Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2007/November
Newly discovered, November 2007[edit]
{{Plan-9-stub}} / Category:Plan 9 from Bell Labs stubs[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD
Unproposed; 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
{{AFL-bio-1990s-stub}}[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS
Unproposed - 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
{{London-overground-stub}} / Category:London Overground stubs[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was upmerge
Unproposed, 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Now links to 48 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
{{Signaltransduction-stub}} / Category:Signal transduction stubs[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS
Unproposed, 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)[reply]
- Ahhj skip it - I've found the proposal. I'll reduce the icon size, though. Grutness...wha? 00:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:StarCraft Stubs[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was deleted
orphaned, so I put it in Category:Wikipedia stubs, but otherwise unchecked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Good thing I listed it, then :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
{{StarCraft-stub}}[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
{{Annonaceae-stub}}[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Ah, right. I checked October and November, but didn't look as far back as August. Grutness...wha? 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Variations on a theme Category:United Kingdom film stubs[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
{{RC-cardinal-stub}}[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Now has 24 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Various templates for Ohio-NRHP-struct-stub[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was send to WP:CFD
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Strange... none of these templates has shown up at Special:Newpages... Grutness...wha? 00:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.