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


 * 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 send to WP:CFD

No template, malformed, uncategorized, created yesterday. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OFCOL! This user has proposed this stub type twice and been kindly but firmly informed that it is currently unneeded (and that his/her stub code was incorrect). Maybe this is just his/her "working list", in which case it should be a user sub-page. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 20:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm taking this one straight to SFD. Grutness...wha?  22:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

Tampa-stub
Template is tagged as uncategorized. No category "Tampa stubs". —Leo Laursen ( T ¦ C ) 16:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Amazingly, it's been around for over a year. In that time, it's got roughly half-way to threshold, and contains anout 30 geo-stubs and 5 struct-stubs. If this was a county-geo-stub, then I'd suggest upmerging it. it isn't, and there are existing county-geo-stubs/struct-stubs which could do all of the work done by this stub type. So there doesn't seem much point in keeping this one. Grutness...wha?  22:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Granada-geo-stub /

 * 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

Unpropoised, though possibly useful - is getting pretty full, and there seems to be a Grenada WikiProject. Currently used by 25 stubs. However... the category name (and, for that matter, its permcat parent's name) are a bit of a problem. The parent article is at Granada (province), and both the permcat and stubcat should really follow the same pattern. Grutness...wha?  00:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This template is very useful. I have copied of other provinces, as Albacete-geo-stub, Burgos-geo-stub, León-geo-stub, Soria-geo-stub, Valladolid-geo-stub, etc. I'm sorry, I do not speak very well English. Satesclop 19:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

Zimbabwe-hist-stub, Nigeria-hist-stub / ,
Unproposed and the categories are improperly named. I sincerely doubt these categories can be filled, though I'd guess Zimbabwe is much more likely. I suggest upmerge --Thomas.macmillan (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I did mess up with the naming - is there any way to move them to the correct title? I believe the categories can be filled. Jose João (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As is normal in these sorts of cases, yes, renaming is possible, and if you can get them to 60 stubs all well and good. If they don't get to 60, though, upmerging (keeing the tempates but moving the articles to a more general category) is the likely outcome. BTW, although you haven't mader this mistake yet, it's worth remembering while trying to get to 60 stubs that biographical stubs are not normally considered as history stubs (everyone notable has made some kind of mark on history, and it makes more sense to categorise them as bio-stubs). Sincer enaming can be done at any time, it's probably worth trying to populate these categories first. I've started movingg a few more Nigerian ones across to the new category, BTW. Grutness...wha?  05:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Zimbabwe is now up to 63, so a simply renaming is in order. I still doubt Nigeria.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have found only 25 stubs that qualify as Nigeria-related, so I guess up-merging is in order. However, I oppose renaming either the categories or these stubs. The parent stub, Africa-hist-stub, refers to the place, not the people. "Burkina Faso", for example, is much easier to remember and is better known than Burkinabé. Jose João (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While that is no doubt true (and there are worse than Burkinabé), the standard form (and that used for almost all history by current nation splits) is to use the adjectival form. I say almost all, since for some reason we have Belarus history stubs (which should also be renamed, surely). Grutness...wha?  07:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Change my recommendation for Zimbabwe-hist-stub to an upmerging, as the articles previously tagged have been redirected to larger articles on the decades.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Africa-road-stub /
Unproposed, but well-formed and with a natuiral subcat. There were minor probleems with the category, but they were easily fixed. The number of stubs seems pretty sparse. Unfortunately, if kept (rather than upmerged) the articles included will need some work - the creator of it has added the new stub type but not removed the former Road-stub for the articles! Grutness...wha?  00:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't, in fact, create this — the category already existed; the only thing that wasn't already in place was the actual template. Since the normal practice here is that a template can be created without an accompanying category, but a category cannot be created without an accompanying template, all I did was fill in the missing gap on something that already existed. Just $0.02 for the pot. Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies for accusing you of making the category. FWIW, what you mention is not actually normal practice - there are quite a few stub castegories designed as "parent only" categories, without templates (e.g., ). Where this has been done, if a template is created later it's still usually proposed first. In any case, this does seem like a useful template to have, it's the numbers that are a worry. It actually looks like in this particular case someone decided to create an unproposed category separately about two months ago, and it was never noticed here (a daily scan is done of new templates, but not of new categories). Given the method of creation, it may well be that whoever made the category has hand-added the category to the articles, which will be a pain if true. Given the size of the category, it may well still need upmerging. Grutness...wha?  00:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I took care of the articles being added to the category by hand rather than template. Am now sorting  to see how many more Africa road stubs might be there. Caerwine Caer’s whines  03:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just gone through and the equivalent top level stub cats for Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, and Benin. If ther're anything to go by, there are few if any road stubs hiding in the individual nation stub categirues. Grutness...wha?  05:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The existing South African stub subcategory seems to account for the majority, yes. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Finished sorting and it is now up to 21 stubs plus the South Africa cat. I'd say keep an on it for now, although South America is far closer to meeting the standard for a category of its own (a little over 50 stubs) than Africa is. Caerwine Caer’s whines  19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Trilobite-stub /

