Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Archive19

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting‎ | Discoveries

June 2006 edit

Wales geo-stub nightmare edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

someone has decided to split the 600 welsh geostubs into 23 county subcategories. do the math - how many do you think have reached 60? only three have reached fifty and some of them havent even reached ten. i only found out becuase one of them had been named wrong and was up for renaming at WP:CFD. someone else had better have words with whoever did this becuase im likely to be very rude to them. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only those exceed fifty or forty. Suggest alternatives to downsize the category instead of doing with counties. Passer-by 20:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
These look fairly properly upmerged now. All the categories have at least 40, most with closer to 70+. I think we should be able to list these on WP:STUBS now. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 21:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

October 2006 edit

{{Singapore-LRT-stub}} / Category:Singapore LRT stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

For another transit system. Created today, used on 46 articles, even tagged with {{WPSS-cat}}. --Mairi

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Nuremberg U-Bahn stub}} / Category:Nuremberg U-Bahn stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename

Also found today, created March 31. Currently used on 45 articles. Slambo (Speak) 21:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

desparately needs renaming tho. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Munich-U-Bahn-stub}} / feeds into Category:Transport in Munich edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list and feed into Cat:Munich stubs

Created by User:Agathoclea today; used on five articles. {{Berlin-U-Bahn-stub}} also exists.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 21:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see also the comments under {{Paris metro stub}} above. Grutness...wha? 03:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wass not aware of this process when creating the stub yesterday. Munich U-Bahn has enaugh stations to warrant the number and enaugh pictures on commons to make a few nice articles. It would be quite simple for me to put the stubs up. I noticed that the category might need to change to match the other stubs. Agathoclea 05:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it's probably best that this is left intact until we know how many articles that is and assess it again later. If there are a reasonable number of stubs (50 or so), then this will be worth keeping, but if there are still only a handful in a month or so, don't be surprised if this gets taken to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. Grutness...wha? 22:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok, will get those together easy. Just the matter of the category, would it make life easier for everybody, if for the moment the template would feed into the europan-rail stub category? Agathoclea 22:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - yes, that would be a good option. In fact, it's standard practice with stub templates that are not yet at the size for stand-alone stub categories that they direct into a parent stub category until such time as they are well-populated. If there are 50 or so stubs with the template, there should be no problem with a separate stub category then. Grutness...wha? 23:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll do that and then that's for today. Agathoclea 23:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it better fits in Category:Rapid transit stubs. Agathoclea 09:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not upmerge to a (German, though that's rather implied) U-Bahn/S-Bahn cat? We seem to have a number of these types, most of them undersized. The Berlins are fine as they are, and would become a subcat. Alai 21:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. I'd add German(y) to the name - I'm not sure whether they use the same term in German speaking countries like Austria, but it's probably better to be on the safe side. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still working on it. The list of stations is at User:Agathoclea/UBahn. Which category did you have in mind? Agathoclea 11:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exceeded 50 and much more to go. Agathoclea 12:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Paris metro stub}} / Category:Paris metro stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename as appropriate & list all

Discovered this one today while going through with some assessments. The template was created 16:05, April 19, 2006 by Montrealais (talk · contribs), and the category was created 05:45, April 21, 2006 by FiP (talk · contribs). There are currenty 233 articles in this category, so I can agree with the need for it. But, the template doesn't quite follow the naming conventions, and the category isn't integrated under Category:Rail stubs yet (although this point is trivial to fix). Slambo (Speak) 20:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have attached the template to Rail stubs and cleaned up the code for both category and template (yes, I know the image is probably too big, but I just don't have the heart to shrink it). The template should be renamed, but seeing the names for the templates for London, Berlin and Nuremberg, it looks like we have a little more cleaning to do. We currently have these names:
so it looks like we need to rename the templates for both Nuremberg and Paris. It is a bit odd that the Paris category doesn't use a capitalized "M" but neither does the parent category. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Nuremberg one is listed above on this page, but I didn't tag it cause I wasn't sure what to do with it. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another to add to the list... {{Prague metro stub}} / Category:Prague metro stubs, currently holds 55 stubs. Slambo (Speak) 17:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 2006 edit

{{Tanzania-politics-stub}} / Category:Tanzania politics stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

Used on one article. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Barbershop quartets edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

The following just turned up on the stub type list:

