Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Archive9

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting‎ | Discoveries

September 2005 discoveries edit

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

Created in the past day, used on 2 articles. Mentioned at Category talk:Song stubs. --Mairi 03:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you added that link - otherwise I'd have suggested we needed a {{Married-stub}} as well! This is not only badly worded, but unnecessary, I would have thought. Grutness...wha? 05:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That was my first thought too, when I saw it on Recent Changes ;) It could be useful, given the size of Category:Song stubs. But I'm not sure how many stubs there are on singles that could be expanded, other than being actually about the main song, in which case song-stub would be more appropriate. --Mairi 06:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a good idea, but how to sort them from song-stub is a problem. I think a good way would be if they are a short page (stub length) and have the single infobox template used, then give them a single-stub tag. I don't understand the problem with the wording of it though. - RedHotHeat 16:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the initial wording of the template didn't mention music, and until I fixed it just now, it linked to the disambig page for single, not the music-related article. And the template name doesn't make clear that it's specific to music, but that's perhaps unavoidable. --Mairi 17:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I noticed people adding it to things like single-level pylon, but still, should they not check what single refers to? Why would anyone create one that refers to THAT kind of single? - RedHotHeat 07:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Single-stub isn't really a subcategory of song-stub, but of album-stub. Up until now I've been putting singles in albums. But I'd definitely give it a low priority. Music-video-stub would be much more useful, not to mention music-tour-stub. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Created today, used on 1 article. Category lacks any parent categories. --Mairi 06:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear - someone mush have been enthused by all the separate geo-stubs. I doubt we need county-specific non-geo-stubs, though (unless there's a separate wikiproject). Grutness...wha? 07:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a lot of articles in Category:Gloucestershire and its daughters. However, many of them seem to already be in {{Gloucestershire-geo-stub}}, so I don't know how viable this one is. Aecis 21:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{film-studio-stub}} edit

Created 2 days ago; unused. Has a category redlink. No clue if it'd be useful. --Mairi 03:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple bio stubs edit

All created today by the same anon user (User:69.68.26.132). Only {{Chile-bio-stub}} is used, and on only one article. --Mairi 05:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All could potentially be useful... if they ever get populated... I'd be more hesitant about the U.S. states than the countries, though. --Alynna 00:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually a discussion on US state bio stubs at the proposal page at the moment, and general opinion seems to be that it's not a good idea, US-profession-stub would be a better way to go as a secondary split after nationalities. Grutness...wha? 05:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well at 12 pages, UK bio needs something to be split out. I can think of a lot worse than Scotland and perhaps Wales getting their own bio stubs. Caerwine 01:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Florida isn't used so much (once + the template itself) but the others are good. It's... Thelb4! 16:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland's been adopted below, and since Switzerland has reached 65 bio stubs, I think we can safely adopt that one as well. I'm also sending Latvia and Florida to SfD, but I'm going to hold off on Chile for a while longer. Caerwine 01:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 2005 discoveries edit

{{NZ-university-stub}} / Category:New Zealand university stubs edit

Here is another one created today, this one by Jengod (talk • contribs). Only used in 3 articles (so far anyway). --Sherool 19:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Might be usful, but there are only 10 universities in NZ. I've written a few stubs on halls of residence, though, and there are plenty of polytechs... we'll see. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Rapper-stub}} edit

Created a month ago, used on one article. Lacks a category. A {{hiphop-musician-stub}} might be useful, however, if we're splitting my genre. Mairi 19:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I thought that we'd decided in favour of a hiphop-musician-stub a while back, but obviously not. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a {{hiphop-stub}}; what would go in there except musicians? —Wahoofive (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
albums, bands, songs, regional scenes/movements, producers, labels, dance steps, equipment, slang terms... Grutness...wha? 10:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again, wanting to divide albums, bands, songs, etc. by genre. We've debated this before; it will never work. It just makes the stubs harder to find and leads to disagreements among editors regarding what genre a particular group belongs to. That's why we don't have Rock-music-stub and Country-music-stub and Alternative-rock-influenced-by-Green-Day-stub. A stub for rappers, comparable to {{singer-stub}}, {{guitarist-stub}}, and so on makes sense. That's how I've been interpreting {{hiphop-stub}}. I'd be perfectly happy to rename it rapper-stub but it's a bad idea to try to put all those other things you mention in there. (equipment? So a record player is a hiphop-stub?) —Wahoofive (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Argentina-poli-stub}} / Category:Argentina politics stubs edit

