Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries Photos:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries
Photo:1
Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries
Photo:2
Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries
Photo:3
Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries
Photo:4


Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries Wiki Informations:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
src=//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/31/Imbox_notice.png Before proposing or creating a new type of stub, please read How to propose a new stub type.
Shortcut:
WikiProject Stub sorting
Puzzle
Information
Project page talk
- Stub types (sections) talk
- Stub types (full list) talk
- To do talk
- Naming conventions talk
- Stub redirects talk
Wikipedia:Stub talk
Discussion
Criteria (A) talk
Proposals (A) talk
- Current month
Discoveries (A) talk
- Current month
Deletion (Log) talk
Category
Archives
2005-2006 summaries

2007

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.

Contents

[edit] Instructions

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. Checking the template or category's history link may also indicate whether the stub type is p[art of a larger group discussion at WP:WSS/P. Note: If possible, check both the template and the category, in case one has been discussed but not the other.

If the stub category or template has not been proposed, and is not clearly an inappropriate or deletable type, list it here under a separate heading at the top of the list for the month of discovery. Please also consider notifying the creator of the stub type by subst'ing {{wssdnotify}} on their user talk page.

If a stub type is of a clearly inappropriate or deletable type, it may be taken straight to WP:SFD. Again, in this case, the creator of the stub type should be notified, this time by substing {{sfdnotify1}} (for one stub type) or {{sfdnotify2}} (for more than one stub type) onto their user talk page.

[edit] January 2012

[edit] English law stubs

{{England-law-stub}} was created out of process by Mais oui! (talk · contribs) who seems to unilaterally create stubs categories an awful lot and may need to be warned about this. This one seems ok in numerical terms but it should be England and Wales law stub not England law stub. Tim! (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As the permcat is at Category:English law, Category:English law stubs is logical and the template name is logical too. I don't see a rpoblem with this stub type, but I wish it had been proposed properly! Perhaps {{Wales-law-stub}} would be an acceptable redirect, if anyone feels it is needed. SeveroTC 09:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Sports Car Racing stub

{{Sports Car Racing stub}} was created out of process, is misnamed, and populates an inappropriate category, i.e. Category:Stub-Class Sports Car Racing articles, which is a category for talk pages. I am pretty sure that this template is redundant to {{Motorsport-stub}}, which populates Category:Auto racing stubs. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the category is redundant. No more redundant than {{F1-stub}} is to {{Motorsport-stub}}. --Sabre ball t c 22:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say that the category is redundant. Category:Stub-Class Sports Car Racing articles is definitely not redundant, because it is part of the article assessment scheme and is intended to contain talk pages, and so is being misused here.
I said that Template:Sports Car Racing stub is redundant. Given that sports car racing is a subset of motor sport, is it a significant subset? That is, is it possible that there are more than 60 articles which are stubs, and which cover sports car racing? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals#Proposing new stub types - procedure. {{F1-stub}} is transcluded by well over 250 pages, so has justification for its existence. There are presently 23 articles transcluding {{Sports Car Racing stub}} - can another 37 suitable candidates be found? If not, there is little purpose to {{Sports Car Racing stub}}, even if it were correctly set up. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I will point out that a discussion had already started about an appropriate template for this topic. See here. Since we have a separate permanent category (Category:Sports car racing), I don't see why the template would be redundant. I agree that the existing template is malformed, but I support building a template based on the results of the discussion on the proposal page. Dawynn (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I note that the discussion was started on 11 January 2012, and that the template was created on 19 January by the same person who started the discussion, even though the discussion was still open. Fait accompli. Why do we even bother having WP:WSS/P if people feel that they can drive straight through? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no objection to renaming the template. --Sabre ball t c 13:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not fair to call out {{Sports Car Racing stub}} for only having been transcluded 23 times. It's barely even a week old. If you check the category its places articles in, there are over 80 articles that could have that template placed on the page its just not there yet. --Sabre ball t c 21:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I have turned this template into a redirect. Created the template name that had been discussed on the proposal page. Please use the new template name ({{sportscar-autoracing-stub}}) Dawynn (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Kupres, Bosnia and Herzegovina

I recently built {{Kupres-geo-stub}} for the municipality in Republika Srpska. This template name was approved back in April 2011. In the midst of building this template, I found that there are two separate municipalities, both of which are in Bosnia and Herzegovina:

  1. Kupres, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
  2. Kupres, Republika Srpska

Normally, when we have such instances between two countries, we add a country code to the template to differentiate. But what is the proper nomenclature in this situation, where the two municipalities are within the same country? Dawynn (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] R&B song stub templates

Yes, both versions have been built for the last 5 decades. The {{R&B-9999s-song-stub}} versions were approved here. The other versions have not been approved, but all the articles have been tagged with the non-approved versions. I'm OK with keeping one set, and changing the other set to redirects, but would like some guidance as to which should be preferred. Dawynn (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Use 9999s-R&B-song-stub, for consistency with 9999s-country-song-stub, 9999s-rock-song-stub, 9999s-pop-song-stub. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Gastropod family templates

Found the following. I see no issue with keeping these.

