Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Archive/2007

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 take to sfd

Nope, not an unstub to be enjoyed whilst sipping the uncola, but a recreated redirect for {{UN-stub}} which I discovered whilst recategorizing some security council resolutions to their year specific categories. Probably an innocent recreation done a year ago of a redirect deleted two years ago. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's re-created, surely it can be speedied... though the 23 articles which move it would need to be un-stubbed then UN-stubbed first. Grutness...wha? 22:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this still an active discussion? It does not look like anything has been done about it. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there are so few of us doing most of the administrative work for WP:WSS, and so much that needs doing on this project, discoveries often sit around for three or four months before much is actively done with them. If you want to hurry this one up, then taking it to WP:SFD would get it resolved pretty quickly one way or the other. That's probably what would happen to it anyway, given time. Grutness...wha? 05:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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.

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

No record of approval, not in the right category, only 31 stubs. Aelfthrytha (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Werll, the category name certainly needs changing, but the mantra of populate or upmerge is probably appropriate here. Grutness...wha? 21:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 a sensible template at least. Category either needs to be populated or upmerged. Probably enough articles for it (there are about 400 1950s albums with articles, by the looks of it, and quite a number of these are likely to be stubs). Grutness...wha? 22:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know I'm a not a complete crazy for creating this one for use in Three Ragas (a Ravi Shankar album). I honestly had no idea I needed to propose it beforehand. Sorry, everyone, for the inconvenience.

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.

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:SFD

Unproposed; there are 42 pages total in all of the Category:Plan 9 from Bell Labs sub-cats, 14 of which are in the abovementioned stub cat. There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Plan 9, but still...! Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• The template is pretty horribly named, too - not only is there no {{9-stub}} for it to be a subtype of, but to many people, Plan 9 refers primarily to a certain notorious movie. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 - seems a standard format, but it's upmerged into the wrong category (the 90s were not part of the 80s!). A keeper, I'd say, but upmerged differently. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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.

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, and although it contains 38 stubs, it is questionable whether it will reach threshold (there are in total 101 articles in Category:London Overground - it would need 60% of them to be stubs to reach threshold). The template name also distinctly needs changing - not only is this not a subtype of overground-stub (which doesn't exist), but the name is also a proper noun (there is no such thing as London overground). It should thus be {{LondonOverground-stub}} if this is to be kept. Grutness...wha? 23:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mea Culpa, I didn't propose it first. Basically because this is a refining of a previous stub type (London Railway stations) due to the recent transfer of four lines to the new London Overground. It is both logical and obvious to transfer them to such a 'better' stub subgroup, alongside the pre-existing London Underground stubs. As to the naming, Category:London-tube-stub is used to produce the underground ones, so Category:London-overground-stub is a logical name for the overground services also run by TfL. --AlisonW (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

ps. I am still going through the current articles relating to LOG; so far I had only checked all the station ones. --AlisonW (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Basically, London-tube-stub is called that because it's a subtype of metro-stub - it's just that the Metro in London is known to most people as the tube. London Overground is a distinct company, though, so would normally get the company's name camel case and unhyphenated. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that London Overground is not a distinct company; it is a brand of Transport for London's services, just as London Underground, DLR, etc are. I'm not especially bothered by the exact textual linkname, but given that is a 'stub' for articles about 'London overground' then it does seem rather logical!. btw, of the 100-odd articles, I reckon 49 (ie half) are stubs - and that is before I've gone through the articles on the extensions under construction or planned. That is a lot of work to be done and the new stub cat makes improving them easier to locate within what had previously been a very large stub-sort. --AlisonW (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Now links to 48 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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.

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, with no indication that it could get close to threshold, though the (unlisted) permcat seems to suggest it will. (Actually, the permcat has its own problems, recursiveness being one of them, but that is another matter). Enormous template icon, too. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahhj skip it - I've found the proposal. I'll reduce the icon size, though. Grutness...wha? 00:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 deleted

orphaned, so I put it in Category:Wikipedia stubs, but otherwise unchecked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Um... you may not realise this BHG, but Category:Wikipedia stubs is for stubs about Wikipedia. So, unless StarCraft is part of Wikimedia/Wikipedia, it doesn't belong there. The category is also misnamed (Stubs should be l.c.). See also below, where the similarly unproposed template is listed. Grutness...wha? 23:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. My my aim in categorising it there was to put it some place where was likely to be noticed by stub specialists, and next time I'll know which root sub categ to use. The note below that the stub was well-formed suggested to me that the orphaned category with its incorrec t capitalisation may not have been noticed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It was added later - when I reported the template, it was upmerged into a general fighting games stub category (as well as about three other categories - see here). Rather than replace the redundant categories with this one, though, it's simply been added on the end, so the template's even messier than before. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Good thing I listed it, then :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 deleted

Unproposed, but reasonably well formed and upmerged, though it seems to link to far too many categories. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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.

