Wikipedia talk:Simple Stub Project/Archive 5

Active discussions


The above somehow got under the radar and has now been extant for just under two years. Approximately twenty-four articles use the stub type, far below the minimum threshold. This is a message to state that those stubs will be altered to {{bio-stub}} in in the next 48 hours, with the stub type then QDd. Thanks, Goblin 04:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1!

How about changing the articles to plain old {{stub}} instead? I don't see any that are biographies. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I think he means Biology-stub or sci-stub or med-stub. Yottie =talk= 12:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Redirected as I usually do when I find stubs that didn't come through this page. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


Could I raise once again the question of the plastic arts (a.k.a. 'visual arts': painting, sculpture and similar). We have no plastic arts stub to balance the performing arts stub, and also no general arts stub. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Surprised we don't have art-stub really... How many visual arts articles do we have? How many would fit into that criteria? I'm happy with having a general art stub, just really no idea how many articles the visual arts stub would have. Normandy 12:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know. Category:Art is quite large, and has about 20 sub-categories. Of course, in some cases other stubs could be chosen. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec)It would need to be visual arts because arts is ambiguous to performing arts etc. I thought it was already decided to create one. Guess I will need to go read past discussions. -DJSasso (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually looks like people said don't create. My memory is shot in the morning. -DJSasso (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Chemistry and physics stubsEdit

As discussed a few months back, I would propose we create these two stubs to complement the existing biology stub and have a whizz throught the {{sci-stub}} articles to see which could be better categorised.... Any dissenters? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -DJSasso (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
These stubs have received no specific objections since their proposal back in October, so I have been bold and created {{chem-stub}} along with its category (just to decrease the workload, it would be too much to create them both at once). -Orashmatash (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I have tended to the stub sorting. After the sorting, there are 524 chemistry stubs; there will probably be more so feel free to have another run over the categories. -Orashmatash (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Part two; I have created {{physics-stub}} along with its category. Stub sorting in progress. -Orashmatash (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Stub sorting complete. As with the chemistry stubs there are likely to be articles which I have missed so do feel free to go over the categories again. -Orashmatash (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Asia stubsEdit

Hello there,

to me the category Asia-stubs looks quite full; in that context, I propose we create subcategories:

  • Geographically:
  • "North Asia": Asian part of Russia + Mongolia
  • "East Asia": Japan ,Both Korea, China, Taiwan, Vietnam
  • "Central Asia": Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kasachstan, Kirgistan, Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan
  • "South Asia": Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka
  • "Southeast Asia": Brunei, Myanmar/Burma, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand
  • "West Asia": Egypt,Armenia, Aserbaijan, Bahrain, Georgia, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Jemen, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestinian Territories, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Cyprus (both of them).
  • For each category, we also create a subcategory for "languages","geography", and "political movements" (parties, and such).
  • When we get more than say 300 articles for a subject, we create a subcategory (The Japan-stubs, tpo be rooted in the "East Asia Stubs"

