Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive10

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting | Proposals

Proposals, October 2005

edit

{{canada-mil-stub}}

edit

Aren't I quite the mil(-stub)itarist these days. I can't guarantee this is "viable", but I'm guessing it's there or thereabouts: google finds 36 articles already double-stubbed, which is likely to be an underestimate for several reasons, and I've been surprised at how many Canadian regimental stubs and the like I've come across. Would further help slim down {{mil-stub}}. Alai 23:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created. Alai 21:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{archaeologist-stub}}

edit

I've counted over 100 articles already that could use this stub tag. --Etacar11 00:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{japan-geo-stub}}

edit

Due to the the total of about 4000 articles in this one category, I am proposing splitting this stub category into stubs specific to each prefecture. Though this would create 47 new categories, if divided evenly, there would be about 80 per category. This, I believe, is much more easier than dividing by regions, where some prefectures fall into a grey area between regions. It would also be easier to categorize by prefectures, since the prefecture is almost always mentioned in every article in the current category. I am 100% willing to do any work necessary in creating the new stubs and recategorizing the articles.

-Nameneko 05:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of split of this has been needed for some time. Forty-seven new stubs sounds a little like overkill, but I can't think of any other way (except maybe to do what has been done with English counties and US states - count up which prefectures have the most stubs, then split them off first, just in case they're not evenly divided). I'd advise at least having a good look at how the English counties have been done to give you a template (no pun intended) for how to do the split, including things like standard namings for templates and categories. If you need any advice in it, I'd be only too happy to help (as, I'm sure, would the others of us who have been working primarily on geo-stubs, like Fingers-of-Pyrex). Grutness...wha? 06:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've thought of a plan on how to split these up using, like you said, the US-geo-stubs:
  • japan-geo-stub (this should include ambiguous locations, if any, and historic locations that don't fit into other categories)
    • [region]-geo-stub (x8, by merging Hokuriku, Koshin'etsu, and Tokai into Chubu, which, though usually split up into the previous three regions in Japan, should be okay for categorization. I'm saying this because the three subregions of Chubu are variously defined. This will, though, as said earlier, make categorization a little more difficult, but I think I have a way to do that too)
      • [prefecture]-geo-stub (x47 at most)
        • [subprefecture]-geo-stub (x???, should only apply to Hokkaido, if anything. I'm doubtful that any prefecture-stub category will get big enough for this)
Categorizing by region: A plan might be to go through and try to weed out articles one region at a time, as trying to memorize what prefectures are in what region might be difficult. After region sorting, there will probably be about 400-500 articles in each, but still a much more manageable number for finding major prefectural stubs needed.
-Nameneko 06:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After we've split {{bio-stub}}, this one can be made our Great Task. I generally like the idea of splitting into (region)-geo-stubs, as 47 seems to much to me. 8, or even 10, is just fine. Since 400-500 articles are going to be there in each subcat, one or more of them will probably go beyond 800, and in this case we'll have to split there large (region)-geo-stubs into (prefecture)-geo-stubs. Estimation count would be helpful, of course, but it can be made after, say, 200 stubs are sorted. As for memorizing which prefecture is in which region, I'm ready to write it down on a sheet and keep it near my computer :) Conscious 17:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that this category is gaining recognition. It's definately in need to attention. I don't think it'll be necessary to memorize prefectures until after the articles have already been sorted into region categories. I think they ones should include:
Once these are sorted by region, there should be a count of what prefectures deserve a subcategory. My proposal is between 70 and 100 articles, depending on how many there are in proportion to all of the other ones. I looked through some of the current category and found some articles that will probably stay in the japan-geo-stub category, such as Abeno Plain, which is from a former province.
-Nameneko 20:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there was a dicussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Category:Japan geography stubs, but I have asked the participants to move the discussion here.

I am doing a census of the Japan-geo-stubs now. It will will take me one or two more days to complete. However, if one were to extrapolate from the first 1200 stubs, most prefectures would reach the 60 stub threashold. The exceptions would be:

Fukui, Gunma, Ishikawa, Kagawa, Miyagi, Miyazaki, Nara, Saga, Tochigi, Toyama, Yamagata, and Yamaguichi.

There are also some prefectures that it would be iffy to assert will make it based on a projection on the census to date:

Iwate, Kanagawa, Kochi, Kyoto, Nagasaki, Oita, Osaka, Shiga, Tottori, Wakayama, Yamanashi.

