Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2007/February

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting‎ | Discoveries

Newly discovered, February 2007

edit
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

Unproposed, but well-populated and seems well-scoped. And unless we count the 80 pixel image, well-formed. Alai 04:10, 1 February 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.

{{Exercise 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

I'd say this was poorly formatted, but that would imply that it was formatted at all, which it isn't really. No cat, no links, no anything. And then there's the space in the template name... might possibly be a useful split, though I'm a little dubious, and if it is we've just about got to start over from scratch with this one. Grutness...wha? 23:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to be in use, and the creator this stub type hasn't responded (as best I can) to the posting on his talk page more than two weeks ago. Why don't you just start the process of getting it deleted? -- John Broughton (??) 04:28, 18 February 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.
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 Euro tv stubs

Newly created category. Unfortunately, the Norwegian material is very small in this respect, so an upmerge looks like the logical conclusion. Valentinian T / C 15:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, we decided to upmerge all those stubs for a reason before. Not much changed. TheDJ (talk ? contribs ? WikiProject Television) 19:56, 11 February 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.
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

A reasonable split - one of the Spanish autonomous regions which hasn't had a stub type up until now... The template seems fine, but the category is very small - there's far from any guarantee of 60 stubs. A possible upmerging candidate until we're sure there are enough. Grutness...wha? 08:01, 3 February 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.

{{Gender-stub}} and {{Masc-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 gender-stub & masc-stub to gender-studies-stub

Two new stub types for gender studies and men's studies (redlinked categories). At the moment these are covered by sex-stub and sociology-stub. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sex stubs isn't really big enough to split, but its name does suggest things not entirely compatible with gender studies... perhaps the best solution might be deleting masc-stub (it would be automatically covered by gender-stub if kept), but keep gender-stub, and direct both it and sex-stub to a re-named category covering both aspects of this topic? Grutness...wha? 01:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not proposing these stub types. Its a 100% case of my not reading policy first - sorry. Grutness makes a good point about the name of Gender-stub and about deleting masc-stub. However, I wouldn't really favour a conflation of sexuality stubs and gender studies stubs because they are very different areas. A feminism stub already exists, perhaps a merge of gender-stub and {{fem-stub}} would be more appropriate since feminism would also be covered by a Gender studies stub?--Cailil 01:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{fem-stub}} and {{fem-activist stub}} currently cover feminism and feminists (as well as the opposition and opponents respectively). Feminism is only one aspect that women's studies covers (or at least it's supposed to be) and while neither existing stub is close to being overlarge, I can't see upmerging them as appropriate here. The sex/gender distinction is a bit on the subtle side, so how about we consider upmerging and deleting both {{gender-stub}} and {{masc-stub}} to a {{gender-studies-stub}} (child of a hypothetical {{studies-stub}} for the social/cultural studies that could serve as the parent of such stubs as {{Asia-studies-stub}} et cetera. The -studies- stem would serve to indicate that the stubs are for those aspects of the topic that attract academic attention or are used in academic discussion. Caerwine Caer?s whines 03:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see the benefits in your points Caerwine. The creation of a parent (even if hypothetical) social/cultural-studies stub for academic issues. But what effect would excluding {{fem-stub}} from such a {{gender-studies-stub}} mean for its use? Currently {{fem-stub}} is used on articles about feminist theory and other feminist academic and women's studies pages as well as on pages about activists. I would worry that excluding it would lead to confusion - unless guidlines for use of both stubs were clarly drawn up.--Cailil 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Feminism stubs don't currently have have a parent, so making ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Feminism stubs a child of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Gender studies stubs is probably best, at least as a first step. The activists themselves should have {{fem-activist-stub}} instead of {{fem-stub}} in any case. Caerwine Caer?s whines 18:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to strictly follow the permcats, we'd have ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:gender stubs with ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:feminism stubs as a sub-type, and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:male-studies-stubs being upmerged to the former on the basis of a) size, and b) there being no permcat at all for that at present. (‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Feminism is a child of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:gender and a sibling cat of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:gender studies, and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:feminist theory is a child of both.) None of that would be set in stone, of course. Alai 00:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like Caerwine's solution. Mind you, it still leaves the problem of the numbers... ISTR there is also a LBGT-stub and LGBT-activist-stub, which would also make suitable child categories of this. Grutness...wha? 04:22, 5 February 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.
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