The geographic stubs I proposed have the problem that some countries are mentioned more than once, or that they are not geographically in Asia, but culturally so. I also don't want to discuss these aspects categorisation (Eg.: Vietnam is listed where it culturally belongs, not where it is geographically.) All I want is to geta workable category system, and not discuss whether to put Vietnam with China, or with Cambodia. Thoughts? --Eptalon (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I see 729 articles in Category:Asia stubs. That is not excessive for a stub category. The 300-article proposed cutoff is definitely not excessive. We don't categorize stubs as finely as we do regular articles. If we do get to the point where we need to break it down, I think this scheme would be hard to work with because folks would have to keep looking up what country goes where. I think the next level of breakdown would be individual countries. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Subcategories proposed reflect common usage. Except for a few cases (like Vietnam, or Armenia), almost anybody would place "Turkey" into the West Asia category, or India in the South Asia category. — This unsigned comment was added by Eptalon (talk • changes).
Most people wouldn't know to call those areas what you are calling them so thus would have to look up what is in what. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
While the minimum we even consider is 300 we have generally tried to be over 1000 which is why we recently merged some countries back into the continent stubs that had less than 1000. The Asia stub is well below 1000 so there isn't really much of a point to split it yet since no actual subgroup has hit 1000 articles. We have actually been trying to cut down the number of stub types lately, this would actually counteract that work. Like Auntof6 the next natural split would be countries like we do with Europe. We are, our stub system needs to be simpler than en which means more generic groupings so we should stick with continents until the numbers rise significantly for whatever subgroup you want to split out. For example in Europe the only countries split out have 1000 articles already. So once an individual country hits 1000 we can easily split it out. Remember stubs are not for replicating the category system. We already have a category system. -DJSasso (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I may have a perhaps naive question: Except for different types of automated analysis, in what way is a category with 500+ articles in t (and no subcategories) useful to humans? - A few more or less random clicks: Chishima Province, Blue Mosque, Yerevan, Keelung City, Riasti dialect and Tenbun. All I see so far that most of the articles in the category seem to be Japan related. This category is not useful except to say "Look these articles are about Asia". So: Either we find meaningful subdivisions so the category becomes useful to a human, or we close it down, as it does not provide more information than the simpler stub tag. --Eptalon (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The only purpose these categories serve is for people to see what articles are tagged with a specific stub. They are not meant to give any more information than that. That is what the normal category system is for. Prior to a couple weeks ago there were no Asia related stubs at all, the reason why they are mostly about japan is because there is currently someone tagging Japan articles and not necessarily other countries yet. This category is the sub-categorization at the moment of the {{geo-stub}} and plain {{stub}}. These categories are not really for the humans except to give people a list of all stubs in a particular type. These are maintenance categories. Article space categories are the ones meant to be useful to human readers. Again stubs (and their categories) are not meant to replicate the actual category system. -DJSasso (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


Once again, I think there should be recognition of the plastic arts (painting, sculpture, ceramics, graphic art, design...) by having either:

  1. An arts-stub template, or
  2. A plastic arts-stub template

Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said last time I would call it visual-arts if I were to make one. Or as you said make a parent generic category just called arts that would be above the performing arts and see how that goes and possibly move to the visual arts if we do see there are a lot of articles for it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems sensible to start with a parent arts-stub. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

UK StubEdit

What happened to UK stub? Where is the discussion? Thank you, DJDunsie (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It was merged into the Europe stub with all country stubs that were less than 1k articles. The discussion about getting rid of the smaller country stubs is above. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
And in looking back there was never a discussion to create a uk stub so it shouldn't have existed anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Does that mean, if we create enough UK articles, we can get the UK-stub tag back? DJDunsie (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, put in work creating new stubs so a stub category can be created, or put in work to improve existing stubs so the category isn't needed... decisions, decisions! --Auntof6 (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I was going to say the same. A stub tag is, essentially, a maintenance tag. It means the article needs work. We should be trying to reduce the amount of articles tagged with it. Osiris (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
That is always what confuses me...the idea is we want less articles tagged with a stub tag...the whole point of stub tags is to get people to improve the article to remove the stub tag. We don't want more stub articles created....the goal is to have zero articles tagged with a stub. -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Back to basicsEdit

I've noticed some people putting two stub tags on pages with much more than 1,500KB of text. It's sad to see good people spending their time putting multiple tags onto pages that don't need any. At the same time. others are putting up hundreds of pages with single sentences saying 'X is a town in Y'. All these people should do less and do it better! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

At least the 2-stub per page problem now has a workable solution.. (see simple talk about {{multistub}}) though if 1.5K is a stub.. a non-stub version of that article must be realy big.. If History of Europe was only 1.5K, that might be considered a stub.. but not most articles unless its got a really big infobox, lots of cats and a long interwiki list but only one line of text. --Creol(talk) 08:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think he means 1,500 bytes (characters). There's no real definition, but my personal guideline when tagging only ever applies to the body of text. Using the size of the page, as Creol says, is misleading when given infoboxes, interwikis, categories, template and other hidden markup. AWB sets its own limit at 500 words. Osiris (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. I was referring to a comment on WP:Stub, which I took to be the standard when I joined the wiki. Of course, it does mean real text which, if short, has to properly explain what the title means. 500 words strikes me as much too high for this wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It's just AWB's limit. I should've been clearer though- that's it's limit where it'll take the stub tag off automatically (i.e., >500=not stub). For it to add the tag automatically, it has to be less than 300 (visible) words. Everyone has their own "rule" though. As long as they're not being added to huge pages or edit-warred over, I don't think it's something to fret over. Osiris (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Stub has to do with content not length really. Like Creol mentions an article like "History of North America" while being 75kb large might actually still be a stub because it misses out on large sections of the topic matter. That being said if something is a stub or not is largely a personal opinion. If you see one you don't think should be tagged as a stub remove it. It really isn't that big a deal, and all this obsessing over stubs really makes things worse. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Dinosaur stubsEdit

