Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Archive20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This is an archive of closed discussions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries from 2006.

April 2006

{{Free software-stub}} / Free software stubs

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

Both created on 27th March 2006. Template not used on any articles. Category only contains one subcategory (Category:Linux stubs). The category might be worthwhile as a container for all the free software stub categories (Linux stubs, KDE stubs, GNOME stubss) but I'm not sure how useful the template would be. --TheParanoidOne 21:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Having thought about it a bit more, sorting by license type is completely unhelpful for stub sorting. --TheParanoidOne 05:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
not much id think - and none at all with a gap in the name. wouldnt it make more sense to split software by what it does than by whether its free? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. --TheParanoidOne 05:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
This one should have growth potential, but it is still only used on a mere three article. SFD? Valentinian (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
This could easily be populated from the corresponding permie, as I noted at /P, the question is whether it should be. I don't personally think it's an ideal axis, but given the size of the parent, I wouldn't rule it out entirely, either. Alai 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Lets see here, it starts a new axis for splitting the software stubs, and despite being populatable, no one cares enough to do so? Send it to SFD. At worst, we'll find someone who cares enough about the type to populate it. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The no-one-cares argument is, as I say, misplaced, since it's an "unofficial" type (hence it being here), and proposing it produces objections (though not unusually, little in the way of concrete counter-proposals). If we're going to send such signals not to populate a type, we shouldn't then complain that it's not being populated. But in theory SFD could produce some clarity and/or activity, yes. Alai 20:11, 18 June 2006 (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.

This was sent to SFD with no consensus [1]. Template was renamed to {{free-software-stub}}. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

{{microsoft-stub}} / Category:Microsoft stubs

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

Both created in March 2006. Used on <20 stubs, most of which are software stubs. I'm not sure whether splits by company (software or otherwise) is a good idea. --TheParanoidOne 14:25, 29 April 2006 (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.

August 2006

Category:Current British MP stubs / {{UK-current-MP-stub}}

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

Only one article in cat at time of writing. From my experience most current MPs have a half-decent article, certainly not stubs, and Stub Sense only finds 42 stubs. The real number is likely to be lower than that, due to double-stubbing. --Mais oui! 19:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a pretty bad idea. Such categories will be nothing but trouble to maintain. Valentinian (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Taking it to SFD. Valentinian (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2006 (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.

This one was taken to SFD and kept. Valentinian T / C 20:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Mag-stub split

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 keep


OK, this isn't actually a "discovery", on grounds too multiple to mention, but could someone take a look at the recent splits from {{mag-stub}}, and tell me if they make sense after the fact? I've had more comments on my bot's page about these than about anything else, and I'm beginning to wonder if the whole scheme wasn't deeply misguided, and rendered meaningless by following excessively broad and vaguely-defined perm-cats. (I do have to keep reminding myself that according to several-deep category membership, Las Vegas is in California, and what's more, New Orleans roads are in Wisconsin.) Has anyone been tackling these "by hand", and if so, could they comment on where to go from here with these? If it comes to deleting them all and starting again, then so be it. Alai 23:36, 23 August 2006 (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.

September 2006

{{Chicano-stub}} / Category:Mexican-American stubs

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

Used on one article. There's a wikiproject, and obviously many more "candidates", but stub-sorting by ethnicity seems a less than keen idea. (Wasn't some variant on this already deleted?) Alai 10:48, 22 September 2006 (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.

This was sent to SFD with no consensus. [3] ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