Created at the end of August, used on 6 articles. Also has the bizarre redirect {{Politics of argentina stub}}. Not sure it'd get all the much use. --Mairi 20:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Give it time- see if it grows. But get rid of the redirect (it's horrible!). Grutness...wha? 00:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Created today, used on 3 articles. I moved the template from {{Delaware stub}}, so that's a redirect... --Mairi 03:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just discovered {{Nebraska-stub}} as well - it had no category (I've added one), but it will also be heading over to sfd. Grutness...wha? 09:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{loco-stub}} split edit

All created today. Loco-stub isn't to the point where it needs splitting (it's only 2 pages), but these would cover most engines, I'd think, so some/all might be viable. --Mairi 02:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it would probably make far more sense to split by country. A railway buff is likely to know far more about all locomotives from their country than about a motive power category worldwide. Grutness...wha? 05:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{textiles-stub}} edit

Created on 2 September, doesn't appear to be used on anything at the moment. Has two category redlinks. Not sure if there's enough to make this useful, but if kept it would descend from {{material-stub}}. And would need fixing. --Alynna 06:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

redirect? Grutness...wha? 10:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
see discussion under {{material-stub}} proposals before redirecting this. --Kaiserb 18:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{HK-road-stub}} edit

Created by user:HenryLi. — Instantnood 20:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • AKA {{Hong-Kong-road-stub}} (the actual template), and {{Hong Kong-road-stub}} (another redirect). Though 'Enry missed out on my preference, which would have been {{HongKong-road-stub}}... Give user the usual wearied reminder about proposing them first, but otherwise not all that bad (46 of 'em). Alai 20:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{sociology-stub}} / No category edit

I know this is a bit of a surprise to me and since Grutness used it as an example when discussing the deletion of another stub, {Independance-stub}, it'll probably be a surprise to him as well. Probably ought to be made at least a redirect of {{socio-stub}} if not the main stub. I'm moving all the sociologist that use this to the new {{sociologist-stub}} pending what we decide to do with this one. Caerwine 22:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I typed sociology-stub without thinking, alhough i meant socio-stub. Sociology-stub is probably a better name, really, but definitely one of them should redirect to the other. it's just a case of which to which? Grutness...wha? 00:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Iraq-war-stub}} edit

Created in June by user:Stevertigo. No category. Sounds useful, but the fact that it has been used once since it was created seems to negate that. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cape Verde-geo-stub}} / Category:Cape Verde geography stubs edit

Created today, used on two articles. Based on Grutness's count, Cape Verde has only 15 stubs, so this probably isn't needed; if it is it could use a rename of the template... --Mairi 06:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Rename it, and we'll see if it grows. Geo-stubs rarely get deleted at SFD - if someone's thought this one is worth making s/he also is probably thinking of making some stubs. But if it hasn't grown in a month or two... (and add the usual grumble on their talk page). Grutness...wha? 06:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Organometallic-compound-stub}} / Category:Organometallic compound stubs edit

And the slightly different {{organometallic-compound-start}} / Category:Incomplete organometallic compound articles. I suspect that these are too specific, but I don't know much about chemical compounds... --Mairi 06:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know enough to know that there are far more than 60 Organometallic compounds so it's quite possible that there could be enough stubs, tho I have no idea if there are. However, unless someone can come up with a compling reason for the difference, could we please send {{organometallic-compound-start}} & Category:Incomplete organometallic compound articles to SfD real soon. Caerwine 05:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 2005 discoveries edit

{{HK-film-stub}} / Category:Hong Kong film stubs edit

Created today, used on 52 articles. Film-stub is generally divided by genre, although there is {{India-film-stub}} earlier on this page. --Mairi 07:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weren't we pushing for HongKong-... on these? It's hardly painfully long. Alai 06:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Australia-bcast-stub}} / Category:Australia broadcasting stubs edit

Created today, used on 42 articles. Probably worth keeping... --Mairi 07:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's now over 70 stubs, so I'm adding it to the main list. Caerwine 19:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Movement of {{Mathbio-stub}} edit

MarSch has moved mathbio-stub to {{Mathematician-stub}}. Also created {{Math-bio-stub}} as a redirect in the process (they moved to there first). --Mairi 07:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Was on my personal to do list of things to propose once I had time. Ideally, I'd like to see us keep {{mathematician-stub}} and as a redirect {{math-bio-stub}}, but {{mathbio-stub}} only fits in if math is considered a sport. Caerwine 20:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prefer mathematician-stub myself, since I'm always finding myself having to correct after I've typed mathsbio-stub (AFAIK, math is only used as an abbreviation in the US - the rest of us talk about maths). Grutness...wha? 00:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I prefer mathematician-stub also, as it avoids the math/maths issue. But if we're keeping a redirect like math-bio-stub, we might as well have maths-bio-stub too. We might want to think about getting rid of the historical {{mathbiostub}}, although it's heavily used. --Mairi 01:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three more {{Metro-stub}} subtypes edit

