Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Newly discovered, May 2005

[edit] bike-stub

{{bike-stub}} User: Happyfeet10 12 May 2 Bicycling or Bicycles Feeds directly into Category:Transportation. Listed at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Stubs.
Put up for deletion at WP:SFD.

[edit] Vietnam war stubs

{{Vietnam-War-stubs}} (now on WP:SFD User: Sherurcij 9 May 1 Vietnam War No category, template name is plural.
{{Vietnam-war-stub}} User: *Kat* 22 May 0 Vietnam War The previous one done right.
we were discussing creating this recently. Vietnam-war-stub is the better named one. The other one can go, since it's not used.

Grutness...wha? 01:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newly discovered, July 2005

[edit] {{Robertehoward-stub}}/Category:Robert E. Howard stubs

A specific author. I was surprised that there were as many articles in the category as there are (29). —Cryptic (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

So far the category seems to contain books written by the author rather than articles related to the author himself, so the stub seems a little misleading. "Robert E Howard books ..." would be a more appropriate title. Given that this is a child of {{book-stub}}, the split by genre mentioned in that category makes a lot more sense at this stage. Divide things up in big chunks rather than immediately drill down to individual authors.
I have removed it from WP:WSS/ST for the moment. --TheParanoidOne 11:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newly discovered, August 2005

[edit] The geo-stubs that annoyed me

Time to reveal the full details of what sent me screaming from Wikipedia a couple of weeks back. User:Tobias Conradi proposed the introduction of several new stub categories for South American countries at Category talk:Geography stubs. I calmly explained that two of the countries he was suggesting new categories for came close to our criteria, but that if he wanted to propose them he could do so at WP:WSS where, after a week, if there were no objections, they would be created. The following day I discovered that, despite being told how these things were done, he had gone ahead and created:

  • Ecuador-geo-stub (85 articles)
  • Venezuela-geo-stub (58 articles)
  • Colombia-geo-stub (82 articles)
  • Guyana-geo-stub (13 articles)
  • Uruguay-geo-stub (38 articles)
  • Paraguay-geo-stub (60 articles)

The user who created them all seems - by accounts from a large number of other wikipedians - to not really understand what is meant by consensus and not realising that "be bold" has limitations to its use. I strongly suspect he may well do the same thing with other countries shortly. Grutness...wha? 03:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rwanda-geo-stub

Of all the possible African countries to create a geo-stub for, User:TreveX chose one of the ones with the fewest geo-stubs - twelve at last count. Absolutely pointless, especially since it is split from the least populated section of African geo-stubs, Cental Africa (TreveX may not have realised this, since he made it a subcategory of East Africa, despite the wording of the articles on East Africa and Central Africa, and the wording of their respective stub categories). The best thing that can be said of this is that it is correctly formatted. Grutness...wha? 06:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems he also created Rwanda-stub. May be savable, since they'd be more effort to get rid of than keep. We'll have to see whetheer they grow or not, I suppose... Grutness...wha? 12:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Estonia-bio-stub}}

Another new one to the bio-stub list: Estonia this time. Are there currently 60-100 Estonians with stub articles? Good question - perhaps the stub's creator, User:PeepP, knows of that many. Having said that, the stub type is well formed, and there are some 30 articles in the category, so... Grutness...wha? 12:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't actually create it. I have been using it for some time, and I added it to the list in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types, thinking that it was just an error that it wasn't listed there, though it existed. I think the category is useful, since 30 is already quite a big number, and there will hopefully be more articles about Estonian people (I intend on writing new ones in the future). PeepP 12:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Okay - well, firstly apologies for my assumption, based on you adding it to the list (I should have checked the history). As to the stub itself, 30 wouldn't be enough for a new stub to be created, but if the number is growing... The gereal rule of thumb with this project seems to be not to create if there are less than 60-100 stubs already existing, but if something's discovered we take future potential into account more, since it would be more work to delete it then create it again later than just have it hanging around slowly building. If a category hasn't built up in a couple of months someone is likely to suggest taking it to WP:SFD, but this one does seem to have potential for growth. Grutness...wha? 13:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{State forest-stub}}

{{State forest-stub}} was created by UniReb on 2005-08-11 along with Category:State forest stubs. This is similar to {{State park-stub}}. The category currently contains 17 articles, but it has potential to grow. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 13:01, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually.... I've been wondering about State park-stub for a while. Not only is it badly named, but does it really serve any purpose that couldn't be better served by the individual state stubs? I'm not strongly for or against it, but I do wonder whether it's useful or whether it creates an extra problem by cutting across the hierarchy we have. If we don't like river and mountain stubs, why do we have these ones? Plus I occasionally fish out parks from outside the US from the State park category (it is an US-only designation AFAIK). Grutness...wha? 14:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, it would indeed be better to put state parks and state forests in the state (or region) geo stub category. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:56, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Pokesectstub}} / Cat:Pages with Pokémon section stubs