A self-discovery/true life confession, but on the pattern of other decade-based splits, of a perennially-oversized parent (even after botting about 300 of them tonight). It's a little undersized at present, but there's a pre-existing sub-type. Alai 06:15, 4 February 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.
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

Another unproposed stub type. Misnamed (should be ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Irish Republican Army stubs), but yet again it has the problem of one side in a civil conflict so probably should be deleted (unlike the last case, hopefully no-one will accuse this son of the O'Duibhgeannains of being racist!). This one has a WikiProject, which does make a little difference, but it's still not clear there'd be sufficient stubs for it. A WP-specific talk page template is probably a better solution. Grutness...wha? 06:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a stub for Individual Retirement Accounts? If needed, would {{NI-paramilitary-org-stub}} and/or {{Ireland-paramilitary-org-stub}} as a child of {{paramilitary-org-stub}} suffice? Caerwine Caer's whines 06:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I made the template. I just stole the Ireland stub temp. and replaced the image, basically. I thought it'd be a good idea to help the project identify and keep track of stub articles which fall within the scope of our article. I wasn't aware I was supposed to propose a stub; I've been following WP:BB. I'm not sure how many stubs there should be within the scope of a given topic to warrant a stub template/category of its own, but as it stands we have very few articles on individuals of significant length, and once you get away from the men who fought the Wars of Independence, your chances of finding an article of substance get even lower. Almost all of the articles listed in any of the various IRAs' membership categories are stubs.
We have one of those talk page banners; how could we use that to keep track of stubs? Erin Go Braghtalk 08:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Including following "be bold" where it says "be bold in updating articles" (emph. added) and "Exceptions: Categories and templates"? There should be about 30; if there's not likely to be, then I suggest keeping the template, upmerged (and thus deleting the category), and as Grutness says, using a WP-specific talk page template as associated category (c.f. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Stub-Class Assyrian articles, for example). Alai 10:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have no doubt there will be at least 30. It's just hard to get around to them all! I apologize if I've done something I'm not supposed to; I am new. I'll do my best in the next few days to sort through our various categories. I need to do so, anyway! Erin Go Braghtalk 09:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One possible compromise might be an Ireland-hist-stub, Ireland-mil-stub or similar. The problem is what proportion of IRA-related articles are RoI and what proportion are NI - many of them will be in that grey area between the two. Mind you, a NI-mil-hist-stub (or similar) might solve one problem in that it will accept stubs for both republican and loyalist factions, increasing the number of stubs and allowing the same editors access to twice as many articles that they would have some skill in editing (assuming good faith WRT POV). Grutness...wha? 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of my big motivations for creating these categories was that they were not reliant on being either RoI or NI; being associated with the IRA is one thing you can apply to many people. I'm really not too knowledgable about how the stub category system works. I just want some method of grouping IRA-related stub articles for our WikiProject. If the stub temp. gets deleted, then I would really appreciate help in setting up an alternative. Erin Go Braghtalk 09:52, 7 February 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.
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

Looks pretty good to me (aside from the horrific stub template coding, which I've just changed), but after adding the WSS template, I realized it wasn't listed. Alai 09:57, 5 February 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.
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

One article. Alai 12:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: Contains 2 articles, a template and a WikiProject.
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.
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

I thought this had already been discussed, but I can't find it listed anyplace. Sensible-sounding, but currently small. Alai 14:22, 5 February 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.
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 Previously proposed, so not a discovery

Unproposed, very small. Well enough formatted, but we don't split by country of origin or language (perhaps we should?) Grutness...wha? 01:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - my apologies - there was a proposal after all! Grutness...wha? 01:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can remove the subcat from Category:Literature stubs if we should not be splitting by country/language; because, that wasn't discussed in the original proposal. I added it 'cause it seemed like a good idea; but, maybe not? Neier 01:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah - it's probably fine the way it is - they are, after all, a subtype of literature stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 7 February 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.

