Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2008/February

Newly discovered, February 2008

Kosovo

As predicted, there's been a heap of movement on Kosovo in the last few days, with changes to {{Kosovo-geo-stub}} and {{Kosovo-bio-stub}}, plus the creation of {{Kosovo-stub}} and {{Kosovo-footy-bio-stub}} (as a redirect). These were all mooted in the last few days over at the proposal page, so no problem (although it was suggested that we hold off on the footy-bio- type for now. Ah well. )

What wasn't mooted was separate categories for them, and all of them are substantially undersized. Two of these were given separate categories (Kosovo stubs and Kosovo geography stubs), and a third was redlinked ready for "Kosovoar (sic) people stubs". I've repointed/upmerged the bio stubs and geo-stubs (sopeedying the geo category, since it was a recreation), but I've left the basic Category:Kosovo stubs. it's still undersized (only about 40 stubs), but in this instance we can probably turn a blind eye to that, since this one should grow pretty rapidly. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

{{Baghdad-stub}} / Category:Baghdad stubs

Unproposed, and the only stub using it at the moment is one relating to the whole of Iraq. Category:Iraq stubs is well below the splitting level, and very few of the stubs in it relate solely to Baghdad (and Category:Iraq geography stubs is smaller yet, so there's no need for a Baghdad-geo-stub either). At a quick glance, an Iraq-stadium-stub, Iraq-history-stub or Iraq-party-stub would get to threshoild faster than this one. On the other hand, there is a WikiProject - but even then, this doesn't look likely to reach the required lowered threshold any time soon. Upmerging may be the best solution. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The stub was created only yesterday, and I have not had a chance to tag articles with it. If you think I should have proposed it first, go ahead and do what you have to do. I will run it through proper channels in the future first. Thanks!

Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There are now more than 70 articles that have been identified as Baghdad stubs by the WikiProject Iraq members, and they have been consequently tagged. Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 11:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks keepable now, then. BTW, bio-stubs aren't normally stubbed with anything smaller than a national-level stub type (people move around too much to easily get one specific city or subregion stub type. But even taking the handful of bio-stubs out you'd still have 60-odd stubs. Good work. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

{{Japan-baseball-stub}} / Category:Japanese baseball stubs

Unproposed, and by a "repeat offender". Mind you, Borgarde's other Baeeball-related stub types have reached threshold, even though this one looks pretty thin on the ground. If it stays that way, upmerger again seems possible. Grutness...wha? 11:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Grutness's comment on my talk page, I'm starting to think that it's a good idea to create {{taiwan-baseball-stub}}, and {{korea-baseball-stub}}, and have them (as long as {{japan-baseball-stub}} feed into an asian-baseball-stub category. And then, if the category gets too large, broadening the categories might be appropriate. Does this seem ok? This is mainly because baseball topics regarding Asia in general are not suitable for the mainstream baseball-stub categories, as they are dominated by Major League Baseball and baseball in North America. --Borgarde^talk 07:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, a more general Asian category makes sense, since it's likely to get to threshold level (60 stubs) far more easily. Having several upmerged templates would normally be handled at the proposal page, but if you get enough positive feedback here, then it would make sense to keep all the discussion in one place (the same group of people hang around on both pages). Anyone else got any comments, positive or otherwise? Grutness...wha? 08:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with having an asian-baseball-stub, but the Japanese bio one needs to stay. The Japanese league has hundreds of uncreated articles and has a lot of room for expansion. Yet alone is already big enough for it's own. --Borgarde^talk 08:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you entirely understand my suggestion, which would be to hav separate templates for Japan, Korea and Taiwan, but to have them all feeding into one Asia category for now, until it's clear there are enough existing stubs for separate categories. The current 14 Japanese stubs isn't nearly enough for that. Stub sorting never works on the basis of the number of possible uncreated articles, or any subject would instantly be over the required threshold number of stubs. Grutness...wha? 22:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I understood that before, I said that in my initial reply to this stub finding. Do we have an agreement? --Borgarde^talk 15:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it - you just confused me a bit referring to "asian-baseball-stub", which is a template name, not a category name. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created the templates after this discussion. The category can be found at Category:Asian baseball stubs. --Borgarde^talk 12:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good - will look better once it fills up to the required 60 stub level (soon, I hope!) Grutness...wha? 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

{{Lancashire-school-stub}} etc

The list at WP:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Education only lists {{UK-school-stub}} and subtypes Buckinghamshire and London. The page at Category:United Kingdom school stubs says that there are 9 geog subcats but doesn't show the templates for the stubtypes. The page at Category:North West England school stubs does not show the templates either. It turns out that there are subdivisions of this, but the only way I found {{Lancashire-school-stub}} was by looking for a school name in Lancaster in that category and finding the stubtype. It seems a bit of a mess ... but is probably a deep political minefield which I should avoid! But it meant that my attempt to stubsort Lancaster and Morecambe College took a l-o-n-g time. (Even after I'd renamed the badly-titled article!). PamD (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