Dawynn (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] December 2011

[edit] Split of Category:Sumatra geography stubs

Asking for approval of templates splitting Sumatra into its 10 administrative regions.

Dawynn (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Split of Category:Indiana geography stubs

Indiana's story is similar to Illinois. Formally request asking approval for the Indiana templates already created by county. Templates names follow this pattern: Template:FooIN-geo-stub. Dawynn (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Split of Category:Illinois geography stubs

I can find references to approvals for some of the various regional Illinois geography splits. However, I do not see a request for a split by county. So, here is a formal request asking for approval for the Illinois templates already created by county. Templates names follow this pattern: Template:FooIL-geo-stub. Dawynn (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Various Afghanistan templates

From the list of templates to vet:

I don't see requests for any of these, but I don't see any problem with them either. Propose keeping all. Dawynn (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] {{Gloucestershire-geo-stub}} / {{GloucesterShire-geo-stub}}

Yes, these two are identically named, with the exception of the capital 'S'. While Wikipedia can handle this just fine, I would think this could easily cause confusion for editors. Propose renaming the second one to {{GloucesterShireAU-geo-stub}}. Dawynn (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm requesting a rename, I'm moving this to the Delete log for discussion. Dawynn (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Siege-stub

I had no idea that there was a process of getting permission to create a stub group. I created a stub today called Siege of Newcastle and as a siege is either not a battle or a type of battle (depends on ones PoV) I decided to create a {{siege-stub}} and a category:Siege stubs as sub category to category:battle stubs. I have since moved all the articles that start with the word Siege and had a {{battle-stub}} template into the category. If there is a consensus not to keep the stub or the category, let me know and I'll move the score of articles back into the battle-stub category. -- PBS (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem a bad idea. Quite small at the moment (24 articles) but a look at how many siege articles are already stub-tagged ([1]) suggests that with a bit of sorting there shouldn't be a problem in taking it through threshold. SeveroTC 11:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] November 2011

[edit] Anthozoa stubs and Medusozoa stubs

As mentioned on the proposals page I created these two stub categories with the intention of breaking up the overly broad Cnidarian stub category. This is my post-facto reporting of this action. bondolo (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Basque stubs

As we already have similar categories for Catalonia, I don't see a problem with the creation of these, but the naming and scope needs to be thought about. In terms of scope, are we going for the modern Basque Country (autonomous community) or Basque Country (greater region) (it seems the creator scoped as the latter, but usual convention is to scope by the former). The naming issues is that we should use BasqueCountry- in the template name and Category:Basque stubs should be at Category:Basque Country stubs. SeveroTC 10:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In terms of your scope query, we already have:
... which encompasses another country with a border running through it. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Point of information, I have identified approx 700 Basque-related article stubs that are neither geographical nor biographical (the 2 subcats), and I haven't really been trying all that hard. I'd geusstimate that there are up to 2000 stub articles to be sorted into the main cat, and hundreds more to be sorted into the 2 subcats. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As we already have all of these:

  • Asturias stubs‎ (1 C, 83 P)
  • Balearic Islands stubs‎ (113 P)
  • Brittany stubs‎ (1 C, 37 P)
  • Canary Islands stubs‎ (1 C, 62 P)
  • Cantabria stubs‎ (96 P)
  • Catalonia stubs‎ (3 C, 329 P)
  • Galicia stubs‎ (1 C, 135 P)
  • Plazas de soberanía stubs‎ (60 P)
  • Valencia stubs‎ (58 P)

... the omission of the Basque Country was fairly shocking. In fact, for someone used to editing Scottish, English and Irish articles, I have to say that the Spanish category system (including stubs) is pretty dire. A direness only exceeded by the poor quality of many articles and the thousands of redlinks. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, quite, but as I wrote, I don't see a problem with the creation of these, but the naming and scope needs to be thought about. As I said, I think they should be scoped only to the current autonomous community, the naming of the templates should be BasqueCountry- and of the main category, Basque Country stubs. If there are gaps in the structure and there are enough articles to support templates/categories, it's not really an issue to create them, but the proposals system is there to iron out any problems before implementation. SeveroTC 11:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] September 2011

