Wikipedia talk:Simple Stub Project/Archive 3

Proposal

Shouldn't there be a template about literature or books? Classical Esther 08:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

{{Biz-stub}}

I propose using {{biz-stub}} for articles about business and the economy. There are some stub articles that don't fit into any category but business, and others that would fit better in business than another category Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 13:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, and I look forward to creating some of these. Can we have an estimate of how many articles that might fall in this category? Pmlineditor ∞ 13:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah this is most likely the case, do you have any estimate on number of articles you have come across that would fall in this category? Because generally if we don't have a substantial number of them we just use the plain stub template. As long as there are a good number of articles that would fall in this category I would have no problem with it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would estimate no fewer than 100, and likely significantly more than that. For example, most of the businesses in Category:Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange are stubs, and are only over a KB due to tables, refs and interwikis. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Food Stub?

I think there should be a food stub for the food articles because they are a growing number of them but that's not up to me to decide it's a group discussion.... plus i suck at making stubs :P -- ಠ_ಠ!i!King OF ZE Ravenz!i!ಠ_ಠ (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

How many articles would use this template? Griffinofwales (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I went through Category:Foods and started counting and got to about 180. However, there are about 370 more articles to go through, but a few are not stubs. So there are probably at least 200 that will use this template. Megan|^talk_changes 02:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I say go for it; but you know me, always inserting my opinion into conversations that do not concern me. ;) Lauryn (u • t • c) 02:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Synergy 03:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

More accurate bio-stubs

I think we have such a vast number of bio-stubs we can now start to be more specific, for instance {{Sports-bio-stub}}. Right now, even with just footballers, and just German, Italian and English ones at that, we have over 600 pages, the majority of which are stubs. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, agree. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree too. --Diego Grez _{(previously MisterWiki)} ^{let's talk} 17:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Per above. mccon99 20:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a great idea. —Classical Esther 12:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Not to the point where it's too diverse. I'd prefer a sports bio one now. Nifky^{^} 12:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

How about starting with sports-bio-stub and movie-bio-stub? Nothing else seems to be needed atm. SS✞^(Kay) 09:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have had a go at making a Sports person stub {{Sports-bio-stub}}. Have a look and let me know, I used a soccer ball as that seems to be where most of the stubs are at the moment. --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks great.When should we start the sorting? mccon99 01:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit I am not a fan of the look of the sports stub template. The icon is too large and the ball in it looks way off. The ball is too angular instead of round. Can we choose another icon? Either way (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Let's do a different icon. ♥ Belinda ♥ 01:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A different icon would be a good idea.  — laurynashby 01:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Does this work? It has a soccer ball that looks round. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I like this soccer ball, but I think it needs something to show that it's about a sports-person, not just a sport. —Classical Esther 02:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If Peter uses my ball with the icon, would that work? Griffinofwales (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm the only one who likes the other icon, as the new one (per Esther) doesn't have a person on it. Here are some different options. As you can see, none of them seem appropriate for the stub, but they were the closest thing I could find. I really think the first icon is the way to go. And Either Way, if you don't like the size, change the px #. BTW, if we are also thinking about movie-bio-stub, may I suggest this icon? mccon99 14:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a new version using the ball that Griffinofwales suggested.

Sport bio stub icon Version 2

. When the image becomes this small, it does lose some of its "roundness". As to the size of the icon on the stub istself, that can easily be modified. Peterdownunder (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the new icon Peterdownunder has suggested using the ball Griffnofwales suggested (it would be good if it was a little bigger than it is in the picture shown here). And if there is going to be a movie-bio-stub, I think Ian's suggestion is good. —Classical Esther 05:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

per Esther. It looks good now. :) mccon99 13:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I applied the new image to the template. Everything looks good. I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 18:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have tested the stub on Aaron Rodgers but it is not adding him to the page for Sportspeople stubs. Does someone who understands templates want to have a look and solve it? I have had a look but can not find anything obvious. Peterdownunder (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you fixed it (seeing your recent change in the template). And works just fine. Tagged Yosuke Kashiwagi is another test. Everything works good. :) I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 09:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Shall we start sorting? I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 09:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Works well - Peterdownunder (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Movie bio stubs