{{Goat-stub}} / Category:Goat stubs

Unproposed, but seems a logical addition to the template stub types (escpecially now it's been fixed up a bit), though there may not be enough stubs to warrant the separate category (there are currently 29). May need upmerging if more aren't forthcoming. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I failed to propose it before creation because I am new to the process (i.e. had no idea I should). I created this as an accompaniment to the preexisting {{sheep-stub}}. For context on the size, the sheep stub/cat also had relatively few articles, until I went about making sure all right stubs were tagged and created appropriate new ones for the category. I haven't had the chance yet to complete the work on the goat stubs, and will most likely be creating more than a few new ones. VanTucky 00:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

When sheep-stub was proposed, it was clear there were going to be 60 currently-existing stubs that could take it, so it was approved on that basis; if there are 60 currently-existing stubs on goats, then it's unlikely anyone will object to the category - same if you're fairly quick about making any new stubs to get it to that level. If it stays at this sort of population for too long, though, upmerging it remains a probability. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Just as a portrait of how expansion might go, this state university animal science dept. list of goat breeds is accurate. VanTucky 20:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that although 60 is touted as the number most places at /Proposals it actually says 30 if the stub type has a WikiProject. Goat falls under WikiProject Agriculture, where both it's creation and the failure to propose it were discussed. Also, I agree with VanTucky that there is undertagging and several articles that need to be created in this area which will bring the numbers up. VanTucky has been doing a lot of great work in this area and can be counted on to find the untagged stubs and create the needed articles. I support the need for this tag to remain, including the cat, which helps the Project find species specific stubs to work on.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

30 is the threshold for a WikiProject's basic stub template. In other words, the threshold for {{agriculture-stub}} is 30, since the wikiproject is WP:Agriculture. For {{goat-stub}} to have a threshold of 30 there would need to be a WikiProject Goats. As for remaining, what generally happens on the discussion page is that things are left here for a while, to see whether there is any apparent growth in the category size. If it gets to 60 in the next month or two, then it's very likely to be kept. If it shows no sign of getting close to that target, it is likely to be taken to WP:SFD for upmerging. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm. The header on WP:WSS/P doesn't make this particularly clear - I've amended it to make it more explicit. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

{{Feminist-stub}}

Unproposed, and currently useless, as it has no category or redlink. Also largely redundant with {{Fem-activist-stub}} - best case scenario might be to widen the scope of one to cover both, then delete/redirect the other. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake. I didn't realize {{Fem-activist-stub}} existed. This was an error whilst helping to get the Feminism Task Force rolling. – Scartol • Tok 01:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

{{Tamil-stub}} (redlink) and {{Dravidian-stub}} (redlink)

Both created unproposed by the same user yesterday. Only one of them seems to be in much use yet (Tamil-stub), but if that is anything to go by this is going to have severe scope problems, since it seems to have been used for templates, people, and also simply places with large Tamil populations. The latter in particular is a major concern, since these stubs have very little if anything to do with the Tamil religion per se (it would be akin to adding a Catholic-stub to any articles on places in Italy). No objection to the templates if they can be scoped sensibly and not used for any old thing tenuously linked to these religions, but as they stand they are a mess and likely to become more so. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Tamil-stub has now acquired a category, which makes it clear just how much off a mix-n-match assortment of items this category contains. Deletion is looking more andmoreprobablee as the beest solution here. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Pardon my intrusion, I am not an expert on this subject, but I noticed you refer to "the Tamil religion" and seem to be assuming that is the purpose of the tag. I believe Tamil and Dravidian are East Indian langauage dialects in which case there could be many articles which would not have anything to do with a particular religion. -- Low Sea (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Languages are already comprehensively split by language family, and many of the articles that were given these stub templates were clearly aimed at religious rather than linguistic subjects, hence the comment. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

{{Anarchist-stub}} / Category:Anarchist stubs

Unproposed, though of a reasonably sensible scope, perhaps (many "anarchists" are actually part of political movements which already have stub types; others are better covered by yet further stub types). Coding on the template has been fixed. Main problem is likely number of articles - this may not reach threshold, especially given the fact that Category:Anarchism stubs is nowhere near the level we'd normally consider splitting it (only about 230 stubs). Having said, that, quite a number of the articles in Category:Anarchism stubs are about activists, so this may be worthwhile, even if only as an upmerged template. Grutness...wha? 02:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This article has been listed as an Anarchism Task Force template for deletion. скоморохъ 12:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with this forum's attitudes toward !voting, but as the stub's creator, I would like to address a few points.

