Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria/Archive13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Proposals

[edit] Lace Stub

As part of the newly created WikiProject Lace I'd like to propose the creation of {{Lace-stub}}. Pages that would be designated as lace stubs are currently:

  1. Not yet created, like most of the articles linked from Template:Lace_types
  2. Currently designated as art-stubs (too general), like Needle_lace
  3. Not yet designated as stubs, like Chantilly_lace

Julie E. 00:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to have some sort of category, since these things aren't categorised elsewhere, and having a WikiProject does help the case, but normally categories are only created if there are already a large number of stubs. Perhaps a compromise like fabric-stub, for fabric and needlework in general, might help? I think there are quite a few other fabric related articles which could be stubbed with that, and it would make the hunt for stub articles considerably easier. If it later turns out that there are plenty of lace-related stubs, then a lace stubs category could easily be made as a subcategory of it. Grutness...wha? 11:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Part of the reasoning behind creating a Lace stub, despite the lack of current articles in need of such a stub, is that there is the projected creation, through the WikiProject Lace, of a large number (I would estimate between 20 and 40 65 and 100) of articles which would then need the lace stub, so instead of creating a textile crafts stub (which i agree is probably needed) and then coming back here in 4 weeks and asking for a Lace stub again, we should either create both or just the Lace stub (and leave the textile crafts one until someone with the drive to implement it asks for it). Certainley the art stub which is currently being used is innappropriate
See [1] for an idea of how many types of lace there are. -- pcrtalk 07:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This last bit isn't really relevant to the argument. There may be 10,000 types of lace, but if there are only two stub articles, the template's still not needed. It's far more important if there were currently lots of lace stubs - how many are there? Grutness...wha? 08:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Currently about a dozen, but I plan on creating at least another 50 in the next few days. If this is a case of "talk is cheap" then I'll shut up and come back here when they have been created (by which time I'll also have been bold and created the lace stub :) -- pcrtalk 17:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you can find or make 50, then since there is a WikiProject, I can't see anyone here objecting to the new template. Let us know when it's done, though! Grutness...wha? 09:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: Created:{{Lace-stub}} I have created the lace stub. Currently 25 articles are designated as lace stubs, and lots more yet to be added.--Julie E. 29 June 2005 23:52 (UTC)

[edit] Oceania-stub and Caribbean-stub

There are {{Caribbean-geo-stub}} and {{Oceania-geo-stub}} stubs and categories, but there is no related stub that I can find for articles relating to the culture, people etc. of those parts of the world - {{Caribbean-stub}} and {{Oceania-stub}}. I don't know where those stubs might be sorted now - I've sorted them to {{music-stub}} (orthogonal to the region) and {{CAmerica-stub}} (this is not too bad, just non-obvious). --ScottDavis 03:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both are reasonable, I think. It would also allow us to finally deprecate Pitcairn-stub (which we couldn't before, with two bio-stubs that didn't belong anywhere else!) Caribbean-stub has been suggested in the past, and I think it would be easy to find 100 (or close to, at least) articles for each of these categories. As for "orthogonal to region", with bio-stubs I don't think that hurts too much. Some editors will know people by where they're from, others by what they do. CAmerica (why not CentralAm, like the geo-stub???) isn't such a good idea though, since it isn't really the same area at all. Grutness...wha? 11:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{{CAmerica-stub}} is pretty bad for Caribbean stubs - sooner put them in a NAmerican stub cat (Caribbean regularly gets lumped into North America, but not with Central America). I think there is room for a {{Caribbean-bio-stub}} (that could probably get 100 articles), but that wouldn't solve the problem of what to do with the other stubs, so I think there should also be a {{Caribbean-stub}}. Guettarda 02:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not as good at this as Grutness, but I've made a go at finding articles for {{Oceania-geo-stub}} at User:ScottDavis/Oceania. I didn't get to 60 stubs that aren't already in stub categories I would expect to become subcategories of this one. Is it OK to create the stub and category anyway? Should I mark short articles as stubs if they are not currently labeled that way? Is it OK to add a regional stub to music, economic, election etc stubbed articles? --ScottDavis 13:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hope you mean Oceania-stubs, not Oceania-geo-stubs! I think that, if the articles are clearly about things relating to Oceania, that double stubbing them is fine. And I dare say that we'll get 60 or so pretty soon, although the small number is a bit of a worry. Personally, I've no objection to the category size, but I'd leave it a few more days to see whether anyone objects on those grounds (or if any more turn up). (BTW, me being "good at looking for articles" is simply because they were geo-stubs anyway - much easier to hunt through geo-stubs looking for a particular kind than to hunt from scratch!). Grutness...wha? 13:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oops - I did indeed mean {{Oceania-stub}}. I had geo in mind because I used them to find my way into the right regions. I'm working up a similar list for {{Caribbean-stub}}, finding a lot of bio-stubs here. --ScottDavis 14:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With no objections and some encouragement, I'm about to try to follow the guidelines to create and populate these two stub categories. Thanks especially to Guettarda for helping populate the Caribbean list. I also managed to find more Oceania articles. --ScottDavis 09:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see Category:Oceania-related stubs is up and running - should Category: Australia-related stubs also be a subcat of it ? It is listed as part of Oceania for the geo-stubs. Grutness...wha? 10:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll accept advice for either way. I deliberately did not as

