Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2007/October

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting‎ | Discoveries

Newly discovered, October 2007 edit

{{England-footy-midfielder-1880s-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, but upmerged and seems in keeping with other similar stubs. Grutness...wha? 02:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Poland-newspaper-stub}} / Category:Polish newspaper stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge

Looks promising.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty small though - the category may need monitoring, though the template's fine. Grutness...wha? 23:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The permcat is only up to 30 and that's including a child category, so it is rather small. Template's fine though. Valentinian T / C 23:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Citrus-stub}} / Category:Citrus stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was redirected to rutaceae-stub

New, never-proposed stub type. Looks like a reasonable split (though those more connected with the plant stubs splits might know better). Size is a concern, though - at only about 300 stubs, Category:Fruit stubs isn't in need of a split, and there must be some doubt as to whether this will reach threshold. If it doesn't, an upmerger may be in order. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how this stub type could fill out the necessary 60 articles. Might be a reasonable split when more articles. --Rkitko (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name of this stub is poorly chosen. Citrus refers to a family of plants, a genus of plants, and a food type that includes more than the genus but less than the family. There is now a Category:Rutaceae stubs / {{Rutaceae-stub}} for the family, and it should include all the items in Category:Citrus stubs. --EncycloPetey 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Portugal-footyclub-stub}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

So useful as an upmerged template that I discovered it when I went to propose it. Requires categories but thats easy enough. Keep? Waacstats 12:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It is already approaching 50. Valentinian T / C 23:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{uiuc-stub}} / Category:UIUC stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

Go on, have a guess. 30 stubs. Alai 07:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't have a friend who works in Urbana, i wuldn' have had a clue. Didn't we decide it was better to do universities by state rather than institution some time back? if so, an illinois-university-stub would be a better (and wider-scoped) option. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{bodymodification-stub}} / Category:Body modification stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

