Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries

From MedBib.com - Medicine & Nature

Before proposing or creating a new type of stub, please read How to propose a new stub type.

This WP:WSS subpage is for discoveries of stub templates not cleared by WikiProject Stub sorting which have been encountered on Wikipedia. Stubs that have been put on the official stub type list without discussion on this page or /Proposals should be listed here as well. If you discover such a stub type, please list it at the top of this page along with any relevant details. Do not enter it on the stub type list until it has been discussed here to determine whether it should be kept or proposed for deletion at stub types for deletion.

To check whether a stub type has been discussed in the past, click on either the template or category link and select "What links here" from the toolbox on the left (set it to find only items in the Wikipedia space). Find the link to a WikiProject Stub sorting page such as Deletion or Proposals to see if there has been any discussion on this type previously. Note: If possible, check both the template and the category, in case one has been discussed but not the other.

Newly discovered, December 2008

NEW DISCOVERIES

Newly discovered, November 2008

{{NewCaledonia-bio-stub}}

No problem with this one other than it being unproposed - it's nicely made and upmerged appropriately. A keeper, IMO. Grutness...wha? 07:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

{{SouthAfrica-radio-station-stub}}

Unproposed stub type for radio stations in South Africa. There's been a quiet but quite welcome uptick in the creation of articles for radio stations in Africa and {{Africa-radio-station-stub}} was approaching the magical number of 60 for the creation of Category:African radio station stubs when a bold editor created this new stub type. After careful combing of the African radio station stubs, there are currently 27 tagged as South African and 27 more tagged for other African nations. I believe this is close enough to the 30 threshold to keep the new stub type and rapidly approaching the borderline for a new continent-level category. - Dravecky (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that the creation of this was implied in recent discussions about South African media stubs (the upshot of which was to create a Cat:South African media stubs and any necessary templates for tv, radio, and film). It's mentioned in passing at both the proposal page and at SFD. In any case, keep. Grutness...wha? 06:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I see now why my search came up dry: the SFD discussion explicitly calls for -tv and -film stub types but only implies the -radio-station stub type and the proposals page never mentions any specific templates at all. Also, this one isn't on the main list o' stub types so its inclusion here is probably for the best in any case. - Dravecky (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. More or less a legit creation, but not yet listed as such, so better safe than sorry. Grutness...wha? 07:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Bihar-stub}} / Cat:Bihar stubs

Unproposed general stub type for an Indian state. We have similar stub templates for other states, so that's not much of a problem. The category, however, may be another matter, since there's no guarantee this will reach threshold. It may need upmerging (if not, it needs some finessing - it has no permcat parents and no standard templating). Grutness...wha? 10:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Montserrat-footy-bio-stub}}

Well enough formed, though sadly with its own (somewhat inappropriate) stub category. Needs upmerging to Cat:Caribbean football (soccer) biography stubs, since this will never get close to threshold (unless 1/60 of Montserrat population each has a football biography stub). Grutness...wha? 00:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

{{IRC-stub}}

Newly created (without proposal), and linked to a permcat rather than a stubcat. Not sure how useful this would be - I suspect it overlaps with a lot of existing stub types. If it's useful enough to keep it will need to be re-pointed to a more appropriate category. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Argentina-rugbyunion-bio-stub}}, {{Portugal-rugbyunion-bio-stub}} / Cat:Portuguese rugby union biography stubs

Two new unproposed templates - both seem well-formed, and at least one of them will prove fairly useful, I'd think - so keeping them seems fair enough. Unfortunately, one of these comes with its own category, which will almost certainly not reach threshold, so upmerging is in the offing there. Ironically, the one without a dedicated category would be quite likely to reach threshold fairly soon, I would think. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep templates and send cat to SFD unless it makes it to 60 (unlikely in my opinion).Waacstats (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Port-stub}} / Cat:Port stubs

I was looking for a stub tag for a few articles about ports in China (PRC). I found this stub type in use on Port of Yingkou, but noticed it was not on the official list. I think this article is the right place to report this unofficial stub. {{Water-transport-stub}} seems the closest official stub-type that would work for a port article (ex: Port of Yantai, Port of Qinhuangdao). Should I continue to use it? —fudoreaper (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It is an official one - it's only just been made though which is why it isn't on the canonical list yet - the proposal is here - so feel free to use it, but note that it should be used in conjunction with PRChina-geo-stub or some regional equivalent. Grutness...wha? 22:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, cool, if it's official i'll go ahead and use it. And i gotcha on combining it with a geo stub. Should I add this (and the others just approved) to the master list? —fudoreaper (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure - it's very easy to forget to add things to the main list when they're made (I'm always forgetting, so I know how easy it is to do), so feel free to any that aren't on the list that have been approved. Grutness...wha? 04:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, added. Properl, i think. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types/Transport Does that look good? —fudoreaper (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup - that looks good. Cheers. Grutness...wha? 21:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Iran-footyclub-stub}} / Cat:Iran football club stubs