  1. the heading in Stub types is "Australia and Oceania",
  2. Aus-stub plus its subordinate categories already has more entries than the rest of Oceania
  3. Australia is much less closely associated with the Pacific islands than NZ is.

Perhaps asking for comments on the Australian noticeboard could be in order. --ScottDavis 10:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{canada-geo-stub}} → ...

{{Ontario-geo-stub}}, {{Saskatchewan-geo-stub}}, {{NWTerritories-geo-stub}}, {{Nunavut-geo-stub}}, {{Quebec-geo-stub}}, {{NovaScotia-geo-stub}}, {{NewBrunswick-geo-stub}}, {{BritishColumbia-geo-stub}}, {{Manitoba-geo-stub}}, {{Yukon-geo-stub}}, {{PrinceEdwardIsland-geo-stub}}, {{Alberta-geo-stub}}, {{NovaScotia-geo-stub}}, plus redirects from {{Canada-XX-geo-stub}}

Now around 1400 articles. As there's far fewer .ca provinces than .us states, a straightforward provincial split seems viable: at least the majority of them will be over 100 articles, and I'd think we might as well create them all, on spec. Comments? Alai 20:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Something along the lines of canada-ON-geo-stub for Ontario, right? --TheParanoidOne 21:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan to me, maybe with a redirect from Ontario-geo-stub, etc (or v.v.). Postal and ISO agree on all these, do they? Alai 22:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vice versa would be more reasonable I think - as used for the US states, and for the same reason (us non Canadians aren't expected to know what code is used for each province (is Yukon Territory YU, YK, or YT?). And I don't think any of them are likely to be confused with other place names. A count-up might be a good idea first (sigh)... I suspect it might be worthwhile keeping the maritimes as one category, too. Give me a few days to do a partial count at least - it's possible it may be like the US, where some states have virtually no stubs. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A cursory glance suggests that canada-geo-stubs fall into three fairly even groups: Ontario, Quebec, and everywhere else. There are certainly huge numbers from Ontario and Quebec (of 1290 stubs, over 400 are from Ontario alone). Note - the category also contains quite a few road, metro, and struct stubs. Grutness...wha? 06:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay - I've done the count, and the result is that four provinces are definite candidates for splitting, the others are definitely not candidates. Only four provinces got to 60 stubs, but all of them have over 100: Alberta has 104, BC has 145, Quebec has 211 and Ontario has (drum-roll please) a whopping 501. On the basis of that, I propose:

As with the US-geo split, I'm putting a full list of what stub is from where on a user sub-page at User:Grutness/Canada_geo-stub_list. Grutness...wha? 09:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. BrColumbia-geo-stub'd be fine; the alternative is admittedly a little over-long. Though as there's no existing CA-geo-stub, and the existing stubs are all at Canada-geo-stub, Canada-XX-geo-stub would surely be more convenient for that purpose. Alai 19:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That makes sense. Yeah, Canada-XX-geo-stub would be more appropriate in that case. I also think I got the abbreviation for Quebec wrong (QC?) Grutness...wha? 02:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I got the ON (Ontario) I mentioned above, from the Provinces and territories of Canada article. So yes, it's QC. --TheParanoidOne 05:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
...and the same article tells be Alberta is actually AB. Whoops! Grutness...wha? 08:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
PS - there are quite a few Quebec-geo-stubs in Category:Quebec-related stubs, too. Grutness...wha? 13:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: Created:

Help would now be appreciated in populating them... Grutness...wha?