{{Navarre-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

Unproposed, redlinked category, very small. Spain's tubs are at least partly split by regions but this one may struggle to get close to threshold. Grutness...wha? 01:14 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no count at hand, but Navarre was formerly an independent kingdom. Its borders didn't match those of the the current province, but perhaps we have material relating to the history of this region? Valentinian T / C 10:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I created the stub because some other autonomous communities of Spain have their stub template, as Template:Galicia-stub. I created a stub Parliament of Navarre and needed a template... maybe a stupid action. Delete it if you think so. --Neigel von Teighen 11:46, 7 February 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.
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

Unproposed, but seems a reasonable split and is well-enough formatted, even though the category name is slightly non-standard ("Pakistani sportspeople stubs" is, IIRC, more in line with what we'd normally use). Grutness...wha? 01:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this template is a much needed one because cricket, being the most popular sport in Pakistan, has its own separate stub template, however, I have not found any Pakistan related stub template which could cover all other sports biographies and I believe there are plenty of Pakistan related sports-bio-stub articles which could really use this template. As far as category name goes, I copied it from another template which I found to be extensively in use. Please correct the category name if you find it odd. Thanks! Szhaider 12:03, 7 February 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.
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 take to sfd for rename

The work of a WikiProject. Very small and the name reminds me of something else. Valentinian T / C 10:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This article related to dodgy hairstyles of the 1970s is a stub..." Hm. Quite. Certainly if kept it would need a renaming, and, to be honest, I'd say the category is just too vague as well - what humans living anywhere except in Africa are not the result of an African diaspora? This one seem unlikely to well fit in with other stub types. Grutness...wha? 04:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The intent is clear, the Africans dispersed due to slave trading and in which describing the prefix "Afro-" is the one usually used, e.g. Afro-Ecuadorian people and Afro-Mexican so except for the ambiguity with the hair style its clear enough. Perhaps {{Afro--stub}}? Caerwine Caer?s whines 01:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, by way of contrast with that, Afro-American is no longer used, and African American is now seen as the correct form. And since I can foresee eventual Polynesian diaspora, Jewish diaspora, Scottish diaspora and Chinese diaspora stubs (among others), wouldn't it make more sense to start with a name that can be paralleled with all of these, such as African-diaspora-stub? Grutness...wha? 03:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a viable stub coming from this. Besides, shouldn't we be stubbing by nation, not culutre?--Thomas.macmillan 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that one. SFD? Valentinian T / C 00:10, 16 February 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.
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

Unproposed, and Brazil's geo-stubs do need a split, but... note the upper case D! This should have been at {{RioGrandedoSul-geo-stub}}. Also, there's no guarantee of 60 stubs, so unless there are 60, the category should be upmerged. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 9 February 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.
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 to gametheory-stub; allow joint custody under psych stubs, math stubs, and game stubs

Never proposed, potentially useful but currently very small 9with no guarantee it would get to required size. Parentage is also troublesome - this is currently listed as a child of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Economics and finance stubs, but Game theory covers a wide range of possible parents, from ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sociology stubs to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Philosophy stubs. Template also should probably be at {{Gametheory-stub}}, since we're unlikely to have lots of parallel X-theory-stub types or any parent {{theory-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 03:12, 10 February 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.

An attacking field of cricket 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 cricket-comps-stub, cricket-terms-stub, let the rest lie

We've suddenly acquired a slips cordon of stub types relating to cricket:

None of these was proposed, two of the templates and one of the categories are incorrectly named, and several of them are woefully small. On the upside, it completely empties ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Cricket stubs into subcategories, but that also means that the small ones (in one case fewer than a dozen stubs) have little opportunity for expansion to anywhere close to a reasonable threshold. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The project page states that stub sorting is important so that articles are more likely to be edited to a higher standard. I believe that the new stubs have taken a large step towards helping those editors with an interest in cricket to find articles which they can improve.
I don't see why a stub category requires a certain number of articles to be 'reasonable'. Surely it is easier for an editor interested in improving coverage of the cricket media, for example, to work through a category of those articles, rather than having to look through a longer list of mixed articles and pick out the ones that involve the media? I can see there being a lower limit of three or four articles being to some extent helpful, but eleven doesn't strike me as too small. The next smallest is 28, and that certainly is of a decent size.
Of course, I have no objections to renaming some of them. ?Ollie (talk ? contribs) 22:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from users Grutness's talk - "Would you please explain exactly what is your problem with these stub categories and where it says I must first propose their creation? What I have done is yet another example of bold editing where no one else can be bothered.