October 2006

Category:Ancient Roman building stubs

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 delete


Not proposed that I recall, distinctly undersized. Alai 21:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It was proposed and was roundly rejected, IIRC. Buildings are categorised by current location, and this cuts across that. There is nothing wrong with double-stubbing with currentcountry-struct-stub and Ancient-Rome-stub. Grutness...wha? 23:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
On that basis, I've double-upmerged the template. Alai 23:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
And was "minor edit, no edit summary" reverted for my trouble. To which add, many more such. Perhaps a case for SFD sooner rather than later. Alai 23:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
How can it be double upmerged anyway? Not all ancient Roman buildings are in Rome, or even in Italy. BTW, I note that the template is -arch- stub, which is incorrect. if kept as a type it should be changed to -struct- stub, since it's not for architectural features, but is for buildings (well, buildings and structures), which is yet another problem with it. The whole thing's a bit of a mess. SFD sooner is a very good idea. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
To Category:Ancient Rome stubs and Category:European building and structure stubs, on the basis of the rogue cat's supercategories. Mind you, they're not even all in Europe, either. Alai 23:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem's a hell of a lot worse than we thought - Category:Ancient Rome stubs has ten subcategories! Not sure how many of them were proposed, but I'd doubt it would be more than two or three I've taken three to SFD that I know go strongly against stub convention (including this one), but this looks very messy. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hence the above contribs link. Alai 00:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I've caught the lot... Grutness...wha? 00:46, 14 October 2006 (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.

Various geo-stub templates

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 keep


Since I've been proposing the introduction of upmerged geo-stub templates for everywhere with 40 or more stubs, the afore-hinted-at I*st*ntn**d decided to go one stage further, and has created simiular upmerged templates for several other places:

All keepers, I suppose, but they stuff up all the counts I've been doing, and all of them need to be tidied to the same standard as the others. Sigh. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 21 October 2006 (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.

December 2006

Another looming iceberg

We really should keep a closer eye on Special:New pages. i've just gone through the last week's worth of template creations and discovered quite a number of previously unknown stub types (as well as speedying a couple of re-creations). Several of these discoveries I'm taking straight to SFD, but these two warrant a mention here instead. NOTE - These are ones I've discovered just going back to the beginning of the month - 18 days of new pages. Lord knows how many stub types are out there now - about time someone did another full sweep...:

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

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 keep


Well formed stub type with all of 5 stubs at present, but the potential for quite a few more. {{Alberta-geo-stub}} is nearing the point where it needs splitting, so a {{Calgary-geo-stub}} looks like a possibility in the near future. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:22, 20 December 2006 (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.

{{Alberta-road-stub}} / Category:Alberta road stubs

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 keep


I'll take half credit for this one. I created the template to help see what splits of Category:Canada road stubs might be viable, since a current SFD indicated that there were some who were finding it a bit overlarge, but before I even finished looking through it, someone else helpfully created the category. 64 stubs at present, so it's marginally viable, as should be a {{NovaScotia-road-stub}} and a {{Quebec-road-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:31, 20 December 2006 (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.

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

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

Never proposed. Only one article, the same one which is the entire population of Category:Erinaceomorphs. Somehow, this seems unlikely to reach threshold any time soon. Note that there are other erinaceidae in Category:Insectivora stubs - but that category only has 70-odd stubs. Mind you, it may need looking at at some point, since the term insectivore seems to be evolving with time. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Insectivora is no longer to be used... it is a defunct taxonomic order. Erinaceomorpha and Soricomorpha replace it. I'm working on the Erinoceomorpha articles, and the stub and template are part of that. I will be moving the articles as appropriate. It will reach threshold very soon, as all of the articles in the Insectivora categories will be moved. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Didn't we just approve {{insectivora-stub}} and Category:Insectivora stubs? Why didn't we know it was defunct? ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
This information was added to the Insectivora article yesterday (see [4]). Eli Falk 23:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
UtherSRG gives the source for this change as a book published in mid-November. Category:Insectivora stubs was created within a month of that date. The sites linked to from Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life all claim that Insectivora is a valid taxon. Eli Falk 16:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
MSW3 was published November of 2005. As for the resources listed on WP:TOL: NCBI is not to be used as a taxonomy authority; ToL Web is, like Wikipedia, updated at the whim of its maintainers and currently lists other orders previously removed from Insectivora as still being within Insectivora; Mikko's shows Erin. and Soric. as being orders within Insectivora (by their names) and was last updated just as MSW3 was being published; BIOSIS also lists a previously removed order as still being within Insectivora; System Natura lists Erin. and Soric. as orders and that Insectivora has been replaced by Grandorder Lipotyphla; ITIS lists Erin. and Soric. as orders, and Insectivora as invalid, replaced by Erin., Soric., and Afrosoricida; Species2000 lists other orders previously removed from Insectivora as still being within Insectivora; ADW is likewise out of date on their tree structure. Insectivora, as an order, is defunct. It, or a senior synonym such as Lipotyphla, can be used as a higher level intermediary taxon, but the majority of mammal stub categories are based upon major taxa, not intermediaries. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:12, 4 January 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.