Is there any precedence for using BrColumbia? I have never seen this abbreviation before and don't think it is useful. It should either be BritishColumbia or BC. I would argue for BC since it is the most used way to refer to the province in print or speech. DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It was suggested as the better name during debate above. I can move it to BritishColumbia-geo-stub if you like, but I'd be slightly against BC-geo-stub simply because none of the others use abbreviations and it could be ambiguous (if geo-term-stub was split, the first major group would be paleogeography, and this could be interpreted as referring to that, to start with). British Columbia is known as Br. Columbia in many places though, so BrColumbia does make some sense. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
RE: British Columbia is known as Br. Columbia in many places though, so BrColumbia does make some sense.—I've lived in British Columbia for 17 years and never, ever, not even once, seen Br. Columbia used as a written or spoken abbreviation. I went googling and it seems that the only place it ever appears is on pages likely written by a non-British Columbians. -The Tom 16:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't mean to be unco-operative but if part of the reason to not use BC is that it's an abbreviation, then how is BrColumbia better? Should the day come for Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, or Northwest Territories to be split off, would you not abbreviate those? Also, should paleogeography ever need its own stub, I doubt that the recommendation would be BC-geo-stub.
I personally still prefer BC-geo-stub for BC because that is the way the province is most often mentioned (it also leads to fewer spelling mistakes on "Columbia") but I would prefer BritishColumbia-geo-stub over BrColumbia-geo-stub since the latter is counter-intuitive. Just my 2¢ DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The argument against using BC is not so much that it is an abbreviation, but that it is an ambiguous one that can mean all sorts of other things. BrColumbia is pretty unambiguous. I've added a redirect from BritishColumbia-geo-stub, but - as I said before - BC-geo-stub is just too ambiguous, and there have already been complaints about stub names,so we're aiming to reduce ambiguity as much as possible. Grutness...wha? 06:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: well done, folks - the split is complete. There are now only some 350 canada-geo-stubs that are not further categorised. No province other than those split off has over 65 of these, although there seem to be a few new Newfoundland/Labrador ones being created, so it's worth keeping an eye on that for a possible further split later. Grutness...wha? 30 June 2005 10:40 (UTC)

[edit] School Stub?

Should there be a school stub with categories like "high shcool" "college" etc? 08:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Um, do you mean like the well-used and long-standing {{school-stub}}? Grutness...wha? 02:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{jurist-stub}}, {{lawyer-stub}}, {{law-bio-stub}} *created*

We seem to have a fair few of those among the people stubs. --Joy [shallot] 18:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{law-bio-stub}} would probably be best, since it would include judges, lawyers, barristers, attorneys, solicitors, and the like. Jurists would probably already be under writer-stub (unless the term means something different in the US), but at a pinch they could probably be included too. Grutness...wha? 03:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jurists are specifically legal scholars, so I don't think it's wise to cram them into the writer-stub category. Also, a secondary meaning is that a jurist is any judge, lawyer, as well as legal scholar. I'll go with law-bio-stub. --Joy [shallot] 11:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do you think we could put criminals in there, too? Hathawayc 08:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Nah - we put them in prison! :) Seriously, though, it's a possibility... I think they're currently listed under crime-stub. it all depends how we word the template. We could also add police commissioners and the like. Grutness...wha? 10:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More geography

[edit] Caucasus again

I've just completed the split of caucasus-geo-stub into Armenia, Azerbaijan and georgia. Since there were only 35 Georgia geo-stubs, I redirected the template back to Euro-geo-stub. Or, more precisely, I kept the template as it was, but changed the category link (and did the required null edits) so that it feeds back into Category:Europe geography stubs. The reason is that the template is still used, and still used for a specific purpose, and if, as is possible, Georgia gets its own category sometime, it may well be useful to have those stubs already sorted out. Also, it will be easier to sort them out if the vote on sfd is to keep the Caucasus geography stubs category. I might have made a separate Georgia category now, except for worrying about exactly what to call it 9given the recent splits of US state geo-stubs). Grutness...wha? 06:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Israel-Palestine