Brand new, and created seemingly with a SFR notice attached! No objection to the template, but there's no clear evidence that there will be the required number of stubs for a separate category (and given the number of articles in the permcat parent, it seems highly unlikely at present) - this may need to be upmerged to the Asian parent stub category. Grutness...wha? 11:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• There is a proposal from september for templates for each country in the Asian football clubs, so template is OK. delete category unless it reaches 60. Waacstats (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Ohio-bio-stub}} / Cat:Ohio people stubs

As below, so above. We seem to be fighting a losing battle against subnational region bio-stubs, which is a shame, given the complications they cause with people moving from place to place. This one was created less than 24 hours ago, and already has close to 100 articles, many of which are for people with only tentative links with Ohio (e.g., Anthony Hancock (American football), who could just as easily be a Missouri- or Tennessee-bio-stub); NYC resident Amy Braunschweiger, and Ontario-raised Ab DeMarco, Jr., whose potential list of subnational bio-stub templates would be fairly sizeable). Grutness...wha? 01:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Anothony was born in Cleveland, Amy was raised in Toledo, and Ab was born in Cleveland. Natives of Ohio are known as Ohioans. I created this stub after I saw the same had been done for Oregon, Texas, and Indiana. People born in Ohio, should be tagged with Ohio-bio-stub; there's no other way around it. If I lived in Texas, but was born in Ohio I'm an Ohioan not a Texan. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You might sort them that way,m but can you guarantee that everyone will? Would, for instance, anyone instantly think of giving {{Connecticut-bio-stub}} to George W. Bush (if his article were a stub) - or would they be more likely to associate him with Texas?{{Texas-bio-stub}} certainly isn't being used only for people born there - how will you guarantee this won't end up equally mixed and problematical? Grutness...wha? 05:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why Bush couldn't have have both stub templates? His talk page is covered by WikiProjects Military, Baseball, Connecticut, Texas, and Presidents. No one can control what tag someone on any wiki will use. Princeton says and Ohioan is someone who is "a native(a person born in a particular place or country) or resident(someone who lives at a particular place for a prolonged period or who was born there) of Ohio". Parenthesis mine. As long as the stub template clearly states who the template is for there shouldn't be a problem with the user interpreting its use. The reason there were almost 100 is because I didn't want to get this stub swatted down for not having enough members. I precompiled a listed to make sure (in my mind atleast) that there was a need, created everything and then out of the 700 articles I checked over I tagged 80 some. After typing this, I made another list. This list is a list of biographical articles (4 are sketchy and I need your opinion) that tranclude Ohio-stub or Cincinnati-stub. Would you agree that those articles should be Ohio-bio or in your opinion should they just be Ohio? Like I said above above: I'm new to the stub thing, I'm not trying to step on any toes. But at what point will we have to start cutting down Category:American people stubs? I thought 800 was a limit followed here, but I could more than likely be wrong. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is - but from national level they're cut down primarily by occupation - there's just considerable undersorting of Cat:American people stubs (it's always a hard one to keep to a reasonable size, given that there are tens of thousands of US-bio-stubs, mainly further sorted). Most of the subcats of this are for occupations. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