Today I found {{SEPTA-stub}} (Category:SEPTA-related stubs), {{Singapore-MRT-stub}} (Category:Singapore MRT stubs) and {{Washington-Metro-stub}} (Category:Washington Metro stubs). Each is healthily populated, so I've added them to the Category:Rail stubs page, and I'll add them on the main stub type list shortly (unless someone else beats me to it). slambo 15:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Washington-Metro-stub}} survived an SFD, so it should've been added to WP:WSS/ST earlier. As far as the other two, they're used enough now that they look viable. I'd rather the category was called Category:SEPTA stubs tho. --Mairi 17:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Category:Singapore MRT stubs has been on WP:WSS/ST for long. Conscious 20:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ISTR these were all discussed on the discoveries page several months back, along with two nearly-identical Hong Kong Metro stubs (which should have been merged, but AFAICR never were). KCR-stub or something like that...? Grutness...wha? 00:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Aviation-stub}} edit

Someone's decided to "fix" Category:Aviation stubs, which was just a supercat (and noted as such on WP:WSS/ST). Used twice now, might be useful... --Mairi 07:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Makes sense to me to use it in this manner; there are numerous aero-stubs that aren't on specific aircraft, but are "over-sorted" (into an over-large category), and would be more logically placed here. Since the category exists as a supercat anyway, I'm not sure viability is a worry anyway, though I'd guess it's likely to be over a reasonable threshold anyway. Alai 04:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{NZ-rail-stub}} / Category:New Zealand rail stubs edit

Created today, used on 28 articles and added to WP:WSS/P. Given the size of it's parent category (Category:Rail transport in New Zealand and child have 48 articles), I have my doubts... --Mairi 03:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{paleo-stub}} / Category:Paleontology stubs edit

Discovered this was not on the list today, and added it to WP:WSS/P. I've given its parent category as Category:Biology stubs with a cross-reference under Category:Geology stubs, and listed as a child Category:Dinosaur stubs (which was already on the list under Reptiles). The category has only about 50 articles right now, but I can see lots of potential for other extinct organisms and their fossils populating the category now that it's on the list. -- EncycloPetey 06:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I hadn't sifted through {{mammal-stub}} when I counted the articles in this category. Now that I've identified the mammal stubs for prehistoric species, there are nearly 100 articles in this category. -- EncycloPetey 03:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend a rename to {{paleontology-stub}} though. Paleo is a common prefix denoting ancient or prehistoric, and could even be confused for the horse races in Siena. Aecis praatpaal 16:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A related thing - I think that dinosaur-stub could do with a slight tweak. According to the category, it is for astub aricles about dinosaurs (all well and good), but a lot of editors don't seem to realise that not all mesozoic reptiles were dinosaurs. I've turfed out Ichthyosaurs, pterosaurs, and therapsids from that category, but each time I've wondered whether it was the right thing to do. Is there any possible improvement to the wording of the template and/or category to specify whether they should be in or out (personally, I think they'd be better in it). Grutness...wha? 23:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any way to prevent people from putting non-dinosaurs into the category. The word "dinosaur" to many people means "big, extinct animal" regardless of how much education happens. I think there is enough potential for pure dinosaur stubs that I'd rather see other extinct critters placed elsewhere, such as {{paleo-stub}} for now. The dino-purists, who are also the most likely folks to expand dinosaur stubs, would cringe at the sight of non-dinos mixed in. They'd move them out no matter how the template and category were worded. I think the simplest thing to do is quietly purify the category from time to time without a fuss. --EncycloPetey 12:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Europe-tv-stub}} / Category:Europe television program stubs edit

Created today, listed at WP:WSS/ST, used on 8 articles. Worth keeping, if we want to divide television programs by continent. --Mairi 05:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Canada-tv-stub}} / Category:Canada television program stubs edit

Same as Europe-tv-stub. Used on about 20 articles. My only beef is that if this had gone thru process, we could have done a better job of reorganizing the tv stubs. It can still be done, but it'll take a bit more effort now. Caerwine 06:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't we talking about renaming the parent template anyway? Tv-stub doesn't necessarily imply tv programmes. Grutness...wha? 06:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{anime-game-stub}} {{manga-cvg-stub}} edit