So, it has finally happened. We got our first topical section stub. Do we like them? I tend to think not. That could possibly double the number of stub types :/ -- grm_wnr Esc 21:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Sooner or later this had to happen, I suppose. And the generic sectstub IS generic... it doesn't help out much. But - unless someone wants to set up a whole parallel project for sectstub sorting, I'd be very tempted to hit this one on the head. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{church-stub}} / Category:Church stubs

Created a week ago, has 1 article. Mentioned on WP:WSS/P, but without any decision. Probably ought to be broadened to reli-struct-stub, to include non-Christian religious buildings (or else create that as seperate parent category). --Mairi 21:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

definitely should be reli-struct-stub, since churches are far from the only religiou structure we have stubs for (although they'd probably be the one we've got most of)> If this one's for keeping, it should be split quickly into US, UK, Euro etc (particularly UK - we have possibly hundreds of UK-reli-struct-stubs). Grutness...wha? 05:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
The categories Christianity-related stubs, Catholic-related stubs and Anglican-related stubs contain countless stub articles about church buildings. This category can definitely easily be filled. It might become a daughter of reli-struct-stub (with mosque-stub being another daughter, if there are enough stubs for that category), but I think this category is specific enough with enough relevant articles to have a template and category of its own. Aecis 09:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
That is a good point. There are enough non-Christian stubs for reli-struct-stub, so having that and church-stub wouldn't be a problem (I only found 34 stubs in Category:Mosques and it's children, so we don't need a mosque-stub yet). If we're keeping church-stub, I think the text ought to be expanded to something like "This article about a Christian church, temple, meetinghouse or other place of worship is a stub...", as not all Christian places of worship are called churches. --Mairi 20:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{France-noble-stub}} / Category:French nobility stubs

Created a month ago, but orphaned. Other than apparently not being proposed, looks like they were created properly. I don't know whether they're worth keeping or not --Mairi 02:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Going through Category:European nobility stubs gives me the feeling these are worth keeping. I will start populating this category over the weekend. Aecis 16:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newly discovered, September 2005

[edit] Indonesia-bio-stub

Yet another new uncleared template - at least it has a proper category with it. This one should probably manage to reach criterion but - yet again - it would have been useful if it had been debated prior to its creation! Grutness...wha? 07:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Copied from my reply to User:Grutness:
No, I wasn't aware of the stub-creation rules — and I was so proud of having done it "properly", too! Gah. I'm sorry if I've caused you guys any unnecessary grief; I should have been more careful when creating the stub, and actually read through the rules, etc.
You mentioned arguing for its creation (now, I s'pose, keeping). I figured having a bio-stub category for Indonesian people was worthwhile because:
  • Well, Indonesia has people in it, and some of them are notable
  • Information on even the most famous Indonesians (especially pre-independence) is hard to come by on the Internet, so many articles would be stubs
As for projects/likelihood of use, well, it's a bit of a mixed bag. There don't seem to be many Indonesians (any?) on en-wiki, and even id-wiki is less than inspiring if you ignore the raw numbers. I'm personally trying to increase the number of articles related to Australasia, but I'm just one newbie and couldn't possibly support an entire stub category on m' own even if I was willing to work on it. I, uh, guess that's why there's rules, huh? --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Relax - it does look viable - unlike a lot of the ones found. It's just that - since we're the ones using the stub templates - it's good to keep us in the loop, especially since it's very easy for people to create useless templates. As I said, though, this one should be useful, and is well named and properly formatted, so I don't think there'll be any problem with it. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{UK law stub}}

likely viable, with correct, but incorrect name and unwieldy formulation. Only one article. Circeus 22:06, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

We'd better fix it before it's used on any more then! Grutness...wha? 00:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Fixed. You're right. It was a mess! Grutness...wha? 01:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{France-university-stub}} / Category:France university stubs

Created today; used on 26 articles. Looks well formed, might be worth keeping. --Mairi 01:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Massachusetts-State-Highway-Stub}} / Cat:Massachusetts State Highway stubs

Category needs tidying, template is badly named and malformed. Probably useful, but needs quite a bit of TLC. Grutness...wha? 02:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Um... I got this approved in August of 2005 (see the subheader "A whole bunch of road stubs" on WP:WSS/P. I delayed in actually creating this template because I didn't want to overwhelm myself, and it was not added to the stub types list because I wanted to wait until the category was fixed. --Rschen7754 02:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Ooops. yes, sorry - still needs a bit of tidying up, though. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Mel-suburb-stub}} / Category:Melbourne suburb stubs

Been around since June, used on only 11 articles. There is a WikiProject Melbourne. The template could use rewording. --Mairi 16:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been looking at the australia-geo-stubs a lot lately, and hadn't realised this one was unlisted. With the wikiproject's permission, I'd be very tempted to combine this and the equally badly worded {{Melstub}} into {{Melbourne-stub}}, which would suit us and mnot really disadvantage them. Same with the similar stubs for Australia's other main cities. I think I'll take this to the "other discussions" section of WP:WSS/P, in fact, since it requires a bit of effort overalll and could do with wider discussion. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Rhode-island-geo-stub}}