"<200" is right - there are two stubs. Template appears well-made, but we tend not to use the word "group" in stub templates, though it may be the most appropriate thing here. The category has two redlinks as its permcats (i.e., there is no Category:Barbershop groups, which means that this is incorrectly named even if it is deemed worth keeping - the correct permcat is Category:Barbershop music). The stub type's creator has copied across the WPSS-cat template into the new category while clearly not making any attempt to follow the instructions in it. Grutness...wha? 22:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think of it, a more appropriate name for the category would have been "Barbershop quartets", instead of "groups". I think that the category should be adopted, as "barbershop music" is more encompasing, and includes other topics besides quartets themselves. Additionally, there are potentially hundreds of quartets that could be included in this category. Dullfig 20:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dullfig - do not edit someone elses words. The category and stub as I reported them were at Barbershop group stubs {{Barbershop-group-stub}}. Simply changing the name of the category and template simply doubles the work involved in fixing things up here, and editing someone else's signed comments is very poor Wikiquette. Grutness...wha? 21:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the WP:WSS-tag. I also note that the template now uses a non-existing category (despite that we also have the category listed above). The template is only used on a single article. Iff this one is kept, the category name should follow the perm-cat name, but I'm not sure this one is a good idea. Does anybody know if we have the 60 required articles? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 20:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the size of Category:Barbershop music and its one subcat Category:Barbershop quartets it clear we don't. between them they appear to have only 61 articles, but there is considerable overlap between the two - in fact every article in the subcat is in the main cat, so it looks as though whoever did the categorising (Dullfig, perhaps?) doesn't have a great grasp on how WP cats work. So that only leaves 48 articles, many of which aren't stubs. A random sample of ten articles found six stubs, so I'd estimate we have under 30 stubs on barbershop music, and they are all quite happily stubbed with other (sometimes far more appropriate) stub types. There may be "potentially hundreds" of groups, but the vast majority of them don't appear to have articles. Unless someone pull a load of stubs out of a hat, this is SFD material. Grutness...wha? 21:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I've removed the listing from the stub type list until this is decided one way or the other. Grutness...wha? 23:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, pulled a ton of material out of a hat :-) All international champion quartets now have pages, will be filling them as time permits. Dullfig 02:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we scope this to Category:Barbershop music stubs, given the obvious relatedness of topics in the broader perm-cat, via either SFD, or another Dullfig change-of-mind-and-db-request. Alai 08:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, work with me guys... I think there is enough material to warrant a sepparate stub. The problem with using the generic music stub for barbershop quartets, is that people within the SPEBSQSA society that want to go back and write articles on quartets, don't have a page were all the quartets are listed in one place. American music stubs will include a sea of groups totaly unrelated to barbershop, making it difficutl to find articles in need of writing. Now, I don't understand the thing about changing the perm-cat. Are you suggesting that instead of having all the stubs gathered under the Category:Barbershop quartet stubs that instead they be under "barbershop music stubs"? I have no big objection to that. Dullfig 16:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I think I understand the reasoning behind not wanting to allow stub types for every little thing, or there will be thousands. But when I come accross stub types such as Category:Mexican television stubs with a puny number of links, I get a feeling that Category:Barbershop quartet stubs is being blocked solely because it was not created by going through the propper channels. Is this a matter of burocracy, or is there another reason for blocking this stub? as you can see, there are far more barbershop quartets, as there are mexican TV programs. Can we put the decision on fast track? thanks, Dullfig 20:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiProject Napoleonic Fiction stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

Not quite sure where to start on this one. Alai 08:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Andalusia-bio-stub}} / Category:Andalusian people stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

Created back in May and used on 40 articles. Non-standard scope and I'm pretty sure the image used is the picture of a secessionist leader. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 20:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...in which case it's doubly inappropriate. Sigh. Yet more work at sfd, I suspect... Grutness...wha? 23:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Wikimedia-stub}} / Category:Wikimedia stubs and {{MediaWiki-stub}} / Category:MediaWiki stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

Created today. Not used and I don't remember any proposal. I can't imagine they'd ever make 60. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 11:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/rescope with Wikipedia-stub, perhaps? Grutness...wha? 11:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Physiology stubs / {{physiology-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

Curently only used on 3 articles, but could perhaps be useful. --Stemonitis 18:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Texas-bio-stub}} / Category:Texas people stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

None-standard scope. Used on a little more than 60 articles. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 03:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not wild about this; it's clearly OK when used on "Texas settlers" and the like (which I'd support as a scope, if viable as such), but is problematic when used on the likes of John Gilliland, and is pointless and adding to tag and category spam when used on Columbus Marion Joiner. Alai 13:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Creationism stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

Smallish and unproposed, though if we take into account the wikiproject-like portal, perhaps just about keepable. (Difficult to upmerge, in any event.) Alai 10:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support keeping it. Mathmo Talk 11:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

World War II biography stubs / {{WWII-bio-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

Two months, 15 stubs, and I for one don't recall ever having seen it pass through the proposals page, despite the category carrying the WPSS-cat template... Grutness...wha? 00:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started sorting stubs into this category today, and did about 25 before noticing this issue. It seems like a useful stub to me, and will certainly go over 60 articles if I continue sorting. WWII is listed in overpopulated stubs, and the other available splits seem inadequate even with the new {{WWII-battle-stub}}. Still, I am willing to depopulate {{WWII-bio-stub}} again if people want it deleted. Fleebo 08:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with it as I see it is that it cuts through various other categories, notably the military personnel ones (I only found out about the category due to a comment in the "Other business" section of WP:WSS/P. I think it if could be modified slightly to make it clear that it's for people connected with WWII who don't qualify primarily as military or political (like Anne Frank or William Joyce, say), then it might be quite useful. It's just the interpretation of who would go in there that's the snag. Grutness...wha? 08:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 2006 edit

