Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting | Discoveries

Newly discovered, September 2007

edit

{{San Francisco-stub}} (no category)

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

Only used on less than 20 articles, no category and the name doesn't conform with the naming system. Valentinian T / C 16:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dollars to doughnuts its mixing geo-stubs, bio-stubs and general stubs, too. Doesn't look at all helpful. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm - no geos, but yes, there are bios in there. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category actually does exist now: Category:San Francisco stubs, and it's got 45 articles in it. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:43, 9 February 2008 (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.

{{Herefordshire-school-stub}} / Category:West Midlands school 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 cat renamed

Unproposed, newly created stub template and category. While the template appears in line with other similar types made, there are major problems with the category, since it is for West Midlands region, whereas most stub categories starting "West Midlands" are for the county. At the very least, this category will need a rename to something that will not cause later confusion - possibly to Category:West Midlands Region school stubs. Grutness...wha? 22:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realise that stubs needed to be agreed before being created. It looked like an obvious omission to me and was in line with the set up for other counties and regions. ~ Scribble Monkey 08:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you're not the only one - there are now new templates for Warwickshire schools and West Midlands schools. The latter just emphasises the problem with the category name though (which would have been pointed out if there had been the proposal - that's why there's a proposal process, to stop problems like that developing. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just following on from the Herefordshire template to attempt to get the Coventry & Warwickshire schools in the correct category. Did not know there was a process for these templates to go through. It seem sensible for all of the areas to have templates putting the schools in their regions category rather than the top level UK School stubs category. Keith D 08:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, although you could argue that the each county should have its own category and then they should all be included in the regional one. ~ Scribble Monkey 11:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably we should create templates for Shropshire, Staffordshire and Worcestershire too? I take your point about the West Midlands category being ambiguous, although you could equally argue that all the county ones should be renamed "West Midlands (county)" to be in line with the article. ~ Scribble Monkey
Templates would make some sense (as long as they follow standard naming - comparing the equivalent geo-stubs will sort out the odd ones), but definitely not separate categories yet - most counties wouldn't pass the standard stub-sorting threshold at present. Once they do, proposing separate categories should go without hassle, but for now the regional categories are good enough. As for renaming the county categories, that's something that could be proposed at WP:SFD, but we tend to follow the permanent categories, and Category:West Midlands is for the county. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes sense. What's the process for proposing the creation of the new templates? ~ Scribble Monkey 08:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Head to this page's partner page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, and follow the instructions at the top of the page. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the regional splits are pretty well-established by now, and we could cry "speedy" to all remaining upmerged templates. (I've just been creating them piecemeal as size demands.) Alai 03:33, 1 October 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.

{{Moldova-singer-stub}} / Category:Moldovan singer stubs

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

Well-formed, but never proposed and seemingly unlikely to reach threshold any time soon (Category:Moldovan people stubs has fewer than 75 stubs in total, many of which are about footballers). Upmerging seems the best option, unless this is populated to threshold somehow. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of Moldovan singers not generally known; for example former O-Zone band members. Therefore, stub will be needed sooner or later. Petramis 06:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sooner or later, sure... but for all we know it may not be until much later. That's the reason stub categories are only made when there are sixty existing stubs that can use it - as mentioned at WP:STUB and at the top of WP:WSS/P. If there aren't, it becomes simply added clutter and actually impedes editing. also, since the basic Moldovan people stubs category has only about 75 stubs, there is no need to fragment it with subcategories - if by some chance 60 of them were singers, and therefore the singer category could reach threshold, the base category would then be far too small. Grutness...wha? 06:28, 24 September 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.

{{Colombia-writer-stub}} / Category:Colombian writer stubs

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

Well-formed, but never proposed and seemingly unlikely to reach threshold (it currently has one stub. The unsubcategorised Category:South American writer stubs has only about 85 articles, and Category:Colombian writers and all its subcats have even fewer than that). The {{Colombia-bio-stubs are hardly in need of splitting, either (about 250 articles). Upmerging seems the best option, unless this is populated to threshold somehow. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 23 September 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.

{{Touringcar-stub}}

edit

Non-proposed template for touring car racing with no category (not even a redlink). Possibly a keeper (with some obvious quick work needed to fix a category), upmerged at least. The name strikes me as less than perfect, but I can't think of a better alternative. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Squid-stub}} / Category:Squid 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 keep

Looks well-formed and well-populated, but it would have been nice if the creator of this had let us know (not the first time with this editor, either, so it's not like s/he's unaware of WP:WSS/P...) Grutness...wha? 00:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S/he/it did use WP:WSS/P; see here. A bit precipitate, perhaps, but apparently useful. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - fair enough, I must've missed that discussion. Looks like a keeper anyway. Grutness...wha? 03:46, 15 September 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.

{{Turkey-musician-stub}} / Category:Turkish musician 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 keep

Well-formed, logical split - in terms of scope, if not size. Currently has only a couple of stubs. Needs either populating or upmerging. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

70+ now. Keep Valentinian T / C 20:39, 22 September 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.

Amphibian stub discoveries

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 keep

The following were not listed, but exist:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by EncycloPetey (talk • contribs)

They were approved here; they are all listed properly in the "science" portion of the stubs list. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:43, 9 September 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.

Reptile stub discoveries

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 keep

The following were not listed, but exist:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by EncycloPetey (talk • contribs)

They are listed properly in the "science" portion of the stubs list. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:44, 9 September 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.

By-county Romanian geo-stub split

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

Templates have been created for a load of Romanian counties, all upmerged. Can't find any sign of debate on it, but it seems like a good move - the Romania geography stubs category is pretty full (8 pages). "Plaintext" (non-0diacvritical) redirects may be useful for some of these. Grutness...wha? 03:02, 8 September 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.

{{Australia-radio-station-stub}} / Category:Australian radio station 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 keep

Unproposed creation, with potential for being seriously undersized. Possibly a case of wait and see, and if it doesn't get to a viable threshold, upmerging. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies on the lack of proposal. This stub is already up to 30 articles and that will grow significantly as I continue cleaning out the generic radio-station-stub category. Again, sorry about the presumption. I'll be sure to go through the process next time. - Dravecky 03:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to follow up, after a sweep of radio-station-stub and Australia-bcast-stub there are now 88 unique article stubs properly using this stub. That number may go up a bit as I continue to comb through categories as part of the Radio Stations project. - Dravecky 06:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
88 is well above the usual threshold for a separate stub category (60), and it does look to be a reasonable way to split these (paralleling similar nation-station types (hm... nice rhyme), so this looks like a likely keeper. Grutness...wha? 09:42, 4 September 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.

{{HongKong-band-stub}} / Category:Hong Kong musical group stubs

edit

Continuing the trend of Hong Kong having more undersized and unproposed stub types per square foot than anywhere else on the planet, we have this one. I'd recommend upmerging on size, or since we don't normally sort bands by location, outright deletion. Alai 00:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Irish maritime-stub}} / Category:Irish maritime stubs

edit

Badly-named template, very small population. There's a wikiproject. Closest permcat would be Category:Water transport in Ireland. Alai 23:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It certainly can't surivive with that name, and the scope seems a little vague, to say the least. Perhaps a differently scoped Ireland-water-stub would be useful (and shouldn't water-stub be renamed to sometyhing a little clearer like ship-stub?) Grutness...wha? 01:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Discoveries/Log/2007/September&oldid=1149873314"