This WP:WSS subpage is for discoveries of stub templates not cleared by WikiProject Stub sorting which have been encountered on Wikipedia. Stubs that have been put on the official stub type list without discussion on this page or /Proposals should be listed here as well. If you discover such a stub type, please list it at the top of this page along with any relevant details. Do not enter it on the stub type list until it has been discussed here to determine whether it should be kept or proposed for deletion at stub types for deletion. | Contents - 1 Instructions
- 2 Newly discovered, November 2009
- 3 Newly discovered, October 2009
- 4 Newly discovered, August 2009
- 5 Newly discovered, July 2009
- 6 Newly discovered, June 2009
- 7 Newly discovered, May 2009
- 8 Newly discovered, February 2009
- 9 Newly discovered, January 2009
- 10 Newly discovered, December 2008
- 11 Newly discovered, November 2008
- 12 Newly discovered, October 2008
- 13 Newly discovered, September 2008
- 14 Newly discovered, August 2008
- 15 Newly discovered, July 2008
- 16 Newly discovered, June 2008
- 17 Newly discovered, May 2008
- 18 Newly discovered, April 2008
- 19 Newly discovered, March 2008
- 20 Newly discovered, February 2008
- 21 Newly discovered, January 2008
- 22 Newly discovered, December 2007
- 23 Newly discovered, November 2007
- 24 Newly discovered, October 2007
- 25 Newly discovered, September 2007
- 26 Newly discovered, July 2007
- 27 Newly discovered, June 2007
| [edit] Instructions To check whether a stub type has been discussed in the past, click on either the template or category link and select "What links here" from the toolbox on the left (set it to find only items in the Wikipedia space). Find the link to a WikiProject Stub sorting page such as Deletion or Proposals to see if there has been any discussion on this type previously. Checking the template or category's history link may also indicate whether the stub type is p[art of a larger group discussion at WP:WSS/P. Note: If possible, check both the template and the category, in case one has been discussed but not the other. If the stub category or template has not been proposed, and is not clearly an inappropriate or deletable type, list it here under a separate heading at the top of the list for the month of discovery. Please also consider notifying the creator of the stub type by subst'ing {{wssdnotify}} on their user talk page. If a stub type is of a clearly inappropriate or deletable type, it may be taken straight to WP:SFD. Again, in this case, the creator of the stub type should be notified, this time by substing {{sfdnotify1}} (for one stub type) or {{sfdnotify2}} (for more than one stub type) onto their user talk page. [edit] Newly discovered, November 2009 [edit] Newly discovered, October 2009 Found this while stub sorting, should be renamed to {{Canada-royal-stub}} and upmerged if kept. Borgarde (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC) - Almost certainly a deletion candidate - royal-stub is for biographies of members of royal families. None of the stubs marked are thus really royal-stubs, and very few of the stubs marked with this are even more than tenuously royalty-related. How, for example, a horse race in Hong Kong counts as either royalty or Canadian is completely beyond me... I've taken this to SFD. Grutness...wha? 22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I created this one a few days ago not realizing that there was a policy on stub creation. The stub is the only stub for the Human genetic history project. The creation of the stub followed upgrades of the HGH wikiproject banner which created a subcategory for Stub-class articles, where HGH is the primary category for the page. Only two pages have this stub so far but over 200 pages are unassessed and many of these will likely be stubed at some point.PB666 yap 05:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC) - Unfortunately, the current stub's name doesn't follow the conventions for stub template names. It also has no stub category, either dedicated or upmerged, feeds into a Wikiproject's category (not standard practice), has a name which doesn't agree with the stated subject in the template's text (molecular antthropology - there is no such article as Human genetic history, just a redirect to Human evolutionary genetics]]), and has no equivalent permanent category (no Cat:Human genetic history, though there is a Cat:Modern human genetic history, nor a Cat:Molecular anthropology - the name here is Cat:Genetic genealogy). It's also not clear why the existing {{Anthropology-stub}} wouldn't cover the topic, seeing as, at 160 stubs, it is hardly overused. All in all, it's a series of major problems. As stated at WP:STUB, if you're looking for a way to earmark stubs for one specific wikiproject (which it looks as if you are), a far better way is to use a dedicated talk page assessment template - that would allow you to keep track of all your project's articles, not just the stubs. If you feel that a stub template would be more useful, then we may well need to start from scratch with this one. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- The person who wrote the above obviously did not read the project page.
Are available Molecular Anthropology = Human genetic history - They are roughly equivalent. I did not name the project, if I had named the project I would not have used that name. I think the logic of blocking a stub because the project was named poorly is silly. Anthropology covers a wide range of topics that deal with material culture and social culture. Human genetic history deals with topics from Popular geneology to anthropoid evolution. It deals with Human genetics, matematical models, protein evolution. Many pages such as Chimp-human last common ancestor deal with topics generally outside the realm of material culture and language evolution. Almost all genetic studies on humans are anchored in an LCA that range from Orangutan (OHLCA ranges from 14 to 20Ma) to Chimpanzees with the suggested CHLCA of 7 to 10 million years. The CHLCA is 5 million years older than the first evidence of material culture. PB666 yap 19:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Since this stub does not follow the naming convention I will mark it for deletion however I need to unstub a couple of pages.PB666 yap 19:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem was trivial so I repaired it, there is now a category labeled Human Genetic History stubs, which links to the wikiproject. This follows the convention of archaeology and anthropology stubs.PB666 yap 20:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC) - None of the remaining problems are (present tense) trivial - you fixed one by creating a handful more problems, but the rest still remain. I did read the pages you mentioned, but they did not explain why a stub template was incorrectly named - which it still is - and why it failed all the other points I mentioned, most specifically how this stub type provides an advantage that other approved stub types do not. Perhaps you have not read the relevant pages on stub naming and stub creation (I'd start with WP:STUB and WP:WSS/NC). Your attempts to fix the one or two problems you have has simply created more problems - you now have a new base permcat with a key article with a different name, which is not connected in any way to the main category hierarchy (article categories are not meant to link directly to WikiProjects alone - that's what WikiProject categories are for). Rather than trying to fix problems on the fly - and thereby compoiunding the problems - it's far better to debatee things properly first.
- If there are good reasons for having this as a separate stub, then I've no objection to it, though - as I say - there are so many problems with the current template that it would be easier to start from scratch with a proposal for a new template. Grutness...wha? 22:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- I don't know what other name I would give it, without creating a whole new category of articles. And again I think the naming issues are trivial on what category pages to use as long is there is a central category which all fall into. As far as 'handful of other problems' that sounds like a distracting over-exaggeration inappropriate for Wikipedia. I am not going to create a whole new freestanding hierarchy simply for molecular anthropology when human genetic history already exists. This all boils down to a key point, human genetic history a WikiProject created by 10 'Sciencey' folks on Wikipedia does not have a Main. The reason it does not have a main is because the Project was improperly named, there is nothing I can or will do about that. Molecular Anthropology and HGH are too close in scope to have a separate project pages, so I am not going to attempt to create that either. What remains is a stub that could have the name MolAnthro-stub sort its main, but be categorized into the HGH project or what is currently a HGH-stub that has MolAnthro as the Main and is stubed into the HGH project. Seems to me that there is no big difference since both have at least one imperfection. The other altnerative is to change the link on the stub to human-genetic history and have it redirect to Mol. Anthro. page.PB666 yap 13:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Names and problems: Human genetic history (three so-called intersections) a. Human yes b. genetics yes and appropriate a-b. human genetics yes and appropriate c. History not appropriate branch Molecular Anthropology a. Molecular - Molecular genetic yes and appropriate (Protein and DNA evolution) b. Anthropology yes and appropriate Let's take these points one at a time. - You may regard the naming as trivial, but that's because you have the luxury of only dealing with one stub type - not trying to keep the names of several thousand as uniform as possible.
- I listed six basic concerns with the template. You fixed two (and created further problems). Four existing problems, to my mind, is quite clearly enough to be considered a handful of problems. This is not an overexaggeration.
- I don't understand what you mean by "not having a main". A main what? If you mean a main stub type, many (if not most) Wikiprojects don't have main stub types. They don't need them, and most get by with the far more appropriate talk-page banner templates. The purpose of stubs is not connected with Wikiprojects - it is to categorise all stubs across the entirety of Wikipedia.
- Because stub types are not connected to wikiprojects, there is absolutely no need for a stub template to have a name that is identical to a wikiproject.
- Why are you talking about changing the link on the template to have it point to a redirect? The problem is that the template is incorrectly named, and changing the wording to point to a redirect isn't going to fix that. The current name is inappropriate for several reasons - the most obvious one from the point of view of stub-sorting being that it is not hyphenated. But even {{human-genetic-history-stub}} would not be appropriate, for the reason you say above - it would explicitly mean that the overall parent stub type was {{history-stub}}. If you hadn't created more work by suddenly creating Cat:Human genetic history, but had instead created Cat:Molecular anthropology, or Cat:Genetic anthropology (perhaps the most appropriate name), then a {{Molecular-anthropology-stub}} or {{Genetic-anthropology-stub}} would have been an appropriate template name. Again, the choice of parent permanent category name is in no way connected to the name of the WikiProject and does not need to be the same as that name.
- You still haven't given any answers to the other problems I raised initially - most importantly, why this stub type is even necessary. Cat:Anthropology stubs is below average in size for stub categories, and less that a quarter of the size necessary before a split should be considered. Similarly, Cat:Genetics stubs, though larger, is not oversized.
Grutness...wha? 23:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Just found this. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC) - Gone to SFD. Grutness...wha? 23:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Newly discovered, August 2009 I've just fixed the name on it (transclusions need updated). It's upcategorizing right now and seems like a good idea. Would need listed. –xenotalk 18:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC) - Support. We'd either end up splitting spacecraft by space agency or target of mission, and the only other split so far is by target of mission (comsats) so this stub type makes a certain amount of sense. And at 700+ stubs, Cat:Spacecraft stubs is getting lose to a split as well. The former name should be deleted, though, since it is not a naming-convention compliant name - and it has been orphaned, so you can do that as a speedy without going through SFD if you wish (as sole editor of the page). Grutness...wha? 10:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Another oddly named stub -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC) - To SFD with it. Any incorrectly named ones ccan go directly to SFD, because even if kept they'll need to be renamed. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] More Various (oddly named) A few stub templates that don't end in -stub -
- As such, they couldd have been taken straight to SFD - which would savee duplicating all the discussions! Grutness...wha? 22:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Incorrectly named, unused, SFD fodder Waacstats (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- What? unused in mainspace. More SFD fodderWaacstats (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Incorrectly named and we have the correct name so Db-t3 for the one with a space. Waacstats (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- SFD as unused, off to SFD Waacstats (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
-- WOSlinker (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC) - While on the subject of odd naming... (Some of these are discussion elsewhere as well) –xenotalk 04:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- incorrectly named and only used on three stubs, SFD Waacstats (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- category that goes with this is probably useful given Cat:Drink stubs is over 500 would suggest renaming template to {{Distilled-drink-stub}} or similar. Waacstats (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- rename template, category looks reasonable if it can be raised to 60 articles. Waacstats (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- DB-T3 unused and substantial duplicate. Waacstats (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- DB-T3 unused and substantial duplicate. Waacstats (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
-
- On the subject of the NorthKorea SouthKorea, why don't we have both North and South seperate normally? I think this is a logical split, they are just incorrectly named. Borgarde (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Mainly because so many of the articles on poets and the like are for people who pre-date the 1950s. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
-
- DB-T3 unused and substantial duplicate. Waacstats (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- DB-T3 unused and substantial duplicate. Waacstats (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Rename either to WNusaTenggara-geo-stub to match ENusaTenggara-geo-stub . Waacstats (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've speedied some of these. Cheers, –xenotalk 17:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- To SFD with all of them. Any incorrectly named ones ccan go directly to SFD, because even if kept they'll need to be renamed. As for speedying them, some of the ones you speedied will still need to go to SFD, so please don't! It simply makes more work for yourself. Korean bios, for instance, are mostly not split into North and South, simply because the vast majority of articles on them are pre-1950. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I actually meant the leftover redirects, not the new names. –xenotalk 22:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough, though some of the new names may still require SFD, so it may still be unnecessary extra work in the long run. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Found this one Borgarde (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC) - Category may prove useful, with either a corrected template or more probably upmerged by nation templates (after all whose definition of Central Asia is being used). Templates just wrong and needs deleting. Waacstats (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree - nation-specific templates are better than a regional one, especially given that tthere are various definitions for this region. Not overly keen on the category either, but it may be useful. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Weird one. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC) - More SFD fodder Waacstats (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yup. SFD. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Various I would appreciate if someone could sort through these: -
- Marching-band-stub - looks like we have a category with 30 articles but not fed by this template, parent category seems to have numerous articles and subcats so maybe useful,
-
- ISTR this being proposed at some point, but upmerged. -G
-
- NorthDakota-county-route-stub - I thought we had standardised all these to state-road-stub, SFD fodder
-
- We standardised them all as you said. This is either new or was missed in the mass renaming/cull. -G
-
- Pacificnorthwest-stub - we don't split by areas split over two countries, SFD
-
- penmanship-stub - looks like cat was deleted just not the template SFD or speedy
-
- Phasmatodea-stub - given the way these genus' normally grow I would not be surprised if this wasn't worth keeping, upmerged to Insect stubs
-
- Playstation stubs - used to have a cat (Sont computer entertainment stubs) may be worth putting it back there as that is currently undersized.
-
- SouthAm-actor-stubs - readded cat as someone had removed it, this will probably become unecessary when we get round to creating the foo-actor-stubs for each country but keep till then
- Template:Tamagotchi-stub nc (upmerge to "virtual pet stubs" ?)
- Tamagochi-stub - Certainly needs upmerging somewhere but we don't have a virtual pet stubs so not sure where.