Georgia isn't the only naming problem though - I'd also like to propose two more templates, both feeding into the same category. I know this is a weird one, but it's the only way I can think of to get round any potential naming problems. The category? Category: Israel-Palestine geography stubs. Understandably there's a fair amount of overlap in many of the 115 stubs that would go into this category, but for obvious reasons, I'd suggest having both an {{israel-geo-stub}} and {{palestine-geo-stub}} going into it. Grutness...wha? 06:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • First of all, there is no such thing as "Israel-Palestine", it does not exist as a country or nation. To use such a term would imply adjudicating a political and military conflict that is still ongoing. It would be VERY unwise to have Israel and Palestine stubs that lead to one master "Israel-Palestine" category, because it will create MORE problems than it will solve. For example, you are going to have Tel Aviv land up in "Palestine" (by implication) and Gaza land up in "Israel", it will make no sense and everyone will be unhappy. I think that you must realize that there is NO "easy" solution here, and that there must NOT be a master (Category: Israel-Palestine geography stubs) at all! Let the {{israel-geo-stub}} become a sub-category of Category:Geography of Israel and {{palestine-geo-stub}} should be a sub-category of Category:Geography of Palestine. It should be left to individual editors to decide, debate, discuss, and dispute each stub if they so desire, which after all is the way it's done on Wikipedia, and this way you will not come off looking like someone who is "trying" to be even-handed, but is instead in actuality adding fuel to the flames. (Incidentally, there already was an attempt to create category of "Israel-Palestine" but it was voted down. See some of the debate at Talk:Israel-Palestine which will indicate to you the reality of the chasm that should not be "bridged" for now...let's leave that for the Israeli and Palestinian peace negotiators to decide, and here at Wikipedia we should avoid pre-judging an unresolved situation in any way -- even by little itty-bitty stubs.) Best wishes. IZAK 22:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, "Middle East" doesn't exist as a country or nation either. And using the term is not adjudiucating, but rather recognition of the fact that there is an ongoing political and military situation, and indicates that it is impossible to judge which of the two names can be applied to some of the places within it - notably, but not exclusively, Israeli settlements in the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem. But this is all an argument I'd rather not get involved in. The problem from the stub-sorting point of view is that there are not really enough stubs for either separate category. It would mean either creating two categories which do not come up to the required number or no category. What's more, a lot of places would probably be shuttled backwards and forwards between the two categories at the whim of individual editors. This could be as much of a problem as having one joint category. However, it might be possible, and may be the best solution (if the other members of WP:WSS are willing to turn a blind eye to the sizes of the categories... ) Grutness...wha? 23:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Grutness, what you are saying may sound simple and straightword to you, but for those in the midst of this problem it may be a "call to arms" rather than a solution to a problem. So I advise you to tread very carefuly . The notion of "Middle East" is for a "region" never used for a national entity or country, but when you use the name "Israel" or "Palestine" you are automatically playing around with some peoples' real-life nations and countries. Again I must stress to you that we here at Wikipedia should NOT put ourselves ahead of the official bodies of Israel and Palestine that are negotiating past, present and future borders. If Wikipedia can stick to this approach it will be fine. What you are suggesting, even for the most noble and worthy of reasons, will not help matters but will actually inflame and enrage people. If there are not enough stubs then why do you want to open up this can of worms? In any case, there are quite a few stubs in the Israeli section, see Category:Israel-related stubs, in fact let me see if I can get the ball rolling with the Israeli geo-stubs. IZAK 04:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok, I got the {{israel-geo-stub}} going. I somewhat belatedly realized that there was a prior naming system so please delete the one I named as "Category:Geography of Israel stubs", because the one in use now is Category:Israel geography stubs. Thanks. IZAK 04:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Now I have the {{palestine-geo-stub}} rolling as well. IZAK 07:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Sigh. OK (why is no-one prepared to wait out the official one week debating time anymore?) Grutness...wha? 07:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Grutness, take it easy, I have now done all the heavy lifting and sorted out the list you gave me (at User:Grutness/Geo-stubs (Israel and Palestine)). That was a whole night spent sorting out this lot, in addition to editing, adding other categories, and wikifying many of them. But I loved every minute of it. IZAK 11:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • S'alright :) Good work, BTW. Glad you enjoyed it... feel like joining WP:WSS now? :) Grutness...wha? 00:14, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Too busy to join anything right now, but please do feel free to call on me if you think I may be of help to you (time permitting). Best wishes. IZAK 04:08, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Azores *created*

In my latest count-ups, I also checked Category:Portugal geography stubs, and discovered that nearly 40% of these stubs related to the Azores (about 130 stubs). Therefore i'd also like to propose {{Azores-geo-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 06:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Created. Grutness...wha? 30 June 2005 12:54 (UTC)