However, if my extrapolation holds true, then the eleven prefectures that don't gain stub categories of their own, plus those stubs that can't be sorted down to a single prefecture will have less than 600 stubs combined, which is small enough to not require regional subsplits. Caerwine 20:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


If we hold a threshold for which prefectures get their own subcategory, wouldn't this mean that as more articles are upgraded and the stub count decreases, we'd have to constantly reevaluate which subcategories need to be consolidated into the region parent? If a subcategory is made for most prefectures, then why not make one for all of them (one per prefecture) without a threshold? It will avoid some issues down the road, at the expense of a more complicated system right now. Neier 22:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same complication we have now for countries. If there were only a couple of prefectures left without a stub, I could see going ahead and creating them, but it looks like there will be about 10 prefectures that won't reach the 60 stub threshold and about another 10 that wouldn't make it, if we used a higher threshold of 75. 60 looks to be about the right threshold level if we want to avoid using region stub stypes. If we go higher, we'll need tio use region stub types to get Japan-geo-stub into the desireable area of <800 stubs or lower. Anyway, I'll prepare a rather verbose proposal for people to pick apart once I've finished my census. About half-done now and will probably finish sometime tomorrow. Caerwine 23:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re Namemneko's comment about trying to memorise what is in what prefecture, there's no no need for that. Use a spreadsheet - same as I did with English geo-stubs. I copied and pasted the list of articles from the category into a spreadsheet, then noted alonside each which county they were in. Most were in only one - rivers and some mountains were about the only things that crossed boundaries. Then you've got a handy reference that can be sorted by county (or in your case prefecture) when you want to split off a stub type. Region sounds a better system for now (then again I know little of Japanese geography - my initial though was splitting off Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu and Shikoku and working from there) - see how many big prefectures there are later. I doubt it will get to subprefectures, but you never know. Since Caerwine's happy doing this one, I'll leave it to him (her?) to keep track of what goes where (but I'll help with restubbing, of course). Grutness...wha? 00:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog Since Hokkaido is an island, a region, and a prefecture, all rolled up into one, plus it by far has the most stubs of any of the prefectures, but not so many as to justify having stub types for its subprefectures, so it's a certainty that we'll be creating a {{Hokkaido-geo-stub}} no matter how we decide to handle splitting {{Japan-geo-stub}}. I've got 2,800 stubs sorted at the moment, should finish tomorrow, but I have a date with a matress that shouldn't be delayed any longer. Caerwine 05:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I finished my census of the 3854 Japan geo stubs (as of the time of my census): If people want a detailed list, I'll put it on my user page, but I don't see the need. Prefectures range in size from a low of 35 stubs for Kagawa Prefecture to a high of 293 for Hokkaido Prefecture. There are two reasonable schemes in my opinion, depending on whether people want region level stub stypes for Japan. (Island level just won't work, stubbing prefectures at a level to make a Shikoku geo stub viable, would make a Honshu geo stub category too large.

Scheme 1: Stub types separated out at 60 - prefectures only This would cause Prefecture level stub types to be created for all Prectures except: Fukui (45), Ishikawa (55), Kagawa (35}, Kanagawa (52}, Miyagi (57), Miyazaki (52), Nara (54), Saga (57), Shiga (55), Tottori (47), Toyama (45), Wakayama (57). There are 666 stubs that can't be assigned to a single prefecture, and with Chugoku, Kanto, and Shikoku having less than 60 stubs that would go to a prefecture, if we create stub types at this level, I can't see creating region stub types.

Scheme 2: Stub types separated out at 75 - prefectures and regions In addition to the above, Iwate, Kochi, Kyota, Nagasaki, Okinawa, Osaka, Tochigi, Tokushima, Yamagata, Yamaguichi, and Yamanashi wouldn't get stub types, but the load on {{Japan-geo-stub}} would be high enough that we'd need region level stub types, all of which would have more than 75 stubs and thus creatable, so we'd only be creating 4 fewer stub types (There would be too many to not divide Honshu into regions, so an Island only split would not be viable.

