Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2011/August

August 2011

{{Horaiclavidae-stub}} / Category:Horaiclavidae stubs

Unproposed template for a single family of sea molluscs - we don't even have a template yet for the superfamily this is part of, and the respective clade categories are far from overfull. What's more, there are only three articles for members of this family. The category's severely premature, in other words, and isn't anywhere near threshold, and I doubt we have much need for the template either... At the very least it'll need upmerging to Category:Hypsogastropoda stubs Grutness...wha? 08:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This new family meets criteria for stubs as well for practical use within the Project Gastropods. There are enough articles (certainly over 60, which are stubs) for it already existing in wikipedia. (You can also read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 4#Split of Category:Turridae stubs just for inspiration of further fruitful cooperation between Wikiprojects.) --Snek01 (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Question is, why that wasn't proposed at WP:WSS/P, given that that's where all stub-related discussion is done (not doing so hardly shows a spirit of "fruitful cooperation"!) FWIW, if there had been a proposal, a note would have been left with your WikiProject in order to get input on how it should proceed, as wel as with any other related WikiProjects. That was exactly what happened in the case you point out - a split was formally proposed, and only did not proceed due to input from your project. As such, it shows a good spirit of cooperation that was lacking in your creation of this latest stub type. In this instance there's seems little point in splitting out a separate family until splits of the superfamilies have been completed, as would have no doubt been suggested if this had been proposed properly. And it's worth noting that separate stub types for gastropods aren't primarily for the purposes of use "practical use within WP Gastropods" - they're primarily for use among all editors across the whole of wikipedia, which is why the stub vetting process takes place in the first place (individual subject WikiProjects use banner assessment templates for that purpose, since they're interested, presumably, in all articles covered by their projects, not just stubs). I'd suggest you read both Wikipedia:stub and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article tagging for information about how stub types are organised, why they are centrally coordinated, and why assessment banners are often more practical. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

{{1940s-US-film-stub}}

Unproposed, and with a redlinked category (just as well, since the category would need to be renamed if it existed...). At first glance this seems a fairly sensible stub type, but since we generally divide films by decade and genre as the first two splits, and since such a high proportion of the film stubs would theoretically be US films, it may not be such a sensible move after all. Thoughts anyone? Grutness...wha? 11:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)