- An electronic-game-stub template might be useful. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Template:UFO-stub 2 uses, red cat
-
- UFO-stub - may be of future use but can't think of any where to upmerge to. SFD fodder for now
-
-
- Wales-music-stub - not a normal axis of split though we do have a proud tradition of music here in wales, still SFD fodder
-
- Nid wyf i ddim yn hoffi Wales-music-stub. SFD. -G
- Webzine-stub - may be useful I don't know how many webzines we have on here, upmerge to Magazine stubs and web stubs? would be my suggestion
Thanks! –xenotalk 03:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)suggest directing to category and seeing how it goes. - Hope no minds me putting the comments under each template just thought it would be easier if any need to be split into a seperate discussion. Waacstats (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
-
- I've done the same (mine have a -G after them). Grutness...wha? 22:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, I certainly don't mind. Do you mind taking the next steps with these? Thanks! –xenotalk 12:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll get round to SFD'ing these later, any deletions will require an admin. Waacstats (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
A few more. –xenotalk 17:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC) - Schools are split by location, I see no reason to make an exception for Catholic schools. SFD. Waacstats (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- category exists and has ben changed in the past, will readd cat. Waacstats (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- SFD and delete as unused. Waacstats (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
A handful of transclusions. No category. –xenotalk 00:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC) - made very difficult to look into by the fact that we don't even have a perm cat, the question then is if we don't have a perm cat why do we have a template. looks like even ore SFD fodder. Waacstats (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Unused, categorizes into a parent cat. –xenotalk 20:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC) - WP:SFD material - already thoroughly covered by {{France-writer-stub}}, which conforms to standard naming conventions (this one doesn't). Grutness...wha? 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- T3'd. –xenotalk 03:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Another lacking a cat. It did have one, but a bot removed it because I think no one created it. Only 3 members... –xenotalk 19:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC) - WP:SFD material - already thoroughly covered by {{China-cuisine-stub}}, which conforms to standard naming conventions (this one doesn't). Grutness...wha? 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{deprecated template}}. –xenotalk 03:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
2 members presently. Could probably have things split into it... –xenotalk 05:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC) - Already thoroughly covered by other stub types - this is possibly more SFD material unless a use can be shown for it which differs from the current available stub types. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Possibly upmerge template at best, certainly SFD for category. Waacstats (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I already posted here about these, but it's only dawned on me that these are actually *discoveries*! Read the post there. I think they're good categories/stubs, but they need reorganization and renaming. — Skittleys (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC) - These ones were actually proposed, back in about April last year. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Just found this one because bot didn't like it (no category). Please take a look. –xenotalk 02:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC) - Seems a reasonable idea, but it needs cleaning up and (unless there are more stubs) upmerging. BTW, something that probably needs adding to the instructions of this page is the use of {{wssdnotify}}, to let the creators of these stub types know that they've caused problems downstream. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep possibly upmerged to Cat:Sports stubs Waacstats (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Found this irregularly split by sub-national identity like below. Borgarde (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC) - The bio one makes a certain (limited) sense, though I personally don't like it as a way of splitting bio-stubs. The politicians one doesn't, thouygh - politicians are split by nation and then by party alignment. Grutness...wha? 22:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Politicians aren't always split by party (just mostly), US/CAN are split by state/province and then which parliment they sat in, JPN/NOR are split by DoB if memory serves correctly. I think this should live or die with the catalonia-bio-stub, the only reason to keep would be to reduce double stubbing and there would be no double stubbing without the bio-stub so very week keep. Waacstats (talk) 08:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Found this irregularly split by sub-national identity for biographies.Borgarde (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC) - We don't normally split by subnational entity but given the fact that catalonia has a seperate language/culture to the rest of spain this may be worth keeping but I am doubtful. Waacstats (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Found these taxon-specific items. Seem OK and well structured, so added to the List and sorted additional stubs in from Category:Algae stubs. Now 98 items in the new stub category. Apparently proposed in April 2007, but never listed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC) - sounds like one of the many that was created after proposal and never listed (I am probably one of the biggest culprits of that) and given that it is well over 60 keep. Waacstats (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Found this category which has been manually added to articles, not generated by a stub template. Borgarde (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC) - This is bound to cause trouble and given the fact that we don't split people by subnational entities I think this should be taken to SFD. Waacstats (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Off to SFD we go then. Waacstats (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be OK, upmerged to Cat:Computer game stubs and used on 53 articles looks like a keeper. Waacstats (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC) - Shouldn't it be called 8bitcomputer-videogame-stub ? -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Discovered all of the above at WP:WikiProject Journalism#Stub sorting. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC) - These have all been around a long, long time and are known about. we were splitting subtypes out of mag-stub over three years ago, for instance (see here). They're listed on the stub lists under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types/Culture#Media_publications. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Already on list? otherwise add to list Waacstats (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I didn't know there were such elaborate procedures for stub sorting. I created the above because the only templates available were US and Canada specific and frankly there are a lot of countries with malls. Rather than create individual templates at this time, I created a catch-all because we don't know where a mall might come from. I'd already created it before I realized there were such procedures. I'm going to put a few articles into it as there seem to be plenty that could use it. This will help the shopping malls project identify stubs in their scope that aren't from US/Can.--Crossmr (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC) - Mall-stub's probably one that's been needed for a while, for exactly the reasons mentioned. As long as any articles marked with it are marked with the appropriate national struct-stub (until such time as separate national-mall-stub types are proposed/made), I don't see any problems with it. It has thrown up a problem with the name of the US equivalent, though (see WP:SFD). Grutness...wha? 23:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- keep and add to list Waacstats (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Newly discovered, July 2009 From the same editor as below; Cat:Cycling race stubs isn't particularly oversized (217), and even so a mountain bike races stub would only make a small upmerged dent into that. SeveroTC 19:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC) - Agreed - the amount of stub-class mountain bike races do not warrant their own category. Will blank and request for speedy delete. Andyo2000 (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- This seems to be
 Y Done --Kslotte (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Certainly sizeable enough for a template - but would certainly work better with less specialisation i.e. {{cycle-manufacturer-stub}} (not sure of the correct name to use here) and then category Cat:Cycle manufacturer stubs) depending upon size. SeveroTC 10:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC) - That would probably be {{bike-company-stub}}. Certainly we don't have any stubs for companies that manufac (or even manufacture) Manitoba, so MB-manufac-stub is right out as a name and should be changed ASAP. Via WP:SFD, since we certainly wouldn't keep the current name and - as you say - rescoping is a reasonable move. Grutness...wha? 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with widening scope. As we have Category:Cycle manufacturers, {{cycle-manufacturer-stub}} seems a logical name to me. The creator of {{MB-manufac-stub}} has already added it to cycle manufacturers who make other kinds of bicycle as well as mountain bikes, e.g. Dawes and Thorn Cycles. Qwfp (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with {{cycle-manufacturer-stub}} is that we have {{bike-stub}} and {{company-stub}} as the base forms from which it would be based. Uh - correction: {{Bike-stub}} is a redirect to {{cycling-stub}} - we don't have a stub type for bicycles (perhaps we should). In any case, we don't use "manufacturer-stub" as a base type; this would be a subtype of company-stub. And given that {{cycle-stub}} would be enormously ambiguous - and that no-one makes "cycles" anyway (they make bikes or bicycles) - {{cycle-manufacturer-stub}} doesn't seem like a particularly good name (to me, at least). Come to think of it, "bike" is ambiguous (motorbikes?), so {{bike-stub}} probably shouldn't exist (and certainly as a redirect to cycling-stub it seems inappropriate). Maybe {{bicycle-company-stub}} is a more logical name. In any case, that's something for the discussion at SFD rather than here. Grutness...wha? 11:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Further note - {{bike-stub}} seems to be a little used re-creation of a deleted stub redirect (used five times in the three and a half years since re-created - see here for deletion process page). As such, it's speediable. Grutness...wha? 12:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Stub was created to categorize stub-class mountain bike manufacturer articles. Cat:Cycle manufacturers has 205 articles, which does not warrant a split (of those 205, perhaps only 100-150 are stubs). I can move it to Template:Cycle-manufac-stub and change the right words. I will wait until consensus is reached on a name though - it seems like there are many opinions here. Andyo2000 (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for agreeing to change it Andyo2000. I guess we may as well continue discussing the name here. Grutness's reasoning above makes sense to me, so I'd be happy with {{bicycle-company-stub}}, or maybe {{cycling-company-stub}}. Qwfp (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks from me, too - but note that the purpose of a stub category is not to split a parent category - everything marked with this stub template should sstill also be in the main Cat:Cycle manufacturers category. {{cycling-company-stub}} certainly makes some sense given the current {{cycling-stub}}, and may have a slightly wider scope. The one concern is that it shouldn't contain companies only connected to cycling tangentially through things like sponsorship (e.g., Rabobank and Cofidis shouldn't be in there). Grutness...wha? 00:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- As currently used, {{MB-manufac-stub}} is used on companies that manufacture/sell mountain bikes. After expansion, it can cover Bicycle manufacturers, bicycle product-related companies (i.e. also parts), or bicycle-related companies. I agree sponsoring companies would make the category too big, so I vote for the second option. Make the stub {{cycling-company-stub}}, for bicycle and bicycle parts companies, and add in its documentation where it should be placed. Andyo2000 (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Lets finish this and make the final conclusions Is this the way I have understood it? Corrections? Support? Objections? --Kslotte (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC) - Yeeees... Theoretically that should be done through a discussion at WP:SFD, but I doubt anyone would object if it was done here. One slight alteration to the proposed plan iss that {{cycling-company-stub}} should only have its own category if there are definitely 60 stubs using it. If not, it should place articles directly in Cat:Cycling stubs and Cat:Company stubs. I can't really see that being a problem, though. Grutness...wha? 22:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- Grutness wrote: "Theoretically that should be done through a discussion at WP:SFD"
- Can you make references to this discussion on the WikiProject Stub and other pages where it is needed? --Kslotte (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- I know your stub rules from before. I could go through the Cat:Cycle manufacturers for stubs the get the exact count verified. --Kslotte (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- 169 stub articles is verified. One change from my suggestion above is that one of the parent will be Cat:Manufacturing company stubs/{{manufacturing-company-stub}} not Cat:Company stubs/{{company-stub}}. I will process the change with AWB after a week if there is no objections. --Kslotte (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds fair to me. Grutness...wha? 08:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- List ready for processing --Kslotte (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- A question that come up is what should we do about these categories?
- Should we "downgrade" them to country only stub or leave them as such? Since one parent will be Cat:Manufacturing company stubs it already includes the 'manufacturing'. Or should we get rid of both and make manufacturing industry specific instead of region specific. My opinion is that a industry specific categorizing is better. Several companies in these days are anyway global; for example headquarter in one country, engineer planing in second and production in third and shareholders from all over the world. --Kslotte (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Pictorgram created --Kslotte (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Came to my mind that maybe naming Cat:Cycling manufacturing company stubs/{{cycling-manufacturing-company-stub}} would match better if as parent is used Cat:Manufacturing company stubs/{{manufacturing-company-stub}}. Comments? --Kslotte (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- The permcat parent is Cat:Cycle manufacturers , so it should really be Cat:Cycle manufacturer stubs if we're following that. The tree of categories for manufacturing companies seems to be pretty mixed in terms of what permanent categories are called though. This is a precedent case for WSS, though - we don't have any other sporting goods manufacturer stub types of any kind - even a generic one. In fact, this is the first split of Cat:Manufacturing company stubs by product made - which surprises me (I would have expected car manufacturers to have been split out some time ago). Grutness...wha? 23:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- Grutness, do you have any opinion of downgrading the country specific? US and UK? Maybe at a later point? --Kslotte (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would suspect that once manufacturer stubs start to get split, they will be split on two axes -by product and by country. As such, keeping them makes some sense, if their size makes it worthwhile. I suspect thatCat:Manufacturing company stubs is small simply because of undersorting of Cat:Company stubs (or sorting primarily by ntionality), but I could be wrong. 00:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Second round of conclusions --Kslotte (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Sounds reasonable. For the sake of form, I would suggest listing the deletion parts at WP:SFD with a link to this discussion. Hopefully it will be a formality, given the extent of this discussion, but past months of WSS/D aren't on the watchlist of too many editors, so some of those with opinions may not have nade them here. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC) - Changed the task list above to 'manufacturer' as the correct stub name. --Kslotte (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- There seems to be some confusion between cycle-manufacturer-stub (top task) and cycling-manufacturer-stub (the bottom two) - I think both should say cycle-manufacturer-stub (and the same for the category). Grutness...wha? 12:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed and I will make sure we proceed through WP:SFD with the deletion parts. --Kslotte (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Y Done--Kslotte (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC) [edit] Newly discovered, June 2009 This template currently redirects to {{icehockey-stub}}, but probably shouldn't. Several of the ice hockey stub articles are more correctly hockey articles. I propose rescuing this template from its over-specialisation. Metao (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC) - This redirecthas been listed at SFD - it shouldn't exist. It was created without proposal by someone who obviously didn't realise that ambiguously named templates and redirects are avoided on Wikipedia. It certainly shouldn't be a redirect to icehockey-stub, since for probably 80% of the planet "hockey" primarily means field hockey. Grutness...wha? 07:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
New unproposed creation by User:Nihonjoe, who should know better than to make a stub without proposing it (and by not proposing it initially created it at an incorrect name, {{Japan-milhist-stub}} - which he insists on keeping despite it being non-standard - thereby making more work for himself). It would be nice if he'd let us know if he intends it to be used by stub-sorters. I've fixed the coding of the template to standard coding. There's a dedicated category, but enough articles to fill it. Grutness...wha? 04:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC) - It was created at the other title because of a typo. I apologize for not being perfect like you apparently are. The whole point of proposing is to make sure the stub template is needed, and as this one is very clearly needed (and only used on about 20% of the articles it will end up being used on), there was no reason to propose it. WP:BOLD, WP:IAR, and all. Process for process' sake is bad. As for the redirect, I want it kept in case people mistype. Redirects are cheap, and it's very common to have a couple different redirects for likely typos. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Created unproposed as {{African-academic-bio-stub}}, I've renamed it to convention-meeting format and added reasonable upmerged categoryies (the template had no category, but the creator of it attempted to add one by creating a dedicated category inb article space, now deleted). I'd say that the template looks like a keeper, in upmerged form at least, though by-country templates would have probably been better in the long run. Grutness...wha? 02:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC) All unproposed. The stub category doesn't have 60 stubs in it. {{Taiwan-hist-stub}} has no stubs. {{ROC-hist-stub}}, {{ROC-party-stub}}, {{ROC-politician-stub}}, and {{ROC-university-stub}} all have a very few stubs in them. impactF= 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC) - ...and as has been pointed out several times before, we deliberately don't use ROC in stub names. We already have perfectly acceptable {{Taiwan-politician-stub}}, {{Taiwan-university-stub}}, and {{Taiwan-party-stub}} templates, so these should be into redirects at the very least, and should probably go to WP:SFD for outright deletion. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I also found {{ROC-bio-stub}}, {{ROC-geo-stub}}, and {{ROC-stub}}. Should they go to WP:SFD too? I am also wondering about {{Taiwan-hist-stub}}, should it be kept? or go to WP:SFD as well? Thanks. impactF= 02:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just redirect them to the correct title as people will likely keep creating them otherwise. Just making them redirects will reduce additional work in the future if we have to keep deleting them. Again, redirects are cheap. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Newly discovered, May 2009 Unproposed - the template seems fine, but it has a dedicated category which is - and is likely to remain - woefully small. It may need upmerging unless it can be got to the 60-stub threshold somehow. Created by an editor who has made several (now deleted) stub types without proposing them in the past... some people seem to be slow learners. As in the past, he's also marked quite a few non stub articles as stubs (does this look like a stub?) Grutness...wha? 08:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC) - Your the first person to tell me that a stub needs to be proposed, my intentions for this stub are good and to make it easier to contribute to the related articles. Baku87 (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I may be the first - but I told you in October 2006 and February this year (twice), as well as today. Your intentions may be good, but unless there are 60 existing stubs (not just articles, but stubs) that can use this, it shouldn't have a separate category - and whether there are 60 or not, it should still have been proposed. Grutness...wha? 11:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Unproposed and upmerged, which would be fine except that anyone who could take this template would automatically be able to take a template for one of the 15 now-independent states which made up the Soviet Union. It's not usual for bio-stubs to be split by former entities; the only reason we have a {{USSR-bio-stub}} is fior people intrinsically linked with the history of the Soviet Union, e.g., people who represented the S.U. at sport internationally. I do note that we seem to have picked up unproposed types of USSR-actor-stub and USSR-film-director-stub at some point, too, which are also unnecessary, though if those are kept, there;'s automatically no need for this one (we have the -actor-stub type, which would cover this one well enough). This one also strangely linked to a permcat, which it shouldn't. Grutness...wha? 08:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Unproposed, upmerged (thankfully), misnamed. I've moved it to the naming convention-compliant {{HongKong-hist-stub}}, but sadly this creates yet another annoying HK redirect. Usage of this one seems a little odd - of the nine items marked with it, only five could really have been called history stubs. Was linked to a permcat, but wasn't linked to Cat:Hong Kong stubs for some reason (both these problems fixed). Grutness...wha? 00:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Unproposed & cat is missing {{Stub category}} template. User:Thomas.macmillan put an sfd on the cat in December (with edit-summ should be Indian media stubs, matching the category, eh?), but I've found no evidence that was ever proposed for discussion (and I'm not quite sure what his intent). Well-populated (163) and well-categorized - just needs properly forming & bringing into the fold? (Edit: forgot to sign again ACK apols. • Lainagier • talk • 21:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)) - Seems reasonable - so that would mean finally taking it to WP:SFD... Grutness...wha? 21:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wrangling over adjective/noun forms in country stub cat names is a hairier business than I care to involve myself in, but I shall put it to Mr.macmillan. • Lainagier • talk • 07:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Newly discovered, February 2009 [edit] NEW DISCOVERIES Possibly useful but this currently has 22 articles and the parent less than 100, may be best to upmerge template. Waacstats (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC) I initally thought this was a great idea for splitting Ireland stubs, till I found out we split at the county level and we appear to have all the templates at that level. Given that it may be a keeper if there is significant numbers of articles likely to be related to connacht in general or be across numourous counties (mountains, rivers, lakes etc). Leaving here in case any of our geo experts think it will be useful. Waacstats (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC) - Delete. Per Waacstats, Irish geography is primarily categorised by county, and the stub categories follow the same pattern. However, Mejor Los Indios (talk · contribs) created last year a bunch of by-province categories for landforms, which were deleted at a 29 March 2008 CfD. Several of them were recreated by the same editor earlier this month, and I speedy deleted them a fortnight ago: see my note here.