Anyone think dinosaur stubs would be a good idea?

No, we have one stub for the whole of biology. It's all we need. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

TW: twinklestub.jsEdit


Hello! I coded a new tool for implementation in Twinkle. Please see the picture right.

I have integrated this tool into the Twinkle package, see here. All stubs listed here in the Simple Stub Project have been added.   --weltforce (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That looks very helpful! Two questions:
  • Does it work in all skins? I use Twinkle here, but I don't see the "TW" tab under Monobook.
  • Does something require updating when stub types are added or removed?
Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
It works with Monobook, but Vector is prefered because Monobook can cause style problems sometimes. Are you sure you implemented Twinkle alright? Twinkle can be found at User:LightForce/twinkle.js.
Yes, to update stubs you need to modify User:LightForce/twinkletag.js. --weltforce (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I implemented it from User:EhJJ/twinkle.js, which has always been the standard location. Is there a particular reason you moved it?
What needs to be changed at User:LightForce/twinkletag.js? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to replace




because I did major changes to the entire Twinkle construction.

About adding more templates to the script:

form.append( { type:'header', label:'ADD LABELTEXT HERE' } );
	form.append( {
			type: 'radio',
			name: 'mtpl',
			list: [
					label: '{{Stub-Template1}}',
					value: 'Stub-Template',
					tooltip: 'ADD TOOLTIP HERE' 
					label: '{{Stub-Template2}}',
					value: 'Stub-Template2',
					tooltip: 'ADD TOOLTIP HERE' 

This wood create a new header with {{Stub-Template1}} and {{Stub-Template2}}.

And do not forgot to add following code into the switch section:

... ...
				case "Stub-Template1":
					code = "\{\{" +  self.params.normalized+ "\}\}";
					content = text + "\n" + code;
				case "Stub-Template2":
					code = "\{\{" +  self.params.normalized+ "\}\}";
					content = text + "\n" + code;
					code = "\{\{" +  self.params.normalized+ "\}\}";
					content = code + "\n" + text;
... ...

or stubs won't be displayed at the end of the page, but on the top. --weltforce (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Business stubsEdit

I'd like to add following 2 stub templates:

  • {{Business-stub}} - anything related to business but not companies
    • {{Company-stub}} - articles about companies

Thoughts? --weltforce (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What is your estimate of how many of this kind of stub we have? I think the current quasi-threshold is 1,000. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I think more than 150 companies and more than 500 pages relevant to business ;) --weltforce (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't reach the "threshold". Do you have a particular reason for wanting these stubs, other than just organizing? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
No, but I think "business" is a really "general" topic like "history", "technology" etc. But I don't see a treshold in "US-actor-stub", do we have more than 1,000 pages there? --weltforce (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of stub categories is not just to organize. There are quite a few stub categories that have fewer than 1000 articles. Reasons for this include: the threshold used to be lower; a category may have had more articles, but some were worked on, expanded, and the stub tag removed; someone committed to working on articles in a particular category, so the category was created to help actual work get done. The existence of these categories is not an argument to create more with a lower number of articles. As DJSasso says, the stub category structure does not need to mirror the regular category structure. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, couldn't have said it better. The threshold used to be lower, we have actually been working over the last couple of years to merge stubs together and reduce the number of stubs we have. For some stubs that has been impossible to do because the stub is already as general as we can get. In some cases like the US-actor stubs the reason it was created was that the vast majority of actor stubs were us actor stubs, and the a very large portion of us bio stubs were also us actor stubs. It became a good idea to have one stub instead of two in that case, and yes once it is finished being tagged I think it will be over 1000. Its already at 800+. Also I have to echo that remember the point of stubs is to work on them and eventually remove them from the category. So in a lot of cases that has happened and the numbers have dropped. -DJSasso (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