I am probably the most prolific contributor to the cricket project and the one who was entirely responsible, with very little help from other members, for the creation of a project structure in terms of domestic and international cricket in particular. There has for a long time been a need to impose some sort of order onto the cricket stub articles and this task was begun by User:Alai in respect of season reviews, tour reviews and venues. There already was a separate bio-stub categorisation.

By splitting the stubs out into sub-categories it enables the project to recognise the scale of the main task that confronts it, which is to develop all 5600+ stubs into finished articles. From this, members should feel able to pick out batches of stubs which they will be responsible for (in theory).

This is the third time in a week that I have encountered someone who evidently thinks all of these stubs have to become articles NOW and therefore cannot see the proverbial wood for the proverbial trees. What does it matter if one of the stub categories currently has only 12 members? What does it matter? There are plenty of article categories throughout the site that have less members than that and never will increase.

Why not allow the project to develop these stubs over a period of time so that the work is done in an enjoyable and relaxed way, thereby achieving better results in the long term. What is it with this site that no matter what anyone does to try and improve a project when others are not showing interest, that there is always someone who has to come along quoting this procedure and that process and completely losing sight of the big picture.BlackJack | talk page 13:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

I say Keep them per Blackjacks points--Thugchildz

Ollie and Thugchildz, this is my reply to Blackjack. You may find it worth reading, since it covers all the points you both raise:

Would you please explain exactly what is your problem with these stub categories and where it says I must first propose their creation? What I have done is yet another example of bold editing where no one else can be bothered.
Please read WP:BOLD - read in particular the bit which says that it applies to articles but not to categories or templates. Please also note the template at the top of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Cricket stubs and the information listed on WP:STUB. The main problems (plural) are with the names of one category and two templates, and the size of the categories - none of them are at the standard 60 stubs needed to split and one is at a fairly shocking eleven stubs. prior to this, they were in one category with some 160 stubs - well within the standard accepted size for stub categories. See below for reasons why these sizes are used.
I am probably the most prolific contributor to the cricket project and the one who was entirely responsible, with very little help from other members, for the creation of a project structure in terms of domestic and international cricket in particular. There has for a long time been a need to impose some sort of order onto the cricket stub articles and this task was begun by User:Alai in respect of season reviews, tour reviews and venues. There already was a separate bio-stub categorisation.
Actually, ISTR it was begun by me - I'm pretty sure I was the one who started the bio-stub organisation.
By splitting the stubs out into sub-categories it enables the project to recognise the scale of the main task that confronts it, which is to develop all 5600+ stubs into finished articles. From this, members should feel able to pick out batches of stubs which they will be responsible for (in theory).
Exactly, and that is the reason for stub sorting in general.Without stub sorting, all stubs would be in one large category of several hundred thousand articles. This is clearly not suitable, and, in fact, over a long period it has become clear that stub categories with more than about 600 articles and less than about 60 articles are of little use to editors. Any more than 600, and int becomes too difficult to wade through all the articles to find the ones an editor may be able to edit. Any fewer than 60, and an edito has to search a far larger number of categories for articles, a task which not only slows editors down but is disheartening for many editors. From the stub sorting point of view, 60 articles as a minum is also useful, as the number of stub categories is already closing in on 4000 - lowering the threshold number would make an already busy system too cumbersome for any stub sorters to keep track of. Allowances are made for one base-level stub category for wikiprojects (a reduction in the threshold is considered appropriate in this case), but not for a plethora of different stub categories for any one project.
This is the third time in a week that I have encountered someone who evidently thinks all of these stubs have to become articles NOW and therefore cannot see the proverbial wood for the proverbial trees. What does it matter if one of the stub categories currently has only 12 members? What does it matter? There are plenty of article categories throughout the site that have less members than that and never will increase.
It matters for the reasons listed above. A stub category that small is useless - and even discouraging - for editors, and sets a precedent which could see the demise of stub sorting as a whole if it were to become the norm. I certainly do not think "all stubs should be expanded now" It would be nice if some were, but it certainly is nothing to do with the reason why I pointed out the problems with what you have done.
Why not allow the project to develop these stubs over a period of time so that the work is done in an enjoyable and relaxed way, thereby achieving better results in the long term.
That is exactly what I want to happen.
What is it with this site that no matter what anyone does to try and improve a project when others are not showing interest, that there is always someone who has to come along quoting this procedure and that process and completely losing sight of the big picture.
The big picture, as I have pointed out above, is problems for all stub types across the whole of Wikipedia if there is no threshold.
I absolutely refuse to visit WP:WSS/D or whatever it's called. If you are so pedantic that you must interfere in this project to suit your own blinkered view of the way that information is created and categorised for the benefit of the readers, then you will no doubt go ahead and do whatever you are going to do anyway and I will just be wasting valuable time getting involved.
I have no objection to you creating permcats for the benefit of readers. But, as I pointed out, stub categories are not designed for the benefit of readers they re for the benefit of editors.
I seem to have been free of this sort of political interference for a few months lately but, sure enough, three times in one week, here we go again. Frankly, I really don't know why I bother.
You bother because you care about cricket and you care about Wikipedia. You bother because you have information that you want to share with others. You bother because overall you see Wikipedia as a good thing, even though occasionally you rinun ito other people working on Wikipedia with views different to you. Wikipedia is not anarchy - it has set rules and guidelines. Working within them means that in doing your editing you are not harming the work of others. Your stub categories and templates could well harm the work of many other editors. I can understand why you have made them, but please understand why they are not necessarily the best way to have gone about things. Grutness...wha? 05:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comprehensive reply Grutness. I do feel that small stub category sizes are of benefit to me, as an editor. Over at Wikiproject Cricket, I volunteered to "look after" one of these stub categories (Cricket Terminology). I can honestly say that the specificity (is that a word?) and small size of the category encouraged me to do so. So small size does not always discourage editors! I do understand all of your points however, and will leave this project to determine what to do with the stub types. I have decided to copy the cats that interest me to my user space in case you decide to delete. ?Ollie (talk ? contribs) 05:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most likely thing - going on past cases - would be keeping the templates and categories for any with above about 40-45 stubs, and keeping the templates for the others but redirecting them back to the main ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Cricket stubs until they get to a size where they are a more reasonable size. That would leave the competitions one and putting everything else back in the main cricket stubs cat (which would then have about 100 stubs - hardly a huge problem for finding articles for editing). The competition one's template name will probably be changed, though - since comp is used for computing in stub templates, comps is perhaps a little too close to that for comfort. Grutness...wha? 06:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the pointless intervention by Grutness into the running of the cricket project has gone nowhere at all and achieved nothing other than to alienate one of the main contributors to the cricket project. Going back to Grutness' original entry above, I do not suppose anyone cares what names the categories are given but I am amazed by the other point which is:

