Home Article Category Current events

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals

Shortcuts
WikiProject Stub sorting
Puzzle stub.svg
Information
Project page talk
- Stub types (sections) talk
- Stub types (full list) talk
- To do talk
- Naming conventions talk
- Redirects category talk
Wikipedia:Stub talk
Discussion
Proposals (A) talk
- Current month
Discussion talk
Criteria (A) (discontinued) talk
Deletion (Log) (discontinued) talk
Category

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[]

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 ors. 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"[]

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

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

Proposals, March 2023[]

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

NEW PROPOSALS[]

Amara (genus)[]

Stub for "Amara (genus)". It's a genus of beetles. There are between 60 and 70 stub articles, listed in three stub categories (only one of those categories is actually correct, and I plan to move the others--but I'd like to set up their own category). There could potentially be many more, since the genus does include over 600 species. NB: I propose naming the stub category "Amara (genus)" even though "Amara (beetle)" would normally be preferred, because the non-stub category for the genus is called "Amara (genus)." Uporządnicki (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are over 200 sub-categories under Category:Beetle stubs, many of them are for individual genera although quite a few are for families or other clades, so there is plenty of precedent. I don't see why the proposed stub category couldn't be called Category:Amara stubs, although I don't think that the category should be created until you can show that there are sufficient stub articles - Category:Amara (genus) presently has 80 members, and they're not all stubs. Start off with a stub template, called {{Amara-stub}} upmerged to Category:Pterostichinae stubs, apply this template to all appropriate stub articles, and when there are 60+ uses, create the corresponding category. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did say, between 60 and 70 STUB articles. They're scattered over 3 stub categories, and it was only those I counted. One category is currently correct (my proposed stub category would be a subcategory to that one). The second is the parent stub category to the first. The third is another stub subcategory--incorrect--to that parent stub category. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Plantdrew moved the article to Amara (beetle). Uporządnicki (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please always link the names of pages (including categories) that you want us to look at, don't make us waste time guessing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mea culpa! Doing all this in odd moments between what I'm SUPPOSED to be doing! I'll try to do better. Uporządnicki (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've requested that the category for the genus be moved to "Amara (beetle)". Plantdrew (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Redrose64 (talk · contribs) What are those cl and tlx things you used earlier in this thread? Uporządnicki (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Templates that are used to link categories and templates respectively, without invoking them. See Template:Cl and Template:Tlx. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tangential to this proposal, there's a big list of possible beetle templates proposed and approved at the 2011 archive which were never created. Are these still viable, and would they help with the size of the parent cat? Her Pegship (?) 15:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Library organization(?) stubs[]

I propose a stub type for libraries that refers to library entities - systems, consortia, etc. There are 506 articles in Category:Library and information science stubs, many of which don't refer to a concept in library and information science, and which don't refer to a specific building or structure. PetScan shows 65 articles that can use such a stub type. Her Pegship (?) 23:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposals, February 2023[]

Aviation-org-stub[]

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

The result of the debate was create.
Hi all - just noticed that there are close to 650 articles currently marked with {{aviation-stub}}. While there's clearly some undersorting, well over 100 of those articles are on aviation authorities, flight schools, councils, bureaus, directorates, clubs, departments, and institutes. Is a {{aviation-org-stub}} in order? It could probably take the current Category:Aeronautical company stubs‎, Category:Airline stubs, and Category:Aerospace museum stubs as subcats, too. Grutness...wha? 14:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Proposals, January 2023[]

French regional train station stub categories[]

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

The result of the debate was create categories for Grand Est and Brittany.
Proposing the creation of new categories for train station stubs in different regions of France. This includes:

Currently, all these templates are directed to both Category:French railway station stubs (151) and a category for geography stubs in their respective regions. This has an estimated population size of 220. I could see this number being on the low-end as many French station articles have yet to be created on the English Wikipedia. I am proposing that we create individual categories for each region, similar to what already exists for the regions of:

Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roughly speaking (plus or minus 5 articles), how many will there be for each of the eight regions? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I've done the transclusion counts myself and added them above. On that basis, I can support GrandEst, tentatively support Brittany, but oppose Corsica, and weak oppose the other four. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Proposals, December 2022[]

Various Australian transport stubs[]

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

The result of the debate was delete as revised.
This is a retrospective request raised on behalf of ThylacineHunter (talk · contribs), who has created the following stub categories and templates without first gaining approval at WSS/P, see User talk:ThylacineHunter#Australia railway station stubs.

None of the six stub templates has any transclusions. For each cat or template listed, I am seeking consensus to either keep it, or send it for deletion. Regarding the two railway station stub cats, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2015/March#Australia railway station stubs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "Foo transport stubs" seem fine, as they're all parent-only categories and parent sub-cats which are viable. As for the rest, though they're obv well intentioned, I would recommend either deletion or upmerging to the appropriate "transport stubs" category. Her Pegship (?) 23:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe the general consensus is to propose deletion for the following:
and to keep these:
Her Pegship (?) 21:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can go with that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey Redrose64 - do you know how to propose deletion of more than one category/template at CfD? If you have a handy way to tag and list all these, please feel free to do so - otherwise I will try to get to them soon. Thanks - Her Pegship (?) 00:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Proposals, November 2022[]

Netherlands restaurant stubs[]

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

The result of the debate was create.
Hello. I was looking through Category:Restaurant stubs to see if I could reduce the backlog there. I see that over 100 of them are for restaurants in the Netherlands per this search. However, the Netherlands doesn't have a category nor template as part of the Category:European restaurant stubs subcategory. As there would be more than 60 usages, I'd like to request Netherlands restaurant stubs to reduce the Restaurant stubs backlog. This would be a subcategory of European restaurant stubs. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support per nom. Thank you for checking the numbers. Her Pegship (?) 16:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Whig and Tory MP stub categories[]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.
I would like stub categories for the following:

JASpencer (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Conservative MP (UK) stubs already exists, so the first one is already handled. Curbon7 (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tories are a colloquial name for the modern Conservative Party, but the Tories were a distinct grouping before Peel took over the Conservative Party. JASpencer (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest that, if a split is needed, we split according to decade of birth as with other UK-MP stub cats. Her Pegship (?) 20:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I don't understand the British political setup, can someone clarify for me whether this can be resolved so I can close it? Thanks - Her Pegship (?) 21:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the UK, it has always been the case at elections that the person is the candidate, not the party. Thus, you vote for individual people who promise, assure or suggest that their speeches, debates and votes will be in line with certain ideals that you know, believe or hope will make things better for you, your associates, or the country as a whole. So, at the last UK general election, my choice was not between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn, nor even between Conservative and Labour, but between these four persons three of whom just happened to support a political party.
Political parties began as loose groupings of politicians with certain shared beliefs. During the seventeenth century, two such groups came to dominate the British political scene, and each group used a derogatory term to refer to the other (see Tories (British political party)#Name and Whigs (British political party)#Name), which became a nickname, then the semi-official name of the party. During the early to middle 19th century, the Tories (together with some Whigs) evolved into today's Conservative Party, and the nickname is still used; and soon after, the Whigs (together with some Tories) evoived into the Liberal Party, which, after some splits and merges, is now the Liberal Democrat Party, but the term "Whig" hasn't been used for well over 100 years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It sounds as though a {{UK-Tory-MP-stub}} might work, but not the Whig variety. Still, date of birth makes more sense and is easier to define. Any thoughts? Her Pegship (?) 21:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.