{{BBC-sitcoms-stub}} / Category:BBC Sitcoms stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was was deleted as db-G7

Never proposed, cuts across current category structure, no articles at all, but there is a wikiproject. Naming defies all that is written at WP:WSS/NG - and quite a bit of general category naming policy as well. At the very least this needs some pretty violent and speedy renaming, but unless some very good reasons can be shown for its existence (and that a WikiProject-specific talk page template wouldn't do the job at least as well) this should go. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Luxembourg-sport-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Has a category and a good number of stubs. Probably a keeper. Grutness...wha? 10:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sure i remember this one being proposed recently. Waacstats 22:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is 60+ so definitely a keeper. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Australian-baseball-stub}}, Category:Australian baseball stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Not proposed, but there is a wikiproject. Only 16 stubs, and Category:Baseball in Australia only has 95 articles. The stub template feeds straight back into the parent cat, too. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are still alot of Australian related Baseball articles in the main baseball-stub still to be re-tagged, including Australian Baseball players, Australian Baseball Clubs, Australian Baseball League teams, season articles related to the Claxton Shield, Australian Baseball League, IBLA, and State League articles related to the individual states. Once all of these have been created/tagged it will easily be over the required 60stubs. --Dan027 07:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically what Dan027 is right. Once the other stubs are retagged it will easily be over 60 minimum. And there is plenty of uncreated articles that will boost it up too. Sorry for creating it without proposing, I figured as it was part of the wikiproject it would be assumed to be ok. Borgarde 08:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's associated with both your WikiProject and this one (all stub types are automatically associated with the stub sorting project, for obvious reasons) - and this one tries to coordinate all stub types across the whole of Wikipedia, which is why it's pretty important that we're "in the loop" at least. If there are likely to be 60 stubs - actually the threshold's considerably lowered anyway since there is an active wikiproject - it shouldn't be much of a problem, though the category feed on the template needs to be tweaked (it should only feed into the stub category - that would be a subcategory of the main "B in A" category anyway). To be honest, I'm surprised it's got so many stubs - Baseball's virtually unknown as a sport where I am (NZ), and I would have assumed it was equally low profile in cricket-mad Australia! Grutness...wha? 09:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that NZ has several times been the world champions at softball, so although it is a little surprising there are so many australian baseball pages it is hardly that surprising? Mathmo Talk 05:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's partly the point - softball's a big sport in both countries, but it takes the place that baseball might have otherwise. I can't think of one NZ baseball player or team, and would have assumed the same would be the case in Oz. It's like asking about rugby league in Wales. Grutness...wha? 09:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General concensus shows the approval is there, I've added to the list.--Borgarde 02:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Spain-film-stub}}, Category:Spanish film stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Not proposed, no wikiproject, only one article. Weirdly, the category has Category:French films as a parent, which would please the people of Madrid and Barcelona no end. Potentially useful, perhaps, if the numbers stack up - if not, an upmerged template is a possibility. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't known that new stub types must be proposed before being created. I've just fixed the parent category (the dangers of copy and paste), and start populating it with the appropriate articles (currently there are about 75 stubs). Best regards --surueña 09:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{1908-Olympic-stub}}/Category:1908 Summer Olympics stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Discovered this stub category just now. Has 58 articles right now. Eli Falk 20:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one was proposd, along with all other Olympics by year stubs, about a month back. Grutness...wha? 23:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{aero-1930s-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Just discovered it now. Contains 91 stubs, which is enough. Eli Falk 20:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure this one was proposed, too. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found no link to it, so I mentioned it here rather than adding it to the stub category list. Eli Falk 05:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find the proposal, but there seem to be by-decade sub-cats under Category:aircraft stubs that are all decently populated, so even if it wasn't proposed, it's a clear split and they're all big enough to keep. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{mtgstub}} & Category:Magic: The Gathering stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to SFD for renaming

Used on 31 articles and has an associated WikiProject. The template needs to be sent to SFD for renaming to conform to the naming guidelines and the category needs to be embedded into the stub hierarchy, presumably under Category:Card game stubs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Uruguay-celeb-stub}} / no cat. edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

Not proposed. Was only used on one non-stub article and no category. SFD material. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, SFD it is. I don't think we have -celeb- anything. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 02:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We may end up needing a stub type for people who are notable only for being notable, but if so it'll probably be in the US or UK hierarchy first. SFD this pronto. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created it for Uruguayan celebrities, I think it should be kept, even if renamed. There are A LOT of uruguayan celebrities whose articles need a substancial expansion and most of them don't even have a wikipedia article, so I think that template is necessary. --Wesborland 14:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Modern English Bible translations-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

Correctly named? I don't think so... 60 stubs? I don't think so... Viable? I don't think so... Feeding a stub category? I don't think so... Proposed? You guess. Grutness...wha? 10:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{India-comedian-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

Only two articles, seems to be upmerged. Grutness...wha? 10:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