Both are redirects of the recently created {{anime-cvg-stub}}. I've sent the former directly to SfD, while I've gone ahead and added the letter to the list of offical redirects. Caerwine 21:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 2005 discoveries edit

{{Lorraine-geo-stub}} / Category:Lorraine geography stubs edit

Created today, used on 1 article. {{France-geo-stub}} is still quite large, so this might be useful. --Mairi 22:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have been splitting France's geo-stubs. Can't recall how many Lorraine was listed as having, but it'll be on WSS/P somewhere. This one might well be viabl;e. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the previous discussion thread. Lorraine was at 56 stubs in mid-October. Mindmatrix 17:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At 73 articles now. Added to WP:WSS/ST. Conscious 19:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 film stubs found edit

I've added these to the list of stub types. For some reason they were listed on the {{film-stub}} category page, but not in the stub list. --EncycloPetey 08:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

stubs are never added to that list until theyre checked out here first. tho the india ones been on this page long enough to be there (its right at the top of this page now and noones complained by the looks of it). i think theyre only added to the stub type list when this page is archived. BL kiss the lizard 08:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to the statement at the top of this page: "Stubs that have been put on the stub types list without discussion on this page or /Proposals should be listed here as well." The way this recommendation is worded, it sounds as though listing can be made in both locations simultaneously, as I did. --EncycloPetey 11:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it backwards, 'Petey. What that says is that anything which someone puts on the stub type list without discussion should be reported here. It doesn't say that anything you find should automatically go on the stub type list. There are a lot of things on this page that haven't been put on the stub type list because we want to see whether they're worth keeping or not before either "officialising" them via the list or sending them to sfd. Grutness...wha? 12:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the introductory reccomendation at the top of this page should be reworded for clarity. If your interpretation is the current project consensus, then I certainly misunderstood the current wording. There should be a clear statement to the effect that "Discovered stubs should not be added to the stub types list until their viability has been discussed on this page. However, any discovered stubs that have been put on the stub types list without discussion on this page or /Proposals should be listed here as well for evaluation." I recommend that a similar (but slightly reworded) version of this statement be placed at the top of the stub types list, since I've noticed that no such limitation on adding stubs to the list appears there. --EncycloPetey 12:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I've altered the wording at the top of the page to reflect what is usual practice here. If I've gone too far with that, someone is bound to notice and revert it, but it does explain things a bit more clearly now. Grutness...wha? 13:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{jazz-album-stub}} / Category:Jazz album stubs edit

Looks well formed, used on 4 articles. Probably quite useful in cutting down on Category:Album stubs (and we're already splitting by genre). --Mairi 02:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check the album stub category, because the only jazz album articles that I've run across have all been way over stub size. BlankVerse 13:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{horticulture-stub}} / Category:Horticulture stubs edit

Created on 13 November, but I just discovered it today. It's not on the list, though I imagine that it *might* be useful for topics in gardening and plant cultivation, and could be used for landscaping with plants. It currently has only a single article. --EncycloPetey 12:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update - After 12 days, there are now 38 articles with this stub. --EncycloPetey 15:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{NewMexico-geo-stub}} / Category:New Mexico geography stubs edit

Moved from {{New Mexico-geo-stub}}, which was created today. According to Grutness's last count, there's 48 suitable stubs. Would be nice if people would wait... --Mairi 03:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sigh. Too many to delete it, so I'll load up the split-page. Annoying, nonetheless. At least it wasn't for Delaware (4 stubs). I've left the usual note on the creator's page. Grutness...wha? 05:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Warof1812-stub}} / Category:War of 1812 stubs edit

Created today by the military history wikiproject; used on 29 articles. Probably worth keeping given it's current size, altho I'm not sure I care for the template name. --Mairi 04:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like the creator did their best to follow the naming conventions. I agree it's probably worth keeping, and hope the Military History Wikiproject isn't going to create a stub type for every war. Conscious 14:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This wasn't the US war I would have expected to gain a stub next, but it should be able to reach 60 stubs without too much effort. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{District Of Columbia-stub}} and {{Virginia-stub}} edit

both created today, both redlink. I've taken the first one to sfd for renaming. neither has a WikiProject, but see my comment at WP:WSS/P#US State-stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{International-law-stub}} / Category:International law stubs edit

Related to Wikipedia:WikiProject International law. — Instantnood 20:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this one to the proposals page for formal adoption and a possible {{int-law-stub}} redirect. I've seen enough treaty stubs amongst the history stubs to convince me this one would be viable even without a Wikiproject. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-RnB-band-stub}} / Category:United States R&B musical group stubs edit