Based on the above, I recommend creating 35 stub types, one for each prefecture with 60 or more stubs. Caerwine 20:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like both of the ideas. However, creating 35 stub types begs the question of what to do with the rest of the stubs for prefectures with less than 60 stubs (many of them barely missing the cut). Should they stay in the japan-geo-stub category? The 75-limit idea allows for region stubs, which would at least put the remaining stubs in slightly more specific groups.
-Nameneko 22:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Same as with the US and UK ones - they'd be left in the main Japan category and periodically recounted to see what other prefectures reach the threshold. (And for that reason it's worth keeping the spreadsheet of what stubs are in what prefecture!) Grutness...wha? 01:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess that settles it. Here are the stubs we'll need to make and categorize, then:

-Nameneko 02:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to put the lists for some of these categories onto a page a bit like I did with User:Grutness/Ongoing geo-stub splits, then we could all help sort these stubs! :) Grutness...wha? 09:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I actually meant put the list of which stub articles you know belong to each category there! Grutness...wha? 07:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean. I'll work on it then.
-Nameneko 00:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've added my list of stubs that don't conviently include the prefecture name in the article title to Grutness' page for the stub types above. Caerwine 05:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created all these. Conscious 14:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{California-stub}}

edit

Since all of the other California stubs are properly named (e.g. {{California-south-geo-stub}}), should a proper California-stub be created, either as a redirect from, or as a replacement for, the {{Calif-stub}}. BlankVerse ∅ 06:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of this sounding like a vote of RFA, I thought we had one! About time Calif-stub was renamed. Go to, I'd say. Grutness...wha? 05:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm like you—I swear that there used to be a California-stub that used to be a redirect. BlankVerse ∅ 10:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Russia-mil-stub}}; {{mil-vehicle-stub}}; {{mil-aero-stub}}; {{mil-aviation-stub}}

edit

First two should be self-explanatory; quite a few of these in mil-stub, which is still about 1100-strong. In the latter case, two possible alternatives present themselves: military-aircraft-specific stubs (subcat of mil-stub and aero-stub; supercat of the existing {{bomber-stub}}); or military-aviation-in-general stubs (subcat of mil-stub and the (templateless and stubless) Category:Aviation_stubs; supercat of {{RAF-stub}} and the like). Or indeed, possibly both. Alai 06:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd slightly favour the aviation in general one. There are quite a large number of air-base stubs around. Grutness...wha? 06:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created and populated Russia-mil-stub. Alai 00:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created and populated mil-aviation-stub, at least to above the threshold. Didn't include many actual military aircraft, which are mostly lurking in {{aero-stub}}, and I'm increasingly of the view that these should indeed be a separate sub-cat: anyone object to having them both? Nor did I come across very many airbase stubs: those may be lurking elsewhere, too... I'll look for these more systematically as and when {{fort-stub}}, proposed below, is created, if indeed it is. Alai 00:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created and populated mil-vehicle-stub, though I confess I only scanned weapon-stub for possible tanks, self-propelled guns, etc. Alai 02:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October's geo-stubs

edit

It's that time again! Yes, I've gone through all the categories, and the following look likely to pass muster:

Also, two that have been proposed before have increased enough that I'm no longer particularly against them: {{Kenya-geo-stub}} and {{Missouri-geo-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 06:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These all look good. Morwen - Talk 09:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Concur on the Minnesota and Missouri. I'm going to go ahead and create them because of the four new already-created "rogue" U.S. state geo stubs that will be split off, too. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries.) — Fingers-of-Pyrex 11:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've put those two and the four rogues up on my stub-splitting page. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've set up the Cambs, Essex and Derbs ones now too. Can we have lists of places that need to be moved? Ta, :) Morwen - Talk 12:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heeey - I like this... I suggest the stubs and set up the lists, and someone else does all the re-stubbing ;) I'll put up the lists in the next few minutes (then I'm off to bed - it's 2.15 a.m. here!) - I'll help out with any that are left when I get up (oh, and I'll update the map in Category:England geography stubs now too). Grutness...wha? 13:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Road stubs

edit

What happened to this section? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 02:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It got archived. I didn't see a clear consensus, but on the surface it looks like people are creating stubs and applying them consistently. Is there anything else to discuss? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the more recent one got clobbered when someone added a new section; I've put it back. --Mairi 02:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Euro-stub}} {{Asia-stub}}

edit

We've got a classic chicken and egg type situation here. The easiest way to show that a stub type would be viable is to find a stub type that is at >100 and show that it can produce a sub type that has >50 stubs. However for the geographical based splits of various categories, there is no parent for the lightly represented European and Asian countries, in which stubs can be put until there can be shown there is a sufficient quantity to warrant a stub type of its own, and the result is that it difficult to show that the category would be viable. Caerwine 16:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