{{Iran-sport-bio-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

This was created on the 7 November contains one sub cat and 21 articles. Waacstats 18:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. Passer-by 20:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Somaliland-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge to Somalia stubs

Badly formed and hardly used. Entity is not internationally recognized. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another unrecognised "country" - that's more work for SFD, then, I take it? Grutness...wha? 23:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We have to use the same standard for both Loke and Thor. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 01:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like it might be useful (Somaliland is independent in all but formal recognition). Why not just upmerge it to Somalia-stub?--Thomas.macmillan 01:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least Somaliland can claim to have at one time been independent (primarily as British Somaliland). It even had a few days of complete and internationally recognized independence as the State of Somaliland before merging with Italian Somaliland to form the Somali Republic. However, I doubt that unless we start to double-stub a number of articles with both this and either {{Somalia-stub}} or {{Somalia-geo-stub}}, I can't see this stub type reaching 60 stubs right now, so I'd support sending it to SFD on grounds of size alone. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just did a count for this stub, you can see that Category:Somaliland is fairly well developed (I count 40 articles, most of which are most likely of the stub variety. At worst, it should be upmerged to Somalia-stub.--Thomas.macmillan 17:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Cuesports-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

This seems to have been created by a new wikiproject in the last week as a replacement for {{billiards-stub}} can't find a proposed renaming any where, there is also a {{Cuesports-bio-stub}} at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Template:Cuesports-bio-stub {can't seem to get this to link) and attached category been created with the template being a real mess as far as I can see. The bio is not really needed as it is currently empty and the cuesports-stub only contains 123 articles. Waacstats 18:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know what happened, but I had fixed this back in August (discussion here). So, whatever got created or redirected the wrong way should probably be sent to SFD/fixed/whatever. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 23:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Dharmic-Religion-stub}} / Category:Dharmic Religion stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

Created yesterday and used on four articles. I don't remember a proposal and the template is oddly-named. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 13:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Archbishop-of-York-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename

At least this one has a category, and a reasonable number of stubs (62) - unfortunately the name of the template and that of the long established {{ArchbishopofCanterbury-stub}} need regularising. See also the next entry. Grutness...wha? 10:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Bishop-of-Durham-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename

As above, so below. Grutness...wha? 10:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{FireService-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was restub articles w/ existing emergency-services-stub

Could be useful... only four stubs, though, and no parents to the category. Grutness...wha? 10:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Tenacious D-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

Created today. Used on 8 articles. Redlink category. Not mentioned on any WSS pages. --TheParanoidOne 23:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and now taken to WP:SFD. Grutness...wha? 02:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Cluj-stub}} / Category:Cluj-Napoca stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

About a Romanian city. Used on less than 10 articles and not proposed AFAIK. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Small per-decade horror film stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

I think I made the fatal mistake of saying "obviously we'll split these by decade", without specifying which decades were viable. (I think I had in mind just the 70s and up.) Category:1930s horror film stubs, Category:1940s horror film stubs and Category:1950s horror film stubs are all significantly undersized. Alai 07:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oops. You might want to give it a couple weeks, but unless those grow significantly, it's probably off to SFD with them. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{SATC-stub}} / Category:Sex and the City stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename template

Just found this one today. It's not on the official list, and it should perhaps be renamed? TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... It's a large enough number of stubs to be a possible keeper, but the template could definitely do with a renaming. That should be done through WP:SFD. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Novi Sad-stub}} & Novi Sad Stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

Contains 25 stubs, doesn't follow formatting guidelines, not approved or proposed at any time. Propose immediate deletion. Aelfthrytha 03:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


{{India-literature-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

Never proposed, only one stub (though no doubt there are many more). Feeds directly into Category:India stubs. Intriguingly, it uses a sort key, something we've rejected here in the past. Grutness...wha? 04:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was creating a couple of literature articles didnt find any stub category to fit them. So, created them. I'm not aware of the stub creation process, so if there is one kindly fit these in. Or if there is any existing stub category that applies to Indian/Tamil literature related articles, kindly let me know. 06:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Tamil-literature-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

Never proposed, no category at all, two stubs, severe conflict with the previously listed stub type. Basically, a mess. Grutness...wha? 04:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was creating a couple of literature articles didnt find any stub category to fit them. So, created them. I'm not aware of the stub creation process, so if there is one kindly fit these in. Or if there is any existing stub category that applies to Indian/Tamil literature related articles, kindly let me know. 06:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Dance-song-stub}} / Category:Dance song stubs edit

Meaningless non-genre name cutting through songs by real genre. There is no such permcat as Category:Dance songs, for a very good reason, and Dance song is a disambiguation page. Only two stubs, both for Electronica tracks, and the category has bad recursion problems. This one is SFD fodder. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Southern Gospel-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename

With associated stub category Category:Southern Gospel stubs and WikiProject WikiProject Southern Gospel. Created November 10 and added the same day to the stub list, so I have no idea how this unproposed stub that doesn't fit the naming guidelines went this long without discovery. Only 29 stubs which is marginal for a WikiProject related stub type, but my main concern is fixing it to follow the naming guidelines. The capitalization appears to be correct, so this may just need a space squashing. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Weird goings-on with cocktails edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

