This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Stub sorting This page is maintained by WikiProject Stub sorting, an attempt to bring some sort of order to Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to improve/expand the articles containing this stub notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Stub sortingWikipedia:WikiProject Stub sortingTemplate:WikiProject Stub sortingStub sorting

Archives

Discoveries page talk archive 2005–Feb 2011 Proposals page talk archive 2005 Proposals page talk archive 2006 Proposals page talk archive 2007–Jun 2008 Proposals page talk archive Jul–Dec 2008 Proposals page talk archive 2009–Feb 2011

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

You may be interested to join the discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#Yacht racing (not sailing) stub templates and category tree. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Category:Zemgale geography stubs and Template:Zemgale-geo-stub should simultaneously renamed from Zemgale to Semigallia, per article title Semigallia and Category:Semigallia. What is the right process for that? Marcocapelle (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CfD, I think. Her Pegship (?) 23:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have an opinion about the proposals for upmerged templates currently on the proposals page? Most of them have fewer than 30 possible uses. Her Pegship (?) 23:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this has been discussed anywhere; in light of a few of the current proposals, I've been wondering what the threshold should be for creation of an upmerged template. One such proposal shows that there are only 3 articles that would qualify for {{Rheiformes-stub}}, for example, and Grey Clownfish proposes that it be created and upmerged to Category:Bird stubs. To me, this begs the question as to whether every stub category needs an upmerged template for every possible sub-cat, regardless of the quantity of articles it might apply to. I'm not sure I'm expressing myself very well, but wouldn't this sort of action prompt an enormous number of barely-used templates, and wouldn't it be a lot of work to organize/track/list all of them? Her Pegship (?) 23:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently proposed Amphisbaenidae stubs as a category and {{Amphisbaenidae-stub}} and category: Amphisbaenidae stubs were created. Having applied the template to stub articles under category:Amphisbaenidae, I have discovered that the category tree (like my own notions about lizard classification) is out of step with the latest accepted taxonomy. What was really required was {{Amphisbaenia-stub}} and category: Amphisbaenia stubs, as clade Amphisbaenia is the taxon which now holds the families formerly included in Amphisbaenidae. Would it be in order to create the required new template and category and redirect {{Amphisbaenidae-stub}} and category: Amphisbaenidae stubs? There was already a redirect from {{Amphisbaenian-stub}}, but I'm not convinced that would the right name, because the article is called "Amphisbaenia", not "Amphisbaenian". William Avery (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]