Have made a new template {{Movie-bio-stub}} using the icon suggested above by I-on. Tested and working. As it is only a stub, it can include TV actors, I do not think we need to make a separate stub. At the moment it links to [[Category:Movie actor stubs]], which links to [[Category:Film actors]]. Having been involved in the discussion above about film or movie, I have not made any other changes, though I think the Film actors cat should be renamed to keep consistency through the project.Peterdownunder (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I would change the name of this to actor-stub. Movie-bio-stub makes no sense because you don't have a biography of a movie. I know what you are trying to get at but its not really that clear. -DJSasso (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. :) Then it would make more sense to tag actors in TV, not just movies. —Classical Esther^talk 00:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Stub categories

Is there a reason why we haven't categorised our stubs, like they do on en.wiki? This may have been discussed before so forgive me if I missed it, please point me in the direction of any earlier talks. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think its because up until fairly recently we only had the one stub tag. So no one took the time to create the categories as they created the new stubs. -DJSasso (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

{{Iowa-stub}}

There are 100s of Iowa stubs and I think it would be worthy of have this template. mccon99 22:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Any numbers? Categories we can check to verify this? Is there a higher level stub category that could be used first? One of the benefits of having few categories at the moment is that we can accurately determine where stubs should go and fit in, without ending up with much cruft. Goblin 00:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

Well, if you do to Wikipedia:Community Portal and click Expand an article, sort by seeing 500 articles per page, and just flip through. As you will see, there is at least 300 of 'em. mccon99 00:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

 (change conflict) Category:Cities in Iowa has about 829 articles, which are almost all (I believe) stubs. These articles are atm using the {{US-stub}} template. It would probably be good to create this template so that the parent category doesn't have as many articles in it. Megan|^talk_contribs 00:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing the stub sorting now. It will take a while since they are 800? articles and I'll be off soon. If someone wants to help, it'll be welcome. --Diego Grez _{(previously MisterWiki)} ^{let's talk} 02:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop. Do any more, and I'll personally block you for disruption. We've got a clearly defined policy for stubs, and this is clearly still in progress. You can't form a consensus in less than 24 hours on an obscure talk page. Goblin 16:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

I don't wanted to disrupt in any form. I'll stop. --Diego Grez _{(previously MisterWiki)} ^{let's talk} 17:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Threatening to block someone for carrying out apparent consensus (one which only you are opposing) is absolutely inappropriate. Simmer down. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Go for it.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Enough pages for such a stub template. Also I agree with Peter. Barras ^talk 17:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• In light of the comments and consensus above, I'd welcome those who participated in the stub tagging to continue their work. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

•  Done All the pages in the Category:Iowa have been tagged from {{US-stub}} to {{Iowa-stub}} --Diego Grez _{(previously MisterWiki)} ^{let's talk} 14:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories and Stubs

My bot, PiRSquared17Bot, is a stub-sorting bot. I would like to know if it is sorting stubs correctly.  PiRSquared17 (talk)  18:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any typos it is making till now. I checked the changes it did and most of them look fine. :) --♥ Belinda ♥ 00:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like a list of categories and stub templates. I want it so I can improve my stub-sorting. :) PiRSquared17 17:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Math stub

I have been bold by creating the Math stub. If anyone objects, I can revert everything instantly. PiRSquared17 18:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide an approximate list of the amount of articles this stub template would be added to. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know exactly (since I can't use my bot to count), but there are definitely more than 250. PiRSquared17 18:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll unblock the bot as long as you agree not to stub sort with it for now. You can then count them. Does that work? Griffinofwales (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will not edit the wiki at all. PiRSquared17 18:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait for the OK. PiRSquared17 18:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Done. No stub sorting. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Before I can count them, I need to know how to loop through a category. Does anyone know how to? PiRSquared17 19:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm using Pywikipedia.... PiRSquared17