1. "Many anarchists are..." etc is an assertion that would need a lot of citation in order to be taken seriously.
2. Per WP:STUB, the guideline threshold for a new stub category is 60 articles. Category:Anarchist stubs currently has 13, while the no-doubt-incomplete Category:Anarchism stubs has at a quick glance 80+ articles on anarchists which have yet to be added. Category:Stub-Class Anarchism articles contains articles on anarchists not included in either group. So this new stub category obviously meets Wikipedia's guideline threshold for number of articles, its alleged "main problem". Furthermore, the remaining non-biographical articles of Category:Anarchism stubs would also number more than 60, and the category is the main stub category of the Anarchism task force (more active and with a larger scope than many WikiProjects), so it is not the case that the new stub category renders the old one trivial or of little use
3. The implied argument that this category is redundant with other categories of say, activists, theorists, political movementarians is plausible enough for those unfamiliar with anarchism. Take a random sample of 30 anarchist biographies from the above categories and you will see very quickly that anarchists do not at all fit neatly into the other categories. Anarchists are among the most divergent and splittist out there; some deride activism, others vaunt direct action, others still would rather just rent it for a small fee. The point is, the only thing these individuals, and thus their biographies, share is a commitment to anarchism. Attempting to divide them otherwise would be an unfortunate folly.
4. As far as I can see, this stub category meets all 6 criteria of WP:STUB: novel, well-defined, non-redundant, sufficiently populated, non-overlapping and significantly reducing the number of stubs in the overcategory. Yet these arguments are all secondary to the main question, which is does this improve the encyclopedia? The whole point of this Wikiproject is to draw attention to stub articles so that they may be improved. Creating an Anarchists stub category brings biographies to the attention of the Anarchism task force, a plurality of whose new articles are biographies. The point of creating this was so that we could easily navigate between anarchist biography stubs, something neither Category:Anarchists nor Category:Stub-Class Anarchism articles allow us to do. Deleting this template/category, aside from breaching the WikiProject's own guidelines, would make it more difficult to improve anarchist stubs and thus undermine the very purpose of the project's existence. скоморохъ 13:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, on a better toolbox for editing basis Lord Metroid (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Keep per Skomorokh. Murderbike (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Some of you seem to be under the impression that this is a listing for deletion. It is not.

This is a listing page for new stub discoveries which have not gone through Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting's pre-creation vetting process. if this was proposed for deletion it would be at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. Please do not consider his a place for voting keep or delete, since such matters are not handled here. Please read the details at the head of this page for information about what this page is for. Skomorokh, please read my initial notification to you. At no point did I say this was to be deleted, or was even nominated for deletion, and in fact all of my comments have indicated reasons why keeping it is a preferable option. The only concern I have mentioned is that of size - a valid reason why the template might need to be upmerged.

If it was very likely that not all of the criteria could be met, then this would have been nominated for deletion. It has not been - this page is primarily to inform stub sorters of another unproposed stub type which now has to be assessed to see if it will work within the stub-sorting hierarchy. As my initial comments indicate, i think that this is likely, though some doubt remains as to the size, mainly because it will either not have enough stubs for a stand-alone category or will reduce its parent to the point where it will not have enough to be a stand alone category. this is the reason why stub categories are usually not split until there are 600-800 stubs in them (not, as in this case, when they reach about 230). If this is the case then it does not improve the encyclopedia, instead making the task for both editors and stub-sorters harder. This is a primary rule of WP:WSS, and therefore if this stub type were to be deleted, it would be because of, not in spite of, its guidelines. In any case, were this situation to arrive, the template would likely be retained, upscoped into the parent, until such time that both categories were viable. Grutness...wha? 21:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are overreacting slightly - the "current priorities" subsection of WP:ATF is just where we notify interested editors of articles whose status has been, or may changed (new, good, deleted, discussed); I didn't mention deletion here, you did. I simply offered some counterpoints to yours, and justifications for keeping the template/category in their current form. The parent category would still be larger than the subcategory, although both would likely have 100-200 entries until we successfully tagged all stubs in Category:Anarchism. Regards, скоморохъ 11:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your response to my notification that the stub was listed here was to talk (on your user talk page) of "your pet pseudo-authoritative court" and a "kangaroo court", so perhaps I'm not the one overreacting. As for me being the first to mention deletion, that would be when you added Note: This article has been listed as an Anarchism Task Force template for deletion. - after which there seem to be a lot of people making !votes for "Keep", something not appropriate to this discussion. It was for that reason that I needed to clarify things, since those !voting "keep" clearly don't know what this page is for. Other than that, I simply clarified the points in my original listing, since if those other commenters didn't know what this page was for, they probably also didn't know why the stub type would be listed here in the first place. Hardly an overreaction. Grutness...wha? 22:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

{{Cuttlefish-stub}} / Category:Cuttlefish stubs

Yet another new type created without proposal by User:Jourdy288 - his third in the last two months :(. This one's a potentially useful template, but there's no indication that a category would get close to threshold. There are currently fewer than 250 otherwise unsubcategorised cephalopod stubs, so it's hardly in need of splitting. Furthermore, the category has no parents, permcat or stubcat. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)