Created 2 days ago also. Grutness's count shows 21 stubs, which makes it less than needed, unless there's been alot in the past 12 days. Currently feeds into Category:Northeastern US geography stubs. If it's to be kept, the capitalization needs fixing. --Mairi 03:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Needs more than that - it has one hyphen too many. The correct name would be {{RhodeIsland-geo-stub}}. I'll move it to the correct name for now, but unless this has far more stubs than there were at the last count it's not needed. Currently 29 states (and D.C.) do not officially have separate geo-stubs, and only five of them have fewer stubs than R.I. At least it wasn't Delaware. Grutness...wha? 08:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I've fixed it and given it a separate category, and I'm filling it with the paltry number of stubs we have... Shame you reported it here... it could have been surreptitiously deleted without anyone knowing otherwise... ;) I note that this is not the first stub category unilaterally created by User:JB82. Perhaps we should keep an eye on him. Grutness...wha? 08:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Nigeria-stub}} / Category:Nigeria related stubs

Created 11 days ago. The stub category needs renaming, but it already has 12 articles despite its lack of publicity. I say keep the stub, but submit the category to SfD for immediate renaming to Category:Nigeria stubs, it doesn't even have "-" that the other "related" stub cayecories do. Caerwine 15:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Morocco-stub}} / Category:Morocco-related stubs

Been around since May, but only 12 stubs at the moment. Might do better with publicity. Caerwine 16:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newly discovered, October 2005

[edit] {{Eritrea-geo-stub}}

Found this while sorting thru {AfricaE-geo-stub}. Only used on one article at present and has no category. By my count there are 25 stubs total that this could be used on. Not likely to reach 60 any time soon, but is it worth going through SfD on this? Caerwine 00:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

26 as of yesterday. No, I don't see it growing. But - hell, if it's there, we might as well keep it I suppose (throws up hands in despair). I'll list the stubs at the usual place. Neds a category and null-edit, of course... Grutness...wha? 01:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Pennsylvania-stub}}

Another US state stub. Lacks a category, created 2 days ago, and is unused. --Mairi 06:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Took it to SFD. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Circus-Stub}}

Perhaps has merit. Needs standard capitalization and a category if it does, tho. Created yesterday, used on 2 articles. --Mairi 06:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

This was proposed a loooong time ago - not long after the stub project began, IIRC. No-one wanted it then, since it would never get enough stubs. I doubt that's changed. You're finding dozens of these things today, Mairi. Sigh. Grutness...wha? 08:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I was wrong. It was found and deleted (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria/Archive9#.7B.7BCircus-stub.7D.7D). In other words, this is a re-creation of a previously deleted template, and could be proposed for speedying. Hmmm. it had two articles on it then, too. I wonder... Grutness...wha? 08:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
In that case it probably ought to be speedied... --Mairi 02:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New geo stubs

All created by the same anon user today, all lack categories. All used on exactly 1 article. According to Grutness's counts, none are over 50. --Mairi 04:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

well, I see three options here: 1) grin and bear it; 2) grin and bear it, but put a flea in the ear of the person who created these; 3) send them to sfd and put a flea in the ear of the person who created these. While I think (3) would be the best option, I'm pretty sure the vote would be to keep if we did anyway. So I'd go for option (2). Grutness...wha? 05:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I already left hir a note, but I wouldn't count on it doing much as it's an anon user. And yeah, deleting geo stubs doesn't seem too likely. --Mairi 06:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
So what's the protocol? Do we wait a number of days to get a consensus on these newly found stubs? (If they're kept, I'd like to add the proper categories as soon as possible; but I don't want to perpetuate the rogue creation of the stubs without proper discussion.) — Fingers-of-Pyrex 18:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree. But given time, I think it's likely that there'll be enough stubs for almost every US state to have its own category, so tidying these up ASAP is probably a reasonable idea. FWIW, I've just recounted the US states and there are still fifty of them Indiana has 45 stubs and Kentucky 46, both reasonable if not brilliant. The other two have between 20 and 30 stubs - a little less than perfect. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Shall I put lists for these states up on my stub-splitting page? Grutness...wha? 06:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I suppose so. (I went ahead and created the categories.) — Fingers-of-Pyrex 11:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Shan-stub}}

Created today, for a wikiproject (which was also created today). Even so, it quite likely merits deletion, as I'd be suprised if there are at present more than 20 relevant stub articles. Lacks a category, and is currently unused. --Mairi 01:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

...then take it to you-know-where... Grutness...wha? 01:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
...taken there... Mairi 03:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Boom-stub}}

For exploding-animal stubs. Just created, funny, but both silly and unneeded. Category messed up, too. A2Kafir 02:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Taken to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. --Mairi 02:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)