[edit] {{anglican-stub}}

We've already got Catholic and Lutheran stubs, so I presume nobody would object to an Anglican one? Doops 06:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only real objection I can think of is if there were not enough stub articles for it. How many are there? Grutness...wha? 06:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Quite a few, I imagine. Just take a quick look through Category:Christianity-related_stubs and you'll find a fair number of articles which could benefit by a more specific designation. (see below.) The real question, though, is who on earth has the time and patience to go through and do this systematically? (But presumably you stub-sorters run into that problem all the time here.) Doops 07:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Examples:


We do get that problem a lot (believe me - I've just been part of a squad going through over 2500 US geography stubs!). If there are likely to be 60-100 or more, then it would be a very useful category to have - The thing would be to create the template and category, and slowly populate it next time someone goes through all the christianity-stubs. One slight problem might be the name - I'd favour anglican-stub, but I believe the church has different names in some countries (episcopalian in the US, IIRC, and C of E in the UK). Grutness...wha? 07:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure if all were said and done there we would be somewhere in that range. You're right, the various churches are only titled "Anglican" in a few countries (e.g. Canada); but they all consider themselves Anglican as an adjective — and the worldwide group is the Anglican Communion. OK, I've made an example stub — what do I do now? Wait a few days and then move forward if no objections? Doops 07:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. If no-one's objected in a week after the proposal, go ahead and make it (or you can wait for one of us to make it if you prefer). Using the Lutheran template and category are probably a good idea - they're well formed ones. Once it's done, add the new template onto the stub type list WP:WSS/ST. Grutness...wha? 08:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was just wondering about this myself! I've started several Anglican Communion-related articles and the "Christianity stub" doesn't seem the right thing for them, although that's what graces Church of the Province of Southern Africa and Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire. I suggest using the Compass Rose as its icon. And, most certainly, I don't think anybody here in the US or in Scotland or anywhere else where Anglicans call themselves "Episcopalians" is going to object to the term "Anglican".Rockhopper10r 17:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And you've used the Compass Rose! Cool!Rockhopper10r 17:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've added it to the main listing and made sure the cat has an intro. Now all we need to do is populate it. Doops | talk 28 June 2005 16:08 (UTC)

[edit] Newly-discovered stub types

[edit] {{genital-integrity-stub}}

(This is a tough page to navigate) I'd like to use this stub for genital integrity related articles, so as to keep the articles related to the subject categorically coherent, and we can avoid using a different stub that might sometimes fail to be a precise overlap.

This seems like a highly specific topic. How many stub article do you forsee being placed into this group? If there are any existing stub articles on this subject, where have they currently been placed? --TheParanoidOne 05:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another problem is that this particular stub name is HIGHLY POV. Considering the major revert wars, RFCs, RFARs, and even bannings that have resulted from the various circumcision-related articles, it's best to keep any such articles under as general a stub title as possible such as {{sex-stub}}. BlankVerse ∅ 08:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is waaaay too specific. Genital integrity doesn't even have a separate main category - it surely doesn't need a stub category! Grutness...wha? 08:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is not as specific as you might think, given all of the worldwide concerns among males, females, and intersex. There are also many notable persons and events I'd like to make articles for, such as international symposia and various authors. I'm totally fine with the opposing views using a specific stub for their authors, but just sticking everything into sex or biology stubs is wrong, because the topic overlaps very strongly with sociology and cultural topics. So that is why I feel it's a good candidate as a stub category. Otherwise, using other stubs is sure to cause more category debate than this solution would. DanP 18:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One of the criteria for the creation of a new stub template is that there be a sufficient number of articles to populate the category. As I asked earlier, are there any existing stub articles on this subject, and where have they currently been placed? --TheParanoidOne 19:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with double-stubbing an article with both sex-stub and socio-stub, either. Also, you mentioned "authors" - they'd get a subcategory of bio-stub rather than any other form of stub. I'll bow to your knowledge as far as "worldwide concerns" (although, to be honest, I've never heard the term used before you brought it up here), but also repeat the earlier comment that if there's no category for genital integrity as a whole, I doubt there's enough need for a stub category. Grutness...wha? 10:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From the Stub-berg pt. 1

[edit] Knot-stub (mathematics)

{{Knot-stub (mathematics)}} User: BoomHitch 20 March 3 (Knots) Duplicates "Knot" - on SFD

Deleted - see below. Grutness...wha? 4 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)