It looks like WP:W Cocktails has taken it on themselves to invent their own weird variation of the stub system, as can be seen at the top of the appallingly named Category:Cocktails (stubs) (not to be confused with the empty Category:Cocktail stubs. Not only do they have {{Cocktail-stub}}, but they have also created their very own {{Cocktail-micro}}, which seems to be a WikiProject specific version of (shudder) {{Substub}}. I 've no objection to one specific cocktail-stub template and a correctly namedc category, but the micro needs to be stomped on heavily, to say the least... Grutness...wha? 09:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Sailor-Moon-stub-section}} and {{Sailor-Moon-stub-List}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was uh, sfd? WP:MFD?

Yes, there are specific sectstub and listdevs for Sailor moon articles. Not really our aegis, I suppose... Grutness...wha? 10:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A stub template with parser functions? Interesting. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We also seem to have {{Nysectstub}}. Subject-specific sectstubs seem to be becoming popular, but I for one am not going to be trying to patrol them! Leave that to another WP... Grutness...wha? 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


Television stubs again edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was see "country tv stubs" below

I have been looking trough the television stubs again lately, and found that the structure as listed on the page does not fully match reality, nor does it reflect some of the changes that were discussed back in July. Of note are some incorrect listings of "country-tv-stub" vs. "country-tv-prog-stub" within the tree of the list. And note that australia-tv-prog-stub and canada-tv-prog-stub and japan-tv-prog-stub were not created/moved as discussed before. I have already fixed some renamed templates in the list, since it appears they were made for consistency reasons of the name in question (Euro- vs. Europe-).

  • I would like to create the remaining proposed country-tv-prog-stub's
  • I would also like to get on OK to check all the stub templates and categories for their textual contents, to make sure that the templates use consistent language amongst eachother.
  • Another thing I would like to do is to change the wording of the country-tv-stubs to better reflect they are not intended to be used for TV programmes.
  • I would like to make sure all templates listed carry the Stub Sorting template

TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All sounds fine to me - if the stub types have been proposed and were agreed to at the time, then it's fine to go ahead and make them, and the other things mentioned sound like good ideas (I take it you mean all the categories in the last part, BTW?) Grutness...wha? 00:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

country-tv-stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

The following country-tv-stubs were discovered in Category:Asian television stubs and Category:South American television stubs {{Asia-tv-stub}} {{India-tv-stub}} {{China-tv-stub}} {{Indonesia-tv-stub}} {{Pakistan-tv-stub}} {{Philippines-tv-stub}} {{Singapore-tv-stub}} {{Korea-tv-stub}} {{SouthAm-tv-stub}} {{Venezuela-tv-stub}} {{Brazil-tv-stub}} {{Peru-tv-stub}} TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they're all upmerged (i.e., leading into the continent-specific categories), then there's probably noit much of a problem. if they have their own categories, though, chances are several of them will be severely undersized, in which case they may need to be upmerged (again, a job for SFD). Grutness...wha? 00:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The general problem with these stubs for me is always that they end up being an assortment of all kinds of stuff. There should be a clear difference between Broadcasting (channels, networks etc), People (bio), and TV programs and there simply is not. See also the discussion linked to in the above post on TV stubs. I much rather see the *-tv-prog-stubs, since that's the largest group of articles usually. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 02:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How should these "upmerging" templates be listed on WP:WSS/ST? TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These stubs have been added to the official list TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 17:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Bangladesh-edu-stub}} / Category:Bangladesh education stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Created by WP:Bangladesh? Non-standard scope. Mostly used for schools. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed & approved in October. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


{{Bangladesh-gov-stub}} / Category:Bangladesh organisation stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create Bangladesh-org-stub and list

Created by WP:Bangladesh? Very very small, non-standard scope and template and category don't go well together. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the precedents of {{US-gov-stub}} and {{US-org-stub}} the scope isn't the problem, it's the mismatch and the size. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed & approved in October. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Alai goofed and said "create, say, {{Bangladesh-edu-stub}} and {{Bangladesh-gov-stub}}" when the proposal was actually for "{{Bangladesh-edu-stub}}, {{Bangladesh-org-stub}}". The question is, which should go for a rename? The template or the category? ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've figured out the proposal, and I think all this needs is a creation of Bangladesh-org-stub to feed into this cat. Bangladesh-gov-stub could still feed in there as well. Any other ideas? ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Alabama-road-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Good number of stubs, well categorised... but we really need to try to standardise the names for these sometime. Talking of which:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Argentina-film-stub}} / Category:Argentine film stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge

Created in good faith by an overzealous film project editor. I explained the stub procedure to him and asked him to exercise patience. Only 4 items in the category now, and I'll check the permcat later (unless Alai has a count already?). Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps an upmerge into a SouthAm-film-stub might be in order? That should allow for enough currently existing stubs to at least be close to viable... Grutness...wha? 21:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Philippines-university-stub}} & {{Pakistan-university-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list Philippines & Pakistan-university; upmerge Indonesia, Thailand, Pakistan-school