What about just one for economics in general? Just from patrolling new pages I've always wished we had one of those and that way we can shove everything in it and see how many we've got before we diffuse to more specific topics. Osiris (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Business-stub, Company-stub, Economics-stub, Culture-stub. That would be my suggestions. --weltforce (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest {{Organization-stub}} instead of Company because it is too specific and would allow non-profits and various other groups. {{Economics-stub}} might be ok but I am not sure we have 1000 for it either. The others I doubt we have anywhere close to the 1000. -DJSasso (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, {{Organization-stub}}, {{Economics-stub}} and {{Culture-stub}}. Is that ok? --weltforce (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Well again as I said I probably wouldn't have a culture one because I doubt we have enough stubs. For example there are already stubs for continents. Culture for any country on a given continent would go under that continents stub. So European Culture for example already belongs under the Europe stub. North American under the North American one etc etc. The idea on simple is to have as few stubs as possible to keep things simple. Remember stubs aren't for replicating the category system. Lots of people confuse the purpose of the two. -DJSasso (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, if nobody opposes, I would like to create {{Organization-stub}} and {{Economics-stub}}, is that right so? --weltforce (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I have no problem with it, but as per usual, wait the 7 days to make sure no one objects. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
All right. --weltforce (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Word stub?Edit

Many "articles" are really about words. And it is really helpful to create the template because it goes specificley in like other templates do. So I am willing to create the template, if you   Agree to let me create it. Thank you --Aaqib Talk!| Hola! 19:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

  • My thoughts on this:
    • The reason for tagging articles as stubs is so that editors can find articles that need to be expanded. Is anyone planning to concentrate on expanding these articles? Is there even potential to expand them?
    • If an article is basically just a dictionary definition, it might be better to make sure it's in Wiktionary, then ask for it to be deleted at rfd.
    • How many of these articles do you see? We want at least around 1,000 articles before creating a new stub type.
  • --Auntof6 (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is usefull, why don't you go threw and review Wikipedia and especially the Alphabets. Many categories you can see alphabets and take a look at a couple or few. If you do not see any diminutive articles about alphabets. Report here. Also, I have "Rfd" many pages that have dictionary defenitions and all has been vain. Last, many pages equaling this can be permitted in Wikipedia. --Aaqib Talk!| Hola! 20:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who wants a change here, so it is up to you to justify it. If your RFDs have failed, that probably means that the community doesn't agree with you about these articles. That's just the way it is sometimes. I imagine many editors here see articles they don't think are worthwhile, but we have to consider the bigger picture. I know there are some I could do without!
Anyway, if the issue is that you think the articles shoukd be deleted, then marking them as stubs is not the answer.
By the way, you do not need to leave me talkback messages because I watch this page. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not a Checkuser, (and it's should). I pretty much a brand new user, and I have joined a new wiki. --Aaqib Talk!| Hola! 00:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think its pretty clear this wouldn't be an appropriate stub. I think the user misunderstands what stubs are. -DJSasso (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lankan bio stub?Edit

Can we please allow this, we have seen many of Sri Lanka pages. --Aaqib 23:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

How many? The requirement is around 1,000. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  Not done to much work, I have been using {{bio-stub}} for around 100 Sri Lankan biography articles. --Aaqib 01:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sweden geogeaphy stubEdit

I created Template:Sweden-geo-stub. Can we allow it? J 1982 (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Not without a discussion and approval here. I have deleted the category and redirected the stub. Our requirement is a minimum of 1,000 articles before creating a new stub type. Do you think there are that many? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Can we use {{europe-stub}} as the target, like we've done for {{portugal-geo-stub}}, and for {{india-geo-stub}} for Asia? Osiris (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Sure, it doesn't matter to me. I'll make the change. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Since it is already created redirecting is fine. I usually only redirect if there are a bunch of articles already linking to it so I don't have to make useless edits reverting it on those pages only to some time in the future have to readd it again. -DJSasso (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I was thinking, and that's what I did. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