the small ones (in one case fewer than a dozen stubs) have little opportunity for expansion to anywhere close to a reasonable threshold

What on Earth is he on about? Surely if a project is managing its stubs it is seeking to reduce and eliminate them!? Why would anyone wish to expand stub categories? I have seen some real twaddle on Wikipedia by these procedure wallahs but I think this one takes the biscuit.

I stongly suggest in agreement with the project members who have written about this already that the discussion is closed and that the cricket project is left to run its own affairs without interference from people who do not contribute to the project. Or to anything else for that matter. --GeorgeWilliams 14:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: Current counts:
Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:17, 29 June 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.

{{Bartending-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

We've spoken to Wikkscrlt about stub types for the WP Mixed Drinks before now, but he clearly hasn't fully got it yet. This is... an unusual template, to say the least. Words fail me as to how to describe it, really. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unusual" is not the word ... Valentinian T / C 20:51, 18 May 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.
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion 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 keep


The surreptitious split of Spanish stubs by region continues... unproposed, but looks well formed. Depending on the number of stubs it may need to be upmerged - I suppose that's a "wait and see". Grutness...wha? 01:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, I've too fast creating the stub for the Asturian related articles, I'm so sorry. Anyway, I've noticed there's no specific stub category covering various general stuff related to asturias (art, education, economy, images, etc...), so I think it coulbe a good idea to create a generic one: Cat:Asturias stubs, a category that could even upmerge other stub-categories related to Asturias that are maybe too specific for a region with 1,076,896 pop --  ? Ravenloft ?  ? (talk) ? 10:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... well, the only subtype of it there should be at the moment is the geo-stub one, and a lot of places have geo-stub categories but not general stub categories (also, see the note on bio-stubs on the proposal page!). It really does mainly depend on the numbers. if there are 60 or so stubs, there's no real problem with this - fewer than that, and keeping the template but directing it to the larger Spanish stub cat is probably the best way, at least until such time as there are 60 stubs. Grutness...wha? 05:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, I think you have point. If we look at the cold numbers, you're right. There's no real need to upmerge right now, as there aren't so many subtypes. But to have this general category and upmerge the geo-stub one could still be a good idea. --  ? Ravenloft ?  ? (talk) ? 16:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why {{asturias-geo-stub}} would need to be upmerged, it has enough articles to have own category, and if we decide to keep the generic one, the geography category becomes child of it. Monni 05:39, 7 March 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.
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion 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 keep


