Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2011/September

September 2011

{{Brazil-rowing-bio-stub}}

Unproposed. well-formed (well, it is now that I've removed the redlink cat and upmerged it), but unused and - frankly - of limited benefit. We only have around 90 rowing-bio-stubs that aren't in national cats, and of those 90 only one is from Brazil. What's more, Category:Brazilian rowers contains only one article (the same one). I note that a lot of nation-rowing-bio-stub names are simply used as redirects to {{rowing-bio-stub}} (an unusual method for WSS, but still...). Perhaps the same should be done here? Grutness...wha? 03:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

{{Ballet-stub}} / Category:Ballet stubs/{{Ballet-bio-stub}} / Category:Ballet biographical stubs

There seems to have been some moving around of stub types without consultation in the ballet area, with two new stub types created, one of which is essentially a duplicate of a previous approved type. A new biographical category and template have been created (probably a good move, considering the number of articles), but the problem is with the new {{ballet-stub}}. Rather than requesting a move of the former {{Ballet-dance-stub}} to a new name and new category via WP:SFD, a brand new template and category have been created, leaving the old template to languish unused in a category which is now a soft-redirect (no stub categories are ever soft redirects, owing to the nature of their usage). I'd consider the new names as better to the old ones, but the question is whether to do what should have been done at the time (if it were approved), and simply redirect the old template? The new category is also undersized and only saved from upmerging by the fact that it has a viable subcategory, so any split out of the companies would be premature, to say the least, yet the moment the new "ballet-stub" marks a lot of things which ballets - they're ballet companies. In fact, it was because of the possible confusion between ballet per se and individual ballets that was the reason for having the template and category at its original name. Best option for now would probably be to redirect the old template to the new, delete the old category, and cope with the confusion until the new category is big enough to consider splitting. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)