It looks like I missed this stub template in the tidyup, but it should be deleted along with the categories. It appears not to be used in any articles, so there is no need for any merger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC) - Take to SFD. It makes more sense to work on a by-county level. Also this would create a further problem, as hinted at by BHG, since it would suggest we should also have Leinster-, Munster-, and Ulster-geo-stub types - and the latter of those would be cross-border (taking in both RoI and NI). Grutness...wha? 00:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. I created it specifically for articles that cross county boundaries in Connacht, so as to avoid the necessity of having a stub for each county concerned, e.g. Lough Allen. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reply The parent Category:Geography of Connacht was deleted, so the question of whether of categorise geography by province has already been decided as a "no". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- That's a totally different question; unlike replacing county geo-stubs with provincial ones, categorising by province does not exclude categorising by county. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Additional reply - what's wrong with using stubs for separate counties? That's the systemk used with all other geo-stubs for everywhere else worldwide. And having these stubs marked with a province-level stub type will simply remove them from the county-level stub categories - which is where local editors would be more likely to look for articles to expand. It would end up being counter-productive. Grutness...wha? 22:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Where does it end? Rivers often go through several counties; are they all to get their geo-stubs and categories on the page? Mejor Los Indios (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Maximum of four stub templates - if something is in more than four counties, the national geo-stub template is used. This is standard practice for stub sorting for all countries worldwide. Grutness...wha? 21:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- It couldn't be; not all countries are divided into counties. But if a river flows through four different counties and stays in the same province (I very much doubt this is applicable to Connacht), would it then be acceptable to you to use a provincial geo-stub? Mejor Los Indios (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Counties or the equivalent, and in answer to your question, no. Grutness...wha? 01:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question There seems to be consensus here to delete this stub type. Per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, is there any useful purpose in repeating this discussion at WP:SFD? Shouldn't it just be deleted now? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- This discussion probably should have been moved to SFD a while back. It is still worth listing it there, with a link to this discussion. I can understand not wanting to go through the whole process, but it's as well to have it listed at SFD. That page SFD attracts a slightly different audience to this one, and not listing it might just set an unhealthy precedent for deletion straight from the discovery page - WP:WSS are called Wikinazis often enough, without giving disgruntled editors more ammo (the shortcut is perhaps unfortunate, in that regard!). It would also be useful to have the deletion (or otherwise) recorded in the SFD archives permanently. Grutness...wha? 23:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
mentioned in a discussion back in Sept 2008 but turned down as {{EV-stub}}, could be of use but there appeared to be a general dislike of this type at the proposal. Currently used on only 1 stub. Waacstats (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC) - Thank you. It is similar to {{vehicle-stub}}, but about electric vehicles. I am sure the new stub type is vital for Wikipedia, because constantly are appearing new electric vehicles and the number of appearings is dramatically going to increase in the next months. Also, new govermental tax incentives are going to speed up this trend. Not used in more stubs, because of the recent creation. .--Nopetro (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Unproposed, currently unused, and, to be honest, I'd say of very limited use. Most articles relating to the toponyms of specific places are, by definition, geo-stubs. Those relating to the science of toponymy (of which there are very few) are usually best tagged with one of the geo-term-stub subtypes. SFD may be the best option for it. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Unproposed, but seems a reasonable addition to the list. Well-formed and (thankfully) upmerged to Cat:Syria stubs, though it should also be upmerged to an appropriate film stubcat. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Looks like this wasn't discussed anywhere. -- Stepheng3 (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) - Certainly wasn't - and it uses the long-deprecated naming of "Foo-related stubs". Vague/ambiguous topic area, no category parents, and even from the two stubs it's gained in the ten months since it was created it looks like it would be a mixmatch of subjects covered by other stub types. Looks like WP:SFD material to me... Grutness...wha? 22:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- After some false starts, I think I finally managed to take this to SFD. - Stepheng3 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Unproposed, but along the lines of similar stub types. The problem - as seems to be predictable lately - is that this has been created with its own stub category where it should have been upmerged (it contains one stub, and the size of the stub parent makes its potential to reach threshold low). Also, given that the vast majority of voice-actors with articles would be post 1950, this should probably not have been created as a general Korean form, but rather as two templates, one for DPRK and one for RoK. Grutness...wha? 23:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC) The templates fine, though unproposed, and in line with other similar country-hist-stub types. The category, however, may be a problem if there are too few stubs, and there's certainly no current indication that it would reach the required threshold. Both Cat:European history stubs and Cat:Romania stubs are largish (though neither anywhere near the 800 mark), bujt the proportion of these that are Romanian history stubs doesn't seem to be that high. Grutness...wha? 07:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC) [edit] Newly discovered, January 2009 New unproposed stub type for an order of flowering plants. Not sure whether this conforms to the staandard taxonomic level usually used for stub sorting, but there is definitely one problem with it at least - it has its own category, and even if every articles in Cat:Commelinales was a stub, it still wouldn't reach threshold. The need for upmerging is a distinct likelihood. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC) - Sorry I ignored the rules on this one, but I felt it was fairly uncontroversial. WikiProject Plants has many stub templates and categories, the majority of them at the level of order (see here and scroll down: Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Resources). I've recently begun adding many stubs in this order of plants and it makes more sense to add a specific stub tag now than having to come back once a certain threshold has been reached to do it all over again.DJLayton4 (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- The template's pretty uncontroversial, sure - the category, though, is another matter. Categories are only created once there's a guarantee that 60 stubs currently exist. Given that the permcat parent only has about 50 articles, this isn't the case - hence my comments about possible upmerging. And even if something's uncontroversial, it's still worth running it past the people who will actually be using it the most over at WP:WSS/P. Grutness...wha? 22:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what your "standard taxonomic level" is, but if I wrote the rules it would be order rank, which Commelinales is. This particular order consists of a little over 800 species, plus about 70 genera, plus some taxa with a great many cultivars, such as Anigozanthos. So I would estimate that the topic served by this stub type has the potential to contain about 1000 articles. On the other hand, the category only contains 25 articles at present, and the parent stub category Category:Monocot stubs only contains 99 articles, so there was hardly a compelling need for this to be split off. On balance, I guess I favour getting rid of it for now. Hesperian 06:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC) - Stub types are split out respective to the number of existing stubs, so a category certainly isn't an option right now. The template's probably fine if upmerged, though I don't know personally whether botanical stubs are split by order, family, or genera, hence my initial comment. Grutness...wha? 07:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is extremely common for stub types to exist at and below this rank, take it from me, so there's no problem there. But personally I find templates without a corresponding category horribly confusing. If you reckon the category "certainly isn't an option right now", then I vote the template goes too. Hesperian 09:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Upmerged templates are a standard stub-sorting practice. If we deleted the stub template as well, we'd have the work of de-stubbing/re-stubbing these articles now, then replacing the template if the numbers do warrant a seaparte category later. Simply upmerging now should make no difference to the basic running of the parent category that this would be upmerged to (the template certainly wouldn't be sitting there with no active category link at all)., and would save lots of potential work later. Grutness...wha? 22:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
This one'a bit tricky. We do have footyclub-stub trypes for separate nations, it's true, but Zanzibar is not a separate nation (it's part of Tanzania), and while there is a "Zanzibar national team" it is not recognised by FIFA. It took a stretch to get {{Zanzibar-stub}} up to the required 60-stub threshold, and Tanzania-footyclub-stub's only used on a large handful of articles, so chances are this will remain upmerged for a considerable time (as thankfully it currently is). In fact, if Zanzibar Premier League is anythingg to go by, we only have one article on Zanzibari club sides - and that one's already stubbed with the Tanzania-footyclub-stub template. Might be worth keeping, but personally I don't really see the point of it. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC) - I support keeping and expanding the content on Zanzibari football clubs. As you said, there is certainly room to grow.--TM 20:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Unproposed, but in line with similar types which currently exist. hell, Cambridge has one, Oxford should too. The size of Cat:University of Oxford suggests this might reach threshold, but Cat:United Kingdom university stubs suggests the opposite. May need upmerging if it can't reach threshold (which is only 30 - there is a project). Grutness...wha? 00:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC) - Yes, I created this in line with the University of Cambridge stub {{UCambridge-stub}}. I can add stub entries if it is deemed acceptable. Sorry not to go through "official" channels. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free - it's well-formed and in line with other types, so their shouldn't be a problem. Adding stubs is the only way to see whether it reaches threshold (I think it should pretty easily, but if it doesn't it may end up being upmerged into a more general category). If you're thinking of making any more templates or categories though, it'd be a help if you proposed them first :) Grutness...wha? 00:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Really not sure about this one. We don't normally split things like films up by former, no-longer-extant countries, though I can see that this one might make some sense. It might just be a nasty precedent, though. Thoughts? Grutness...wha? 00:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC) - I created it as part of the upmerge into Category:European film stubs, to avoid articles just having the plain old film-stub tag. Yes, the country no longer exists, but the films created at the time did belong to Yugoslavia, and not another nation. It's quite likely that more films from (former) Yugoslavia get WP entries in the future too. Lugnuts (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Yet another unproposed one where the template looks OK but a (likely undersized) category has also been created. Cat:Handball biography stubs is moderately large, but Cat:Croatian sportspeople stubs is under 200, so I have my doubts on whether this will reach the 60-stub threshold. Upmerging may be appropriate. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC) I think that it may get very close I'll see what I can do. Someone already has it at 60 so keep. Waacstats (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC) - Sorry, I didn't write here sooner... I have changed the stub-template on all Croatian handballer-bio-stubs. Almost all handball-biographies are stubs, regardless of country, sadly. So with a big handball-nation like Croatia, I don't think this will drop below 60 anytime soon... So its a keep from me too! =) lil2mas (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. The fact that I brought it here rather than taking it to WP:SFD was some indication that i though there was some chance of it getting there :) Grutness...wha? 01:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems a reasonable addition to the range, and the population of it definitely indicates some suggestion that it might be of use. Just a pity it wasn't actually proposed beforehand. If it had been, the template's coding might have been better... it's fixed now, but unfortunately it wasn't when the template was added tol over 100 articles. Given the slowness of the job cue, that means doing null-edits to the pile-up listed under * in Cat:Paleontology stubs :((( Grutness...wha? 00:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Another unproposed one where the template looks OK but a (likely undersized) category has also been created. Given that Cat:Chinese scientist stubs has fewer than 80 articles, the chances of this reaching the required 60-stub threshold in the near future are very slim, so upmerging may be appropriate. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC) - Having recently looked at scientists I very much doubt this would make it to 60 unless someone creates the missing articles. Upmerge template, Delete category. Waacstats (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
New unproposed stub type. The template's fine, nicely formed, and in line with similar types. Unfortunately, though, it's not upmerged and almost certainly should be. Given the number of articles in Cat:Guyanese people stubs (a little over 100), there's no need to split out the sportspeople and little chance that this will reach the 60-stub threshold for a separate category. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC) - Upmerge template, delete category. Unless someone adds a lot more articles, could be possible given that Guyana has had a number of fine cricketers play for the West Indies - I'll see what I can manage. Waacstats (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- They have (Clive Lloyd, Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Colin Croft come to mind), but even then I think 60's a long way off. Grutness...wha? 22:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- 52 close enough? otherwise upmerge. Waacstats (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- My rule of thumb is 60 to create or 50 for an existing category, so i've no objections, though if it can get to 60 all the better. I've managed to nudge it to 55, BTW. Grutness...wha? 22:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Unproposed. On the face of it, seems a reasonable idea, but there have been concerns raised recently about lit-stubs by country/continent (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#.7B.7BSouthAfrica-book-stub.7D.7D). If the template is approved it may yet need upmerging. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC) - When I created it, I was unaware that stub templates are usually proposed before creation. While doing some stub sorting I came across Template:India-lit-stub and Template:Japan-lit-stub, and since I've done a little work on African literature-related articles, I figured I'd go ahead and create such a template for African lit. As for whether such stub templates are desirable, I don't feel strongly either way. I just saw a hole and filled it. faithless (speak) 00:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The main problem is the one mentioned at the proposal page about South Africa - scoping could easily be for literature about Africa, literature from Africa, or literature within African culture. Some books, like Things Fall Apart, would qualify under all of these criteria - others, like The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency (novel) might be a little more borderline, and some, like Heart of Darkness or The Constant Gardener might qualify by some definitions and not by others. It's just a little ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 01:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Newly discovered, December 2008 Two unproposed upmerged stubs for districts in Karnataka, India. Cat:Karnataka geography stubs is getting close to the point where we need to think about splitting it completely, and the split that has been done so far on it is by Division (with separate district templates). So on the face of it this seems a reasonable couple of templates to have, and in this case - luckily - there are no problems. I say luckily, because a couple of the others may have had naming concerns if they were simply made in this way (Hassan, for example). May be worth making the other templates for the 30-odd {{Districts of Karnataka}} - but only after proper proposal and check for naming. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC) - I have created them as it was non-controversal as already other district stubs for some states of India is already present. Example {{Kollam-geo-stub}} and other subtemplates of {{Kerala-geo-stub}}. As we are gearing up for making articles for lots of inhabiated villages of India, it is important to make district level stub template for all the 611 districts of Kerala.Should the template have the district level cats also instead of state level cats ? -- Tinu Cherian - 02:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Six hundred and eleven???? This definitely puts a different complexion on things - there are only 14 districts according to Districts of Kerala. If there are 611 districts in Kerala, then it would be ridiculous for them to all have stub templates. Others exist, it is true - but any new ones should still be proposed so that they can be checked before they are created, in case there are problems with them. if there are no problems, it will be straightforward to make them soon after proposal, but having them checked out first will ensure there isn't any need for considerable fixing-up work done later. As to the category, for now they should have the State-level category. If you feel that Division-level categories should be made - and also if you wish there to be new templates - please propose them in the proper way at WP:WSS/P. Grutness...wha? 03:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, no... Kerala has only 14 districts. But India has around 611 districts in 28 states and 7 union territories. The one that I have created above are of Karnataka state of India. Karnataka has 29 districts. WP:WSS/P says if it is being discussed here, dont create a new proposal there. Division level cats are not useful as it this division is rarely used and not known to many. Some states like Kerala doesnt have the Divisons but has only Districts. So it is more useful if the stub templates are of district level. -- Tinu Cherian - 13:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Only the Belgaum and Bagalkot ones are technically being discussed here - the rest of this discussion should be at the proposals page. The message at the proposal page is misleadingly worded though (and could be taken to contradioct itself) - I've amended it to what is actually standard practice. Basically it's just to stop someone proposing a template that's already been made and is already being discussed elsewhere - it's not to stop proposals for more similar types (like ones for other districts which haven't got templates yet). Personally, I'd say that district level templates would be useful, feeding into division level categories - if the 611 is for the whole of India it may not be too much of a problem, though it's still a lot of templates. It's still definitely worth proposing them, though, since there are likely to be naming (and possibly other) issues with some of them. Grutness...wha? 22:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. I believe nobody has any issues with the above stub templates: For the rest of the templates of the missing districts, I will propose them @ WP:WSS/P. With me creating atleast 50 articles per day for each district of India, these templates are highly needed. -- Tinu Cherian - 07:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem with the templkate - apart from the fact that no-one thought to propose it first. The category's more of a problem, though (are there sixty 16- to 18-year-old linebackers with stub articles? My guess is no). i've proposed the category for deletion, but the template can survive happily enough as an upmerged type, IMO. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC) - as below, Upmerge template delete category. Waacstats (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed, but seems a perfectly reasonable addition to the other provincial splits for South Africa that seems to have been missed when we split the others. May need upmerging if it doesn't get to 60 stubs, but it will be close to it at least. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC) - Actually, I proposed it here in March 2007, just never got along to creating it. Someone else beat me to it. You even supported creating an upmerged stub, Grutness!--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ergh. So many stub types - so little brain :) (me, not you, that is!) A short Christmas break for me may be in order! Grutness...wha? 01:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Newly discovered, November 2008 No problem with this one other than it being unproposed - it's nicely made and upmerged appropriately. A keeper, IMO. Grutness...wha? 07:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC) - Keep, Don't we have a proposal some where in the archive for all foo-stub, foo-bio-stub, foo-geo-stub and foo-politician-stub for any "country". Waacstats (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Very probably - and i've just reproposed the same for foo-stubs at WSS/P. This is only really here because it's one we hadn't been aware of before. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed stub type for radio stations in South Africa. There's been a quiet but quite welcome uptick in the creation of articles for radio stations in Africa and {{Africa-radio-station-stub}} was approaching the magical number of 60 for the creation of Category:African radio station stubs when a bold editor created this new stub type. After careful combing of the African radio station stubs, there are currently 27 tagged as South African and 27 more tagged for other African nations. I believe this is close enough to the 30 threshold to keep the new stub type and rapidly approaching the borderline for a new continent-level category. - Dravecky (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC) - Note that the creation of this was implied in recent discussions about South African media stubs (the upshot of which was to create a Cat:South African media stubs and any necessary templates for tv, radio, and film). It's mentioned in passing at both the proposal page and at SFD. In any case, keep. Grutness...wha? 06:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I see now why my search came up dry: the SFD discussion explicitly calls for -tv and -film stub types but only implies the -radio-station stub type and the proposals page never mentions any specific templates at all. Also, this one isn't on the main list o' stub types so its inclusion here is probably for the best in any case. - Dravecky (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Good point. More or less a legit creation, but not yet listed as such, so better safe than sorry. Grutness...wha? 07:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed general stub type for an Indian state. We have similar stub templates for other states, so that's not much of a problem. The category, however, may be another matter, since there's no guarantee this will reach threshold. It may need upmerging (if not, it needs some finessing - it has no permcat parents and no standard templating). Grutness...wha? 10:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Well enough formed, though sadly with its own (somewhat inappropriate) stub category. Needs upmerging to Cat:Caribbean football (soccer) biography stubs, since this will never get close to threshold (unless 1/60 of Montserrat population each has a football biography stub). Grutness...wha? 00:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Newly created (without proposal), and linked to a permcat rather than a stubcat. Not sure how useful this would be - I suspect it overlaps with a lot of existing stub types. If it's useful enough to keep it will need to be re-pointed to a more appropriate category. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC) - Actually this is an incredibly useful stub type and was even properly named. I discovered {{IRC-stub}} and this entry on WikiProject Stub Sorting/Discoveries while cleaning up the Internet Relay Chat categories, templates, and articles. This stub was previously dumping articles into the parent category under 'N', which was certainly not the right thing to do. I've since regenerated the stub and created a proper category for it as Internet Relay Chat stubs. The proper place for this stub and category in the stub types list is under the Computing and telecommunications section in the Internet stubs subcategory. Tothwolf (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Due to the backlog I've gone ahead and converted this stub type from {{MetaPicstub}} to {{Asbox}} and added it to the sub types list. It currently has 71 articles in the category and will undoubtedly grow even larger as I continue to dust out this corner of Wikipedia and categorize all the stray Internet Relay Chat articles. Tothwolf (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Two new unproposed templates - both seem well-formed, and at least one of them will prove fairly useful, I'd think - so keeping them seems fair enough. Unfortunately, one of these comes with its own category, which will almost certainly not reach threshold, so upmerging is in the offing there. Ironically, the one without a dedicated category would be quite likely to reach threshold fairly soon, I would think. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC) - Keep templates and send cat to SFD unless it makes it to 60 (unlikely in my opinion).Waacstats (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I was looking for a stub tag for a few articles about ports in China (PRC). I found this stub type in use on Port of Yingkou, but noticed it was not on the official list. I think this article is the right place to report this unofficial stub. {{Water-transport-stub}} seems the closest official stub-type that would work for a port article (ex: Port of Yantai, Port of Qinhuangdao). Should I continue to use it? —fudoreaper (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC) - It is an official one - it's only just been made though which is why it isn't on the canonical list yet - the proposal is here - so feel free to use it, but note that it should be used in conjunction with PRChina-geo-stub or some regional equivalent. Grutness...wha? 22:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, cool, if it's official i'll go ahead and use it. And i gotcha on combining it with a geo stub. Should I add this (and the others just approved) to the master list? —fudoreaper (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sure - it's very easy to forget to add things to the main list when they're made (I'm always forgetting, so I know how easy it is to do), so feel free to any that aren't on the list that have been approved. Grutness...wha? 04:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, added. Properl, i think. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types/Transport Does that look good? —fudoreaper (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yup - that looks good. Cheers. Grutness...wha? 21:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Brand new, and created seemingly with a SFR notice attached! No objection to the template, but there's no clear evidence that there will be the required number of stubs for a separate category (and given the number of articles in the permcat parent, it seems highly unlikely at present) - this may need to be upmerged to the Asian parent stub category. Grutness...wha? 11:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC) - There is a proposal from september for templates for each country in the Asian football clubs, so template is OK. delete category unless it reaches 60. Waacstats (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
