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

Newly discovered, September 2008

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

Unproposed, but well-formed. The idea of a template is a perfectly reasonable one; every country should have a generic stub template of its own. The category, however, is never going to come within a bull's roar of threshold - even adding in the six articles marked with {{Niue-geo-stub}} would only bring the total up to nine at the moment. If all the articles in Category:Niue and its subcats are stubs (highly unlikely) and if there's no double-catting there (which there is), and if every article in there was best suited by a Niue-stub (unlikely, given that articles like English language are in there) then there'd be 73 stubs - just 13 above threshold. But all that seems highly unlikely. This should almost certainly be upmerged to Category:Oceania stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that when you count unique articles there are only 64 I think, this should be upmerged. Waacstats (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ransacked Category:Niue stubs - there were a grand total of 40 stubs. Very slim. Grutness...wha? 11:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Beijing-Subway-stub}} / Category:Beijing Subway stubs

Unproposed - the template seems reasonable, but given that there are only 41 articles in Category:Beijing Subway, the category seems doomed to fall below threshold. Will probably need upmerging. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canonical template name also would strictly-speaking be either {{Beijing-Subway-stub}} or {{Beijing-metro-stub}}. Since only around two people seem to know or care about the naming guidelines -- and those don't always agree -- keep existing name as redirect post-move. Alai (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unproposed. No stub category of any kind. Could potentially reach threshold for its own category (there are 110 articles in Category:Supergiant stars and its subcats), but unless there's evidence that it does, this should be upmerged (if kept) into Category:Star stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logical scope, given the long-standing {{giant-star-stub}}, etc. Indeed, this may have been mooted in the proposal for that split. Upmerge. Alai (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerged and in line with naming of other templates, but I can't see any sign this was proposed. Looks like a keeper, though. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Netherlands-cricket-bio-stub}} (upmerged)

Not really sure if it's needed or not, but it's upmerged to the directory the stubs would be in anyway. (Assuming I've understood what upmerging is correctly... bit new to this. :)) Does not appear to have been proposed, as far as I can tell - was created in Feb 08 but no sign of it in that month's proposals log. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed in january 2008. You appear to have understood upmerging corerctly. Waacstats (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup - sometimes it takes over a month between proposal and creation. Easiest way to check if something's been proposed is to look in the template's "Whatlinkshere" list to see whether there's a link to one of the proposal subpages. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems necessary but appears not to have the stamp of approval, nor to have the parent category Category:Sports stubs. 45 pages in it - will be 47 in a minute as there are 2 to go there in the current stubs list. PamD (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was proposed, but for some reason must have slipped by withoutthe category being properly parented. A little small, but likely as not that's due to undersorting. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Taiwan-edu-stub}} / Category:Taiwan education stubs

Unproposed, and used on ten articles, nine of which are actually school stubs and should be marked as such - only one would really count as an edu-stub. I've no objection to creation of an upmerged Taiwan-school-stub, but I'm not convinced we need an edu-stub for Taiwan, nor that we need a separate category. Grutness...wha? 08:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize this would be a problem and I'm sorry I didn't go through the proper channels. I work extensively with school articles, and I say that placing all the Taiwan school stubs under Category:Asian school stubs was not ideal, as it made finding Taiwan stubs quite difficult. It seemed easiest to group all Taiwan school stubs under an education category like Category:Hong Kong education stubs and per convention at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Education i.e. everything covered under Education in Taiwan and for any future project such as WikiProject:Education in Taiwan. There are certain to be Taiwan stubs for libraries, schools, school districts, universities, vocational schools, examinations, and teachers, but I'm not convinced we are at the quantity where a subcategory of stubs is needed. When such a breakdown is needed, I think it should be done as Category:United States education stubs where there is a breakdown between schools and universities and then a further breakdown by territory --Jh12 (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No real problem, though as I said, a Taiwan-school-stub would make more sense, and I'd suggest renaming and rescoping this one appropriately, especially if you're intent on filling it up rapidly. In most cases, Category:Foo education stubs are made largely as holders for separate school and university stub subcategories, and the -edu- templates are mainly used for things which don't really fall under either. This is the case, for instance, with the United States education stubs category you mentioned. Note that they should never be used for biographical articles in individual educators, as you have done with quite a number of articles since I listed this category here! As for the Hong Kong category, it was largely the work of an editor who was long a thorn in the side of the stub-sorting project, and we simply haven't got around to renaming it yet :/ Grutness...wha? 09:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm; perhaps if I simply created Template:Taiwan-school-stub as well, and have Taiwan-school-stub and Template:Taiwan-university-stub add articles to Category:Taiwan education stubs. The policies regarding all this could be made somewhat clearer. I saw educators under the Hong Kong category and assumed they belonged; note that Hong Kong and Singapore are the largest Asian school categories, at least for WikiProject Schools, so I hope those categories are made clearer. I also work on all of the base Category:Schools from time to time, and it's often a mess. Was there a specific guideline page regarding education stubs? Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I know - it is a little ad hoc, as you point out above. Theoretically, a new {{Taiwan-school-stub}} should be proposed at WP:WSS/P too - just for form, since I doubt there'd be any objections (it's a speediable type). It may even have enough stubs for its own category (which would be a subcat of both Category:Asian school stubs and Category:Taiwan education stubs). {{Taiwan-university-stub}} already exists, but yes, it could be upmerged to both Category:Asia university stubs and Category:Taiwan education stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{England-footy-midfielder-1870s-stub}} (upmerged)