This one looks moderately useful, despite the lack of proposal - already has some 30 stubs. Could probably do with some better parent stub cats, but other than that, not too bad. May need upmerging if size doesn't increase, but if it's got 30 already, that probably won't be a problem. Grutness...wha? 06:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was original proposed as a phytopathology-stub but it was decided to call it a plant-disesase-stub, see [[1]]

Ah - apologies. I missed that one. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 16 February 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.
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

One article, no scope given, not on the list. Oops, I mean, the list.Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied - a re-creation of a previous deletion. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 17 February 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.
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 for stub articles pertaining to the cvg company SNK Playmore, unproposed & ill-made. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:15, 16 February 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.
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

Originally linking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bluegrass Region, I have changed this to link to the Bluegrass region. Not on the approved list and no link to it from any WP:WSS page. mattbr30 22:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I give up - what's that got to do with British Rail? Grutness...wha? 23:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. It's obviously about White Pine Blister Rust instead. Caerwine Caer�s whines 02:26, 17 February 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.

Un-upmerged New Zealand geo-stub categories

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 take to sfd for renaming

seems like someone has supplied the "missing" categories for the upmerged NZ-geo-stub subtypes. One or two of them are close to threshold, but others are nowhere near, especially:

The others created (for Bay of plenty, Northland and Marlborough) are all of reasonable size (45+ stubs), though again there are name problems with ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Marlborough, New Zealand geography stubs (should be ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Marlborough Region geography stubs), but the five above probably need re-upmerging and sfd'ing. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 16 February 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.
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 on Feb. 16 by Vladimir2008 (talk · contribs). Currently used on 14 politicians. Should probably be merged into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Turkmenistan stubs.--Carabinieri 23:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Not a current country, and even if we did want to keep this, then we'd want to lose the space in the template name. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Delete this one and tag with {{Turkmenistan-stub}} and {{Soviet-stub}}. Valentinian T / C 00:02, 23 February 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.
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

Unproposed, but potentially useful. Not sure that it would have 60 stubs though. perhaps keep the template but upmerge it into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sociology stubs (which curently covers discrimination)? Grutness...wha? 01:28, 17 February 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.

{{Arena Football League-Stub}} / redlinked 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

Nastily named, with gaps and a capital S, so even if kept it would need a severe renaming. I don't know enough about the sport to know whether this would be useful - what say you American Football types? Grutness...wha? 01:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal Arena football does not get played in special purpose arenas, so I can't see stubs for those. The team articles, even for defunct teams are mostly past the stub stage, and the players are former regular football players who in most cases will be more notable for that reason than what they did in the AFL. Possibly as an upmerged template for arena football (so as to also cover the af2 minor league) or indoor American football to cover all the indoor variants and not just arena football. Another possibility would be to get the newly formed WikiProject Arena Football League (6 members) to use a talk page template instead so as to feed articles into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Stub-class Arena Football League articles, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Start-class Arena Football League articles, etc. using the WP 1.0 assessment classes. Caerwine Caer�s whines 01:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit, let me speak (edit conflicts) as for the past prime NFL players, that is wrong. There are rookies out of college that play directly into the Arena Football League. The stub template was going to be used on current players with very little information (less than 2 paragraphs). As for the naming, it could be moved I have no objection to that so as long as someone is notified. The stub template is not currently in use in any article. --ROASTYTOAST 02:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that there were any colleges that played arena football (or any other indoor version) so my comment about AFL players being generally more notable for playing regular American football still stands. Division I football is far more notable than arena football. Caerwine Caer�s whines 02:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a sense football is football. Players can readjust to the different codes. But, pending approval, It would be used on Arena football league related stubs and player bios which qulify as stubs. Plus the arena football league has a patent on some of its rules --ROASTYTOAST 02:45, 17 February 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.
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