As below, so above. We seem to be fighting a losing battle against subnational region bio-stubs, which is a shame, given the complications they cause with people moving from place to place. This one was created less than 24 hours ago, and already has close to 100 articles, many of which are for people with only tentative links with Ohio (e.g., Anthony Hancock (American football), who could just as easily be a Missouri- or Tennessee-bio-stub); NYC resident Amy Braunschweiger, and Ontario-raised Ab DeMarco, Jr., whose potential list of subnational bio-stub templates would be fairly sizeable). Grutness...wha? 01:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC) - Anothony was born in Cleveland, Amy was raised in Toledo, and Ab was born in Cleveland. Natives of Ohio are known as Ohioans. I created this stub after I saw the same had been done for Oregon, Texas, and Indiana. People born in Ohio, should be tagged with Ohio-bio-stub; there's no other way around it. If I lived in Texas, but was born in Ohio I'm an Ohioan not a Texan. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- You might sort them that way,m but can you guarantee that everyone will? Would, for instance, anyone instantly think of giving {{Connecticut-bio-stub}} to George W. Bush (if his article were a stub) - or would they be more likely to associate him with Texas?{{Texas-bio-stub}} certainly isn't being used only for people born there - how will you guarantee this won't end up equally mixed and problematical? Grutness...wha? 05:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I see no reason why Bush couldn't have have both stub templates? His talk page is covered by WikiProjects Military, Baseball, Connecticut, Texas, and Presidents. No one can control what tag someone on any wiki will use. Princeton says and Ohioan is someone who is "a native(a person born in a particular place or country) or resident(someone who lives at a particular place for a prolonged period or who was born there) of Ohio". Parenthesis mine. As long as the stub template clearly states who the template is for there shouldn't be a problem with the user interpreting its use. The reason there were almost 100 is because I didn't want to get this stub swatted down for not having enough members. I precompiled a listed to make sure (in my mind atleast) that there was a need, created everything and then out of the 700 articles I checked over I tagged 80 some. After typing this, I made another list. This list is a list of biographical articles (4 are sketchy and I need your opinion) that tranclude Ohio-stub or Cincinnati-stub. Would you agree that those articles should be Ohio-bio or in your opinion should they just be Ohio? Like I said above above: I'm new to the stub thing, I'm not trying to step on any toes. But at what point will we have to start cutting down Category:American people stubs? I thought 800 was a limit followed here, but I could more than likely be wrong. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed it is - but from national level they're cut down primarily by occupation - there's just considerable undersorting of Cat:American people stubs (it's always a hard one to keep to a reasonable size, given that there are tens of thousands of US-bio-stubs, mainly further sorted). Most of the subcats of this are for occupations. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- One more quick note, I didn't say it could only be used for people born in Ohio, that's just what I started with. If someone has a stronger relation with another state I don't see why they can't be tagged with their home state and the state they connected with in other's minds. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- And there's the problem, and the reason why stubs like this aren't generally as useful as they initially seem. Take as an example Ab DeMarco, Jr.. He's played for teams from New York, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Vancouver, LA, Boston, Edmonton - and was born in Ohio. That's potentially eight region-specific bio-stubs, even excluding the icehockey-bio-stub he would normally be given. Many other sportsmen and women are the same. Given that there's a maximum of four stub template per article, it's a toss-up which ones we should use so as not to get complaints from other editors for marking "our boy" with the wrong stub - the right state in one person's mind may not be the right state to others (there's a "state of mind" joke waiting to be made there somewhere, I'm sure). People move around a lot, and that's the main reason why we generally from on state-specific bio-stubs - they need too much regulation, control, and infocreep, which (despite what some people seem think of stub sorters) we don't really like. As I poionted out, though, WP:WSS is generally onto a losing battle with these types, so now that it's there chances are good that it'll stay and be used. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about others opinions on the matter, frankly I don't care that much either way, but I wouldn't automatically accociate someone who played for the Cincinnati Reds with Ohio, but with the state they were born in. Unless they were born in Ohio and played for the Reds, then following my own logic I'd associate them with Ohio. Am I free to change the articles I listed from Ohio-stub to Ohio-bio-stub? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, though in the unlikely event that this gets taken to WP:SFD they'll be restubbed. The cincinnati ones can possibly be double stubbed with ohio-bio-stub and cincinnati-stub. As to the queried ones, I wouldn't give a bio-stub to Grassman (not a person), the Ohio Gang (ohio-stub), Queen City Balladeers (looks more like an org-stub or a band-stub) or Steve Weingart (no longer a stub). The rest, though, yes - including the "family" groups. Grutness...wha? 04:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC) - Wording: For some reason This Ohioan biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. doesn't seem to flow. What do you think of one of these alternatives This Ohio biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it., This article about an Ohioan is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it., This Ohio-related biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. ? I'm leaning more towards 2, but 3 isn't half-bad and I think 1 follows what the some other state-bio-stubs say. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 05:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Any of them seem reasonable, but it largely depends what you're trying to say (back to the problems above)> Do you want the stub type to be specifically for Ohioans, or for "Ohio-related biographies" - they may be fractionally different in scope. Grutness...wha? 06:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ohioan and Ohio-related are the interchangebale word because they mean the same thing, one who is from or inhabits/inhabitted Ohio. Are there rules for changing wording, or can I just do it? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, if it's an uncontroversial minor change, then feel free to change it. If someone changes it back, then it's better to talk it over on the template's talk page than to get into a revert/revert situation, though. Major changes would be better discussed at WP talk:WSS/P, preferably with input from any relevant Wikiprojects, but for a small change like this there shouldn't be any problems. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Cool. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed. We generally try to avoid splitting people by subnational region - they move around too much. More of a problem though is that there's no sign this is likely to reach threshold; Cat:Catalonia stubs, at 160 articles, is nowhere near requiring to be split yet, and very few of the articles marked with {{Catalonia-stub}} are biographies. May be a case of upmerging, at least. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC) [edit] Newly discovered, October 2008 Unproposed though thankfully upmerged, but misnamed - should be {{Punk-music-stub}}. I'd question, however, just how useful it will be. We've already got stub types for {{punk-song-stub}} and {{punk-album-stub}} - a separate {{punk-band-stub}} and {{punk-musician-stub}} might be more useful than this - what else is there that will really make this useful? There's only so many articles that can be written on punk clothing and lifestyle - most of which isn't really punk music per se. There's also the less important but still worth-mentioning problem that "punk" is really two specific genres - the current style of music that goes by that name and the "classic" punk from the late 70s (which itself could be split into UK and US). I'm a little concerned as to which style this would be used for. Grutness...wha? 01:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC) - Sorry about creating it without a proposal. I was copying from another Wikiproject & didn't notice the banner on the top of the category until after I'd created it & then linked over to the category. Renaming would be fine. The idea is to have a catchall stub type for articles that don't fall into the existing types (album & song). Separate stubs for band & musician certainly would be useful, but there are also a lot of films, books, magazines, websites, clothing, persons, tours, artists, etc. etc. that are within the general category of "punk" but aren't covered by the existing stub types. That's what this one is meant to be for. As to the second point, it covers all eras of punk, from late 70s to today. Anything that's labeled "punk". I know that doesn't sound too specific, but remember it's a catchall for topics not already covered by the existing stub types. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
There are 456 in the category, but it's not properly presented as an official stub type. It lists within Category:Cryptography under "s" rather than at the end, so I missed it first time round. I don't know where it fits in the hierarchy of stub types... perhaps under "Miscellaneous"? PamD (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC) - It's there - under science. This one's been around for a long time and, judging by the history - which contains edits from both Alai and former stub sorter BL Lacertae - it's known here. No sign it was ever proposed, but it looks reasonable enough. At one time it was stabndard for stub categories to be listed under "s", BTW - this probably just wasn't switched over to a "µ" piping. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Perfectly sensible-looking addition to the by-nation/country/territory/whatever bio-stub range. Mercifully it's upmerged, since I doubt this would get close to stand-alone viability for some time. A keeper, IMO. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC) - I created this stub in order to separate the biographical articles, as is done for other countries/territories. It just makes for easier sorting. It's already proving to be very useful. I apologise for not having taken the necessary step of proposing the stub for creation, I will make sure I do so next time.
- I would also like to create a new category for this stub in order to separate these stub articles from those listed in Category:Gibraltar stubs, are there any necessary steps I need to take? Thanks, --Gibmetal 77talk 09:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yup - first, there need to be 60 stubs marked with the template (in this case, you can include any marked with {{Gibraltar-politician-stub}} in that count, since it would also feed into any new category. At the moment, their "what links here" buttons say they have 25 stubs between them). Once there are, propose the category at WP:WSS/P. There shouldn't be any objection if you can reach 60 - it's a standard way of splitting out stubs from a generic country stub cat. Grutness...wha? 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Apparently unproposed, although decently formed (has its own category, which are placed into appropriate higher categories, etc.), and parallel to similar stubs for other US states. The stub itself appears fine, although perhaps the category will need to be deleted and the stub upmerged to the regional category, as I counted only forty pages tagged with this stub. I've never before listed stubs here: should I notify the creator, Stepshep? Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC) - Yup - use {{wssdnotify}}. Grutness...wha? 05:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hello WPSS. I didn't realize this meant every category; just new templates. Alas, I have been proven incorrect. What's going to happen now? My actions:Downmerge the template's category from regioanl (midwest) to state (Ohio) because I believed there were enough articles for there to be a split. Is there a cutoff? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- What happens is it gets left here for a while (often a few months) to discuss it or see if it will reach the necessary threshold (60 stubs). If there's no sign of it doing so, it'll be probably be taken to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion where it will likely be upmerged. Grutness...wha? 05:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that if it was used primarily by a WikiProject that 60 became 30? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not quite - for the principal stub category for a wikiproject it's 30, for all additional ones it's 60. So the threshold would only be 30 here if there was a WikiProject Ohio television stations. For WikiProject US television stations (if there is one) US-tv-station-stub would have a threshold of 30, all state-specific ones would have heshold of 60. Grutness...wha? 20:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh okay, I understand now. Then where would I list the same template for Indiana and a basketball stub template for Ohio teams? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Um...not quite sure what you mean by "where would I list them?" If you mean where can you propose them for creation, then WP:WSS/P is the place. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think §hep means where to list {{Indiana-tv-station-stub}}, {{Ohio-basketball-team-stub}} and {{Indiana-basketball-team-stub}}. Which of course would be here. I support all these templates, categories for any that reach 60. Waacstats (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for not being clear. Anyways the matter at hand is the template above. I really think that this project has a bit too much power, similar to BAG. If a group creates a category to better classify articles, and they're willing to maintain what they create there shouldn't be any problems? Right? (And the Indiana TV stub only has 44 articles) §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC) - Wrong. Creating permanent categories is fine, but not stub categories - these are all primarily maintained by WP:WSS (hence the banner template which should be at the top of them). Reducing the threshold below 60 for some cases where there is no specific Wikiproject would set a precedent for the same thing happening elsewhere. Even reducing the threshold to 50 would likely risk doubling the number of categories we'd have to keep track of. As Waacstats points out, the idea of templates os fine, but there should only be categories if there's over 60 stubs - other than that they should be upmerged into larger regional categories. If any group wants to check what articles use a specific template, then it's just as easy to use the template's "whatlinkshere" link in the toolbox if there are small numbers of stubs. Grutness...wha? 21:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- But it wouldn't be taken to stub types for deletion? The stub is an official one, the category is what's new. Two clicks and a {{db}} should do the trick, right? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- (slaps forehead) You know, for some reason that's never been done here, but you're right. A repointing of the template would instantly render the category as a speedy candidate. Why the hell don't we do that normally? (this isn't sarcasm - it's a genuine, if partly rhetorical - question) Grutness...wha? 00:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I also have 4 more articles to create, but I just checked over all the Ohio TV stations and the cat hit 60. I used AWB to check the articles so if they were not stub length (whatever they use for that) it shouldn't have gotten tagged. If it gets to the 64 can it be kept? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's generally the way it goes, so yup, I guess that would be fine :) Grutness...wha? 04:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
↔Most of those ended up working better as redirects. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Unproposed, and poorly formed (no category link of any kind, but possibly not too bad an idea. Cemeteries currently get geo-stub types, which isn't altogether appropriate (though not too bad). If kept it would certainly need a category, and would also need many subtypes (there are possibly enough cemetery stub articles for about a dozen viable by-country types and several US by-state types). Should go through some form of formal count-up and propose process, though. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Comment I'm the creator, and wasn't aware of the proposal required. Should we just can it, and I can propose it the right way? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC) - Actually, on further examination it looks like it has been proposed in the past, waaay back in 2005. In which case, simply tidying it up and adding a category would be the way to go with this one - though separate by continent/country/region ones would still need proposing (and probably will need to be, from the numbers point of view. It seems likely there will be some problems of overlap with things like NRHP-stub, but we'll just have to deal with them as and when with double-stubbing, probably. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, refactored the stub template for proper formatting, and added it to the Geography category. I would assume possible future stubs would be along the lines of newyork-cememtery-stub, unitedkingdom-cemetery-stub, etc when proposed? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes and no -you've got the right idea, except we use camelcaps and always abbreviate the UK and US (but nowhere else), so those two examples would actually be NewYork- and UK- respectively. Other than that though, that would be the style of them. Grutness...wha? 21:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- It happens that a category for U.S. NRHP cemeteries has just been discussed, along with others, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Discussion of categories related to religion. It was noted there by User:Elkman, who has an NRHP database, that there are 1472 cemeteries, 687 grave/burial sites, and 102 mortuaries listed on the NRHP. Hope this is helpful somehow; it is very random that i happened by the discussion. doncram (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not entirely relevant - number of stubs and number of articles isn't directly related - but if the percentage of stubs is high, then that definitely indicates that this would have plenty of use. Mind you, it also indicates a complication, since it would cross the existing NRHP-stubs. Grutness...wha? 20:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Does complicate it a bit, since most cemetery stubs would more than likely be NRHP's, not all, but most. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it complicates it for US cemeteries, at least, but there are plenty of cemetery stubs from other countries that don't have that problem. We can always double-stub when cemeteries are also NRHP sites. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Created in July 07, empty category, probably should be deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC) While there is might be sense in having a template for this, there is no current justification for a separate category, especially since the one stub marked with this was a bio-stub (not normally given a subnational stub type except in rare cases) and was best served with other stub types. If there are 60 stubs, then a category is fine, if not, this probably needs upmerging. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC) [edit] Newly discovered, September 2008 Unproposed, but well-formed. The idea of a template is a perfectly reasonable one; every country should have a generic stub template of its own. The category, however, is never going to come within a bull's roar of threshold - even adding in the six articles marked with {{Niue-geo-stub}} would only bring the total up to nine at the moment. If all the articles in Cat:Niue and its subcats are stubs (highly unlikely) and if there's no double-catting there (which there is), and if every article in there was best suited by a Niue-stub (unlikely, given that articles like English language are in there) then there'd be 73 stubs - just 13 above threshold. But all that seems highly unlikely. This should almost certainly be upmerged to Cat:Oceania stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC) - Given that when you count unique articles there are only 64 I think, this should be upmerged. Waacstats (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I ransacked Cat:Niue stubs - there were a grand total of 40 stubs. Very slim. Grutness...wha? 11:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed - the template seems reasonable, but given that there are only 41 articles in Cat:Beijing Subway, the category seems doomed to fall below threshold. Will probably need upmerging. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC) - Canonical template name also would strictly-speaking be either {{Beijing-Subway-stub}} or {{Beijing-metro-stub}}. Since only around two people seem to know or care about the naming guidelines -- and those don't always agree -- keep existing name as redirect post-move. Alai (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed. No stub category of any kind. Could potentially reach threshold for its own category (there are 110 articles in Cat:Supergiant stars and its subcats), but unless there's evidence that it does, this should be upmerged (if kept) into Cat:Star stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC) - Logical scope, given the long-standing {{giant-star-stub}}, etc. Indeed, this may have been mooted in the proposal for that split. Upmerge. Alai (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Upmerged and in line with naming of other templates, but I can't see any sign this was proposed. Looks like a keeper, though. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Not really sure if it's needed or not, but it's upmerged to the directory the stubs would be in anyway. (Assuming I've understood what upmerging is correctly... bit new to this. :)) Does not appear to have been proposed, as far as I can tell - was created in Feb 08 but no sign of it in that month's proposals log. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC) - Proposed in january 2008. You appear to have understood upmerging corerctly. Waacstats (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yup - sometimes it takes over a month between proposal and creation. Easiest way to check if something's been proposed is to look in the template's "Whatlinkshere" list to see whether there's a link to one of the proposal subpages. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems necessary but appears not to have the stamp of approval, nor to have the parent category Category:Sports stubs. 45 pages in it - will be 47 in a minute as there are 2 to go there in the current stubs list. PamD (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC) - It was proposed, but for some reason must have slipped by withoutthe category being properly parented. A little small, but likely as not that's due to undersorting. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed, and used on ten articles, nine of which are actually school stubs and should be marked as such - only one would really count as an edu-stub. I've no objection to creation of an upmerged Taiwan-school-stub, but I'm not convinced we need an edu-stub for Taiwan, nor that we need a separate category. Grutness...wha? 08:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC) - Sorry, I didn't realize this would be a problem and I'm sorry I didn't go through the proper channels. I work extensively with school articles, and I say that placing all the Taiwan school stubs under Category:Asian school stubs was not ideal, as it made finding Taiwan stubs quite difficult. It seemed easiest to group all Taiwan school stubs under an education category like Category:Hong Kong education stubs and per convention at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Education i.e. everything covered under Education in Taiwan and for any future project such as WikiProject:Education in Taiwan. There are certain to be Taiwan stubs for libraries, schools, school districts, universities, vocational schools, examinations, and teachers, but I'm not convinced we are at the quantity where a subcategory of stubs is needed. When such a breakdown is needed, I think it should be done as Category:United States education stubs where there is a breakdown between schools and universities and then a further breakdown by territory --Jh12 (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- No real problem, though as I said, a Taiwan-school-stub would make more sense, and I'd suggest renaming and rescoping this one appropriately, especially if you're intent on filling it up rapidly. In most cases, Cat:Foo education stubs are made largely as holders for separate school and university stub subcategories, and the -edu- templates are mainly used for things which don't really fall under either. This is the case, for instance, with the United States education stubs category you mentioned. Note that they should never be used for biographical articles in individual educators, as you have done with quite a number of articles since I listed this category here! As for the Hong Kong category, it was largely the work of an editor who was long a thorn in the side of the stub-sorting project, and we simply haven't got around to renaming it yet :/ Grutness...wha? 09:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm; perhaps if I simply created Template:Taiwan-school-stub as well, and have Taiwan-school-stub and Template:Taiwan-university-stub add articles to Category:Taiwan education stubs. The policies regarding all this could be made somewhat clearer. I saw educators under the Hong Kong category and assumed they belonged; note that Hong Kong and Singapore are the largest Asian school categories, at least for WikiProject Schools, so I hope those categories are made clearer. I also work on all of the base Category:Schools from time to time, and it's often a mess. Was there a specific guideline page regarding education stubs? Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not as far as I know - it is a little ad hoc, as you point out above. Theoretically, a new {{Taiwan-school-stub}} should be proposed at WP:WSS/P too - just for form, since I doubt there'd be any objections (it's a speediable type). It may even have enough stubs for its own category (which would be a subcat of both Cat:Asian school stubs and Cat:Taiwan education stubs). {{Taiwan-university-stub}} already exists, but yes, it could be upmerged to both Cat:Asia university stubs and Cat:Taiwan education stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems sensible, and in line with other similar templates, and thankfully it's upmerged. Would have nice if it had beeen proposed, though. Grutness...wha? 08:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC) - Sorry for not proposing it first, genuinely didn't realise I needed to. The coloured notice says "please propose new stub categories here" and as I wasn't proposing a new stub category, but only a new template which generated the existing stub category Category:English football midfielder, pre-1940 birth stubs, I thought I didn't have to. Will know better in future. Should also declare {{England-footy-defender-1860s-stub}}, also created by me yesterday without proposing first, for which I imagine there'll be rather less demand than for the 1870s one. The rationale for both would be for consistency with the other English footballer playing position/birth decade stub templates. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Upmerged, and in line with other similar by-decade types, so seems keepable on that basis. Doubt this will ever need splitting out with its own category though, given that the earliest organisation of the AFL was only in the late 1850s - there can't be that many stubs on Aussie Rules players from that era. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC) New unproposed stub type for an order of monocot plants, complete with its own category (don't you love it when unproposed categories spring up with the WP:WSS notice saying not to create stub types without proposal already in them? Sort of adding insult to injury, or - in this case - perhaps gilding the lily is a better term). Problem with this one is that Cat:Monocot stubs has fewer than 210 unsubcatted stubs, so it's not within a bull's roar of needing a further new split. It also greatly reduces the chances that this type - currently with 25 stubs - will get close to threshold. The template may well be useful in the long run, but it should very likely be upmerged for now. Grutness...wha? 11:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC) - How quickly we forget. See Proposals, August 2007. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- My count then didn't show viability, either, so I think a category was not necessarily implied by that discussion. If not populable now, upmerge. Alai (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- The count at the time was 68. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- And now it's at 80. May we keep it, please? Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. Sorry I didn't know qabout the proposal - trouble with "implied splits" like this one and the one below is that there's no link to the proposal in the "what links here" of the category or template, so it didn't look like it had been proposed. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- There's a link to the category from the proposal (but admittedly not to the template). Alai (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- ...and I spot them when I go through Special:NewPages/Templates each day, which explains why I didn't see it. I'm far more likely to check the template's links, and didn't recognise the creator's name, so assumed it was unproposed - sorry :/ Grutness...wha? 05:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- No harm, no foul. Not my proposal in this case, but I must admit I tend to only link (or indeed explicitly list) the category. Of course, if something is proposed initially as an upmerged template, the reverse will be the case (and perhaps otherwise, too). Alai (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have assuaged my (admittedly microscopic) feelings of indignation by adding a note to the top of this page. :P Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed, but at least the template seems reasonable. Seems to have been pasted over from the equivalent 1980s template and category... Unfortunately, the new category is a problem, however, since it's clearly not likely to reach threshold in the immediate future (I doubt we have 60 stub articles on teenaged defensive linemen at present). Suggest that for the time being upmerging would probably be the most sensible option. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC) [edit] Newly discovered, August 2008 Unproposed. No objection to the template, which looks fine, but the category looks likely to remain woefully undersized for a considerable time. Cat:Pakistan stubs is getting close to needing splitting (more on that at WP:WSS/P), but this isn't the best option for a split. I'd recommend keeping the template but upmerging it. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Unproposed, but this one sounds pretty useful... though not with this name. The parent permcat would be one of Cat:Students' unions, Cat:Student societies, or Cat:Associations of students, which suggests that this should be at {{Student-union-stub}}, {{Student-association-stub}}, or {{Student-society-stub}} and either be upmerged to Cat:Youth organization stubs or - iff numbers warrant - have its own (not redlinked!) {{equivalently titled stubcat. Student-association-stub might be the most all-encompassing of the three options (and would allow the fraternities and sororities types to be subcategories of it), though student-union-stub also has its merits. BTW, I have proposed at CFD that Cat:Associations of students be renamed to a more reasonable-sounding Cat:Student associations. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC) User:Urbanrenewal proposed several templates recently, but when he created them he added in a couple of extra ones (upmerged) for good measure. Probably worthwhile in the long run, though the icon sizes are pretty outrageously large. Grutness...wha? 04:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC) - I don't see any problem with adding these differentiations. I have added two sub-stubs on the expectation that these will likely be subcategorized and would rather tag the articles once rather than have to go back and re-tag. As there was no opposition to the creation of the stubs {{private-equity-bio-stub}}, I see no problem with adding {{US-private-equity-bio-stub}} and {{UK-private-equity-bio-stub}} which both feed into the same category. I made the image size 5px smaller - I think "outrageously large" is somewhat overstated. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 12:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Though yuou don't see any problems with differentiating them, and - as I pointed out - they're probably worthwhile, they should have been proposed with the others. As to the size of the icon, reducing it from 80px to 75px when the standard for stub icons is 40px means they are still outrageously large. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed, though well formed. May meet threshold requirements, given size of permcat parent, but this is not guaranteed. Likely to have significant overlap with several other stub types... Seems like a "wait and see" approach may be best for this one? Grutness...wha? 04:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC) - Trust me, I was looking and searching stubs but I did not find what I was looking for. So I had two posibilities: to create stub for Kemetism or create some general neopaganistic stub. I choose the second option, because I believe, that this general stub can be more usefull. And believe me I would rather use existed stub than cerating a new-one. But there was not what I needed. The closest was paganism stub, but paganism is not the same as neopaganism (each-one has here individual articles and whole individual cathegories).
- If that stub will be considered as a mistake I will accept verdict.
But at that moment I did what I considered as the best. - --Niusereset 25.VIII. MMVIII, 13:35 CEST
Unproposed, and we don't normally split biostubs by subnational reason, per previous precedent. I see noreal reason why Ontario should be an exception to thzt. Grutness...wha? 21:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Unproposed, and counter-hierarchy. I'd have taken this straight to WP:SFD if it wasn't for the fact that this has already over 800 stubs! Which is understandable, when you think about it, since that's bound to happen with any plant category based on a country - one of the reasons why WP:WSS doesn't split plant stubs in this way. All other plant-stub subtypes are by taxonomy, exactly the same way that animals, fungi, viruses, etc are divided up. Even with 800 stubs, rthis should be deleted: it sets a nasty precedent (do we want country-plant-stubs cropping up for 200-odd other countries?) Yes, much of Australias biota is unique, but enough of it isn't for this to cause many problems, either of overlap or usage definition. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC) - Support "Counter-hierarchy"! Crikey Moses! If you delete this, you'll have to upmerge its 850 stubs to {{Australia-stub}}, which currently only has 398 articles in its root category. And do you know what will happen? Someone will look at Category:Australia stubs, notice that more than two thirds of its 1200 articles are plant articles, and say "we really really really need a plant subcategory". And rightly so. So how about doing the sensible thing, and accept that there is a first time for everything, and that this is a perfectly reasonable stub even if it is "counter-hierarchy", whatever than means. Hesperian 00:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. The assertion "All other plant-stub subtypes are by taxonomy" is false; we have {{vegetable-stub}}, {{fruit-stub}}, {{tree-stub}}, {{fruit-tree-stub}}, {{Fabaceae-tree-stub}} and arguably {{Grass-stub}}. Hesperian 01:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- These wouldn't be in Australia stubs for the most part, since they'd be in their taxon groups (several of which might be possible as subtypes of Australia stubs, but generally they wouldn't go in there). And it isn't a "perfectly reasonable stub" for the reasons I mentioned. And though "tree" and "grass" may not be specific parts of the taxonomy of plants, they are descriptive enough that specific taxonomical groups lie totally within them or are readily split by them without overlap - such as the Fabaceae-tree-stub type you mentioned. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Leaving aside the false claim that all that other plant stubs are taxon specific, and the irrelevant observation that this is unproposed, "The reasons [you] mentioned" boil down to "it sets a nasty precedent", which is rather begging the question since you haven't actually given a cogent argument why it is "nasty"; and "problems of overlap".
- With the respect to the latter, no doubt you realise that every tree-stub is also some kind of taxon-stub, just as every Australia-plant-stub is also some kind of taxon-stub. Yes, you are able to eliminate some overlap by creating hideous cross-stubs like Fabaceae-tree-stub, but I am equally capable of eliminating overlap by creating hideous cross-stubs like Australia-Proteaceae-stub. So what's the difference, other than the fact that you like one and not the other?
- And the problem of overlap with other (presently non-existent) country-plant-stubs will still be there regardless, since these stubs will end up tagged with the parent country-stubs, which overlap in exactly the same way.
- I might just as well say that "native to Australia" may not be a specific part of the taxonomy of plants, but it is descriptive enough that specific taxonomic groups lie totally within it or are readily split by it without overlap.
- Hesperian 02:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Offtopic: some confusion was perhaps caused by the fact that a number of taxon-stubs had been inappropriately made children of tree-stub. Sapindales-stub should not have been a child of tree-stub, as many taxa are not trees; e.g. Boenninghausenia is a herb! Palm-stub should not have been, either; e.g. Desmoncus grows as a vine! Ditto Myrtaceae, Acacia, Salicaceae, Ulmaceae, Ilex, and Fagales, all of which have shrubby species) Hesperian 02:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I find this stub category to be very useful and have already used it to update and maintain quite a number of Australian flora articles. Melburnian (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment In my opinion, creating a stub type based on its country is only valid if such templates is created for all the nations listed in List of countries. Singling out a country can show systematic bias. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Comment - why are people !voting "keep", "support" etc on this page? This is not SFD, this is WP:WSS's discoveries page. There is no point in !voting here - keep that until the if-and-when of this getting transferred to WP:SFD. All that is asked for here is a rationale for the creation of this stub type, and possible arguments for and against it - preferably ones which refer to normal stubbing practice. Grutness...wha? 21:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC) - Perhaps because the other two sections that have attracted comments here have also attracted !votes? So who gets to decide whether this gets transferred to SFD if opinions on the matter are unwelcome here? Or, to put it another way, if you're going to take this to SFD regardless of what people say here, then what is the purpose of this forum? Hesperian 01:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- The other two? There are seven other sections on the August section of this page lone, and only one of them attracted similar !votes - followed by a comment that such !votes were inappropriate. As to "what is the purpose of this forum", the purpose is to report to WP:WSS stub types that have been made out of process, to get a response from the person who made them as to why they were made, and to have other members of WP:WSS discuss whether they fit in with that project - this is, after all a WP:WSS subpage. At that point, it should become obvious whether the stub types are definite keepers or are worth opening up to debate by the rest of Wikipedia on WP:SFD. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed. Makes some sense, given the number of articles this might be useful for. Certainly with the politics of the area, um, heating up, this may be of use, but atthe moment there's no guarantee of those numbers, so it may need upmerging... somewhere. I';ve fixed the coding on the template and I'm about to give the category some sensible parents, BTW. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC) - Support. As creator of the template. This makes obvious sense, and is most certainly needed, it is a perfect companion to WP:ARCTIC and it will also be very helpful with Portal:Arctic, as well as with noting which articles along the topic area require improvement. Cirt (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support quite definitely meets the inclusion threshold. It will also be of use to the corresponding Wikiproject and Portal as Cirt said. - Icewedge (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support The articles which are GA and FA are helping formulate wikipedia's coverage of the arctic, in the same format as the Antarctic project and portal, which has been ongoing awhile. The stub articles have to be discovered first in order for folks to edit and expand them to GA and FA. SriMesh | talk 05:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Look at Cat:Nunavut stubs which has 421. Not all of them will be above the Arctic Circle but I suspect that more than 60 are. In fact there is probably going to be a need for other related stubs to ensure that the Cat:Arctic stubs is not overpopulated. Why I really think there may need to be at least 57 stub types to cover the project. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- All of you need to know what this page is for - there is not much point in expressing "support" or "opposition" here - this is simply a page for announcing new unproposed stubs and assessing them in the context of stub sorting - something which none of you have really done - not for indicating whether the stub should be created (which should have been done at a proposal stage at WP:WSS/P) or kept (which may be done if this stub type is nominated for deletion at WP:SFD). Indeed the notice I placed on Cirt's talkpage only asked for some reason for the stub type's creation. I'm at a little bit of a loss with these replies, since none of them really relate to the need for this stub type, so I'll reply to each in turn:
- Cirt, you have given perfect reasons for having a talk page banner template, but none whatsoever for having a stub template. Stub templates are not used by individual WikiProjects; they are used across Wikipedia as a whole. As such, a stub type is never a "companion" to a WikiProject. WikiProjects use specific talk page banners which allow them to assess all articles relating to their subjects - that's why they're generally preferred by Wikiprojects to stub templates.
- Icewedge, how does it meet the inclusion threshold? The "inclusion threshold" is to have 60 existing stubs (well, 30, given that there's a WikiProject)which are marked with the template prior to the creation of the category, or the same number of stubs listed which may use it prior to the creation of the template. This template is not used on any articles and the category is empty.
- SriMesh, how does having GA and FA articles in any way indicate that a stub template is needed? The stub articles relating to the Arctic, what there are of them (which is a fairly small number) are already categorised into effective stub types. Again, it wwould be easier to find articles if a talk page template (such as, for example, {{WPBeatles}}) was used by your project instead.
- CBW, there are 33 articles in Cat:Nunavut stubs - there are, however, lots of Cat:Nunavut geography stubs - by definition, these wouldn't be marked with {{arctic-stub}} - they would need to be marked with {{Arctic-geo-stub}} - something which hasn't been proposed and would be highly unlikely to be agreed to, since where possible geography stubs are classified by whichever nation or subnational region they lie within (in this case, quite obviously Canada and Nunavut respectively). It seems highly unlikely that threshold can be reached from those 33 stubs alone. As for the idea of needing 57 stub types, that is - to be frank - fairly ludicrous. A comparison of the necessary split of the Arctic region to the split of Africa into the 57 sovereign nations within that continent is a very poor one - how many sovereign nations actually exist in the Arctic which are not already part of another continental designation? Any at all? Grutness...wha? (adding signature here, since SriMesh has decided to reply in the middle of my comments rather than at the end)
- Because of the Ilulissat Declaration, economics, ice melting, oil drilling, the Arctic boundaries are currently being re-drawn and the scientiic progress will last from now until around 2013. So...Labelling content with a country name now, may change, an arctic related articles//stubs would be so much easier to find all labelled as arctic. Trying to install a wikinew Arctic portal, and arctic new articles are categorized by many countries, but nothing to bring coherency to the arctic. So is the same with arctic related articles. The north pole belongs to no one right now. Every north pole explorer should be tagged with arctic to be accessible, until perhaps the finale of Ilulissat Declaration where maybe there will be an owner. So some things need to be arctic stubs.SriMesh | talk 06:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Are you trying to tell me that places in, say Nunavut might suddenly find themselves becoming part of Greenland, or Svalbard might suddenly find itself part of Russia? Because if not, then no difference will be made that is significant to stub sorting by the declaration, and even if it was, if that difference is not going to occur for over four years then it is not an issue which needs addressing now. All the land mass around the Arctic will surely remain in the countries it now lies within. All the sea and pack-ice area will still be within the ocean, and as such will use marine-geo-stub. All the exploration which has been done by individual countries will still have been done by those individual countries and will be stubbed accordingly. All the oilfields will still use oilfield-stub. All the geological details will still use geology-stub. Every north pole explorer will still be marked with explorer-stub. All these things are already stubbed in such a way that they can be found by general Wikipedia editors, and any editors within a specific Arctic wikiproject would be far better off looking for them using a banner assessment template by which they can find all articles on the arctic, not just stubs. Grutness...wha? 08:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- "...any editors within a specific Arctic wikiproject would be far better off looking for them using a banner assessment template by which they can find all articles on the arctic, not just stubs"' - I agree. But this seems to be an argument against stub templates in general, and in favour of WikiProjects. Wouldn't someone looking for, say, plant stubs, be better off looking at WikiProject Plants (or whatever)? Ditto for lots of stub types. My assertion is that if you look at the current set-up of the Antarctic stubs, you have explorers and expeditions there that are classified by where the exploration took place, rather than the country that did the exploration. Can you explain that? Carcharoth (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Compare instead the situation as it is with stub types for Antarctica. The main reason why an antarctica-gteo-stub was created was because Antarctica, by both definition and international treaty, is a continent which is not within the jurisdiction of any nation. As such, any stubs on Antarctica could not be automatically assigned to any currently existing national geo-stub type. Eventually, the number of these stubs became so great that a separate stub type was created for the geography of subantarctic islands covered by the Antarctic treaty. A third stub type, for items about Antarctica that were not geography-related, was eventually created, but it only just scraped into the size where a separate category was warranted. The same geopolitical situation does not occur with the Arctic. It isn't a continent, and national sovereignty covers much of the area. As such, most of the stubs which would possibly warrant an arctic-stub are already well-covered by national stub types. The area which is open sea (or pack ice) outside national jurisdictions is covered by marine-geo-stub as far as its geography is concerned.
- Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that having this stub type is a bad idea per se - I indicated as much in my initial comments. All I'm saying is that the reasoning behind it seems pretty faulty, as does the expectation of what articles should andd could use it - and your WikiProject would be far better off handling the articles in a different way, via a talk page banner. Grutness...wha? 09:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oh dear. I created the category (Category:Arctic stubs) while tidying up Category:Arctic (mainly to dump the Alaska stubs in there), but I was waiting a bit before creating the stub template, as I knew it would need to be approved. I was also waiting to propose the WikiProject and the Portal, but it seems a wave of enthusiasm has resulted in everything being created and lots of work being done. Admittedly, as Grutness points out, not a lot of stubs have been identified and people might be misunderstanding what stubs are for, but can someone who knows more about this clarify what degree of "permission" is needed for new stubs, new wikiprojects and new portals. Anyone? Carcharoth (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- On another point, Grutness, would you have time to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arctic/Likely articles, a long list of about 1500 articles that are in the Arctic Circle (if the bot got this right). Is there a way to identify the stubs in that list and to decide the best way to handle them? I understand your geopolitical argument above, but I think if there is more motivation for people to tackle and improve stubs from an Arctic perspective, than a national perspective, that might be an argument for having this stub type. Ultimately, though, if we just assess stuff within the scope of the project as stubs, then we end up with Category:Stub-Class Arctic articles - which then leads me to ask: Why have stubs at all? Why not just mark stubs by talk page assessments? I'm also looking at Category:Antarctica stubs, and similar stub articles exist for the Arctic, they just aren't tagged yet (look at Category:Arctic). But before we try and find 60 stubs not covered by any other stub type, could you suggest what would be a suitable example of an Arctic stub? Carcharoth (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Making a third post to bring up some detail. I've looked through Category:Arctic, and the areas I think are most suitable in terms of having stubs that *might* benefit from such a stub template, are Category:Arctic research, Category:Government of the Arctic, Category:History of the Arctic and Category:Culture of the Arctic. And Category:Arctic Ocean does have a lot. Could you explain how {{marine-geo-stub}} would be used for that? Carcharoth (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- Ooookay... this will probably need a long answer. As far as "permission" is concerned, it is true that no formal permission is actually needed for new stub types - it's not policy. It is, however, a very strong recommendation, given the huge number of stub types ion Wikipedia and the necessity to have them organised in some form of order so that they don't become unmanageable. Trying to keep the stub types useable is so much of a case of herding cats as it is that anything that can be done to reduce the free creation of new stub types is a major advantage, not just for WP:WSS, but for Wikipedia as a whole. It is the only way that the creation of tens of thousands of stub types on a host of trivial ssubjeects 9and also the creation of hosts of virtually identical stub types) can be avoided. That's why WP:STUB gives pretty comprehensive guidelines on the best way to create stubs. It's also why we have a "discoveries" page here, rather than simply taking any unproposed stubs to WP:SFD to be deleted or keept by consensus (in a way, this discoveries page acts as a stepping stone to either acceptance of the unproposed stub or - if it has too many problems - nomination for deletion. In the case of this stub, acceptance is likely, I'd say, though there are, as I've pointed out, some concerns with it. (BTW - there is a Cat:Alaska stubs with four subcategories for those stubs!)
-
- Unfortunately, the easiest way to assess which articles in a list like that are stubs and which aren't is by manually sorting at them. An article isn't simply a stub by virtue of its length (see my short essay on that point). And if you're going to sort them manually, then going the whole way with assessment templates and FA- A- B- C- Stub-Classes is probably handled at that time. As to why have stubs at all, the reason lies in the fundamental ddifference between assessment templates - used by just one WikiProject - and stub templates - used by the whole of Wikipedia. If every simgle possible subject had its dedicated WikiProject, and all Wikipedians were members of those projects, then we probably wouldn't need stub templates. But that isn't the case. So two parallel systems are used, one to cover specific subjects by specific projects, and one to cover all subjects and for all editors. This also gives some indication as to why individdual WikiProjects are better off concentrating on assessment templates (a point also made in the blank wikiproject template {{WikiProject}}). A suitable example of an arctic stub might be something like SCICEX, currently listed in Cat:Oceanography stubs
-
- Admittedly, marine-geo-stub couldn't be used for all of those articles you mention, though others, such as, for instance, {{explorer-stub}}, {{Greenland-stub}}, {{geophysics-stub}}, {{ocean-stub}}, {{{{glaciology-stub}}, {{NorthAm-native-stub}} (a separate inuit-stub might be a reasonable idea, as might a svalbard-geo-stub, which seems to be missing from our Norwegian geo-stubs), do exist. If there are enough articles tagged with these stubs that would qualify for an arctic-stub, then they could be double-stubbed with them (i.e., adding the arctic-stub but also keeping the stub that's there) - and remember that as the main stub type for a wikiproject it only needs 30, not 60, to be regarded as a reasonable stub type. Those stub types would probably be the best first places to start looking for arctic stubs. The main problem really is defining exactly what should and shouldn't have such a stub type, especially given that - as I pointed out - the Arctic isn't a sovereign nation, and as such many stubs which seem to qualify are better stubbed in other ways. {{Glaciology-stub}} is an example of the sort of problems faced - that stub type is for glacier science, but the category doesn't (or at least shouldn't) articles about the glaciers themselves, each of which has its appropriate geo-stub. As for marine-geo-stub itself, BTW, if it grows to several times its current size it may well eventually be split by region - in which case an arctic-marine-geo-stub would be a logical type (not yet, though!). Grutness...wha? 00:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for the detailed reply, which has helped clear things up a bit for me. In terms of actually getting things done, do you think having both a WikiProject-assessed stub category and an article-tagged stub category would help, or just the WikiProject stub category alone? My other question concerns areas where some of the articles have already been expanded beyond stubs. If this has happened, and the remaining stubs are low in number, does this preclude the creation of a stub category? What happens to existing stub categories when they only have 10-15 stubs left? Are they upmerged and deleted, or are they left in place in the hope that more stubs will be created? How is it decided when an "approved" stub category has finished its purpose and can be deleted? I'm still looking at Category:Antarctica stubs, and I suspect that it used to have a lot more stubs in it that got expanded (not that it is easy to tell). Carcharoth (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I think that concentrating on the assessment template would probably be best, though the stub type may be useful as well if enough stub articles are found (the two can coexist comfortably enough). With the assessment template it wouldn't matter if the number drops too much, though you're right that it might cause a problem with a stub category. It rarely happens, given that the rate of new article creation is usually greater than the rate of article expansion, but proposed stub types have been taken to SFD in the past, though usually simply for upmerging (i.e., keeping the template but pointing it at a larger, more general category). WP:WSS usually takes a 'wait and see" approach tol see whether the numbers go up again, so it's often a year or more between the number dwindling away towards zero and anything being done about the category. Antarctica stubs hasn't changed in size too much since it was made - the threshold for category creation is often lowered if there's a natural subcategory such as the geo-stub one. Grutness...wha? 08:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
As I feared, this stub type is being thoroughly misused. At the time of writing there are 100 stubs marked with arctic-stub. Of those, eight seem to use it legitimately - the remaining 92 are geo-stubs already marked with appropriate geo-stub templates. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC) [edit] kleinian theory/object relations/depressive and paranoid-schizoid positions kleinian theory/object relations/depressive and paranoid-schizoid positions: hi. im not sure this is how or where to ask or say so, but this is my discovery. Object relations theory is part of the psychology portal, and Melanie Klein is a major theorist. The Object relations page needed work, so i wrote little subsections on the theory. Today, I realize there are already stubs written on Depressive position and paranoid-schizoid position but they are just danglers, and not linked up. They should be within the object relatons page at a minimum. I would be happy to do something about this, but im not really sure what or how, i just know it needs to be linked, or integrated, or something. and it seems one is requested to say so here. Thanks. Majicshrink (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC) - This isn't the forum for this - this is to discuss stub templates and categories. You'd be better taking this to somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems vaguely reasonable, though size and actual scope could be an issue. Should it, for instance, include religions and similar like raelism and scientology? Seems plausible that it might reach threshold, though if not it can always be upmerged into the correctly but somewhat unnervingly named Cat:Paranormal stubs (do these stubs dematerialise before your eyes? Or edit themselves?) Grutness...wha? 01:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Currently only 36 articles, but I'd hold off with anything for a couple of weeks for obvious reasons! SeveroTC 21:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Seems a reasonable - if unproposed - addition to the range of stub templatyes, though the category seems woefully undersized at present. Cat:French sportspeople stubs is getting close to the point of needing to be pared back, though, so trying to find the remaining 30 stubs necessary is probably a first option over upmerging. Grutness...wha? 02:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC) - If nobody gets there first I'll try and find the extra articles this weekend. Waacstats (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- There are 39 articles in Cat:French swimmers (plus one in subcat) so I don't think 60 is going to happen. This was actually on my list of upmerged templates to propose. Upmerge. SeveroTC 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Severo Upmerge.Waacstats (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Newly discovered, July 2008 And another unproposed one. Seems reasonable in scope, but will likely never get close to threshold for a separate category - the parent permcat only has 24 articles, less than half the number needed for a stubcat. Even if stubs were made for every redlink on List of Cuban films it still wouldn't get within 15 of threshold. Upmerging is definitely desirable. Grutness...wha? 01:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Another unproposed one.Possibly useful and in line with other similar splits, but unlikely to reach threshold for its own category (I've upmerged it). Grutness...wha? 02:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Unproposed, and probably fine as an upmerged template, at least. This linked both to upmerged types and also to its own new category (a clear example of overcatting if ever there was one). The Cat:Turkish writer stubs is currently undersized, and may well stay so - if it does, upmerging looks the most sensible option. Grutness...wha? 02:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Unproposed, and likely to remain very small - but it is standard and upmerged, so it can probably stay in that form. Grutness...wha? 02:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Despite the categories rather combersome name, this is in line with other similar categories. Unproposed, and currently undersized - will probably grow to threshold, but if not upmerging is always an option. Grutness...wha? 02:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC) - My mistake - I didn't realise all new stub templates had to be proposed now. Yes it is rather undersized at the moment. Feel free to get rid of it as it can't always be merged back into Category:British nobility stubs. Craigy (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Newly discovered, June 2008 An interesting one... we have Cat:Jazz saxophonist stubs, but its parenting is directly to Cat:Woodwind musician stubs with no middle step. However, the number of non-jazz saxophonists with articles is very considerably below threshold (this is used on two articles, though the only other rock saxophonists I can instantly think of - John Helliwell and Raphael Ravenscroft - also have stubs, which I shall mark with this template). There may well be more, however, especially from the 1950s era of rock & roll and from the ska/reggae booms of the 60s and 70s. It may be that keeping the category as an intermediate step between the jazz and woodwind categories is a good move, but I worry about size - the template would be fine, upmerged or as is. If kept, the category will need to be formatted properly (it's a bit sparse at the moment in terms of its details/parentage - and has an unexpected commo0ns link, too). Grutness...wha? 02:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC) - Yeah, I thought it was a little odd that there was no category for non-jazz sax players too, seeing as I could think of a few (Saxa (musician) and Ian Kirkham had to go under {{musician-stub}}because I could not find a better-suited one). I am currently trying to find as many articles I can put there as possible - I think that it will hit the threshold soon. Rdbrewster♪♫♪ 17:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I think that if it does not hit the threshold, then should be merged into this one.
Yet another unproposed footy-bio-stub "upmerged" by the artificial creation of a parent stub category (it seems an extremely annoying trend has started in the last week or so). Though the template may have some use, the category is likely to remain very tiny (we don't even have enough stubs for a Cat:Turkmenistan people stubs category yet!). Grutness...wha? 07:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC) - I created this stub by mirroring many others that have been used in WP:FOOTY. If it is annoying, please feel free to delete it. It does however serve a useful purpose even if there are not yet that many stubs in this category. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- I just read the comments regarding the Lebanon-footy-bio stub, and it seems this stub was already proposed and accepted. Sorry that I didn't follow the proper channels, but I think the stub should be kept if someone else proposed it and it was approved. Jogurney (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Again, all Asian football biography upmerged stubs were approved awhile back by us, I think Valentinian proposed them. I will look back and find exactly the date.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Even so, the proposal didn't include any new categories - it was for upmerged templates (i.e., upmerged to existing categories). Grutness...wha? 21:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed and redlinked. We haven't started to split mall stubs up by country too much, though it's probably a reasonable idea. This would probably be better upmerged into Cat:Mall stubs - if we had one (why don't we?) - and the Canadian B&S stub categories though. Grutness...wha? 02:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC) - A universal mall (or shopping centre) cat would be best. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 02:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- There's likely no Cat:Mall stubs because there's also no {{Mall-stub}} to fill it. I'm not saying there's no need, just that nobody's gone through the motions yet. - Dravecky (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oddly, we do have a long-accepted {{US-mall-stub}}, though. A more generic mall-stub would be a good idea (though is probably better discussed at WSS/P than here. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oceanian sportspeople stubs Seemingly as an upshot (albeit unproposed) of this proposal, Cat:Samoan sportspeople stubs, Cat:Lebanese sportspeople stubs, Cat:Tongan sportspeople stubs, Cat:Papua New Guinean sportspeople stubs, Cat:Cook Islands sportspeople stubs and Cat:Fijian sportspeople stubs have been created. Few of these are likely to break a dozen articles. The parent categories (national (bio) stubs, Oceanian sports people stubs and sport bio stubs) are not oversized. Not worth keeping any imo. SeveroTC 23:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC) - The Fijian one was proposed and should reach 65 at least - the others probably need monitoring but yes, upmerger definitely seems possible. However it wouldn't surprise me if several of them could get to 60 stubs (we're not talking Cat:Pitcairn sportspeople stubs, after all!). As for whether Lebanon is in Oceania, that's another matter... :) Grutness...wha? 00:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- A quick scan through the What-links-here of {{samoa-bio-stub}} reveals about 35 rugby union, boxing, and athletics bios to go with the 22 rugby league ones - it will come very close to 60 overall. Tonga would also get a significant boost towards threshold. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hm. You're right about the proposal though - looks like the creator of these completely misunderstood what had been said about upmerging - these should all have simply been templates pointing to Cat:Rugby league biography stubs, their own Cat:Fooian people stubs, and (in all cases except Lebanon) to Cat:Oceanian sportspeople stubs. There shouldn't have been any new categories made (other than the Fiji case I mentioned). The parenting of these new categories is a bit shocking, too - there's the assumption that all sportspeople from these countries are rugby league players, and the categories are also recursive. If these are kept they'll also need separate {{Foo-sports-bio-stub}} templates. This is in the "needs a lot of work" basket. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- I've tidied up the categories and parenting; they could make viable categories, although they seem quite premature. Some of the countries here don't even have {{foo-stub}}, let alone {{foo-bio-stub}} (particularly Cook Islands). I'll have a look at numbers tomorrow. SeveroTC 22:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Following playing with CatScan, all bar PNG and Cook Islands appear to be viable as cats (which will also need standard {{foo-sport-bio-stub}} templates); I support PNG and Cook Islands as upmerged templates. SeveroTC 23:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
If kept, Cat:Cook Islands sportspeople stubs would also need moving to Cat:Cook Island sportspeople stubs following this recent discussion. SeveroTC 08:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Unproposed, and not really needed given the size of its stub parent (Cat:Energy company stubs has only about 360 unsubcategorised stubs - only about halfway to the point where splitting's desired). No indication whether it would reach the 60-stub threshold either, though it seems implausible at present (Cat:Coal companies and all its subtypes between them have fewer than 70 articles). Might be worth keeping, but upmerging is definitely a prospect unless it grows beyond its current size of one stub! Grutness...wha? 01:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Our old friend Matthew hk has created a large number of new stub templates for football biography stubs by country in the Middle East, all of which are listed at thge top of the unfortunately named (also by mhk) Cat:West_Asian_football_biography_stubs, a category which I've taken to SFD for renaming. Grutness...wha? 23:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC) I found this stub on the article Anne Carr that has no Stub Category. Do you know what should be done about this? I've looked through the Stub List and can't find it. Kathleen.wright5 10:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC) - It's already listed under discoveries from February - basically it's an unproposed copy of {{Fem-activist-stub}} (which was decided some year or more ago to be a more precise name for what it shoud cover. {{tl|Feminist-stub will probably be taken to WP:SFD for either deletion or redirection at some point - for now, just change any stubs you find using it to use {{fem-activist-stub}} instead. Grutness...wha? 22:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed, though well-formed. No problems with the template, and no doubt the category will be needed sometime soon, but is it needed yet? Do we have stubs for 60 current Aussie rugby league pros under the age of eighteen and a half? This may be a case of "upmerge for now, with no prejudice against re-creating the category later". Grutness...wha? 01:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC) - Agree with upmerge. Waacstats (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed, small, and unlikely to come within easy reach of the category threshold any time soon. Also a severe case of "cart before the horse" since we don't even have an {{Albania-sport-bio-stub}} yet! Indeed, the number of otherwise unsubcategorised people in Cat:Albanian people stubs is fewer than 150, so no split is needed, and the size of Cat:Albanian basketball players (two articles) is hardly reassuring. Upmerging is probably the most sensible option here. BTW, on a related subject, it appears that there's something wrong with the subcategorisation of several basketball-bio types, if the population of Cat:Basketball players is anything to go by... Grutness...wha? 02:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC) - Support deletion and upmerger. As an aside I think the cart is already ahead of the horse given that we have more foo-footy-bio cats than foo-sport-bio cats (Albania included), but this is certainly not a case where we need to go that way. Waacstats (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems pretty well formed, and at 53 stubs is only slightly short of threshold - looks like a keeper, though it would have been nice to have found out about this before it was made :/ Grutness...wha? 02:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC) - i'm on a huge run from a spreadsheet of these (check Special:Newpages), and there should be about 100 (or more?) when i'm done. i figured it was ok since there are similar ones for other countries. Mangostar (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- They should still be propsoed (they're speediable in cases like this, so it's not a huge hold-up). It's still a good idea to do that, since how are the stub-sorting project supposed to be able to sort stub types using stub templates they're not aware of? Grutness...wha? 02:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Two new unproposed stub types for different yet related forms of Asian comics. Given the size of the parent permcats, it's doubtlful whether either would currently meet bthreshold (this is partticularly true for the Korean one). Perhaps creating an overarching Cat:Asian comic stubs would be a better idea than having these two separate marginal stub types, with these two templates upmerged into it. Grutness...wha? 02:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC) - Thanks for the talk page note! For some background, the World Comics working group at WikiProject Comics has been almost dormant since its creation, but now we're actively doing an enormous amount of work getting things set up to truly handle world comics, and we're starting with manhua and manhwa. These stub templates were created following current comics categories, and were separated because they deal with subjects in entirely different languages, thus largely attracting entirely different editors. Until now there has been no coordinated effort for dealing with Asian comics outside of Japan, and currently many articles in these subject areas are uncategorized or incorrectly categorized as Japanese manga. We are currently getting things correctly categorized, so their present size isn't necessarily indicative of their "actual" size, or potential size in the future. Lumping everything as "Asian comics" is, in my opinion, too broad and yields the tag fairly useless. At the absolute minimum, this large and diverse continent would need to be broken down. Note, the manhua-stub template is red-linked because the admin who's been working on the categorization is likely in bed at the moment. :) Sorry about all this - I had no idea I'd skipped an important step. Learning all the wikiprocedures can be quite an overwhelming task! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've now spent some time tagging many known stubs with the two new stub templates. There are now over 100 articles split between these two tags, I believe. I'll now spend time trying to find uncategorized or incorrectly categorized articles, and get them tagged, too, which may take quite a while. I'm also making a list of redlinks that I run into repeatedly or that I know are notable enough to deserve an article. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 10:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Part of the need for these stubs is that the areas of manhua and manwha have rather been overlooked and there is an effort through the Comics Project World comics workgroup to get things up to scratch. We've already been sorting out the relevant categories and the next stage will involve the creation of a number of new articles on the major works not yet covered which will probably involve translating from the original Chinese and Korean versions of Wikipedia. So one of the reasons they each need one is because we'll be working with the respective sister projects who will providing input on translation, transliteration, etc. and sinking the two into some broader category (which itself could conflict with the work of the Anime and Manga Project) would reduce the usefulness of them engagement with the different projects. (Emperor (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC))