Seems sensible, and in line with other similar templates, and thankfully it's upmerged. Would have nice if it had beeen proposed, though. Grutness...wha? 08:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not proposing it first, genuinely didn't realise I needed to. The coloured notice says "please propose new stub categories here" and as I wasn't proposing a new stub category, but only a new template which generated the existing stub category Category:English football midfielder, pre-1940 birth stubs, I thought I didn't have to. Will know better in future. Should also declare {{England-footy-defender-1860s-stub}}, also created by me yesterday without proposing first, for which I imagine there'll be rather less demand than for the 1870s one. The rationale for both would be for consistency with the other English footballer playing position/birth decade stub templates. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Norway-newspaper-stub}} / Category:Norwegian newspaper stubs

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

Can't find any sign of this being proposed. The template looks fine, but it may be struggling to reach threshold (the parent permcat and its subcats have at most 133 articles, even assuming no double-catting in parent and subtype - and a considerable proportion of them are not stubs), so upmerging may be on the horizon for this one. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stub is now used on 108 articles, which should put it over the limit for its own category. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it's fine - I'm surprised there are so many, though. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 11 September 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.

Upmerged, and in line with other similar by-decade types, so seems keepable on that basis. Doubt this will ever need splitting out with its own category though, given that the earliest organisation of the AFL was only in the late 1850s - there can't be that many stubs on Aussie Rules players from that era. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

New unproposed stub type for an order of monocot plants, complete with its own category (don't you love it when unproposed categories spring up with the WP:WSS notice saying not to create stub types without proposal already in them? Sort of adding insult to injury, or - in this case - perhaps gilding the lily is a better term). Problem with this one is that Category:Monocot stubs has fewer than 210 unsubcatted stubs, so it's not within a bull's roar of needing a further new split. It also greatly reduces the chances that this type - currently with 25 stubs - will get close to threshold. The template may well be useful in the long run, but it should very likely be upmerged for now. Grutness...wha? 11:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How quickly we forget. See Proposals, August 2007. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My count then didn't show viability, either, so I think a category was not necessarily implied by that discussion. If not populable now, upmerge. Alai (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The count at the time was 68. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now it's at 80. May we keep it, please? Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Sorry I didn't know qabout the proposal - trouble with "implied splits" like this one and the one below is that there's no link to the proposal in the "what links here" of the category or template, so it didn't look like it had been proposed. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link to the category from the proposal (but admittedly not to the template). Alai (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and I spot them when I go through Special:NewPages/Templates each day, which explains why I didn't see it. I'm far more likely to check the template's links, and didn't recognise the creator's name, so assumed it was unproposed - sorry :/ Grutness...wha? 05:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No harm, no foul. Not my proposal in this case, but I must admit I tend to only link (or indeed explicitly list) the category. Of course, if something is proposed initially as an upmerged template, the reverse will be the case (and perhaps otherwise, too). Alai (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have assuaged my (admittedly microscopic) feelings of indignation by adding a note to the top of this page. :P Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Defensive-lineman-1990s-stub}} / Category:Defensive lineman, 1990s birth stubs

Unproposed, but at least the template seems reasonable. Seems to have been pasted over from the equivalent 1980s template and category... Unfortunately, the new category is a problem, however, since it's clearly not likely to reach threshold in the immediate future (I doubt we have 60 stub articles on teenaged defensive linemen at present). Suggest that for the time being upmerging would probably be the most sensible option. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Implied in Proposals, May 2007. This is not my day. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]