[edit] Node/stub

{{Node/stub}} User: Node ue 18 October 2004 0 (-) Duplicates "Stub" - on SFD Deleted

Deleted - see below. Grutness...wha? 4 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)

[edit] Ride-stub

{{Ride-stub}} User: Hailey C. Shannon 21 April 7 (Amusement park rides) now listed at WP:WSS/ST
In use now - and, as it says, now listed. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stub2

{{Stub2}} User: Marcus2 28 June 2004 7 (Section stub) Duplicates "Sectstub", no category
On SFD. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. Grutness...wha? 4 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)

[edit] Stub3

{{Stub3}} User: Marcus2 30 June 2004 3 (Section stub) Duplicates "Sectstub", no category
On SFD. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. Grutness...wha? 4 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)

[edit] US-poli-stub

{{US-poli-stub}} User: The Tom 19 April 50+ (US politics) now listed at WP:WSS/ST
Useful and now listed. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whedon-stub

{{Whedon-stub}} User: CheNuevara 26 Apr 11 (Whedonverse) Duplicates "Buffyverse"; redirected to {{Buffyverse-stub}} - now listed at WP:WSS/ST
Now a redirect. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Åland-stub

{{Åland-stub}} User: Bbx 31 March 17 (Åland Island)
Not sure how useful it is, but it does no harm. Listed. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Some of them can be easily redirected (like the knot one) . Some are empty so there shouldn't be much harm if they need to be deleted. Others will cause more problems. But quite a few are useful enough anyway (even if their names are often fairly poor). The thing now, of course, is to work out which is which. FWIW I'd vote
  • keep: US-poli
  • redirect/merge: Whedon
And would be undecided about the others Grutness|hello? 01:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A few more

I used another method, searching for "Stub" in the Template: namespace (like this: [2]). Here goes:

[edit] californiastatehighway-stub

{{californiastatehighway-stub}} User: Bennyp81 18 April 0 Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways malformed version of {{California_State_Highway_Stub}}, no category UPDATE: Redirected to {{California_State_Highway_Stub}}

[edit] unix-stub

{{unix-stub}} User: Cheezewizard 13 March 0 Unix Category doesn't exist

UPDATE: Cleaned up.

I considered unix-stub and decided to resurrect that given the amount of articles that can use it. We'll see how it goes. --Joy [shallot] 12:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Filled it up with 99 articles on the first pass of Category:Software stubs. It's a keeper, IMHO. --Joy [shallot] 13:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] star stub

{{star stub}} User: Jyril 23 February ~30(?) (-) Not a stub template. Evil and confusing, especially since {{star-stub}} is one. UPDATE: Proposed for renaming as {{starbox small}} at Astronomy wikiproject. Response so far is favourable. UPDATE2: This template, which eventually redirected to Template:Starbox short, was orphaned & deleted at TFD.
I'm going to suggest to the Astronomers project that they rename "star stub" to "star box" - Grutness|hello? 06:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
With the generous cooperation of WikiProject Astronomical objects, {{star stub}} is now called {{Starbox short}}, and the old name is listed at tfd. Grutness...wha? 12:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Dealt to. Grutness...wha?

[edit] A suggestion re-the stubberg

It seems we now have about 70-odd stubs found in the last month or so. I've made it fairly clear about several of them I like or dislike (both immediately above and in the list at proposed deletions), but we should having some form of debate both about them and about the others, too. I propose that - as a temporary measure, at least until we get some sort of order out of all this mess - we make a (yet another) sub-page simply listing all of them, and do a simple one-week keep/rename/redirect/delete vote on each one, keeping discussion minimal. That will at least purge the list of ones that no-one sees worthy of saving, tell us which ones should definitely be kept, and show us which ones need further, more detailed, debate here. Is this worth doing, or is it just another level of bureaucracy? Grutness...wha? 03:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{FR-actor-stub}}

(moved from "proposals", further up the page. Thinking there are a lot more French actors not listed or categorized properly, I created the Category:French actor stubs on 20 MAY 2005, it has 78 articles, I went through all of Category:French actors and updated them. So now there is now a {{FR-actor-stub}}. Hopefully there is a consensus, after the fact. <> Who 01:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