One more quick note, I didn't say it could only be used for people born in Ohio, that's just what I started with. If someone has a stronger relation with another state I don't see why they can't be tagged with their home state and the state they connected with in other's minds. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And there's the problem, and the reason why stubs like this aren't generally as useful as they initially seem. Take as an example Ab DeMarco, Jr.. He's played for teams from New York, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Vancouver, LA, Boston, Edmonton - and was born in Ohio. That's potentially eight region-specific bio-stubs, even excluding the icehockey-bio-stub he would normally be given. Many other sportsmen and women are the same. Given that there's a maximum of four stub template per article, it's a toss-up which ones we should use so as not to get complaints from other editors for marking "our boy" with the wrong stub - the right state in one person's mind may not be the right state to others (there's a "state of mind" joke waiting to be made there somewhere, I'm sure). People move around a lot, and that's the main reason why we generally from on state-specific bio-stubs - they need too much regulation, control, and infocreep, which (despite what some people seem think of stub sorters) we don't really like. As I poionted out, though, WP:WSS is generally onto a losing battle with these types, so now that it's there chances are good that it'll stay and be used. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about others opinions on the matter, frankly I don't care that much either way, but I wouldn't automatically accociate someone who played for the Cincinnati Reds with Ohio, but with the state they were born in. Unless they were born in Ohio and played for the Reds, then following my own logic I'd associate them with Ohio. Am I free to change the articles I listed from Ohio-stub to Ohio-bio-stub? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, though in the unlikely event that this gets taken to WP:SFD they'll be restubbed. The cincinnati ones can possibly be double stubbed with ohio-bio-stub and cincinnati-stub. As to the queried ones, I wouldn't give a bio-stub to Grassman (not a person), the Ohio Gang (ohio-stub), Queen City Balladeers (looks more like an org-stub or a band-stub) or Steve Weingart (no longer a stub). The rest, though, yes - including the "family" groups. Grutness...wha? 04:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wording: For some reason This Ohioan biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. doesn't seem to flow. What do you think of one of these alternatives This Ohio biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it., This article about an Ohioan is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it., This Ohio-related biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. ? I'm leaning more towards 2, but 3 isn't half-bad and I think 1 follows what the some other state-bio-stubs say. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 05:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Any of them seem reasonable, but it largely depends what you're trying to say (back to the problems above)> Do you want the stub type to be specifically for Ohioans, or for "Ohio-related biographies" - they may be fractionally different in scope. Grutness...wha? 06:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ohioan and Ohio-related are the interchangebale word because they mean the same thing, one who is from or inhabits/inhabitted Ohio. Are there rules for changing wording, or can I just do it? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No, if it's an uncontroversial minor change, then feel free to change it. If someone changes it back, then it's better to talk it over on the template's talk page than to get into a revert/revert situation, though. Major changes would be better discussed at WP talk:WSS/P, preferably with input from any relevant Wikiprojects, but for a small change like this there shouldn't be any problems. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Catalonia-bio-stub}} / Cat:Catalonia people stubs

Unproposed. We generally try to avoid splitting people by subnational region - they move around too much. More of a problem though is that there's no sign this is likely to reach threshold; Cat:Catalonia stubs, at 160 articles, is nowhere near requiring to be split yet, and very few of the articles marked with {{Catalonia-stub}} are biographies. May be a case of upmerging, at least. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Newly discovered, October 2008

{{Punkmusic-stub}}

Unproposed though thankfully upmerged, but misnamed - should be {{Punk-music-stub}}. I'd question, however, just how useful it will be. We've already got stub types for {{punk-song-stub}} and {{punk-album-stub}} - a separate {{punk-band-stub}} and {{punk-musician-stub}} might be more useful than this - what else is there that will really make this useful? There's only so many articles that can be written on punk clothing and lifestyle - most of which isn't really punk music per se.

There's also the less important but still worth-mentioning problem that "punk" is really two specific genres - the current style of music that goes by that name and the "classic" punk from the late 70s (which itself could be split into UK and US). I'm a little concerned as to which style this would be used for.

Grutness...wha? 01:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about creating it without a proposal. I was copying from another Wikiproject & didn't notice the banner on the top of the category until after I'd created it & then linked over to the category. Renaming would be fine. The idea is to have a catchall stub type for articles that don't fall into the existing types (album & song). Separate stubs for band & musician certainly would be useful, but there are also a lot of films, books, magazines, websites, clothing, persons, tours, artists, etc. etc. that are within the general category of "punk" but aren't covered by the existing stub types. That's what this one is meant to be for. As to the second point, it covers all eras of punk, from late 70s to today. Anything that's labeled "punk". I know that doesn't sound too specific, but remember it's a catchall for topics not already covered by the existing stub types. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Crypto-stub}}

There are 456 in the category, but it's not properly presented as an official stub type. It lists within Category:Cryptography under "s" rather than at the end, so I missed it first time round. I don't know where it fits in the hierarchy of stub types... perhaps under "Miscellaneous"? PamD (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's there - under science. This one's been around for a long time and, judging by the history - which contains edits from both Alai and former stub sorter BL Lacertae - it's known here. No sign it was ever proposed, but it looks reasonable enough. At one time it was stabndard for stub categories to be listed under "s", BTW - this probably just wasn't switched over to a "µ" piping. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Gibraltar-bio-stub}}

Perfectly sensible-looking addition to the by-nation/country/territory/whatever bio-stub range. Mercifully it's upmerged, since I doubt this would get close to stand-alone viability for some time. A keeper, IMO. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I created this stub in order to separate the biographical articles, as is done for other countries/territories. It just makes for easier sorting. It's already proving to be very useful. I apologise for not having taken the necessary step of proposing the stub for creation, I will make sure I do so next time.