Created 9 December. Looks well formed. Not proposed and not listed in WP:WSS/ST. Currently has 5 articles. This could be useful as I know there are quite a number of R&B stubs in {{US-band-stub}}. --Bruce1ee 05:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some technical reason why "&" doesn't work in templates? If there isn't, the template looks like it could use a rename. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reserved character, eg http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Discoveries&action=edit&section=115 - SoM 16:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While & is in fact a reserved character in URLs and in HTML, it works fine in template names, e.g. {{Anglican Bishops & Archbishops - Great Britain}}. It gets automatically converted by Mediawiki to an acceptable character. --Mairi 18:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have counted over 60 articles in {{US-band-stub}} that could populate this category. I have proposed in WP:WSS/P (Four more genre splits of {{US-band-stub}}) that we keep it, renaming {{US-RnB-band-stub}} to {{US-R&B-band-stub}}. --Bruce1ee 08:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-pop-band-stub}} / redlinked category Category:United States pop musical group stubs edit

Created 12 December. Other than the red linked category, looks well formed. Not proposed, but listed complete with redlink category. My main concern here is whether pop music is well enough defined for consistent sorting. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have counted over 60 articles in {{US-band-stub}} that could populate this category. I have proposed in WP:WSS/P (Four more genre splits of {{US-band-stub}}) that we keep it. --Bruce1ee 08:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Hardware-cvg-stub}} / Category:Computer and video game hardware stubs edit

Created for WikiProject Computer and video games, used on 78 articles. It'd be nice if they'd, like, tell us about stub types they create... {{cvg-hardware-stub}} would be a more intuitive name for me, and should atleast be a redirect. --Mairi 05:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom enzyme cross listings edit

Why are the stub articles exoenzyme and exopeptidase showing up under Category:Science stubs? They aren't marked with {{sci-stub}}, only with {{enzyme-stub}}. Nothing in either the templates or the articles seems to be amiss. Anyone have an idea why these enzyme articles (and not others) are showing up as Category:Science stubs?

An older version of {{enzyme-stub}} had Category:Science stubs (and a bunch of other categories) on it. Those two articles hadn't been edited since enzy me-stub got fixed, so they still showed up there. They should be fixed now... --Mairi 06:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-newspaper-stub}} edit

I just noticed this template is not on the Stub Types list. It has 27 articles in the category and its parent category is up to 5 pages, so it might be a keeper. --EncycloPetey 15:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A definite keeper since it's on the proposals page, ho it has been created a tad early as it was only proposed five days ago. Should be added to the stub list at anyone's earliest convienience. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Languedoc-geo-stub}} / Category:Languedoc-Roussillon geography stubs edit

Created today, used on 34 articles. For the Languedoc-Roussillon région in France, which is how we're splitting {{France-geo-stub}}. Probably worth keeping. --Mairi 06:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC) At 80 articles now. Added to WP:WSS/ST. Conscious 19:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Andamans-geo-stub}} / Category:Andaman and Nicobar geography stubs edit

Added to the ST list today, and will probably be useful, but I've temporarily removed it until its name is discussed. The template very probably needs a rename as it refers to both the sets of islands. I'd like some thoughts about it before it goes back on the list or goes to sfd for renaming... Grutness...wha? 05:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{AndamanNicobar-geo-stub}} might be a better name, as that's what we've done before with some of the compound names. I'm not sure I see any harm in having {{Andamans-geo-stub}} and {{Nicobars-geo-stub}} as redirects, tho. --Mairi 05:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Twas I who created this stub, in (I admit) blissful ignorance of the suggested guideline to have such creations proposed first. It is intended for geo articles relating to the Indian Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which encompasses both island groups; however since that was a bit of a mouthful and most currently existing members are in the Andamans I elected to go with a shortened {andamans-geo-stub} name. For consistency with other Indian states' geo stub names, maybe {AndamanNicobar-geo=stub} could be used instead, I don't really mind. Will this one be OK to restore to the listing on the Stub types pg?--cjllw | TALK 05:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since there appear to be no further objections, I will re-add the template (now renamed to {{AndamanNicobar-geo-stub}}) to the ST list ({{andamans-geo-stub}} and {{nicobar-geo-stub}} are now redirects).--cjllw | TALK 02:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India geo stubs edit

While there was a proposal for some of these, most of them weren't specifically mentioned, and they were created by someone else. Probably no problem with them, but I'll list them here anyway:

All are states in India. Mairi 05:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Discoveries/Archive9&oldid=1146648626"