Newly discovered due to the creator requesting I use them - not proposed or recorded, neither meets the standard of 65. Probably the best recourse would be to redirect them into {{Asia-university-stub}} until they meet 65. Aelfthrytha 16:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's now reached 65. Buit it's the tip of a small iceberg, I'm afraid. The same user also created:
  • Indonesia-university-stub (14 stubs)
  • Iran-university-stub (64 stubs)
  • Thailand-university-stub (17 stubs)
  • Pakistan-School-stub (sic) (33 stubs)

I'm taking the school one to sfd for renaming (at least), but The Thai and Indonesian ones may well need upmerging. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{NOLA-stub}}, Category:New Orleans stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was sent to SFD for rename and possible upmerge

Not proposed, but there is a wikiproject. Only eight stubs - a mixture of general New Orleans stubs and New Orleans geo-stubs and a patently ridiculous template name. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New Orleans WikiProject is fairly young and we are just now getting templates together for inclusion on New Orleans related pages, including this NOLA-stub template. I was unaware of the stub proposal procedures when I created this stub, but will certainly use it for future stubs. As our project becomes more organized and increases its scope, I anticipate subcategories of stubs similar to those found in other projects. For example, a geography stub could probably be created at this time and be sufficiently populated. I reviewed the list of stubs, and there seem to be no preexisting stubs that NOLA-stub overlaps. Finally, for the naming guidelines, I did not use the suggested guidelines for several reasons:
  • The naming convention guidelines state that exceptions are allowed for the "convenience of editors." Using NOLA-stub is quicker/easier to type, reducing the likelihood of typos.
  • NOLA (New Orleans, LouisianA) is a widely used acronym in the New Orleans area
  • The New York City stub {{NYC-stub}} is an exception to the standard guidelines and was my initial point of reference for naming this stub NOLA-stub instead of NewOrleans-stub.
VerruckteDan 17:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of WP:NO and a current resident of New Orleans, I can verify that "NOLA" is a widely used term, especially among residents, not a contrived acronym.Samwisep86 18:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NYC is a widely used abbreviation for New York City that is known worldwide.and is quite unambiguous. NOLA may be an abbreviation known in New Orleans, but it's certainly not known worldwide and means considerably different things in other places. To me, it means a specific genre of music, the name of a movie, and a city in Italy. I've also heard it used to refer to northern Los Angeles. It's accepted that stub template names shouldn't be ambiguous, and this one is. Grutness...wha? 04:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for "NYC" being a precedent for "NOLA", the phrase "slippery slope" springs to mind. The latter is much less generally and widely used than the former, and {{NewOrleans-stub}} doesn't have the primary meaning/ambiguity issues of {{NewYork-stub}}. NOLA-stub would thereby become a model for yet more cryptic acronyms, and so on ad infinitum. I'd be strongly in favour of renaming. (And upmerging, if it doesn't become large enough to keep.) Alai 04:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect to NewOrleans-stub, until ambiguity is proven. Passer-by 20:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Multisport-stub}}, Category:Multisport stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

Not proposed, no wikiproject, not particularly well-formed (though now fixed). One stub and no parent category (there is no Category:Multisport - the correct parent is Category:Multi-sport events). Grutness...wha? 06:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not particularly well-formed?? The format of it was acceptable as I made it, though anyway as for it now there is no real change but you too now think it is fine as well. So all good on that front. Yeah, realise now I should have proposed it first. If I could go back in time I'd do that. As for parent categories, the correct parent should be Multisport as I intended for there to be. Because the next most similar category is multi-sport events, which is too narrow and simply multisport instead is the more natural and generic category to have instead. Thus I propose that the best path to be taken from here for improvement is to rename Category:Multi-sport events to Category:Multisport. Mathmo Talk 12:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any stub template with a <includeonly>'d category is not well-formed or acceptable in my opinion; I assume that's what G. is referring to. I'm not sure what the distinction in scope between Category:multisport and Category:multisport events -- could you clarify, or ideally, exemplify? If this is viable on size, there might be merit in this, as necessarily these are going to be hard to sort otherwise. Any hope there's anything like 60 of these somewhere? Alai 03:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it would be very wrong to change to , just checked it out. It means something totally different from the meaning in discussion here. Rather the correct parent should be Category:Multi-sport competitions. And that category should be renamed to Category:Multisport, as it is now there are already pages incorrectly included into Category:Multi-sport events such as Triathlon equipment which a more generic Category:Multisport would solve. Mathmo Talk 04:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any renamings relating to the permanent categories should be done via WP:CFD. Grutness...wha? 04:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Been going around marking a small handful of articles as related stubs, am sure there are plenty more out there. Just so you realise there are plenty of others out there, and not just the one article I (or rather my little sister actually) created. Mathmo Talk 04:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aelfthrytha 12:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 2007 edit

