-stub}} and each of their sub-categories account for some of these? Courtland 23:47, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
    • Some, perhaps, but there's a whole slew of Catch 22 characters, for instance, and detectives, and a handful of Dickens characters. It might be better to go the other way and put fictional people from sf-stub and fantasy-stub in bio-fict-stub too (and maybe, if there are enough of them, split bio-fict-stub in three at a later date). Of course, there's also the problem of whether to include fictional characters from films and TV, or just stick with books... Grutness|hello? 00:53, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Update: Mmm. This probably needs more thought before being enacted. Unless anyone else wants to take this one and run with it, perhaps it should be shelved for a later date? Grutness|hello? 08:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we definitely need a fiction-stub template to cover various fictional things/whathaveyou that aren't SF or fantasy. --Joy [shallot] 01:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{digimon-stub}}[edit]

Do we have enough entries to support a stub category for Digimons?

{{Pre-columbian-stub}} *Created* and {{Native-America-Myth-Stub}}[edit]

Generalized replacements for {{Inca-stub}} and {{Inca-myth-stub}}. {{Pre-columbian-stub}} would go under History and parallel {{Egypt-stub}} or {{Roman-stub}}. {{Native-America-Myth-Stub}} would go into the Religion/faiths/myths grouping. --Allen3 talk 01:28, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should leave it quite that open. Native American can mean anything from Inuit to Patagonian, so there needs to be more of a breakdown there. Also, there are 26 Maya and 89 Aztec mythology articles in their corresponding catagories, and I suspect that many if not most of these are stubs and substubs. It seems we could use individual stub classes for these, even though the Inca may need to wait. --ROY YOЯ 03:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps {{Mesoamerica-stub}} for the Mexican cultures and their mythology combined, and I suppose we could group everything else into (maybe) just {{America-stub}} until the need to break it down is greater. --ROY YOЯ 03:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mmm. Don't really like "America-stub" for a name. Too generic - you'll have people putting US-geo-stubs and US-politicians in there, to start with. Why not start with {{Pre-columbian-stub}} (or even just {{PreCol-stub}}) as your main parent, then have {{Pre-columbian-hist-stub}}, {{Pre-columbian-myth-stub}}, etc as the subcategories? If it becomes necessary to break it down into regions, then do so like this:

{{Pre-columbian-stub}}

...so that every subcat is cross-referenced to both race and type of stub. (*) I admit that this nomenclature becomes a problem: is there a set way of splitting up north American native races (e.g., Pacific, Great Plains, Southeast), or should all these groups be lumped together as "First nation" or similar?

Grutness|hello? 01:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ohh, this is good. But we probably don't need to break it down so much yet. --ROY YOЯ 20:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Public-Transport[edit]

  • Might be an idea under Transportation. Unless there is opposition I'll add it to the hierarchy. --Circeus 17:39, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • The stub would mostly include stations, lines, owners and details about a specific occurence of public transports atc., probably not technical terms. --Circeus 20:01, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good idea, use for pages where none of the Transportation stubs can be used or more than one could be used. TAS 15:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Like Rollsign for example. TAS 09:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria/Archive8&oldid=1138356985"