This was created as a result of a discussion in July 2006 in the context of the deletion of {{bodypiercing-stub}} (which somehow wasn't deleted at the time). Somehow, it never made it to the main list.--Pharos 04:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Populate if possible, and if so list. Alai 07:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Ireland-road-stub}} / Category:Ireland road stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, but well-formed. Certainly seems sensible and well-populated. Just a shame that its creator didn't think to tell the people who'd be using it that she was considering making it... Grutness...wha? 00:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you agree that it's a good idea. This one seemed so clearly useful according to the usual criteria that there seemed little point in going through the bureaucracy of a five-day delay. I had just been through all the relevant articles for other categorisation purposes, and knew that while many of the articles were stubs, few were stub-tagged. I had time today to do another AWB run to stub tag these categories, so I decided to be WP:BOLD, to go ahead and created the stub tag rather than tag them with less specific stub.
Anyway, there are probably at least 100 more Irish road articles which don't have any stub tag and await this one, so I'll get on with that tomorrow. It's just a shame that someone who puts in the work of tagging hundreds of untagged stubs gets growled at, but that's life :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What bureaucracy of a five-day delay? It's a speediable type, so once it was double-checked to make sure it wasn't going to cause problems (such as "is this for the whole of Ireland or just for the Republic?"), it could have been created immediately. Grutness...wha? 22:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has it caused problems? If not, then I'm not sure what the difficulty is.
When I read the speedy section, it didn't seem to me to indicate that this applied to the category, just to the template. If I misunderstood that, sorry, but it does seem to me that WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY is relevant here. I can see scope for plenty of Irish stub types which would involve judgment calls and do need checking, but this works. Why not save the discussion for where it's needed rather than complaining that someone did the right thing in what may be a slightly wrong way? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't caused any problems yet - but potentially it could, and it's always better to get things straight before they happen than have to work fast when they do happen. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY does apply to some extent, but only to some extent - remeber the important caveat in its sentence: "If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them." Causing problems down the track isn't an improvement to the encyclopedia. As far as the current stub type is concerned, there have been problems with the coverage of Ireland-X-stub types in the past, and there's no reason to suppose this one will be immune from those problems. As such, a far better guildeine to look at is WP:BOLD#Non-article namespaces. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I think this is getting rather silly. What potential problems are there with this stub type which could have been avoided by prior discussion? (other than the Republic/NorthernIreland scope question, which is simply a question of whether a Northern Ireland stub is needed as subtype). I'm sorry, but I stick to my original point: this was a simple case, and it has been done without problems. Other potential stub-types for which I saw a need raised more issues, which is why I proposed them first.
WP:BOLD#Non-article namespaces says "but do not be reckless", and it's quite right. There is no recklessness here, just a useful and well-populate stub type which fits in well with other stub types. Sometimes, I fear that some people prefer process over outcomes, which is why I draw your attention again to WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same problems could occur with this as with the edit-warring which occurred with the use of Ireland-geo-stub - where there was considerable argument as top whether it should be used purely for the epublic (the original intention) or should also include northern ireland (which was categorised according to internationally accepted nationa boundaries, i.e., as part of UK-geo-stub). The same problem is likely to occur here - as tacitly suggested by you with your asssumption that a Northern Ireland type should be a subtype of this. Note also the discussion on ireland-law-stub and ireland-school-stub, which relates directly to this point - Ireland-school-stub, as pointed out, should be merely for the republic, law-stub causes problems as to its scope. Similarly here, many roads cross the border between the two countries. some keep the same designation on both sides, others don't. How should these be handled? I agree that this is getting rather silly, but it seems that most of the fuss about this is coming from your protestation that not following accepted guidelines suggesting that debate may be needed prior to action isis perfectly aceptable, l even in cases which are clearly open to debate. The guidelines are there for a good reason, which is why it's better to stck to them. I again refer you to WP:BOLD#Non-article namespaces - specifically the comment (which you seem to have ignored) Before editing templates or categories, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects. Grutness...wha? 22:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Autism-stub}} (upmerged) edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, but seems sensible and - if the articles currently using it are all kosher autism-related articles - there may be enough for a category. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was going to propose the creation of the category. The reason I created the template was to see if the category is going to have atleast 65 articles. It does. The Category:Psychology stubs has grown very large. It would help if the category gets split into sub-categories. I propose Category:Autism stubs be created to collect Autism related stubs for improvement. In the future, I will make sure to propose new stub templates. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Pakistan-gov-stub}} (upmerged) edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed . This would possibly be useful - if it had any text! other than two category links, this is an empty template, so is theoretically probably speediable, but if it's of any use it could (should?) be cleaned up. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The {pakistan-stub} is looking a bit overpopulated, could do with some more new stubbs (in my opinion) Pahari Sahib , 07:00, 5th October 2007 (GMT)
In stub-sorting parlance "overpopulated' means over 800 stubs - this currently has about 650, and many of those are simply undersorted (they should be in the existing subcategories). In any case, an upmerged template isn't going to reduce the category - it would have been far better to find some other subtype that would reach a suitable splitting level (a quick glance at the category suggests several more likely possibilities - Pakistan-corp-stub might get near threshold on energy companies alone, and there seem to be a lot of Pakistan-newspaper-stubs. Moving any pakistan-geo-stubs, pakistan-university-stubs, and pakistan-bio-stubs out of Category:Pakistan stubs and into its subcategories would considerably lower the size of it, though. Grutness...wha? 10:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{1980s-death-metal-album-stub}} / Category:1980s death metal album stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge

Unproposed, small, and - given the size of Category:1980s heavy metal album stubs - not needed to split an oversized category. Upmerging might be an option, but is it even needed at that level? Grutness...wha? 00:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd favour upmerger if this doesn't grow, rather than deletion: this split has proved necessary for other decades, so it seems desirable to avoid has-this-decade-been-split-or-not second-guessing. And it's not that far off growing to technical viability. Specifically, I'd double-upmerge to the above and a new Category:death metal album stubs. Alai 07:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Jacksonville-stub}} / Category:Jacksonville stubs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD

Unproposed. As with San Francisco stubs (end of September), and with all the same inherent problems. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Discoveries/Log/2007/October&oldid=1149873299"