If no one bothers, I can do that job. There is a lot of Math articles. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 20:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously if everything is okay to undelete it ;-) --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 20:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

AWB lists 953 pages. I think that the most of them are stubs. Could someone approve the stub and grant me bot flag to stub-sort 'em all? --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 21:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

AWB lists 953 pages. What are those 953? Math stubs? If so, then yes, the stub should be created, but I'll let discussion continue until a few more people comment. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

953 pages on the Category:Mathematics, recursively. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 21:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I sort some? PiRSquared17 22:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

NO! I said wait until others comment. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Diego Grez commented. PiRSquared17 22:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"I think that most of them are stubs." Do you have a better estimation than that? How many of 953 is "most"? Either way (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

More than 477. PiRSquared17 22:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

PiRSquared17, he nicely said No until someone else comments. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 22:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest math articles go into the more generic sci-stub. Remember we are trying to not have a million small value stubs out there. We are just trying to get general groupings. And the maths fall under sciences. -DJSasso (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. But theoretical computer science goes under math. I wouldn't say that should have sci-stub (but it is a science). PiRSquared17 19:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Theoretical computer science is the exact kind of article that should go under science. It even has the word science in it... -DJSasso (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So does science fiction. PiRSquared17 19:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And that would belong under the science stub and under the literature stub. -DJSasso (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would go in the literature only. PiRSquared17 22:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
A change of subject: I don't know who has been stub-sorting, but articles like this one have been tagged with the stub, even though the template doesn't even exist. It looks very ugly on the page. Should we remove them 'til further notice? I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 15:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. Barras ^talk 15:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone restore the template? PiRSquared17 15:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think consensus has been reached yet on if its a good stub. Until then it should be removed from the pages that link to it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think that most of our articles about maths related articles are stub. The number mentioned above (~950) indicates that a stub for maths articles might be useful. I think out of this number of articles about or at least 500 articles are stubs. I think a maths stub is useful. Barras ^talk 16:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Would be helpful to have. I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 20:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion? PiRSquared17 14:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Count the stubs in the category. If you have time to sort them, you have time to count them. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't count them because I can't loop through a category (subcat). PiRSquared17 18:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Manually... Griffinofwales (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I just add {{Math-stub}} to them and count those? PiRSquared17 18:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not approved. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Add category:Math stubs? PiRSquared17 18:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just count them manually. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Because of your countless excuses PiRSquared17, I decided it would be time consuming for you to do it, thus I did it myself. I counted 159 stubs in the cat. I am not sure if I was supposed to count the subcats too (I didn't think so. As griff stated Count the stubs in the category . Also, the # I counted may not be 100% accurate, as I used popups to count them and some articles may be a stub, but not marked with the template. But I don't think many articles were like that, and for the ones I found, I added to the total. I hope my stub-count helps. Happy editing, I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 23:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I believe we are now to start a consensus. I say yes. I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 15:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Support I concur agree with I-on. PiRSquared17 14:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone would be so kind as to count the stubs in sub-cats, I would be grateful. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sub-cats of what? I agree that a math-stub would be useful, as an aside. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 03:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

[[Category:Mathematics]] - Griffinofwales (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I so far count about 224. I just finished counting the subcat Mathematicians and all Mathematicians's subcat's (I hope you meant to count the subcats of the subcats too because that's what I'm doing). I will finish later if no one else gets to it first. Happy editing, I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 21:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, find 26 more and I'll give approval to it. Any ideas for an icon? Griffinofwales (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

icon proposal 1

PiRSquared17 22:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin revert it to the way it was before deleted? Can I use my bot to sort into this type (it might find a few that I-on missed)? PiRSquared17 23:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was approved yet. Go find 26 more you lazy user. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Done counting. There is way more then 26. :) I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 17:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have some icons too. If none of these fit the bill, theres a lot of good stuff here. Happy editing, I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 17:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I really like this one.