There aren't - this was already discussed recently. In any case, the name, if it is as you have listed it here, is not standard (it should be France-actor-stub). Please do not use this stub for now, since it will, at the very least, need to be renamed. Grutness...wha? 07:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Seems I was wrong on the numbers - at the time we counted them there were only about 40, but you've found close to 80, so it will probably be useful. I've moved the template to {{France-actor-stub}} - please use that instead of FR-actor-stub (another one to unload, Courtland?). But in future, please propose new stubs here rather than creating them and letting us know later! Grutness...wha? 07:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I see that User:Who is also responsible for AU-actor-stub, SE-actor-stub, and AU-bio-stub. I've moved the first two to {{Australia-actor-stub}} and {{Sweden-actor-stub}}, and the third is already listed as a proposed deletion. I'm also listing the (now) redirects SE-actor-stub, FR-actor-stub, and AU-actor-stub on tfd. The new names are still there for the stubs, but these names are not consistent with any we use. Lord save us from people trying to help. Grutness...wha? 11:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Oops - forgot to update this... SE-actor-stub, FR-actor-stub, AU-bio-stub and AU-actor-stub have all been deleted Grutness...wha? 10:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] {{Bridge-stub}}

Created today and added to WP:WSS/ST by User:JB82. Redlink category mentioned on the stub list (Category:Bridge stubs) but stub actually connected to Category:Bridges.

Used on only two articles.

Having looked at the text of the stub, the user seems to have amalgamated both stub and category text into the stub. --TheParanoidOne 22:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've already put it on sfd. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lithuania-geo-stub

{{Lithuania-geo-stub}} was created 31 May 2005 by User:Lysy. I've added it to Category:Geography stubs. — Fingers-of-Pyrex June 29, 2005 19:10 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed stub type deletions

[edit] several from the "Iceberg" (above)

Unless there are any objections, I would like to propose the following stub deletions: Grutness...wha? 07:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Knot-stub (mathematics)}}

moved to SFD

[edit] {{Node/stub}}

Moved to WP:SFD

... and deleted. --TheParanoidOne 30 June 2005 20:22 (UTC)

[edit] {{Stub2}} and {{stub3}}

used on 7 and 3 articles respectively. Duplicate {{sectstub}}. No associated category. (Not to be confused with the tfd {{2stub}} and deleted {{3stub}}!).

Both now emptied and (temporarily) changed into redirects to {{sectstub}}. Grutness...wha? 06:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] {{Whedon-stub}} *keep as converted to redirect*

used on 15 articles. Duplicates {{Buffyverse-stub}}.

  • It is possible that consensus to move {{Buffyverse-stub}} to {{Whedonverse-stub}} might emerge. I've seen "Whendonverse" used here based on the argument that it's more comprehensive than "Buffyverse" with respect to his work. Courtland 23:01, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
    • If you feel that would be a better term, then go for it. It would make sense, although the casual stub sorter may not know that Whedon created Buffy. Buffyverse does sound as though it limits it to just BTVS and not also the likes of Angel. BTW, since there are so many of these listed here, if you feel that debate on any of them is moving towards a consensus of keep, feel free to add that to the title (e.g., ===="{{Whedon-stub}} *keep====), and I'll remember not to add it to tfd. Grutness...wha? 02:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I think it would be a good idea to keep as a redirect as a contingency for now; if this is ok, then I'll a) re-stub the 15 articles, b) update the Stub Types page and c) update the redirect listing, labeling this as a permanent (i.e. not to be deleted at earliest convenience, but maybe later). Courtland 14:46, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
    • Fine by me. Grutness...wha? 15:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I just did the redirection. Courtland 04:43, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
        • Just a note on this... the category associated with the stub-template, before redirection, still exists at Category:Whedonverse stubs. I have listed the category on WP:SFD, because it does not seem rational to keep the category when the associate template is a redirect. --Tabor 2 July 2005 23:25 (UTC)

[edit] Odd happenings with Ethno-stub

For some reason, Stevertigo recently decided to redirect Ethno-stub to Ethnic-stub, then delete the original which was still used on over 200 articles) without either telling us or announcing the proposed deletion on tfd. The only clue as to what may have been going on was wording on Category:Ethnicity stubs, which suggested using the two different stubs for two different but related subjects - ethnicity and ethnic groups. But if they were intended to be two different templates, a combination of redirect and deletion indicates the opposite, that there was no plan to keep ethno-stub. I've left an (admittedly grumpy) note on Stevertigo's page. If he plans to make any more such inexplicable changes, maybe next time he'll let us know first. Grutness...wha? 06:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)