[edit] {{Brazil-rowing-bio-stub}}

Unproposed. well-formed (well, it is now that I've removed the redlink cat and upmerged it), but unused and - frankly - of limited benefit. We only have around 90 rowing-bio-stubs that aren't in national cats, and of those 90 only one is from Brazil. What's more, Category:Brazilian rowers contains only one article (the same one). I note that a lot of nation-rowing-bio-stub names are simply used as redirects to {{rowing-bio-stub}} (an unusual method for WSS, but still...). Perhaps the same should be done here? Grutness...wha? 03:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] {{Ballet-stub}} / Category:Ballet stubs/{{Ballet-bio-stub}} / Category:Ballet biographical stubs

There seems to have been some moving around of stub types without consultation in the ballet area, with two new stub types created, one of which is essentially a duplicate of a previous approved type. A new biographical category and template have been created (probably a good move, considering the number of articles), but the problem is with the new {{ballet-stub}}. Rather than requesting a move of the former {{Ballet-dance-stub}} to a new name and new category via WP:SFD, a brand new template and category have been created, leaving the old template to languish unused in a category which is now a soft-redirect (no stub categories are ever soft redirects, owing to the nature of their usage). I'd consider the new names as better to the old ones, but the question is whether to do what should have been done at the time (if it were approved), and simply redirect the old template? The new category is also undersized and only saved from upmerging by the fact that it has a viable subcategory, so any split out of the companies would be premature, to say the least, yet the moment the new ballet-stub marks a lot of things which ballets - they're ballet companies. In fact, it was because of the possible confusion between ballet per se and individual ballets that was the reason for having the template and category at its original name. Best option for now would probably be to redirect the old template to the new, delete the old category, and cope with the confusion until the new category is big enough to consider splitting. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] August 2011

[edit] {{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)

[edit] {{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)

[edit] July 2011

[edit] {{Pakistan-rail-stub}} / Category:Pakistan rail stubs

Unproposed stub type (presumably by a new WikiProject). Template is a reasonable idea, though it needs pretty drastic clean-up (it links to both a WikiProject and a permcat). Unfortunately, it's also linked to a stub cat,. despite there being no evidence that it will meet the required threshold. I've cleaned up the template, but it may need to be upmerged. Grutness...wha? 02:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Worse than I thought. The permcat is a substantial duplicate of a tree of categories already in use, so I'm taking that to CFD as well! Grutness...wha? 02:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] {{Netherlands-PvdA-politician-stub}} / Category:Labour Party (Netherlands) politician stubs

Unproposed, recently created. While in principle it seems like a reasonable idea, the fact that the article and permcat (and stubcat) use Labour Party (Netherlands) as their name suggests the template probably should have been at {{Netherlands-Labour-politician-stub}}. Also, the category's pretty thin at only a little over half the threshold (39 stubs), so it may need to be upmerged unless a further 21-odd stubs can be found. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that we use -VVD- for one of the templates that did go through the proposal process, the template name's perhaps not a problem. The category size is, though. Grutness...wha? 01:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
At the moment the category contains 93 stubs. Wikix (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
In that case, that'smore than enough - but please propose any new stub types first next time! Grutness...wha? 00:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] {{Metaphysics-stub}}

Unproposed, but thankfully, it's upmerged. Seems well-formed and looks like a reasonable subject area - may be a useful addition to the canon of philosophy stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


[edit] {{Rock-music-stub}}

Unproposed, seems well-rformed, but is it needed? Rock music is already divided up with a large number of different stub templates, I doubt we have need for a general overall rock music template. Grutness...wha? 12:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Is unproposed even a word? How dare you jump to conclusions about these things. If you had bothered to read the proposals, you would indeed see that your corruption, and unconstitutional behavior has resulted in this. There is a proposal thank you. Puffin Let's talk! 12:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
You're excused. Yes, of course unproposed is a word. It means not proposed. Ah - yes, my apologies, this was proposed - for some reason the proposal was placed at the bottom of the proposal page most of the way through the month (rather than at the top), which is why I didn't notice it - otherwise I'd have commented at the time. Corruption? Unconstitutional behaviour? You're joking, right? Grutness...wha? 13:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] {{Slovenia-icehockey-bio-stub}}