a very good point. Actually, you could make a case for saying "fifty stubs or child categories" -which should be easy in the case of Europe at least. The situation's analogous to the geo-stubs, though. in that the only way I know when there are enough stubs to split off for a country is to see how many there are in the regional category. Some of those regional categories are little more than parents for the child categories now, and I'd see the same eventually happening with these. On the same subject, do we have all the other continental ones ? We have South America, Central America, Caribbean and Africa, what about Oceania-stub? There's probably little need for an Antarctica-stub at present, but that might also be worth a thought... Grutness...wha? 06:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is an Oceania stub and has been for some time, but no NorthAm stub. Since there is a complete set of North American subcats and most pre-Colonial border stubs would take pre-Columbian-stub in any case, I'm not certain there is much of a need for a NorthAm stub. (How many 17th-18th century Iroquois-related stubs and/or NAFTA-related stubs are we likely to have?) Caerwine 15:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support both the above; it boggles the mind to think where these are even "sorted" at present. Make sense as parent categories, as G. says. Alai 17:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done, both stubs and cats have been created and appropriate cats made to feed into both. Caerwine 22:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sky television stub

edit

A sky stub with the logo, similar to Category:BBC_stubs, would be very useful. We already have a Category:Sky One programmes. -Chaosfeary 17:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Portugal-bio-stub}}

edit

There are over 200 stubs in {{Portugal-stub}} and there are easily over 60 biography stubs in that stub category alone, so this split seems like an obvious no-brainer. Caerwine 01:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I ran into quite a few Portuguese people stubs while sorting through {{bio-stub}}. There's certainly enough stubs for this tag. Robert 00:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subcats of Sportbio-stub

edit

Following discussion at the very bottom of this page, it looks like the following four sport-specific bio-stubs would be useful:

Given the different meanings of "athlete" in Commonwealth and US English, comment is particularly welcome on the naming of this one, and also for the four categories which would be associated with these templates. Grutness...wha? 09:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I suggest that we go with "athlete-stub" by that name, as "trackandfield-bio-stub" is too horrible to contemplate; and just be careful in the wording of the template message and category. Though just to be devil's advocate: are track-bio- and field-bio- separately viable? I'm not convinced they're at all clearer, though, even in American English. Alai 05:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Track-bio-stub could have the problem that sometimes "track and field" is sometimes shortened to just "track" in casual speech. Field-bio-stub also sounds abit unnatural to me. Splitting it would pose problems for bio-stubs relating to decathalon or heptathalon which fall under both categories. I think "athlete-stub" is the best choice, as long as the template and category are appropriately worded. --Mairi 06:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly the jumping events are usually regarded as field events (I used to high jump myself), but many athletes do both long jump and sprints. I'd favour athlete-stub myself - I think it can be explained in the template easily enough, and if the category is Category:Track and field athlete stubs there should be no problem. Grutness...wha? 07:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I might suggest {{boxer-stub}} instead of {{boxingbio-stub}} - it's nonstandard but more intuitive. I'd also add {{rugbybio-stub}} to the list - this Google search suggests there's over 60 rugby bios (league and union combined). sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, scratch that first one - I've just realised there's going to be promoters, trainers, etc. in there as well as pugilists. For that reason, {{athleticsbio-stub}} might get round the whole "athlete" confusion as well. sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I've made it {{Athleticsbio-stub}}, and re-redirected {{Athlete-stub}} to it 9rather than to {{sportsbio-stub}}) Grutness...wha? 08:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Norway-politician-stub}}

edit

I was going through {Norway-bio-stub} looking to see if I could find 60 writers. I couldn't, but I did find 64 stubs for Norwegian politicans. Caerwine 01:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Portugal-explorer-stub}}

edit

A split between the newly created {{Portugal-bio-stub}} and {{explorer-stub}}; I found 51 (+ or - one or two; please excuse counting mistakes) potential {{Portugal-explorer-stub}} just by going through the {{Portugal-stub}} category.--Carabinieri 13:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{material-stub}}

edit

I've come across a fair number of stubs that are about some sort of material - a type of cloth, a type of wax, etc. These tend to get sorted into really random categories that don't really fit... e.g. Carnauba wax as a food-stub. Ouricury wax, which is currently just a stub, would also fit this. --Alynna 02:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ISTR that this has been suggested before, but by now there are probably enough stubs that it will be quite useful. A lot of them are probably currently maked {{fashion-stub}} - or maybe even {{tool-stub}}! Grutness...wha? 04:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've encountered several stubs in the last couple of days that should have been {{material-stub}}s. I just put some kind of textile in {{tech-stub}} for lack of a better place. GTBacchus 05:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Death-stub}}