{{Bibiquadium-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete

Created as a boring joke? Only used by Bibiquadium, which I'm guessing could be deleted, too; I'll put that tag on the article. A2Kafir 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just redirected the article instead. The stub template should go, though. A2Kafir 00:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Several musician by country stub types and similar edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Forgive me if I've simply missed the proposal for these, but I don't recall seeing it... Monni1995 seems to have createed a bunch of upmerged music-relateed stub types in the last 24 hours or so:

and also the related

I mean, there's probably not much harm in them, but aproposal wwould havee been nice... Grutness...wha? 06:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Archive26 has some of them, I still have to get around creating Category:Asian musician stubs. There's consensus of creating musician-stub (upmerged with continent or with own category) for every country so I didn't think it needed additional proposal, it only needs to be completed. Monni 20:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rather agree, if there's consensus for types on the same pattern, a proposal just for an upmerged template seems a bit like gilding the lily. Alai 01:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Jamaica-footy-bio-stub}}/Category:Jamaican football biography stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Logical, but unproposed.Looks like it's at threshold, though. Grutness...wha? 06:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{WesternAustralia-stub}} / Category:Western Australia stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Never proposed, but appears to have a wikiproject. Looks well formed, and is well populated, though a little oddly 90% of the contents seem to be plant-stubs. A keeper, I'd say, but it would have been good if it had been proposed first! Grutness...wha? 22:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note thate within the Wikiproject Australia that three state projects have been recently created (appears to have a project? -hmph obviously a kiwi!) - and will probabl;y need to be alerted of this process - the west australian one is the most advanced and developed. The creation of stubs for each of these projects is highly likely an important part of the process of sorting things out in the projects - so Tasmania and Victoria (the least developed project yet with the highest population base) will need to know of this. As for the plant based population, I'll speak to grutness privately on this matter. SatuSuro 23:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I said "appears to have", because there was no link to one in the stub category, and I only inferred its existence through other comments on Hesperian's talk page. If they created their Wikiproject pages from {{WikiProject}}, as is standard, they should already know of this, since it says on the template that it's best t clear stub templates here first. Also, given our fairly frequent contact with the main Australian WikiProject and various city-specific Wikiprojects in the past, I'd be surprised if no-one remembered... Grutness...wha? 23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created this last night (AWSST), and spent an hour or so populating it before going to bed; I started with flora, hence the unbalanced content. The Category:Western Australia category tree is pretty big, even leaving aside the Category:Geography of Western Australia subcategory, for which we have {{WesternAustralia-geo-stub}}. I expect this stub category will grow to at least ten times its current size over the next couple of weeks. Hesperian 23:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. This is associated with WP:WA. Hesperian 23:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


{{Stockholm-stub}} / Category:Stockholm stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

Created without proposal, of course, and an ambiguous one. Seems fairly clear from what's been listed as a parent for this one that the creator of it actually wanted a Stockholm-geo-stub. It is about time we started thinking about splitting Sweden's geo-stubs (there are 700 of them), but I'm not convinced that simply separating out the capital is the best way (we go with states/provinces/counties etc with other countries). At the very least some clarification about the scope of this one is needed, and - if it's meant to be for geography - some renaming is in order, if it is to be kept. Grutness...wha? 06:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, assuming we'd be using the counties of Sweden, Stockholm is one of the 21 counties. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Stockholm is both the name of a County (län) and of a City. If the scope is the county please make sure this is specified and change the arms to this image. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 07:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it still leaves the question of whether they're geo-stubs or not. Personally, a split of Sweden's geo-stubs into the 21 counties sounds quite reasonable, at least as template only (700 stubs averages only about 34 each), but - as V says - if we do this we need to make it clear that it's for the county of Stockholm. Grutness...wha? 07:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no, we can live with the potential ambiguity of a {{Stockholm-geo-stub}} for Stockholm County since each of the other area's called Stockholm are contained within it, tho the template text and the category boilerplate should make it clear that it's dealing with the county. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created this stub unaware of the surrounding system you are discussing here. I've resorted the stubs in the three articles in question to make the template and category easily deleted.
However, as a rule, I prefer to add content to Wikipedia rather than sorting faulty articles and my intention at this time is to write articles about Stockholm (the city) only, its geography or whatever else. There is still a lot of related articles to create, and before more people join in many of my contributions are likely to remain stubs. So, I simply created this stub to make life easier for myself. Do I actually have to propose/create a new stub/category every time I widen my scope beyond geography?
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need to propose any new stub category/template you make. In the case of this stub type, as you can see above, it's probably not the best way to split out stubs. It takes seconds to make a stub type, and a week or more to delete or fix it if its wrong, which is why proposal first is definitely recommended. There's nothing to stop you using the stub types already there, such as Sweden-geo-stub, Sweden-stub, Sweden-bio-stub, Sweden-struct-stub etc etc etc. If you want more editors to edit your articles, then marking them with these will guarantee that people who know about Sweden in general - including those who know about Stockholm in particular - will get to know about them. Grutness...wha? 23:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problems. I'll simply use the Sweden-templates then. Again, sorry for causing problems. Keep going!
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Abkhazia-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