 * 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

Unproposed, but well-formed and well populated. Could do with better parent cats, though. Grutness...wha?  20:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

Yamaguchi-rail-station-stub (upmerged)
Well-formed, but unproposed. At least it's upmerged. Grutness...wha?  20:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This stub was created for Yamaguchi Prefecture following what was already done for Hiroshima and Hyogo Prefectures (the Japan-rail-station-stub category has more than 10 stubs of this type for other prefectures). Yamaguchi Prefecture has about 150 rail stations operated by JR West, and more by others, so a separate stub for Yamaguchi should be palatable. --Apiquinamir 10:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The number of stations is irrelevvant - the number of existing stubs is far more relevant. Given that this is upmerged, however, it does seem reasonable. It'd be interesting to know how you expected stub sorters to use it without letting them know that such a template was planned, however. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  23:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan-history-stub /
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #efefef; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 take to sfr

Unproposed, but looks well formed in all regards. Problem is whether it will reach threshold. If not, upmerging mat be necessary. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This stub was created after a careful consideration of request from a project member who seems to be working well on Pakistan geography and history related articles. The stub type does not overlap with any other and appears promising in inviting attention of editors towards relevant articles, most of which are expected to be stubs.-- Isles <b style="color:blue;">Cape</b>Talk 13:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no sign of any request at WP:WSS/P, which is where requests for new stub types are made. And there is still the likelihood that it may need upmerging if it doesn't meet the required thresholds. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  23:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

Algeria-company-stub /
Unproposed, well-formed, but likely to remain woefully-far below threshold - the permcat parent and all its subcategories only have 21 companies between them, and even if they were all stubs and all the redlinks at List of Algerian companies had stubs written for them, the category still wouldn't get to 60. Unless there's a sudden burst of activity on the Algerian stub front, upmerging seems the most reasonable option. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

SriLanka-hist-stub /
Appeared ever so briefly on the Proposals page, vanished, and was then created by the same user. Correctly formed (I think), but not sure if it's necessary -- too soon to tell. Her Pegship <small style="color:green;"> (tis herself) 04:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tentatively, I'd keep it - for now at least. It's already garnered 30-odd stubs. If it doesn't get to threshold it can always be upmerged, though the category doesn't indicate what to yet (only one stubcat parent, no permcat parents...) Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  05:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * At a second glance, a deletion or at least upmerging seems on the cards. Almost nothing in the category belongs there - it's nearly all bio-stubs and struct-stubs. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Motorcycle-racing-stub and Motorcycle-racing-bio-stub
Two new unproposed creations, both seem at first to be reasonably scoped and eminently populable, though neither of them currently has a category (something which would need to be fixed if these are kept. Both are currently redlinked, though one of those links is to a highly inappropriate name). Major problem is, though, that we already had categories for these: and, with appropriate templates, both of which are now virtually empty. We clearly don't need both, and the longstanding one was designed to have the wider scope. As such, there's really no need for the new ones. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I created both the new stubs to move the articles from the scope of the general Motorcycling WikiProject to the scope of it's newly formed Motorcycle Racing WikiProject child project that is dedicated to motorcycle racing. Also Motorcycle racing is a more appropriate name since that is the name of both the Motorcycle Racing WikiProject and the Motorcycle racing Portal. Chris Ssk  talk 11:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also regarding the scope of each stub. Googling "Motorcycle sport" returned me about 108,000 results, googling "Motorcycle racing" returned about 2,860,000 results. Even though "motorcycle sport" may sound like covering a wider scope in reality its not a very widely used term. Chris Ssk  talk 15:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The usage of the term is largely irrelevant - the fact is that motorcycle sport (however widely the term is used) covers a slightly greater topic area than simply motorcycle racing, but only slightly wider. By taking motorcycle racing stubs out of that category, you have basically rendered the motorcycle sport category useless for the purposes of stub sorting (there is a standard threshold for stub categories that it no longer meets, by a fairly substantial margin. If it is removed, however, there becomes a problem with the handful of remaining stubs which aren't covered by the new stub type. That is the reason why at present it is highly unlikely that a proposal for this new stub type would have been approved. There was no reason to split motorcycle sport stubs by dint of that category's size, and any downscoping of the category would have been detrimental to stub sorting. As to creating the new stub type because of your new WikiProject, that doesn't negate going through the proposal process - as is pointed out in the WikiProject creation template WikiProject. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  22:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Most articles under the sport-bio category appear to be racers. I see no reason not to move these over to racing-bio and delete the sport versions (which I created) as they would probably be unused.  Waacstats (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)