I would also like to create a new category for this stub in order to separate these stub articles from those listed in Category:Gibraltar stubs, are there any necessary steps I need to take? Thanks, --Gibmetal 77^talk 09:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup - first, there need to be 60 stubs marked with the template (in this case, you can include any marked with {{Gibraltar-politician-stub}} in that count, since it would also feed into any new category. At the moment, their "what links here" buttons say they have 25 stubs between them). Once there are, propose the category at WP:WSS/P. There shouldn't be any objection if you can reach 60 - it's a standard way of splitting out stubs from a generic country stub cat. Grutness...wha? 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Ohio-tv-station-stub}}

Apparently unproposed, although decently formed (has its own category, which are placed into appropriate higher categories, etc.), and parallel to similar stubs for other US states. The stub itself appears fine, although perhaps the category will need to be deleted and the stub upmerged to the regional category, as I counted only forty pages tagged with this stub. I've never before listed stubs here: should I notify the creator, Stepshep? Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup - use {{wssdnotify}}. Grutness...wha? 05:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello WPSS. I didn't realize this meant every category; just new templates. Alas, I have been proven incorrect. What's going to happen now? My actions:Downmerge the template's category from regioanl (midwest) to state (Ohio) because I believed there were enough articles for there to be a split. Is there a cutoff? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What happens is it gets left here for a while (often a few months) to discuss it or see if it will reach the necessary threshold (60 stubs). If there's no sign of it doing so, it'll be probably be taken to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion where it will likely be upmerged. Grutness...wha? 05:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that if it was used primarily by a WikiProject that 60 became 30? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not quite - for the principal stub category for a wikiproject it's 30, for all additional ones it's 60. So the threshold would only be 30 here if there was a WikiProject Ohio television stations. For WikiProject US television stations (if there is one) US-tv-station-stub would have a threshold of 30, all state-specific ones would have heshold of 60. Grutness...wha? 20:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay, I understand now. Then where would I list the same template for Indiana and a basketball stub template for Ohio teams? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Um...not quite sure what you mean by "where would I list them?" If you mean where can you propose them for creation, then WP:WSS/P is the place. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think §hep means where to list {{Indiana-tv-station-stub}}, {{Ohio-basketball-team-stub}} and {{Indiana-basketball-team-stub}}. Which of course would be here. I support all these templates, categories for any that reach 60. Waacstats (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not being clear. Anyways the matter at hand is the template above. I really think that this project has a bit too much power, similar to BAG. If a group creates a category to better classify articles, and they're willing to maintain what they create there shouldn't be any problems? Right? (And the Indiana TV stub only has 44 articles) §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Creating permanent categories is fine, but not stub categories - these are all primarily maintained by WP:WSS (hence the banner template which should be at the top of them). Reducing the threshold below 60 for some cases where there is no specific Wikiproject would set a precedent for the same thing happening elsewhere. Even reducing the threshold to 50 would likely risk doubling the number of categories we'd have to keep track of. As Waacstats points out, the idea of templates os fine, but there should only be categories if there's over 60 stubs - other than that they should be upmerged into larger regional categories. If any group wants to check what articles use a specific template, then it's just as easy to use the template's "whatlinkshere" link in the toolbox if there are small numbers of stubs. Grutness...wha? 21:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

But it wouldn't be taken to stub types for deletion? The stub is an official one, the category is what's new. Two clicks and a {{db}} should do the trick, right? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(slaps forehead) You know, for some reason that's never been done here, but you're right. A repointing of the template would instantly render the category as a speedy candidate. Why the hell don't we do that normally? (this isn't sarcasm - it's a genuine, if partly rhetorical - question) Grutness...wha? 00:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I also have 4 more articles to create, but I just checked over all the Ohio TV stations and the cat hit 60. I used AWB to check the articles so if they were not stub length (whatever they use for that) it shouldn't have gotten tagged. If it gets to the 64 can it be kept? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That's generally the way it goes, so yup, I guess that would be fine :) Grutness...wha? 04:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