Europe-geo-stub could be used for geography realated articles in Europe. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. "Geo" is geography, not biology. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't looking and I got mixed up. I meant geography. Will it work? Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you asking if we can create it? First, we'd need at least 1,000 articles that would fit in it that aren't already covered by {{France-geo-stub}}. Do we have that many? Second, we'd need a reason to create it. Creating stub categories isn't like creating "regular" categories. We don't create stub categories just because there are articles to fit them. Are you (or is someone else) planning to do a lot of work on Europe geography stubs? Other editors may have other concerns, but those are the ones I can think of off hand. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I was planning that but not many articles. I didn't know the process is so hard. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
We just want to keep the stub area simple -- not a lot of different stub categories. We create them to make it easier to work on the stubs, not just to organize them. If you can say what you're thinking of working on specifically, someone might be able to produce a list for you that you could work from. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I understand. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Language stub tagEdit

This stub tag would cover languages (such as Abkhaz language), grammer and parts of speech (such as Genitive case), and alphabets (including leters). Looking over the stubs category, I'm pretty sure it meets the 1k minimum. (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Will you be actively working to expand the stubs in this category? We don't want the stub category structure to be as complex as either our regular category structure or enwiki's stub structure, so we don't create stub categories just because there are 1,000 stubs to put into them. We create them to make it easier for people who are actively working on stubs in a given area. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes. (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Being that you don't have many edits here I would probably want to see evidence of that. As Auntof6 mentions we don't really create stubs unless there is a large need for them. -DJSasso (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Financial/money stub tagEdit

This would cover the financial and money articles, such as terms (Bond (finance)), currencies (Denomination (currency), East Caribbean dollar), banks/institutions (Central Bank of Azerbaijan]], ), theories (Classical economics),etc. Again, pretty sure this would meet the 1k minimum. (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC) (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Will you be actively working to expand the stubs in this category? We don't want the stub category structure to be as complex as either our regular category structure or enwiki's stub structure, so we don't create stub categories just because there are 1,000 stubs to put into them. We create them to make it easier for people who are actively working on stubs in a given area. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes. (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Being that you don't have many edits here I would probably want to see evidence of that. As Auntof6 mentions we don't really create stubs unless there is a large need for them. In this case I would be more prone to creating a business stub which is much more general and would apply. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I guess buisness stub would work. Besides, I don't have to be the only one editing these articles. The whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can expand these articles. (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
You don't have to be the only one editing them, but we want to know that someone is going to actively work on them in the near future. So far, you're the only one who has shown interest. The purpose of a stub category is for editors to find stubs to work on in a particular area. We don't want to create a new type just to have articles sit in the new category. How about this: come up with a list of the articles that would fit the new stub category (you could put the list in your userspace). Then, to address Djsasso's concern, expand a good number of them (maybe 200 or so) to show your commitment. Then come back here and we'll be more willing to approve the new type. Keep in mind that there doesn't have to be a separate stub type for you to work on the articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I can create the list. But sorting the stubs into seperate categories might make it easier for editors interested in (or knowladgable of) particular areas to find stubs to expand. For example, there are nearly 5,000 geography stubs. Those users who are only interested in expanding Canadian stubs would have to comb through the category to find these articles. (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That's true, it's just not the way we manage the stubs here. We don't want the stub category structure to be as complex as enwiki's. That's one of the ways we keep things simple. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, we try to keep our stub categories to as few as possible to keep things simple. Its part of the goal of this wiki to have things as simplified as possible. Not just the language used. We do it in both our stub tags and our categories. We try to balance having as few as possible with having enough to do the job well. If your intention is to just sort the stubs into more stub categories then you might want to be aware that we don't really work that way here, its not about categorizing them into another organizational structure as much as it is about warning someone who works on those articles that the article is a stub. With so few editors here we don't specialize quite so much here as happens on so the complex and over-bloated system that uses is not needed. -DJSasso (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Simple Stub Project/Archive 5".