Unproposed, and probably a good idea, though it would be better upmerged to the overall Category:European ice hockey biography stubs rather than - as it is at the moment - to Category:Swedish ice hockey biography stubs. AFAIK Sweden and Slovenia haven't been politically linked since the days of the Kievian Rus, if then... :) Grutness...wha? 12:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Not alot of Slovenian players out there. I would probably upmerge to the European ice hockey biography stubs. But I am not against it at all. -DJSasso (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
According to Category:Slovenian ice hockey players, at least 31 Slovenian ice hockey players have biographical articles on this Wikipedia. Is that considered enough for a stub template? Also, regarding the category, that was an accident; I forgot to change Swedish to European, so thanks DJSasso for fixing that. :) HeyMid (contribs) 14:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
31's plenty for a template. Basically, if it looks possible that there'll eventually be enough for a category (60), then a template makes sense. Grutness...wha? 01:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] June 2011

[edit] {{Pakistan-cuisine-stub}} / Category:Pakistani cuisine stubs

Another unproposed creation - the template looks quite useful, but unless the category can be brought up to threshold it may need to be upmerged into Category:Pakistan stubs and Category:Cuisine stubs Grutness...wha? 03:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment You need to wait, because I created this very recently and it will therefore take time to fill up. I am in the process of applying it. As for the usefulness of this stub template, there's no doubt about that. One just needs to have a look at Category:Pakistani cuisine to see how big it is the number of stubs it contains. Thats why I created this in the first place. Mar4d (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    • The reason it's listed here rather than being taken straight to SFD for upmerging is that I think there's a reasonable chance it could reach the threshold, but the usual procedure is to ensure there are enough stubs first - which is why the proposal process page is there. I've no doubt the template will be useful, even in upmerged form - it's just a question of whether it can get to the 60-stub mark or not. Just because Category:Pakistani cuisine has a lot of articles doesn't necessarily mean that a lot of them are stubs (in fact, most of them seem to be well beyond stub length). Grutness...wha? 09:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay, after a bit of work I've managed to get it past threshold (not by a lot - there were only around 70 in total, but it's there). In future, please propose new stub templates and categories before making them, though! Grutness...wha? 10:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Greek military personnel stubs

Recent unproposed cration for the previously upmerged template {{Greece-mil-bio-stub}} - a template which has existed for over two years without yet getting close to threshold. Creator handily added the WSS-cat template to the top of his new creation (the one which tells editors not to create new categories without proposing them - sigh). If it cannot be quickly populated it may need re-upmerging. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] {{Greece-mil-stub}} / Category:Greek military stubs

Same user as above has also created this new stub type, which may well face the same problems of reaching the 60-stub threshold. Template seems reasonable, but may need upmerging. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] May 2011

[edit] {{Epistemology-stub}}/Category:Epistemology stubs

The idea for a template seems reasonable, but it may well need to be upmerged. If there are enough stubs for a viable separate category it at least needs some parent stubcats (Category:Philosophy stubs, perhaps?) Grutness...wha? 07:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I made the template because it was on the todo list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philosophy/Epistemology#Things_to_do. There are many stubs at Category:Stub-Class_epistemology_articles. InverseHypercube 07:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Stub-Class assessment and stub types are completely different things. Stub-Class is an assessment based on the banner template of a WikiProject (e.g., WP Philosophy), and for use by that specific project. Stub types are for use across the whole of Wikipedia and are based on the specific size and type guidelines, as explained at WP:Stub (there's a section of WP:Stub explaining why one is used by wikiprojects and one is more general). This is also why there's a specific project (WikiProject Stub sorting) which tries to coordinate and vet stub templates and categories (again, as explained at WP:Stub). There also seems to be nothing in that to-do list (or its history) to suggest that making new stub categories or templates is part of WP PHIL's current projects (expanding existing stub articles, yes; creating new stub templates and categories, no). Grutness...wha? 08:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry for the misunderstanding. InverseHypercube 08:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Easy mistake to make - It would've been far better if the assessment schemes hadn't used the word stub when they first started up. In any case, as I said at the top, the template seems like a reasonable idea, though unless there are a large number of stubs (the usual split is 60) it should probably be upmerged until such time as there are that number. Grutness...wha? 12:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Without delving very deeply into the topic, I brought this out of the underpopulated list. Someone with more interest in the topic could probably tag several more articles. Dawynn (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] April 2011

[edit] {{Potato-stub}}/Category:Potato stubs

Created in December 2010 by Nono64, populated by approximately 22 articles. It is a recreation of of a previously deleted stub and category (Discussion is here). --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] {{Goose-stub}} / {{Swan-stub}}