{{Massachusetts-gov-stub}}

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 keep and list


...and its related category. The first state-specific gov-stub, and with about 20 stubs. Conceivably could get to 60, but it sets a precedent we should consider before we start on - do we want another 49 of these? Grutness...wha? 06:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

From the perspective of one who is focusing his work on a state Government & Politcs Workgroup (Oregon), I find the estimate to be low, especially at the beginning. Most of the American state wikigroups, if they have yet divided the work into workgroups, start by combining government and politics (as did California, and we are following their lead). This places all elective offices, government agencies (statewide and regional), political parties (including the minors), contentious ballot measures, and a raft of other categories within their scope. On our project, article development seems to start with production of lists, which are then de-redlinked to stubs, which gradually are developed into articles. Our subgroup has already identified 34 stubs we want to tag in order to better track, and are producing at least a couple of new ones on a daily basis. Perhaps the need will be eliminated by broader implementation of esoteric features in the project banners, but that is a ways off, and in the meantime I, for one, am feeling that our project's work is being impeded by having to spend so much time doing frequent searches and maintaining manually generated lists. My two cents (and made with admitted ignorance of potential stub-sorting ramifications). -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 19:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I must admit that th federal system used in the US does make it more rather than less likely that these are populable. Given the proposal for an Oregon-gov-stub at WP:WSS/P, perhaps this is a split worth considering after all... Grutness...wha? 23:00, 21 December 2006 (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.

{{Nebraska-Highways-stub}}

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 renamed


Ugly plural, to start with, and only seven stubs. Grutness...wha? 10:44, 18 December 2006 (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.

{{medieval-armour-stub}} / Category:Medieval armour stubs

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 keep


This just appeared on WP:STUBS. Horribly small as well as being unproposed. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 23:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Might be worth upmerging to an {{armor-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You beat me to it - I've just left a note with the creator of this one. BTW, although the main category is medieval armor (and only just scrapes over the 70 article mark, BTW), most of the articles in it that specify use the term 'armour" - which makes sense, since the US didn't actually have any medieval armor, and all other English speaking countries with the possible exception of Canada use the -ou- spelling. Perhaps if armor-stub is made a redirect is also a good idea? Grutness...wha? 00:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As the creator of the stub, I'd like to comment. Sorry, I didn't know that there was a specific procedure for creating new stubs. I was just being bold. Reading over the relevant procedures, it seems to me that the purpose of sorting stubs is to attract experts in the field. There are few, if any, experts in "armor", and a general military expert usually won't have a detailed understanding of medieval armor. There are plenty of organizations of expert individuals that study medieval armor specifically, and there isn't another stub category close enough to attract these experts. Perhaps a "medieval military equipment" stub would suffice, as there is a fair bit of intellectual crosspollination between medieval armour and weapons, but I really think that the current system of lumping them into a military category is insufficient. Addressing the point of spelling, I've been poking about trying to correct that, along with a few other problems. --Eyrian 02:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: Now has 59 stubs and a parent, {{armour-stub}}. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:56, 27 June 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.

{{Yeast-stub}}, Category:Yeast stubs

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 keep; has an associated WPJ


Not proposed, no wikiproject (not directly, anyway - it seems to be connected in some way with WP Microbiology), 16 stubs only - and Category:Yeasts only has 26 articles, so unlikely to get within a bull's roar of 60 current stubs. Fungus stubs probably could do with a split, but this doesn't look like the way to do it. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Aelfthrytha 12:15, 26 December 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Discoveries/Archive20&oldid=1149873158"