Cat:Manhwa stubs now just sneaks in over the threshold with 62 stubs - Cat:Manhua stubs (created since this was listed here - again without proposal, but still) is still well below threshold at 41 stubs. Sounds like there's enough material that it may get up to the required 60, but if it doesn't, it may still need to be upmerged somewhere. It would have been very useful and saved a lot of fuss if these had been proposed first, though - please, in future, if you're planning to create stub types, propose them at WP:WSS/P for discussion! Grutness...wha? 00:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC) - First off, thank all of you for the input on this. I do believe that the two category need their own stub, because the subject is also associated with Chinese and Korean WikiProject respectively. Naturally, many editors who edit manhwa articles are likely Korean editors or editors interested in Korean pop culture so does the same on manhua. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Grutness, for the feedback. Again, had I known this had to be pre-approved, I certainly would have gone through the process. The amount of procedures on Wikipedia is extremely overwhelming (not a criticism, just a fact). These stub tags go a long way in helping us identify where work needs to be done, and what's missing. As an essentially brand-new project, it would be very tough to get off the ground without them. I do have a procedural question, though. What happens now? You say it may still need to be upmerged somewhere. When does that happen? What does that mean for all the articles we've tagged? Who makes the decisions? Thanks for your help. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 01:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Basically, to cut a long story short, there's a set threshold of 60 stubs for separate stub categories, so the Manhwa one's fine. As for the Manhua one, it will sit on this page for some time (often months!) to give us the opportunity to see whether it will get to 60 stubs (which of course you can help out on). If there's no sign of it doing so, it will be proposed for deletion/upmerging at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. In this case, it seems likely it will get to 60, but if it doesn't, then upmerging's the most likely outcome. That will simply mean changing the category link on the template to put all the articles into Cat:Comics stubs. Even then, you'd still be able to see what articles use the template using the "What links here" link in the toolbox. The template will still remain in use, so if it is eventually used on 60 articles then a separate category can be proposed for re-creation at WP:WSS/P. Hope that makes sense. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh okay, thank you so much! We'll have 60 in no time. I was worried this would happen, like, tomorrow or something. :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed and badly named (spot the missing hyphen). When found it had no category, either - I've upmerged it into the UK category until we decide what to do with it. Potentially useful, though Cat:United Kingdom newspaper stubs is hardly in need of splitting at only around 350 stubs. Probably reasonable as an upmerged template - if renamed to {{Scotland-newspaper-stub}} per standard. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC) - There are 30 articles in Cat:United Kingdom newspaper stubs and in Cat:Newspapers published in Scotland so it seems fair enough to have an upmerged template. SeveroTC 23:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Given that it seems to have been renamed and the version with the space is not used on any articles, I've done my "rouge admin" act and got rid of the original version. I agree that the rename is a reasonable upmerged type. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Upmerged and cookie-cuttered from an existing stub type, so probably perfectly fine. Why on earth it should feed into a geo-stub category is beyond me, though - buildings aren't supposed to go into those. Grutness...wha? 11:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC) A non-geo type for an Indian state. Plausible, but the number of stubs may not warrant a separate category. Grutness...wha? 02:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC) - Hi, Grutness: I think this stub will attract people from Maharashtra to contribute to articles relating to the history, culture and geography of this state. It's a lot easier for someone like me who knows something about Maharashtra, but very little about other states in India, to have a specific category to look for articles which need to be expanded. {{maharashtra-geo-stub}} doesn't quite cover it, as many articles (e.g. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Battle of Khadki, Nana Fadnavis, Maharashtra Academy of Sciences, Maharashtra Rashtravadi Congress, Shiv Sena) are directly or indirectly associated with the state, while not being "geographical" articles.
- Additionally, as a state organized along linguistic lines, Maharastra's history and culture is tightly bound to all the languages found within its borders, including the Marathi language, Konkani language, and Gujarati language, along with their respective writers, poets, scholars, social activists, and so on. Stubs within these areas could also be tagged as a {{Maharashtra-stub}}.
- In particular, I'm hoping to create stubs for the Peshwa and people relating to their history, and I'd like a way to attract people to work on these stubs in a more specific way than setting it as an {{India-hist-stub}}. I suppose the argument could be made that you're likely to get a better quality of edit from people who are more interested in Indian history than in Maharashtra in particular, although this way you'd probably get more enthusiastic edits. Although the Maratha empire and confederacy were India-wide in their influence and area, the Peshwa himself was always associated with Pune and its surroundings, particularly during the final, tumultous years of the empire.
- This stub would also not be without precedent: Both Kerala and Karnataka have stub categories with plenty of articles. Personally, I think it'd be nice to have Peshwa, modern history, culture, religion, writing and poets based mainly or significantly within the state of Maharashtra all having their stubs in one place, so that people with an interest in or who are familiar with the state can work on them.
- One possible counterargument in that all of the above deserve their own stubs: sub-stubs of Category:Indian writer stubs, Category:Indian royalty stubs, Category:Indian political party stubs, and so on. Counterarguments: there's bound to be some articles which are hard to categorize, this will create even more stubs (while the current proposal only results in one), and I think that using {{Maharashtra-stub}} will be an easier mechanism for new contributers to bring their articles to the attention of other writers familiar with this state than {{WP India}} in the talk page.
- That's my five cents, let me know what you think. -- Gaurav (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, hey - one question. I see that once a category has sixty articles or so, it's generally accepted unless it's really silly. Would it be unethical if I try to find sixty such articles - it'll all be wasted effort if this stub is deleted, but it might help make the point. What's the right thing to do under these circumstances? Thanks! -- Gaurav (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Best thing to do is either to create a list of them on a user subpage (e.g., User:Gaurav/Maharashtra stubs) or simply to mark any you find with {{Maharashtra-stub}} - chances are that even if it doesn't reach 60 stubs we'll keep the template and upmerge it (i.e., make it add stubs to a more general category like Cat:India stubs). That way, if there aren't 60 stubs now, the template will already be ready for when there are. As you pointed out, there are already similar categories for a couple of states, so this is a reasonable type - it's just a question of whether there are enough articles for it. As for the points about what could be covered by it, the solution is often to "double-stub" articles - e.g., buildings in Maharashtra would get both {{Maharashtra-stub}} and {{India-struct-stub}}. Most of the sub-types you suggest wouldn't have enough articles to warrant separate templates, and in any case, some types are specifically not made for national subregions (most bio-stubs don't have them, for instance, since people are free to move from place to place - most of them are more likely considered connected to a country than to one specific region of it. for that reason, we wouldn't consider a Maharashtra-writer-stub, for instance). Grutness...wha? 06:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good; I'll go hunting tonight and put {{Maharashtra-stub}} anywhere relevant. If I can't prove that the category is useful, it'll get merged upwards somewhere. Thanks for your help, and all the best with cleaning up the stubs - it must be the Aegean stables itself! -- Gaurav (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
WPJ, smattering of articles. Looks like a rename and upmerge to me. Alai (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC) - I'd agree. A rename's a definite (to lose the space), and unless there are a few dozen more articles areound upmerging seems a sensible option. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Not sure I see the point of this. I'm by no means against "container" categories, but this looks like it's trying to be an index of some kind. I'd be inclined to at the least remove the categories that wouldn't logically be top level children of this. Alai (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC) - Not overly sure of it myself, though as a parent-only type I doubt it does too much harm. Perhaps if it's kept a similar Cat:Natural science researchers (or similar) subcat should become a first level child to house the astronomers, biologists etc. If it's kept. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Not too bad an idea for an upmerged template, perhaps, but there's damn-all evidence that this is going to come close to threshold for its own category. The parent Cat:The Sims only has 23 articles, so even if every single one of them were a stub it would still be 37 short. The current Cat:The Sims stubs contains one article, and has no parents - stub or permcat. Potential upmerger candidate, perhaps? Grutness...wha? 02:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Looks OK, and I've now corrected the links to the (upmerged) categories. Would've been nice if it had been proposed first, though! Grutness...wha? 01:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC) - Just for the record, a split of Asian football biography stubs was proposed somewhere awhile back and accepted, so this shouldn't really be here.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed creation, a split from the hardly-overpopulated Cat:Tyranni stubs, which only had 130 unsubcatted stubs. This currently has 30 stubs, and seems unlikely to reach threshold at present. Upmerging seems a most likely outcome. Grutness...wha? 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC) - Hmm, didn't even know there was a Wikiproject regulating this when I created it. Just as a suggestion, is there a way to place the warning banner on the actual create-a-new-stub page? Anyways, upon viewing the criteria, the stub template won't meet the 60 benchmark as there are not 60 species of pittas. I created this new template because I thought, as the pittas are a unique family of birds with a fairly sizable number of species, it deserved its own stub template like many other bird families, such as the tyrant flycatchers or tapaculos. Additionally, the picture on the Tyranni stub template is that of a Scissor-tailed Flycatcher, which in terms of body shape looks nothing like a pitta; as for most of the stub articles it is the only image on the page, new readers unaware of what precisely a pitta is may see the picture of the flycatcher and assume that the pitta is similar in build. With a pitta-specific stub, a picture of a pitta can be used so that, even though there is not a picture of the actual species, a miniature image of a bird with a similar build is on the page. I didn't bring it up for discussion because A. I didn't know this place existed and B. I thought that it would be an uncontroversial move that I didn't need to mention at the Birds Wikiproject.
- That said, per the 60 benchmark at least, the pitta stub seems to fail the qualifications outlined by this group, although I feel they are unique and numerous enough to warrant their own stub. If my logic above is not enough to merit the pittas having their own stub group, feel free to delete the group. I'll help put the Tyranni stub marker back in if there isn't a bot to do it. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Even if there are less than 60, the template can survive. The problem is with the category. If you look in Cat:Tyranni stubs there are a couple of other templates with the same problem which are upmerged (i.e., the template feeds into the broader stub category. The same could be done here with no problem. As for your comment about the "create-a-stub page", I'm not sure which page you mean by that... most people wanting to find out about stubs would most likely go to WP:STUB, where it's already fairly prominently mentioned. Grutness...wha? 03:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, if the category is the problem then go ahead and fix it; I created it only to deredlink it at the bottom of the pitta stubs. For the "create-a-stub page", I made the stub by taking the existing stub command (whatever {{Pittidae-stub}} is called) and replacing the word Tyranni with Pittidae. I then previewed the page and clicked on the red link to create the stub. I copied the text from the Tyranni stub code and replaced it with the Pittidae specifics. The only note I ever saw was a small thing at the top of the create template page which asked me to make sure I wasn't duplicating anything. Does that help? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it's not really possible to put a separate warning on that, since stub templates are fortmed in exactly the same way as other templates. I'll take the category to WP:SFD - the template's not a problem though - I put it here as much as anything just because it was a discovery (i.e., not known by the stub-sorting WP). Grutness...wha? 01:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Do I need to do anything else? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not really - as with my comments on Swaminarayan-stub below, if it gets close to 60, then feel free to propose re-creating the category at WP:WSS/P - other than that, it's pretty much sorted out :) Grutness...wha? 02:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed, but a reasonable template. Should be upmerged for now rather than having its own category if kept, though. Grutness...wha? 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC) - Done. Alai (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed, and with no category link. presumably for the Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism, though Swaminarayan itself is a dab page. If kept, it will therefore need rewording, and likely also upmerging into Cat:Hinduism stubs. Grutness...wha? 04:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Could anyone help with the rewording. I created the stub not knowing about this. There are at least 15 articles that could use it Juthani1 tcs 15:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC) - Will do. Grutness...wha? 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, is there anything else that needs to be done? Juthani1 tcs 11:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's fine as it is now - if ever it gets to be used on 60 or more articles, feel free to propose a separate category for it at WP:WSS/P, too. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Newly discovered, May 2008 [edit] European school-stub types User:Ratarsed has been on a bit of a spree creating several country-school-stub types for European countries. 34 of them, to be precise - too many to list here, but suffice to say that we now seem to have most of them from {{Azerbaijan-school-stub}} in the east to {{IsleofMan-school-stub}} in the west. All the ones I checked seem to be upmerged, which is a relief, and all seem OK. It would have been nice to have been told, is all :/ Grutness...wha? 02:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC) - Proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2008/May#European school stubs by nation, with speedy support -- Ratarsed (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Euh -oops. Sorry, I missed that one :) Grutness...wha? 00:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed, and looks reasonable, though the category is very much underpopulated (so may need upmerging). As with other Spanish provinces, there are naming concerns about both the stub and permcats, which I've outlined very briefly at WP:CFD. Grutness...wha? 02:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Unproposed. 7 member articles to date. - Lainagier (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC) - I've no real objection to the template, but it looks like a definite candidate for possible upmerger, given the number of articles in Cat:Moldovan singers as a whole (oddly, there are fewer in that than in the stub category!) Grutness...wha? 02:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Created without proposal yesterday. The geo-stub one does at least seem reasonable in terms of a likely necessary split of Quebec-geo-stub (though whether this is the best subregion to start that split with is another matter). A general Montreal-stub is less of a necessity by far, though, since there are fewer than 400 Quebec stubs that have not already been subdivided, and the major form of subdivision there is, understandably, by subject rather than location. There is a wikiproject, by the looks of it, which does mitigate in favour of it to some extent, though (as per normal) a banner talk-page template may be more useful for them in the long run, and the usefulness of a stub template to the rest of wikipedia may be limited. Grutness...wha? 02:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC) - Both of these stubs are long overdue, especially the general Montreal stub which corresponds to {{Toronto-stub}}, {{Vancouver-stub}} and {{Ottawa-stub}}. Allows for a consistent approach to articles related to Canada's four largest cities. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- The important thing is not so much that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but more that there are sufficient stubs to warrant a new stub type. In the case of a Montreal-stub, that's not yet apparent. In the case of a Montreal-geo-stub, geo-stubs are split at sub-provincial level by aqdministrative regions, so any Montreal-geo-stub would have to make clear that it is for the region rather than just the city. Even then, the existence of a category would depend on the necessary number of stubs currently existing that could use it. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't making a purely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument - but in any event, I'm not sure I agree that's the only consideration. Even if it were, what is the threshold? Where are the stats that suggest fewer stubs exist for this stub type than for existing stubs? And as for your geo-stub comment, I am not sure that presents a problem of any kind, but could you point out the guideline for my own information? Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- And {{QuebecCity-stub}}. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I would note that the number of relevant articles might not be immediately obvious yet, as the stub templates haven't been all that widely applied yet. For what it's worth, though, in my experience I can pretty safely assert that most Canadians (the people most likely to make use of these in the first place) would simply assume that the stub notices and categories applied to the whole Island of Montreal, and not just the city proper, anyway, so I don't know if a special usage note to clarify that is necessary. I don't think a lot of Canadians even know, for example, that Westmount, Côte Saint-Luc, Hampstead, Outremont, DDO and Senneville are actually separate municipalities; most people just think of them as neighbourhoods of Montreal. Half the time I can't even keep straight which places are separate municipalities and which are just boroughs of Montreal. When it comes to the geo cat, it's true that almost all other similar Canadian categories are at the level of a region rather than an individual city. Toronto, as far as I can tell, is the only Canadian city that actually has its own dedicated geo-stub category — but going by pure numbers, even Category:Toronto geography stubs isn't strictly necessary, as both Category:Toronto stubs and Category:Golden Horseshoe geography stubs could accomodate an upmerge without becoming excessively large. And in doing a quick scan, I noticed also that it contained numerous items that aren't really geography stubs by any normal definition of that word, including a stadium, a yeshiva, three environmental organizations, a church, a department store, several subway stations and a historic post office. So I might very well propose that one for deletion and upmerging too, and I'm thus unconvinced about the need for Montreal-geo-stub. However, the general Montreal-stub is definitely valid, useful and populatable. Keep the latter, but I reserve judgement on geo for the moment. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Unproposed, but well-formed and probably useful, although it needs some form of category (probably upmerged for the time being at least to Cat:Ancient Greece stubs). Grutness...wha? 00:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Unproposed, but possibly useful, given the number of articles in the permcat. Certainly needs better than to be directly linked to it, though! Upmerging...erm...somewhere would probably be the best solution for now. As for the name of the redirect, the less said the better (it's probably just about speediable as unused anyway). {{Marching-band-stub}} is currently used on two articles (surprisingly, both US ones. I didn't realise it was an organised sport there as well - I thought it was an Australia/New Zealand oddity!) Grutness...wha? 04:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC) - First off, I created the stub and please accept my apologies for not listing it here first. I'm still getting used to the protocol and requirements for things on Wikipedia. Anyway, I would propose this stub will be useful in the immediate future if nothing else. In the next 3-5 days I was planning on creating another 6-7 pages on particular marching bands here in the US. Marching bands are world-wide and this stub could be put to use anywhere, even with bands that you mentioned in New Zealand or Australia. I'm trying to help expand and create pages for college marching bands here in the US and I would love to have this stub available. I believe that we in WikiProject Marching Band, in particular, would use the stub quite often when we create a page for a particular marching band to encourage growth of the topic. Fliry Vorru (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good grief Grutness! I have three words for you: Drum Corps International. Please keep this one, renamed as Cat:Marching band stubs. Cheers! Her Pegship (tis herself) 14:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Gah - you're right, of course. For some reason, when I saw the stub I instantly thought of marching teams, not marching bands (there doesn't even seem to be an article about competitive marching teams - the closest is majorettes, which seems to be quite different). I've no real objection to the properly-named template (though the redirect should still go). If there are enough stubs for a category, that's fine too (otherwise upmerging is still a likely option). Grutness...wha? 00:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is a summer project of mine to attempt to establish (at the very least, if not more) a stub page with the essential basic information for the marching bands of every college football program in NCAA I-A and I-AA (generally speaking, the bigger schools here in America). Giving it a quick look/estimate, I'd venture to guess that there could be anywhere from 20-70 stubs by the time I'm done with my personal project and that's just me and my goals. Just in colleges and universities here in the US I'd guess there are 300-400 marching bands and there's probably 50 or so documented on Wikipedia. Fliry Vorru (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: I posted a message regarding this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Marching band. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Unproposed, both redlinked to its own category and upmerged, and with icon troubles. Possibly useful, but given the number of articles in Cat:Universities in Ukraine (30), a separate category will not be needed any time soon. Grutness...wha? 02:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC) - I created it as in past List of law faculties in Ukraine article used {{Russia-university-stub}}, but Ukraine is not Russia. In fact what we really need for the template: someone should create an image like Image:Flag-map of Russia.svg --eugrus (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- You mean like Image:Outline of Ukraine.svg, as used on {{Ukraine-geo-stub}}? The liost article you mentioned would have normally had Europe-university-0stub on it, though separate country-specific templates are a good idea. the main problem is the number of potential stubs, which indicates that a separate category isn't needed at the moment (it should instead feed into both Cat:Ukraine stubs and Cat:Europe university stubs). Grutness...wha? 03:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed. It's time all countries had their own basic stub template, but I can't see this one reaching even close to threshold for its own category any time soon. Notwithstanding the geostub subcat, unless there's some serious move towards threshold, this should probably be upmerged into Cat:Oceania stubs. Grutness...wha? 02:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC) - Hi. I created the stub. Sorry if I didn't go through the proper channels. I had created a stub article relating to Vanuatu, and I was surprised to see that there was no Vanuatu-specific stub, so I created one. My reasoning was that there should be a stub template for each country, and that since small countries such as Nauru (pop. 10,000) and Kiribati (pop. 100,000) already had their own stub templates, there seemed to be no reason for Vanuatu (pop. 200,000) not to have its own. Aridd (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Templates, yes, you're right... but not categories. They are created dependent on the number of stub articles, not on the size of the country; they are only created when we know for sure that there are enough stub articles on a subject to make their creation useful to editors (as explained at WP:STUB). Note, for instance, that there are over 80 Nauru stubs and it has its own category, but that {{Pitcairn-stub}}, which is only used on about 20 articles, is upmerged into Cat:Oceania stubs. So, as I said in my initial note on this page, a Vanuatu-stub template is fine, but the category may be a problem. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Given that the category would have one sub cat (the geos) and the fact that we already have a {{Vanuatu-bio-stub}} with around 20 articles that could be upmerged here, it should not be that difficult to find 20-30 extra stubs on vanuatu. (Off hunting I go) Waacstats (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Now has 58 articles, 2 templates and 1 sub cat. Keep Waacstats (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good work, W - looks like a keeper now. Grutness...wha? 03:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed, undersized, and very likely to stay that way - there are only 55 articles in total in the Cat:Iranian businesspeople permcat and its subtypes, so getting to 60 stubs is unlikely any time soon. Vategory name is also incorrect (should be "Iranian..."). Category parenting is slightly off and template icon is also oversized, but those things more easily dealt with. Iran's bio-stubs are in need of splitting sometime soon, but this looks an unlikely candidate as part of that split (something like a stub for Iranian royalty seems a far better start for such a split). An upmerger may well be needed here. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Unproposed, but the template seems reasonable. The category, however, may struggle to reach the required threshold, so upmerging may be in order. Grutness...wha? 03:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Upmerging is not required. The above Category now has 71 Stubs. Kathleen.wright5 05:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC) - Creator comment sorry, didn't know there was a process because I did it directly from the template for the US museums. There already existed US and UK museum stubs and I thought an Australia category to be appropriate. Please hold off any discussion on up-merging until I have a chance to tag what needs to go in there. I intend to look at those tagged stub that are in Category:Museums in Australia as there are a large number of stubs that fit in the category and articles that aren't tagged at stub but should be. I only *just* created the stub category and posted it to WP:MUSEUMS today TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - Normally separate categories are only created for stub templates if there are a guaranteed 60 stubs that will go in them (as is the case with the US and UK museum categories) - less than that and it becomes fiddly for editors hunting for stubs to expand. But don't panic - if something's posted here, there's usually quite a "grace period" before anything's done. This posting will probably hang around here for at least a couple of months, which should give you and us the chance to see whether there are 60 stubs. If there are, all well and good, but if it peaks too much lower than that then it may be nominated for upmerging at WP:SFD. Grutness...wha? 04:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply ooh good, wasn't sure if this was a Prod/?fD-esque 5 day timeline. I got about 15 in a quick squiz through some of the category and its subcats before I got tired (It's 12:30 EST) but based on that and the fact that we've a list of museum stubs to be createdt I don't think I'll have a problem getting it to 60. The problem will be not bringing those from stub to at least start o:) Thanks for the info and notifying me TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 04:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems a reasonable addition to the set of country-airport-stub types, and upmerged as well, so no problems from undersized categories. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC) One of the six traditional counties of Northern Ireland. unproposed, but with 400+ stubs, N.I. is getting close to consideration for a split. Masy need upmerging if there are fewer than 60 stubs, but other than that and a bit of a tidy-up, seems reasonable, and templates for Down, Antrim, et al are probably worth considering, too. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC) [edit] Newly discovered, April 2008 Neither proposed, but both upmerged and potentially useful. Looks like keepers. Grutness...wha? 03:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Useful but not in the list. Powers T 02:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC) - 'twas proposed, though. Lots of nation-specific geo-stubs which have yet to get their own categories aren't on the main list, to avoid cluttering it up still further (you'll find a comprehensive "by country" list at User:Grutness/Geo-stub list. FWIW, at 35 stubs, the Cook Islands are well on their way towards "category independence". Grutness...wha? 03:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- And how was I supposed to know where to find that comprehensive list? Is there something wrong with the official list being the comprehensive one? Powers T 12:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good point, though the list I linked above has been mentioned frequently on the proposals page and elsewhere. As to "is there something wrong with the official list?" yes there is - it is already under fire for being too long and causing huge problems with loading (see, for instance, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types and Wikipedia: Village pump (technical) , for instance). Grutness...wha? 01:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well I meant the "Geo" list moreso than the mega-huge(-won't-load-for-me-either) combined list. =) Powers T 21:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed, and possibly useful, though the potential scope for this one could be used for is so wide as to make it impractical - covering psych-stubs, med-stubs, toy-stubs, sociology-stubs, school-stubs, and a host of other more specifically-scoped stub types. As such, SFD is a possible outcome. Category is redlinked, which is just as well, since it uses the long discarded "-related" format (Cat:Child-related stubs) Only used on one article, which is also a psych-stub. Might be better changed into something like a child-psych-stub (or developmental-psych-stub) or paediatrics-stub rather than having something this broad and unwieldy. Grutness...wha? 02:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC) - I'm sorry—I checked at the main page (WikiProject Stub Sorting), but at first I couldn't find a proposals/policy page, but that's because I only skimmed it. Anyway, it's my fault. So…pretty much any outcome is fine with me, especially if it turns out something more specific that can be used in articles related to the one I first put the stub on. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:59 27 April 2008 (UTC)
despite WP:WSS's general rule of "no bio-stubs for subnational regions", Alaska has now become the sixth US state to have an unproposed bio-stub and category created for it. On size grounds it's fine, but - as always - there's the distinct risk of these stub types being used liberally for anyone who lives in a state for a few years, leading to massive overtemplating of anyone who moves house a lot. Grutness...wha? 02:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC) - If someone "moves around a lot" — not just living here and there, but actually doing something during their stay, something worth mentioning (otherwise few would know and fewer would care about the places the person had resided, making massive over-templating improbable as the selection of stub templates generally depends on the article's existing content) — that alone would likely yield enough information to expand their article beyond the magical "stub" threshold. Thus if there is a "distinct risk" of a problem, it would be self-correcting in most cases.
- In the remaining cases, yours would be a better argument for adopting guidelines on how to decide which stub templates are most appropriate (and omit those of lesser relevance) than for limiting the types of stub templates which should be created. Apologies if something like this already exists, but if so I haven't seen it. — CharlotteWebb 10:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- You're right that something like that is probably needed. An example of the sort of potential problem I mentioned with people moving would be something like George Andrews (footballer), which would - if stubbing were based on subnational region - be not only and England-football-bio-stub, but also a Bedfordshire-bio-stub, WestMidlands-bio-stub, Cardiff-bio-stub, Lancashire-bio-stub, Shropshire-bio-stub, Staffordshire-bio-stub and Worcestershire-bio-stub (these on the basis of the clubs represented) - all without yielding enough information for this to be more than a stub article. The same problem would occur with many sportspeople worldwide. Using the most appropriatee templates almost always results in there being no need for a specific subregion-bio-stub - the few bios that are specifically related to particular subregions are usually covered by subregion-politician-stubs and (every now and again) subregion-pioneer-stubs. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's been my experience that over-templating occurs more often with people who fall into multiple occupational categories, such as musicians who play multiple instruments and do a bit of acting on the side. I don't think the free agency of sports leagues is a legitimate reason to use geography-based stub templates for any location other than place of birth. If other users disagree about this, which they might, it would be another reason to adopt a guideline for when to use what, or to just impose an arbitrary maximum like "pick the 2/3/4 most relevant ones and forget about the others". — CharlotteWebb 17:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your experience tends to be different to mine, I must say. As, it would seem, do your experiences with people reading and sticking to guidelines. We already have a guideline as to the number of stub templates to use (up to four of the most relevant ones, preferably only two or three), but that doesn't mean people sticking to them. As to only using country of birth, that simply wouldn't work - it would mean, for instance, that a stub on Golda Meir would be a Ukraine-bio-stub, and one on John McEnroe would be a Germany-bio-stub. John McCain's would of course be a Panama-bio-stub, and Freddie Mercury's would be a Tanzania-bio-stub. Going by place of birth ignores the areas they are most associated with - areas that often encompass a whole country rather than a specific subnational area. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say "country of birth", I said "location of birth" and I was referring to sub-national regions as in the example above about George Andrews (footballer) having played for several UK teams. I thought that was made clear where I said "free agency of sports leagues". I agree the suggestions regarding John McCain, et al. are absurd. If his article were a stub and it would probably be an "arizona-bio-stub" (if said template exists and "arizona-politician-stub" doesn't). Sincere apologies for the confusion. — CharlotteWebb 13:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think state-level stubs are okay if the numbers exist to support them. I realize we don't generally categorize by sub-national divisions but if the numbers require it, why not? Individuals not strongly associated with a single state (or maybe two) would just be categorized under the country as normal. Powers T 13:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC) - I think that's probably the way we're heading. There has been strong resistance to the idea in the past though, so it was definitely worth mentioning as a potential problem. As I said, there are a few other US states that have their own bio-stubs though, so purely personally I don't think it's too much of a problem as long as it's kept monitored. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't appear in the Stubs category hierarchy. Found while looking for a generic cemetery stub template (which doesn't seem to exist, so not sure where in the hierarchy this should go). Powers T 14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC) - It was the result of a deletion process (see Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2007/October/15#.7B.7BMilitary-memorials-and-cemeteries-stub.7D.7D). I'm still not overly happy with it, but given the attitude of the cretor of the original I'm a bit leery of tangling again. It's still pretty small, mind, and does cut through the "by country" system (one which I suspect would make sense in this case). As to where in the hierarchy, I'd put it under buildings and structures, since many of them are memorials (cemeteries would normally go under geo-stubs) - then again, there may be a section for cemeteries in the hierarchy somewhere and this could fit there. Grutness...wha? 23:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is an approved {{cemetery-stub}} on the to-do list. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The former appears to have been unproposed, but is being used in a number of mobile phone related articles. It doesn't have its own category, instead it feeds Category:Wireless stubs. The latter seems to be a poorly worded and little used duplicate. PC78 (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC) - Lawdy. I was sure those had been SFD'd, but I can find no sign of it (I may be getting confused with Cat:Mobile, which I took to CFD a few months back). These both need sfd'ing, and the sooner the better, before we start getting stubs about Alabama piling up in them. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed... I can definitely see the sense in this split, but it cuts across the current part-completed split of fish stubs. Actually, in some ways, this makes more sense than the current split, since splitting by class (rather than order, which is how the other splits have been done) makes for broader, larger categories. Something needs to be done one way or the other though... many of the stubs that would fit into this new stub type are already covered by the likes of characiformes-stub and its ilk. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC) - For whatever it's worth, the reason I did it by class instead of order was because I had read somewhere once that a stub should be good for something like 250+ instances, and so I took the fishes I was wanting to stub with more than just {{fish-stub}} and took the deepest taxon I was sure I had seen hundreds of times, and made a stub out of that. As I mentioned on Grutness's talk page, let me know if I need to take any action to fix any problems this may have caused. Bob the Wikipedian, a WikiDragon (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Reading what you wrote a bit closer, what you are saying makes sense. I didn't even realize I was doing cutting across the system, the appropriate thing to do would have been to create Template:Acanthomorpha-stub, Template:Alepisauriformes-stub, and Template:Aspidorhynchiformes-stub, although Acanthomorpha contains 11 pages and won't expand much further, and Alepisauriformes is near its max at 2. Aspidorhynchiformes still has quite a ways to go and could probably qualify for its own stub. Bob the Wikipedian, a WikiDragon (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 56(!) new airport-stub templates and five new categories The spring thaw must've got to CambridgeBayWeather... in the last 24 hours he's created unproposed {{Foo-airport-stub}} types for every country in Africa (including at least one unrecognised territory), plus five regional categories for them. Since we only had 450 or so African airport stubs, this seems like overkill, but at least the regional categories all scrape past the 60 stub threshold (in one case only just). On misnamed one, plus the unrecognised state one (Somaliland) have gone to SFD, but the rest can probably stay, I guess... full details are shown here. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Somehow this one got missed out when we were dividing the Dutch provinces out of Netherlands geography stubs. An editor has seen fit to correct that - a clear keeper, I'd say. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC) [edit] Newly discovered, March 2008 see under Vietnam, below. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC) see under Vietnam, below. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC) see under Vietnam, below. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Unproposed, but looks well-formed and well-populated - though in one or two cases it looks like the new template has simply been added to an existing Vietnam-stub template rather than replacing it. A keeper, but the stubs themselves need tidying. Grutness...wha? 02:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC) - Agree that the category and stub should stay. It definitely looks like a WP:AGF stub creation by a new editor (account created just hours ago @ 19:25, 25 March 2008). - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 07:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to think so, but since being informed of the proposal process, the same editor has created three more stub types, which I've listed above. All three of those are going to struggle to meet threshold, and two of them (the Caribbean and Central American ones) should almost certainly be upmerged as things currently stand. The oceania one has at least got child subtypes. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed, but looks well-formed. The only concern is with the size, especially given that Estonia - even if you include its time competeing under the Soviet banner - has only won 72 Olympic medals. Some of those medals were in team sports like basketlall, though, so its conceivable this willc rfeep past the required 60 stub threshold. If it doesn't, it will need upmerging. So yet another case of "wait and see". Grutness...wha? 00:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC) - Hopefully any articles relating to medal wnners under USSR would get a USSR-Olympic-medalist-stub. I think this one needs upmerging (to Estonia sportspeople and european Olympic medalists) and delete the cat. Waacstats (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Waacstats: all medalists 1908-1912 should be marked with Russia- and all 19552-1988 USSR-. 34 articles: delete category and upmerge. SeveroTC 11:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Along with three categories which I sent directly to SFD. Probably worth keeping as an upmerged template since someone bothered to create it. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC) - Hardly in keeping with the "by nationality" scheme, though things like cuisine do extend across entire cultural groups irrespective of national boundaries, so this is vaguely plausible, to say the least. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] American jourrnalist stubs (years by decade) We seem to have acquired a whole range of new stub categories of the formCat:American journalist, 1950s birth stubs, for decades from the 1900s to the 1990s. Given the number of American journalist stubs currently about 770), it sems extremely unlikely that all - or even most - iof these will reach target, especially when you take into consideration how many of those journalists either were born in the 19th century or have an unlisted date of birth. These categories were never proposed, and certainly don't seem viable - all should be upmerged into the respective century categories for now, excluding any which can be shown to pass threshold. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC) - Since the by birth date scheme is our last gasp and there exists the axis of Cat:Journ
|