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

I don't know enough about annonaceae to know whether this stub would be viable in terms of the stub hierarchy (it certainly looks viable in terms of size if Category:Annonaceae is anything to go by) - but I do know that the template needs serious work if it's to be kept. No links, no category. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Twas part of a discussion in August; I'll go tinker with it if no one else has done yet. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right. I checked October and November, but didn't look as far back as August. Grutness...wha? 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 take British- types to sfd

It appears that we have picked up a number of variations here

• Category:United Kingdom film stubs / {{British-film-stub}} & {{UK-film-stub}} as a redirect
• Category:British film stubs

I don't think we need both. The easiest solution, i think, would be to delete the British cat and reverse the redirects on the Uk cat. Waacstats 16:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the British cat and the British- template, too (we don't have any other British-x-stub redirects, and it's adjectival which is non-standard). The UK pair are fine and standardly named. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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.

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

Upmerged, and looks a sensible enough template type, though i question the name - do we normally abbreviate to RC? Grutness...wha? 01:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm sorry but I didn't knew that policy. I created that stub template in good faith just because there where already: {{RC-bishop-stub}} and {{RC-clergy-stub}}, and because with the new consistory for the creation of new cardinals should be added to the new biographies, as I did. ;) --Nicola Romani 10:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not a policy, but it is a strong recommendation - since we're the ones who sort stubs, we need to know what categories they're being sorted into, and often new stub templates and categories don't conform to standard naming and other similar features. Proposal first makes sure there aren't any things overlooked by stub creators (prevention of glitches is usually far easier than cure!). In the case of this stub, given that the bishops and clergy use RC, there's probably no problem, as long as this reaches a useful usage level (a category with fewer than 60 or so stubs is usually more work than helpful). It seems likely this will reach that level, given the number of cardinals there are likely to be articles for. Grutness...wha? 11:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The template looks fine and so does its name but it needs to be populated better. In the unlikely event that it doesn't populate properly, we can always keep the template and upmerge it. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Now has 24 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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.

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:SFD

It appears that someone has created 54 by county templates for these of the form {{Ohio-countyname-NRHP-struct-stub}} when we appear to be using countynameOH on the schools can someone please confirm which way is correct and we can then look at (hopefully!) getting both the same. Waacstats 21:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone stuffed up. They are all meant to be in the form CountyNameOH-x-stub, if they're to exist at all.... Grutness...wha? 23:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So someone needs to tag 54 templates for SFD? I'll get onto it tomorrow it's getting to late now. Waacstats 00:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Strange... none of these templates has shown up at Special:Newpages... Grutness...wha? 00:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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.

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)

• Update: links to 17 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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.

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)

Pretty small though - the category may need monitoring, though the template's fine. Grutness...wha? 23:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

Indeed. It is already approaching 50. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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.

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:SFD

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

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)

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.

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)

• Populate if possible, and if so list. Alai 07:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

• 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)

• • Fair enough, though it doesn't explain why the template wasn't proposed before creation! Grutness...wha? 23:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Now links to 57 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

• Update: now links to 37 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Now links to 46 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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.

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)

• 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)

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.

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:SFD

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

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.

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 kept

Never proposed and hideously named, but perhaps useful. I note that there is no UK-bank-stub, which is perhaps surprising, so perhaps a combined stub for banks and building societies (the latter of which this is for) may be useful. Would need serious renaming, though. BTW, this is upmerged into two stub cats (fine) and one permcat (not so fine). Grutness...wha? 06:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Send to SFD to be renamed as {{UK-bank-stub}} or {{UK-finance-company-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I created this stub template, because the building society sector is both independent, and more importantly mutually-owned (and as you found out, there isn't a {{UK-bank-stub}}). OK, some societies are more commercial than others, but all of them still require members to vote on issues, so they have a bigger role to play than shareholders. If it's felt building societies are not distinct enough, maybe you could create/rename this into a {{UK-mutual-society-stub}} template (which would include friendly societies, and any remaining mutual insurance companies)?? (Extra3 15:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

• • The second reason, is that many articles about UK-based societies have only been created recently, and, as such, are still only stubs. My intention was to create awareness of them, so they can be filled out. As far as the categorisation goes, well, like I said, many of these articles are stubs. If this means they shouldn't be featured within a permanent category, then I'm a little bemused (unless the category should be embedded within the article, rather than the template). I'd be interested to hear what you think. (Extra3 15:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

• • • Usual practice for stubs is to have the stub template only include stub categories (usually just one, but sometimes two for upmerged templates). Appropriate permanent categories should be added to the article directly, not indirectly via a stub template that ideally will be removed once the article is no longer a stub. So it's fine (indeed it's expected) for stub articles to be placed in permanent categories, they just shouldn't be placed by means of a stub template. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I have now created Category:United_Kingdom_building_society_stubs, to allow for stub articles to be grouped in. And as you said, the articles can be grouped under the main category Category:Building societies, with another template. (Extra3 18:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC))
• Update: Links to 47 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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.