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
How about this:

icon proposal 5

? PiRSquared17 13:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

For me, the red looks a bit awkward. If that part was changed to black, I would be all in. I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 16:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the x/y one. πr² (talk • changes) 03:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As do I. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 03:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I mass-sort articles? πr² (talk • changes) 03:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My god will you get some damn patience? We will let you know when it is approved and ready to go. We have not yet agreed on what it should look like. Either way (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Since this will be put into a stub template at about 30 pixels, I have displayed them here at this size to get a better idea of what they will look on each page: Personally I like the square root with the division being my second choice. Either way (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the first 2 the best. Between those 2 I have no preference. I like them the same. I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 13:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
It has been a few days since somebody commented on this and I think we have come to a consensus. I believe we are all okay with If none object and the template is approved, I will make the template. Thanks, I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

πr2 (talk •  changes) 19:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It might have been good to wait and see if no one objects PiR. There will be no stub-sorting until official approval Thanks, I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 01:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

<-Well, of the users commenting, it seems that we are have agreed to a template and the icon for the template. As of now, all stubs relating to Mathematics can be tagged with {{Math-stub}}. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan Stub

There are a lot of Pakistan stubs! πr² (talk • changes) 18:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Which are fine under geo. We should not be creating stub tags for everything. Go edit some articles. :P -DJSasso (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Placement of stub tags....

If people are going to go rampant placing stub tags everywhere. Could you atleast put them in the right place? They are supposed to be located below the Categories with two blank lines between them and the categories per the MOS. Its not the biggest deal right now, but if we begin categorizing automatically via placement of stub tags. It will keep the categories sorted properly and avoid having to move them in the future if this is done now. Thanks -DJSasso (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Chile stubs

... could you aprove {{Chile-stub}} ? I'm gonna create more articles of Chile, I don't remember how many should be included in the Chile category, but well... Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 21:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

At least 250, and any articles you are creating shouldn't be stubs. The stub has less than 50 pages linked. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmph :( --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 21:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Uhh, I added the stub as I just looked at the creation time which was in March while a was not really around. So I thought it was approved. Thanks Griffin for noticing this. -Barras ^talk 21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  Personally, I think the 250 limit, or indeed any limit, is daft. We are not paper and so who cares if a stub template get created? We should have a similar set of stub templates to en. fr33kman 21:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  I'd rather we just go back to having a single stub tag. We never should have opened the doors to other stub types. Since we don't actually categorize by stub here, they serve no real purpose. -DJSasso (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  Maybe we should start adding cats then? Griffinofwales (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think that there should be any requirement for a new stub type. It really does not matter, but the 250+ pages is OK. There should definitely be more than one stub type. πr² (talk • changes) 23:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Dance

We seem not to have a suitable stub for dance, which admittedly is a weak area in Simple and in enWP. Also, we don't have a performing arts stub or category. That term unites dance, theatre and some other forms. I'm at a loss... any suggestions? Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We do have a section for the arts, but you are right no general stub. Perhaps {{performing-arts-stub}} for now until we have enough articles to warrant breaking out a seperate stub like the current movie and music stubs under the arts section. -DJSasso (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would do fine. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

How many articles would this affect? Griffinofwales (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Performing arts is quite a wide category, though under-represented on this wiki. Includes poetry reading, conjuring, anything on any stage, music, dance, opera, circus, puppetry... I am collecting pages under Category:Performing arts, but have only just started. enWP says it is contrasted with the plastic arts, which use materials such as paint and clay, and can be made into art objects. A stub would collect all those which, unlike music, have no stub of their own. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with this being that its a pretty broad category and not too specific. I would say if no one has objected by Monday that you go ahead and create it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, a performing-arts-stub would be fine. No objections from me. -Barras ^talk 12:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I don't see any problems, just as long as the template is pretty. ;) —Clementina talk 12:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed to say that I don't have the faintest idea how to go about creating a {{performing-arts-stub}}. Will someone else please do it? As for the mini-graphic: enWP has an attractive graphic of a dancer on its general dance stub. Theatre is the other major branch. enWP use the masks of tragedy and comedy as their main theatre graphic symbol. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done -DJSasso (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

