Category talk:Geography stubs

message: I think we should remove the following from this category's text:
:There are also a number of sub-categories for different regions and countries in :Category:Stubs by region. Please help reduce the size of this category by putting articles into their appropriate geography sub-categories. To add articles to these region/country sub-categories, use stub templates such as  and  (for example) instead of .
In practice, the country related sub-categories are not geography sub-categories at all, but general usage categories for all types of article relating to that country. -- Chris j wood 22:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. It's worth noting, though, that there are a number of true geo subcategories (Australia-geo-stub, France-geo-stub, etc), and the number is going to increase soon...  Grutness|hello?  05:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Where is written that one must have a certain number of articles to create a new category. Pedantry demands that stubs for the British Crown Dependencies should not be in UK_geography_stubs (some pedants would say they should not even be in a sub-category of it). So if the CI and IoM stubs want a category of their own why can't they have one? Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion usually has less than 60 items and no one complains about that. -- RHaworth 10:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because it's a category rather than a stub category. Stub categories have a different target audience (editors rather than readers), and have different criteria for creation because of it. A category can quite happily exist with two articles. A stub category with two articles would quickly be emptied by an editor and would therefore become a candidate for deletion. The creation criteria are listed at Wikipedia:Stub#New stub categories. Hpefully the current count of UK geography stubs will discover enough articles from the crown dependencies for there to be at least one category covering both, if not two separate categories. As things stand (count is now at 3000 stubs) they haven't got there yet, but they're fairly close. Grutness...wha? 10:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But they are also geographically, culturally and politically related. Yes I am aware that there are two Bailiwicks, but why not?--MacRusgail 17:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: and  have been created. Grutness...wha? 06:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Both these items have now been deleted via WP:SFD. Logged discussion here. --TheParanoidOne 10:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (a slight clarification in case anyone is worried - the reason for the deletion is that there are now separate ChannelIslands-geo-stub and IsleofMan-geo-stub templates and categories! Grutness...wha? 06:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CI and IoM

message: Currently, there are separate geography stub categories for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. A separate category for England has been mooted, but it would contain some 3800 stub articles, considerably more than is regarded as optimum according to Wikipedia: WikiProject Stub sorting guidelines (which roughly state that stub categories should have between 100 and 600 items to be of best use to editors). In order to remedy this situation, all 3860 current unsubcategorised UK geography stubs have just been tallied to see whereabouts they refer to. Discussions are now underway with regard to splitting off regions or individual counties that have over 100 stub articles. Understandably, given the confusion between traditional counties, ceremonial counties, and the split of city areas over the last few decades, this is a thorny issue. We at WP:WSS would welcome any input at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria#Further_split_of_UK-geo-stub. Grutness...wha? 03:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Further split of UK-geo-stub