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 upmerged

Yipes. Television stubs have been sorted according to genre, people, episodes, stations, countries, etc. but never by type of technology on which it appears. Unproposed, only 1 article in it. I don't like it One Bit. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• And it's listed earlier on this page, as of March 2007. Oops. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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.

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

Undecided about this one - I almost took it straight to SFD but had second thoughts. Never proposed... not close to threshold at the moment, but potentially useful, perhaps. Perhaps. At the moment, an upmerging seems plausible. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Now contains 21 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Up to 44 articles and there's a related WP. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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.

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:SFD

Unproposed, but properly named, with 22 articles so far. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Still contains 22 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Up to 23 articles now. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion 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, redlink category. Seems a reasonable idea, though, given the size of Category:Databases. Mind you, that doesn't guarantee 60 stubs (well, 30, since there seems to be a nascent WikiProject - the same person who created that created this stub type ten minutes later, surprise, surprise). May well be a case of fixing it up and seeing whether or not it grows. If it does, fine. if not, there's still SFD... Grutness...wha? 01:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Might be worth upmerging to {{database-software-stub}} or seeing if there are articles tagged with that stub that aren't about specific programs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it. There are literally dozens of Category:Databases articles that are naught but stubs. Use {{database-software-stub}} on all database stubs, even those that are unrelated to database software. BTW, the nascent WikiProject was suggested a week ago (Look It Up, surprise, surprise). For an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit, you bureaucrats sure give hell to people who are trying to do the right thing. Delete the stub, delete the project, do whatever you really feel like doing. Enough of this nonsense, trying to improve Wikipedia by wasting ridiculous amounts of my time bringing articles like Null (SQL) from a one-paragraph stub up to Good Article status, and trying to help bring some badly needed attention to the extreme lack of good, solid database-related articles on this thing. Be Bold! Right? Apparently it only applies to vandals, and not to people trying to do the right thing. You need to get rid of that God Awful article since that's not how it works in reality. If it's not there already, you should add Wikipedia as a prime example of Bureaucracy. Please feel free to remove it all, there are way too many bureaucrats and dictators running around for me to try to do anything more. Peace. SqlPac 02:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Read WP:BOLD. It makes it clear that it applies to articles, but not to templates or categories. The nascent Wikiproject may have been suggested a week ago, but no stub type was, and that is what we are discussing here. We are not bureaucrats, nor are we dictators; we are people trying to keep track of what stub types are available and sort stub articles accordingly. unproposed stub types do nothing to help with that - in fact, they can seriously hinder the work of editors on wikipedia. You =might also want toread WP:CIVIL. Grutness...wha? 02:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Get rid of the stuff I've done, and you and I are through WP:CIVIL. BTW, here are a couple of Database-related stubs for you. Many are already indicated as stubs under a very wide variety of labels, a few are not currently labeled stubs even though they are stubs. Some are software-specific, some are not. Some do not currently exist. You might want to get crackin' on those. Update (SQL), Merge (SQL), Create (SQL), Drop (SQL), Begin work (SQL), Commit (data management), Rollback (data management), Truncate (SQL), Alter (SQL), View (database), Table (database), Index (database), Partition (database), Database storage structures, MyISAM, Deductive database, Distributed database management system, Relational_calculus, Database normalization, Referential integrity, Relational database management system, Superkey, Candidate key, List of object-oriented database management systems, Online transaction processing, Data Mining Extensions, SuprTool, Molecular Query Language, SPARQL, CODASYL, QUEL query languages, Object Query Language, Poliqarp Query Language, Data Definition Language, Data Manipulation Language, Data Control Language, Bulk Load, SQL:1999, SQL-92, SQL-96, SQL:2003, SQL:2006, Order by (SQL), Group by (SQL), Having (SQL), Where (SQL), From (SQL), PL/pgSQL. Peace. SqlPac 03:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • What are you so angry about? The only person here who has suggested deletion as a first course is you - and presumably you were being sarcastic. Both I and Caerwine have suggested that it may be worth keeping in