A new creation (literally, just a few minutes ago), so not populated. Badly named (should be {{Italy-swimming-bio-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Italian swimming biography stubs). Never proposed, and given that ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:European swimming biography stubs has only some 250 articles, I doubt it would reach threshold. At the very least needs a rename - possible needs more than that. Grutness...wha? 08:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware about policies regarding the creation of stubs. Sorry.
This stub will never reach the threshold, it can be deleted at any time. Marra 12:12, 17 February 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.
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

Unproposed, only one stub, and its logical parent (‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:European law stubs) only has 140 articles. Unlikely it will get anywhere near threhold at present but may be useful later. Suggest we upmerge the template into both the Euro parent and into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Germany stubs and delete the category. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 19 February 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.
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

Unproposed, though size may be a problem. One of the categories (the Gospel music one) has no permcat parents and recursion problems - there also seem to be scoping problems with it, since it contains nothing but musicians, which is what a Gospel musician stub category (not a Gospel music category) would be for, if we had one. Seems to be a new associated WikiProject. A WP-specific talk-page template may suit them better? Grutness...wha? 00:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This stub is related to the Gospel music WikiProject. Several gospel albums and songs are listed in other music genres. Correctly stubbing these articles will assist in maintenance by the WikiProject members.
Absolon S. Kent 03:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part of my point is that whoever's been populating these hasn't been stubbing articles properly with it. Several of the articles marked with these templates aren't stubs, and quite a few musicians have been marked as being music-stubs - which they're not - they're musician-stubs. Stubbing is to aid in maintenance by all Wikipedians, not just individual WikiProjects - if you want something to help maintenance by a specific WikiProject, you'll be far better off using a WP-specific talk-page template. Grutness...wha? 04:19, 20 February 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.
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

Unproposed, will possibly struggle to reach threshold (though maybe not). Main problem, though, is the category - the name should be ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Weightlifting biography stubs or similar, to make it clear that it includes coaches. Also, one of the permcat parents doesn't seem to exist. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the trouble. Is it OK if I fix the problems stated? CeeGee 06:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet - wait iuntil it's been debated to see whether we need it. Then, if we do it will need to go to SFD for renaming. Grutness...wha?

Support wider scope. Monni 05:43, 22 February 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.
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

Unproposed, not likely to get close to threshold (the parent Asian television stub category has under 120 articles, so the chances of this getting to 60 stubs are remote. Seems pretty well-formed, though. Upmerging is possibly the best option (the parent stub cat has several such upmerged templates). Grutness...wha? 05:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently used on 49 articles. Valentinian T / C 20:47, 18 May 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.
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

Unproposed but possibly useful. Currently has one stub and inadequate parent cats. other than that may be useful (not sure about he numbers, though...) Grutness...wha? 05:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe making proposals for stub creation is only a guideline, not an official policy, per WP:STUB. As such, I think the usefulness of this stub is pretty self-evident. I have added one more category to the stub, and have added the template to more articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:23, 23 February 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.
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

Seems that CeeGee didn't learn from the previous non-proposal (about three further up this page)... unproposed, no idea as to whether it will reach threshold - at least this one is properly named. Grutness...wha? 05:17, 22 February 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.

{{Estonia-band-stub}} (redlinked 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 upmerged

Unproposed, and I'd say very unlikely to reach 60 stubs. Upmerging could be the best option. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 24 February 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.

{{Idaho-bio-stub}} / redlinked 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

Unproposed, and splits bios by subnational region, something strongly discouraged here in the past. A likely sfds candidate, I'd say. Grutness...wha? 02:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a stub created specifically for Wikipedia:WikiProject Idaho. I am unsure why it was created by the individual who did so. It is not a high priority catagory in my tiny mind. The basic Category for Idaho stubs is fine. --Robbie Giles 13:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of note, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Idaho politician stubs has about 80 relevant members (which would not be retagged {{Idaho-bio-stub}}) — jmorgan (talk) 03:18, 9 March 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.
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

Unproposed, but looks well constructed, and is a logical stub type to have. the one concern is size - if it doesn't get close to 60 stubs then upmerging may be the best solution, but perhaps it needs a "wait and see" for now... Grutness...wha? 11:44, 26 February 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/Log/2007/February&oldid=1160938261"