Unused stub templates with no request for these indicated; supereseded by Template:Anseriformes-stub. There was also a previous STFD on this template, which only addressed the naming conventions for the page instead of its being official or preferential to its parent above. Not really sure whether to propose these for deletion. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 09:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] March 2011

[edit] Category:Espionage stubs

Another one that I haven't explored to see whether to keep or delete. But where to classify? Dawynn (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Homelessness stubs

Still reviewing this one. It looks like we can pull several articles from the permcat (Category:Homelessness). Anyone have any suggestions as to where to classify this category? Dawynn (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] February 2011

[edit] {{Mario-game-stub}}

Propose Delete. Unused. Malformed. Never requested. Dawynn (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you know where to propose deletion... :) Grutness...wha? 09:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] {{SouthernSudan-stub}}

I was optimistic when I wrote the other day that we had a few months to discuss this one and work out with WP:Sudan what stub types were needed for Southern Sudan - this one has arrived unproposed already. I've tidied it up (it had a redlinked category and an incorrect, space-laden name), and upmerged it to Sudan stubs for now. There's not really much point in having a separate template yet since we don't know yet what the new country will be called (there have been several suggestions, and I don't want to suddenly find in July that we've got to move a bunch of SouthernSudan-foo-stub templates to Jubaland-foo-stub). This one can probably stay upmerged for now (no point really in deleting then re-creating in July), but a moratorium on other stub types until there's been some discussion about them (as there's supposed to be, of course) would probably be a good thing! Grutness...wha? 09:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It took that long!, I seem to remember Kosovo popping up every couple of weeks for about a year before it declared independence. I agree in keeping this as the one and only template for SouthernSudan till they sort themselves out. Waacstats (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
At the moment it looks likely that the country's new name will end up being South Sudan - we'll have to keep an eye out for variant names in templates... Grutness...wha? 22:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] {{Normandy-stub}} / Category:Normandy stubs and {{Brittany-stub}} / Category:Brittany stubs

Newly acquired without proposal; seem reasonably well-formed and potentially useful, though the inclusion of Category:Channel Islands stubs in the former category is somewhat controversial, to say the least (given that we use modern regional/national boundaries for stub types), as is their parenting directly by Category:Europe stubs rather than Category:France stubs. Currently pretty sparsely populated - would need upmerging if not more effectively populated/populable. Grutness...wha? 03:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Both seem reasonable, will try and see if I can populate them abit more over the weekend otherwise upmerge and remove the channel island stubs. Waacstats (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Togo Stubs

Found an odd situation in Approved Geography Stubs to be created, Togo geography stubs. The parent category has one subcategory at Kara Region geography stubs. The parent has 90 some stubs and the subcategory has 600 some. There are six upmerged templates for the Kara category listed, looks reasonable for 600 stubs. However, from the parent there are three other categories with four to nine upmerge templates also listed as approved. Archived discussion is a little ambiguous. I was thinking to remove the three additional categories and stubtypes from the approved list, since splitting 90 stubs into three categories / 20 upmerged templates makes little sense. Comments? Aelfthrytha (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Any idea whethr all the stubs in the Kara cat are genuinely for places there? It maybe that there's been some mis-stubbing. Or it's possible that someone/bot's been making lots of stub articles, and the other proposals will get populated very soon. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
All of the stubs in the Kara category are for places in Kara, per random sampling. All of the stubs there were created in May '08, too. The proposal at that time said someone created a crazy amount of Kara stubs, but none for any of the other regions. Aelfthrytha (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Anyone? Help?? Aelfthrytha (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] January 2011

[edit] Category:Public art stubs and {{Public-art-stub}}

Appear to have been created outside the system, despite having had the green box added to the category page. PamD (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm undecided one way or the other whether a separate stub for public art is the best way to go - it's another axis to split art on other than medium and nationality, which are the two ways art would normally be split by stubs - and era/style would be a more obvious third way. In any case, with most WikiProjects a banner talk-page template is far more useful than a stub type, since you can use it to assess all your project's articles rather than justb stubs (see the section of WP:STUB on WikiProjects and assessment templates). Having said that, it seems to be in reasonable use. Grutness...wha? 21:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] National singer categories

The following undersized, unproposed categories have been built. I added a {{popstub}} tag that was removed with a comment that these were already fully loaded. If these cannot be enlarged, I would argue for deleting the categories, and upmerging the templates to Category:European singer stubs.

Dawynn (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit]
strawberry silver and gold investment