edit

Going through Category:Death, I thought that a Death-stub might be of some use. --Anetode 23:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of articles on death, sure - but how many stubs are there? Grutness...wha? 00:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a perliminary list of around 50:
  1. Grave (burial)
  2. Bier
  3. Crypt
  4. Gravedigger
  5. Post mortem interval
  6. Livor mortis
  7. Columbarium
  8. Rigor mortis
  9. Necronym
  10. Necrosis
  11. Human Tissue Authority
  12. Funeral director
  13. Agonal respiration
  14. Algor mortis
  15. Dead on arrival
  16. Death by natural causes
  17. Death education
  18. Death rattle
  19. Instant death
  20. Fratricide
  21. Matricide
  22. Omnicide
  23. Human body disposal
  24. Roman Funerals and Burial
  25. Bisomus
  26. Clinical death
  27. Ankou
  28. Black Racer
  29. Black Flash
  30. Death (Marvel Comics)
  31. Castrum doloris
  32. Chambered long barrow
  33. Chariot burial
  34. Corbelled tomb
  35. Court cairn
  36. Death mask
  37. Domus de Janas
  38. Dyss
  39. Eulogy
  40. Excarnation
  41. Funeral march
  42. Gallery grave
  43. Giants' grave
  44. Grave goods
  45. Hogback (sculpture)
  46. Military funeral
  47. Naveta
  48. Potter's field
  49. Pyre
  50. Sepulchre
  51. Ship burial
  52. Maschalismos
  53. Tomb
There are dozens more in other death subcategories as well. --Anetode 01:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is the stub I'd use for The Custom of the Sea, which I'm currently unsure what to do with... {{water-stub}} is the best I can find. GTBacchus 05:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Created stub. --Anetode 07:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The waiting period for this is usually 1 week. Aecis 18:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. If there is no consensus approval in 1 week I will withdraw the stub as per rule 4 of the proposal procedure. --Anetode 01:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a somewhat ad hoc list. Lots of funereal customs, some categories of murder, medical stubs, and the odd comic character thrown in for good measure? Is "death" really a useful common descriptor? If the core of this category really is the funeral element, I'd strongly prefer a more suggestive name, and a clearer focus. Alai 03:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, some of these are more appropriately described as having to deal with "Death customs" or "Murder." I am somewhat unsure of the level of detail required in stub classification, the Death stub was primarily a product of dissatisfaction with the stub at Grave (burial). --Anetode 09:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia Parallel/Parody Article stub?

edit
moved from the top of the page

Many of the entries on Wikipedia have paralell/parody entries on Uncyclopedia, which is another wiki that was designed to parody Wikipedia with all it's content being purposefully false and untrue, including it's claim to be a "content-free" encyclopedia. It would be interesting to have a stub that links to the same article on Uncyclopedia. Uncyclopedia already has a stub that does the reverse. This would make it possible to switch back and forth if both paralell entries have these stubs. (I don't represent uncyclopedia, I just thought it would be a good idea) What do you think? Nerd42 23:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a stub thing - what you need is just a standard template that can be used for any article, stub or otherwise. I suspect, actually, that you may be confusing what a stub is with what a template is. Grutness...wha? 23:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I probably am. Recently I created another template thing on uncyclopedia, (just by copying and pasting from Template:Wikipedia) for wikipedia/uncyclopedia user pages called Template:WikipediaUser. How would I go about doing the reverse from Wikipedia then, as I've been saying? Nerd42 14:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much the same thing. Other than reading the template page I linked to above, the best place to start would be to simply create a template by typing, say, Template:UncyclopediaLink - or clicking on the redlink I just made there - open up the template you mentioned in Uncyclopedia, then copy and paste what's there into the new UncyclopediaLink template. Then it's simply a case of changing to the text around to link it in the other direction, which hopefully wouldn't be too difficult. If that's too complex, try asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) or at the Help Desk - someone there will be able to guide you through it. Grutness...wha? 14:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh-no, looks like this has been tried before.Nerd42 22:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


athlete stub template

edit

Given the confusion about this term, can that just redirect to the root stub template instead? Noone should be using that stub-name unless they're confused and need recategorizing, which is what a root stub template usually indicates... +sj + 20:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive10&oldid=1145669710"