Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2009/January

Newly discovered, January 2009

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

New unproposed stub type for an order of flowering plants. Not sure whether this conforms to the staandard taxonomic level usually used for stub sorting, but there is definitely one problem with it at least - it has its own category, and even if every articles in Category:Commelinales was a stub, it still wouldn't reach threshold. The need for upmerging is a distinct likelihood. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I ignored the rules on this one, but I felt it was fairly uncontroversial. WikiProject Plants has many stub templates and categories, the majority of them at the level of order (see here and scroll down: Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Resources). I've recently begun adding many stubs in this order of plants and it makes more sense to add a specific stub tag now than having to come back once a certain threshold has been reached to do it all over again.DJLayton4 (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template's pretty uncontroversial, sure - the category, though, is another matter. Categories are only created once there's a guarantee that 60 stubs currently exist. Given that the permcat parent only has about 50 articles, this isn't the case - hence my comments about possible upmerging. And even if something's uncontroversial, it's still worth running it past the people who will actually be using it the most over at WP:WSS/P. Grutness...wha? 22:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your "standard taxonomic level" is, but if I wrote the rules it would be order rank, which Commelinales is. This particular order consists of a little over 800 species, plus about 70 genera, plus some taxa with a great many cultivars, such as Anigozanthos. So I would estimate that the topic served by this stub type has the potential to contain about 1000 articles. On the other hand, the category only contains 25 articles at present, and the parent stub category Category:Monocot stubs only contains 99 articles, so there was hardly a compelling need for this to be split off. On balance, I guess I favour getting rid of it for now. Hesperian 06:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub types are split out respective to the number of existing stubs, so a category certainly isn't an option right now. The template's probably fine if upmerged, though I don't know personally whether botanical stubs are split by order, family, or genera, hence my initial comment. Grutness...wha? 07:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely common for stub types to exist at and below this rank, take it from me, so there's no problem there. But personally I find templates without a corresponding category horribly confusing. If you reckon the category "certainly isn't an option right now", then I vote the template goes too. Hesperian 09:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerged templates are a standard stub-sorting practice. If we deleted the stub template as well, we'd have the work of de-stubbing/re-stubbing these articles now, then replacing the template if the numbers do warrant a seaparte category later. Simply upmerging now should make no difference to the basic running of the parent category that this would be upmerged to (the template certainly wouldn't be sitting there with no active category link at all)., and would save lots of potential work later. Grutness...wha? 22:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one'a bit tricky. We do have footyclub-stub trypes for separate nations, it's true, but Zanzibar is not a separate nation (it's part of Tanzania), and while there is a "Zanzibar national team" it is not recognised by FIFA. It took a stretch to get {{Zanzibar-stub}} up to the required 60-stub threshold, and Tanzania-footyclub-stub's only used on a large handful of articles, so chances are this will remain upmerged for a considerable time (as thankfully it currently is). In fact, if Zanzibar Premier League is anythingg to go by, we only have one article on Zanzibari club sides - and that one's already stubbed with the Tanzania-footyclub-stub template. Might be worth keeping, but personally I don't really see the point of it. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping and expanding the content on Zanzibari football clubs. As you said, there is certainly room to grow.--TM 20:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{UOxford-stub}} / Category:University of Oxford stubs

Unproposed, but in line with similar types which currently exist. hell, Cambridge has one, Oxford should too. The size of Category:University of Oxford suggests this might reach threshold, but Category:United Kingdom university stubs suggests the opposite. May need upmerging if it can't reach threshold (which is only 30 - there is a project). Grutness...wha? 00:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I created this in line with the University of Cambridge stub {{UCambridge-stub}}. I can add stub entries if it is deemed acceptable. Sorry not to go through "official" channels. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free - it's well-formed and in line with other types, so their shouldn't be a problem. Adding stubs is the only way to see whether it reaches threshold (I think it should pretty easily, but if it doesn't it may end up being upmerged into a more general category). If you're thinking of making any more templates or categories though, it'd be a help if you proposed them first :) Grutness...wha? 00:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really not sure about this one. We don't normally split things like films up by former, no-longer-extant countries, though I can see that this one might make some sense. It might just be a nasty precedent, though. Thoughts? Grutness...wha? 00:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created it as part of the upmerge into Category:European film stubs, to avoid articles just having the plain old film-stub tag. Yes, the country no longer exists, but the films created at the time did belong to Yugoslavia, and not another nation. It's quite likely that more films from (former) Yugoslavia get WP entries in the future too. Lugnuts (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Croatia-handball-bio-stub}} / Category:Croatian handball biography stubs