↔Most of those ended up working better as redirects. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Cemetery-stub}}

Unproposed, and poorly formed (no category link of any kind, but possibly not too bad an idea. Cemeteries currently get geo-stub types, which isn't altogether appropriate (though not too bad). If kept it would certainly need a category, and would also need many subtypes (there are possibly enough cemetery stub articles for about a dozen viable by-country types and several US by-state types). Should go through some form of formal count-up and propose process, though. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm the creator, and wasn't aware of the proposal required. Should we just can it, and I can propose it the right way? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on further examination it looks like it has been proposed in the past, waaay back in 2005. In which case, simply tidying it up and adding a category would be the way to go with this one - though separate by continent/country/region ones would still need proposing (and probably will need to be, from the numbers point of view. It seems likely there will be some problems of overlap with things like NRHP-stub, but we'll just have to deal with them as and when with double-stubbing, probably. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, refactored the stub template for proper formatting, and added it to the Geography category. I would assume possible future stubs would be along the lines of newyork-cememtery-stub, unitedkingdom-cemetery-stub, etc when proposed? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no -you've got the right idea, except we use camelcaps and always abbreviate the UK and US (but nowhere else), so those two examples would actually be NewYork- and UK- respectively. Other than that though, that would be the style of them. Grutness...wha? 21:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It happens that a category for U.S. NRHP cemeteries has just been discussed, along with others, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Discussion of categories related to religion. It was noted there by User:Elkman, who has an NRHP database, that there are 1472 cemeteries, 687 grave/burial sites, and 102 mortuaries listed on the NRHP. Hope this is helpful somehow; it is very random that i happened by the discussion. doncram (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely relevant - number of stubs and number of articles isn't directly related - but if the percentage of stubs is high, then that definitely indicates that this would have plenty of use. Mind you, it also indicates a complication, since it would cross the existing NRHP-stubs. Grutness...wha? 20:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Does complicate it a bit, since most cemetery stubs would more than likely be NRHP's, not all, but most. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it complicates it for US cemeteries, at least, but there are plenty of cemetery stubs from other countries that don't have that problem. We can always double-stub when cemeteries are also NRHP sites. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

{{SouthAfrica-cricket-tour-stub}}/Cat:International cricket tour of South Africa stubs

Created in July 07, empty category, probably should be deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Devon-stub}} / Cat:Devon stubs

While there is might be sense in having a template for this, there is no current justification for a separate category, especially since the one stub marked with this was a bio-stub (not normally given a subnational stub type except in rare cases) and was best served with other stub types. If there are 60 stubs, then a category is fine, if not, this probably needs upmerging. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Newly discovered, September 2008

{{Niue-stub}} / Cat: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 Cat: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 Cat:Oceania stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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

• 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)

{{Supergiant-star-stub}}

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

• 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)

{{16thC-novel-stub}}

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)

{{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)

• Proposed in january 2008. You appear to have understood upmerging corerctly. Waacstats (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)

{{Gymnastics-stub}}

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)

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)

{{Taiwan-edu-stub}} / Cat: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)

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)

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, Cat: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)

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)

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 Cat:Asian school stubs and Cat:Taiwan education stubs). {{Taiwan-university-stub}} already exists, but yes, it could be upmerged to both Cat:Asia university stubs and Cat:Taiwan education stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

{{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)

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)

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

{{AFL-bio-1850s-stub}}

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)

{{Liliales-stub}} / Cat: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 Cat: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)

• How quickly we forget. See Proposals, August 2007. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• 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)

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

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

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)

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

...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)

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)

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)

{{Defensive-lineman-1990s-stub}} / Cat: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)

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

Newly discovered, August 2008

{{Pakistan-lit-stub}} / Cat:Pakistani literature stubs

Unproposed. No objection to the template, which looks fine, but the category looks likely to remain woefully undersized for a considerable time. Cat:Pakistan stubs is getting close to needing splitting (more on that at WP:WSS/P), but this isn't the best option for a split. I'd recommend keeping the template but upmerging it. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

{{Student-org-stub}} (redlinked)

Unproposed, but this one sounds pretty useful... though not with this name. The parent permcat would be one of Cat:Students' unions, Cat:Student societies, or Cat:Associations of students, which suggests that this should be at {{Student-union-stub}}, {{Student-association-stub}}, or {{