I proceded to create a stub & stub category for articles related to the internationally unrecognised republic of Abkhazia. Halfway through the process, I discovered that I was first supposed to have requested their creation here. Since I had already started, I decided to continue through with it, there are currently 53 articles thus stubbed. sephia karta 02:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one should almost certainly be deleted, since stub types are deliberately not created for disputed territories, and similar ones have been deleted in thee past. The reason? Edit wars on articles are bad, and those on templates create far more problems, but edit wars on templates that feed categories cause huge amounts of probleems. Any disputed territory is likely to be susceptiblee to its templates having edit wars (in fact, I note that your new template got its first "hostilee" edit less than two hours after it was created). For that reason, we only use internationally accepted national and subnational regions for stub types. Grutness...wha? 05:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, stub-category needs to be suggested and discussed before introducing it into use. Second, you were not first to have requsted it, but all previous attempts failed. I don't understand why it is a tendency to drag stub-sorting into a POV conflict. It is not helpful, indeed. Why Category:Georgia (country) stubs was not chosen as a parent stub category? Finally, the Abkhazia stub category seems to be artifically overinflated. There is hardly any need for the use of {{Abkhazia-stub}} in the articles such as Soft Kha.--Kober 05:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's also annoying that the new stub type has been introduced as a replacement rather than a supplement to the current stubs. Geo-stubs are missing from many articles, for instance, and there are other stub templates missing from other articles (heraldry-stub, airport-stub, etc). Grutness...wha? 05:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is now on SFD Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 07:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Grutness. Ldingley 16:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Siberia-myth-stub}} / Category:Siberian mythology stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge

Not proposed, and only about 25 stubs, three of which are up for merger with each other. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I wasn't familiar with the new stub category creation policy and I managed to notice the proposal procedure only after I had created the stub template and category. The reasons why I created the template were (1) despite Siberia contains large number of different peoples and therefore different mythologies, being shamanic in nature they share several similarities compared to the rest of Asia (and Europe), and (2) although the number of stub articles that fall on this category is currently small, it could potentially be much larger; Wikipedia is really incomplete on this area. I originally considered naming the stub "Northern Eurasian (or Northern Russian) mythology stub", so that similar mythologies on the European side (Mari, Mordvinic, perhaps Sami mythology etc.) of Northern Eurasia could be included, but both "Eurasian" and "Russian" had their problems (for example, Norse mythology could be considered Northern Eurasian, and Russia in the name would have been too exclusive).--JyriL talk 06:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally in those circumstances what would have been done at the proposal stage would have been to make a template alone, feeding it back into a larger mythology stubs category, then splitting out a category when there are 60 or so stubs. Do you think it's likely this will get to 50 or 60 stubs any time soon? If so, then keeping the template/category pair would be an option - if not, then upmerging the template and deleting the category would probably still make more sense. Grutness...wha? 06:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That depends completely on the activity of other editors (I have no good sources/knowledge on the subject to create the articles myself). But given the apparent lack of interest, I don't think that number will be met anytime soon.--JyriL talk 07:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


{{Mycologist-stub}}/Category:Mycologist stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge

Logical, but unproposed and unlikely to reach threshold, I would think. Upmerging may be an option. Grutness...wha? 06:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, my apologies for not proposing this new stub. I didn't know that one needed to propose them before creating them. Anyway, mycologist stub represents a split from botanist stub. I would prefer that it be kept and not upmerged back into "botanist stub". This category was created for the purpose of expanding articles for Wikiproject Fungi so that there could be a clear category for stubs about mycologists, which contributors on mycological topics could easily find and expand upon. "Mycologist stub" aids in this in a way that "botanist stub" cannot. Peter G Werner 11:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three articles is very small, though. What about keeping the template, feeding info both Category:botanist stubs and Category:fungus stubs, until such time as it's a more viable size? Alai 01:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having Category:Mycologist stubs readily provides a list of stubs about mycologists, however. Also, I think the number is expandable beyond three – there are actually quite a few stubs about mycologists on WP, some of them hidden among the botanist stubs. I'll try and search these out and expand the number. Peter G Werner 03:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The normal size threshold is 60. Unless there's some prospect of it reaching that, I'd go with upmerger. Such small stub types might be a convenience to some, but they're not felt to be helpful in general: the danger is they become the "road less travelled", and don't receive as much attention as they would have done in a less specific stub-cat. Alai 06:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Romania-battle-stub}} / Category:Romania battle stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge

Unproposed, and newly arrived. Five stubs only. Unlikely it'll reach threshold, but could probably suvive as an upmerged template. Grutness...wha? 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Grutness for noticing me. I`ve made the stub to be simmilar to {{Austria-battle-stub}} or {{Sweden-battle-stub}}, {{Poland-battle-stub}}, etc. I`ve did it to replace the cleary more ambiguous and general {{Romania-stub}} template. Btw, now there are 12 stubs in it. Petre Bolea 05:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Similar, aside from the somewhat key "size" aspect. I'd also suggest upmerging. Alai 06:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Discoveries/Archive19&oldid=1149873147"