Yet another unproposed one where the template looks OK but a (likely undersized) category has also been created. Category:Handball biography stubs is moderately large, but Category:Croatian sportspeople stubs is under 200, so I have my doubts on whether this will reach the 60-stub threshold. Upmerging may be appropriate. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think that it may get very close I'll see what I can do.~~ Someone already has it at 60 so keep. Waacstats (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't write here sooner... I have changed the stub-template on all Croatian handballer-bio-stubs. Almost all handball-biographies are stubs, regardless of country, sadly. So with a big handball-nation like Croatia, I don't think this will drop below 60 anytime soon... So its a keep from me too! =) lil2mas (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. The fact that I brought it here rather than taking it to WP:SFD was some indication that i though there was some chance of it getting there :) Grutness...wha? 01:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Paleo-amphibian-stub}} / Category:Prehistoric amphibian stubs

Seems a reasonable addition to the range, and the population of it definitely indicates some suggestion that it might be of use. Just a pity it wasn't actually proposed beforehand. If it had been, the template's coding might have been better... it's fixed now, but unfortunately it wasn't when the template was added tol over 100 articles. Given the slowness of the job cue, that means doing null-edits to the pile-up listed under * in Category:Paleontology stubs :((( Grutness...wha? 00:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{China-biologist-stub}} / Category:Chinese biologist stubs

Another unproposed one where the template looks OK but a (likely undersized) category has also been created. Given that Category:Chinese scientist stubs has fewer than 80 articles, the chances of this reaching the required 60-stub threshold in the near future are very slim, so upmerging may be appropriate. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having recently looked at scientists I very much doubt this would make it to 60 unless someone creates the missing articles. Upmerge template, Delete category. Waacstats (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Guyana-sport-bio-stub}} / Category:Guyanese sportspeople stubs

New unproposed stub type. The template's fine, nicely formed, and in line with similar types. Unfortunately, though, it's not upmerged and almost certainly should be. Given the number of articles in Category:Guyanese people stubs (a little over 100), there's no need to split out the sportspeople and little chance that this will reach the 60-stub threshold for a separate category. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge template, delete category. Unless someone adds a lot more articles, could be possible given that Guyana has had a number of fine cricketers play for the West Indies - I'll see what I can manage. Waacstats (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have (Clive Lloyd, Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Colin Croft come to mind), but even then I think 60's a long way off. Grutness...wha? 22:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

52 close enough? otherwise upmerge. Waacstats (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My rule of thumb is 60 to create or 50 for an existing category, so i've no objections, though if it can get to 60 all the better. I've managed to nudge it to 55, BTW. Grutness...wha? 22:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Africa-lit-stub}} / Category:African literature stubs

Unproposed. On the face of it, seems a reasonable idea, but there have been concerns raised recently about lit-stubs by country/continent (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#.7B.7BSouthAfrica-book-stub.7D.7D). If the template is approved it may yet need upmerging. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I created it, I was unaware that stub templates are usually proposed before creation. While doing some stub sorting I came across Template:India-lit-stub and Template:Japan-lit-stub, and since I've done a little work on African literature-related articles, I figured I'd go ahead and create such a template for African lit. As for whether such stub templates are desirable, I don't feel strongly either way. I just saw a hole and filled it. faithless (^speak) 00:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is the one mentioned at the proposal page about South Africa - scoping could easily be for literature about Africa, literature from Africa, or literature within African culture. Some books, like Things Fall Apart, would qualify under all of these criteria - others, like The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency (novel) might be a little more borderline, and some, like Heart of Darkness or The Constant Gardener might qualify by some definitions and not by others. It's just a little ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 01:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]