{{poetry-stub}}

I just created Template:poetry-stub. I can easily change this to be the Template:writing-stub if need be. Robin Kerrison (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

How many pages would be affected by this stub? I've just redirected it since it isn't approved yet. -Barras ^talk 14:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a few. Like I say, there isn't even a Template:writing-stub yet. Maybe that should be created. Then poetry-stub can redirect there, until simple-wikis poetry stubs become overnumerous. Robin Kerrison (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And how many writing-stubs do we have? Is it worth to create a template (based on how many article would be in this stub). -Barras ^talk 15:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The majority of Category:Literature, for example, are stubs. Robin Kerrison (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Less than 100 though. Griffinofwales (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

TV-stub

We have a movie stub, why not a TV stub as well? Purplebackpack89 05:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should combine the two and make a {{media-stub}}? ♠ I-on (talk) ♣ 14:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Animal Stub?

We should have an animal stub. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 16:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, too narrow. First we need a biology stub. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

{{biology-stub}}? -Barras (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks... Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Pro wrestling stub.

I've created a Template:prowrestling-stub. I understand that some admins have suggested using a sports-stub, instead, but pro wrestling isn't a sport. It's more like a performing art. Simon^KSK 16:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it is a sport, and far too specific for a stub here. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I currently don't really see a need for this. However, how many articles would have this tag? -Barras (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

See en:Professional wrestling. "Professional wrestling is a form of sporting theatre which contains strong elements of mock combat and catch wrestling." It is not a sport, but a performing art with sport elements. And, many pro wrestling articles will have this tag, because there are, as of now, 2 editors that edit pro wrestling articles, KingRaven44, and me. Both of us don't have time to make large articles for wrestlers. Simon^KSK 15:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If the articles are about the wrestlers just mark them as {{bio-stub}}, if they are about the events then I would probably just use the above proposed {{tv-stub}}. This way you avoid the arguements on what it is. I don't think it should have its own stub. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, "It is not a sport, but a performing art with sport elements." sound like you could use {{performing-arts-stub}}. -Barras (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

{{Hiiu-geo-stub}}

I'm requesting this stub before any more on villages in Hiiu county are created. The articles that are created already can be viewed here. Here is what the category will look like when all the articles in the category are created, with 200 pages. I would like to know if this stub is necessary before I create any more articles because, if it is, then it would be a lot easier to fix the existing 61 articles then finish the other 139 articles. Best, Battleaxe9872 ^文/ _テ 17:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a better idea. Instead of creating stubs, turn them into real articles. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That is how the articles are in English. Battleaxe9872 ^文/ _テ 19:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't care. They should be expanded here. We have plenty of stubs, we don't need more. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

We used to say at least 250(?) articles for a sub-stub. Also I agree with Griffin. Take 10 minutes to make one article with 10 sentences instead of taking one minute to make ten meaningless not really useful one line stubs. -Barras (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

{{art-stub}}

For anything relating to painting, drawing, sculpture, or architecture Purplebackpack89 17:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I would call it {{visual-arts-stub}}. To go along with {{performing-arts-stub}} etc. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And contract it to {{visart-stub}} or similar. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

{{US-bio-stub}} and {{US-geo-stub}}

We certainly have enough articles to sort for being people and places in the U.S. Purplebackpack89 18:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Looks good. Goblin 19:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor!

Personally I think this is getting far to specific for such a small community as us. The whole point of this project was to try and keep a control on creating stubs which were too specific. I highly doubt we have a subset of users that are working only on US bios or US geography. So the more generic US-stub or Bio-stub should be fine in these cases. -DJSasso (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

{{album-stub}}

I think we would need this stub type. Instead of {{music-stub}} this one would be more relevant. Mr. Berty ^talk~_stalk 19:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

How many articles are we looking at? I can't imagine enough. Music-stub is fine as it's generic. Goblin 19:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

Definitely a no on this one. -DJSasso (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)