Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2008/June

Newly discovered, June 2008

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

An interesting one... we have Category:Jazz saxophonist stubs, but its parenting is directly to Category:Woodwind musician stubs with no middle step. However, the number of non-jazz saxophonists with articles is very considerably below threshold (this is used on two articles, though the only other rock saxophonists I can instantly think of - John Helliwell and Raphael Ravenscroft - also have stubs, which I shall mark with this template). There may well be more, however, especially from the 1950s era of rock & roll and from the ska/reggae booms of the 60s and 70s. It may be that keeping the category as an intermediate step between the jazz and woodwind categories is a good move, but I worry about size - the template would be fine, upmerged or as is. If kept, the category will need to be formatted properly (it's a bit sparse at the moment in terms of its details/parentage - and has an unexpected commo0ns link, too). Grutness...wha? 02:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it was a little odd that there was no category for non-jazz sax players too, seeing as I could think of a few (Saxa (musician) and Ian Kirkham had to go under {{musician-stub}}because I could not find a better-suited one). I am currently trying to find as many articles I can put there as possible - I think that it will hit the threshold soon. Rdbrewster♪♫♪ 17:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that if it does not hit the threshold, then Category:Jazz saxophonist stubs should be merged into this one.

{{Turkmenistan-footy-bio-stub}} / Category:Turkmenistani sportspeople stubs

Yet another unproposed footy-bio-stub "upmerged" by the artificial creation of a parent stub category (it seems an extremely annoying trend has started in the last week or so). Though the template may have some use, the category is likely to remain very tiny (we don't even have enough stubs for a Category:Turkmenistan people stubs category yet!). Grutness...wha? 07:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I created this stub by mirroring many others that have been used in WP:FOOTY. If it is annoying, please feel free to delete it. It does however serve a useful purpose even if there are not yet that many stubs in this category. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I just read the comments regarding the Lebanon-footy-bio stub, and it seems this stub was already proposed and accepted. Sorry that I didn't follow the proper channels, but I think the stub should be kept if someone else proposed it and it was approved. Jogurney (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, all Asian football biography upmerged stubs were approved awhile back by us, I think Valentinian proposed them. I will look back and find exactly the date.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Even so, the proposal didn't include any new categories - it was for upmerged templates (i.e., upmerged to existing categories). Grutness...wha? 21:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Canada-mall-stub}}

Unproposed and redlinked. We haven't started to split mall stubs up by country too much, though it's probably a reasonable idea. This would probably be better upmerged into Category:Mall stubs - if we had one (why don't we?) - and the Canadian B&S stub categories though. Grutness...wha? 02:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A universal mall (or shopping centre) cat would be best. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 02:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There's likely no Category:Mall stubs because there's also no {{Mall-stub}} to fill it. I'm not saying there's no need, just that nobody's gone through the motions yet. - Dravecky (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, we do have a long-accepted {{US-mall-stub}}, though. A more generic mall-stub would be a good idea (though is probably better discussed at WSS/P than here. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oceanian sportspeople stubs

Seemingly as an upshot (albeit unproposed) of this proposal, Category:Samoan sportspeople stubs, Category:Lebanese sportspeople stubs, Category:Tongan sportspeople stubs, Category:Papua New Guinean sportspeople stubs, Category:Cook Islands sportspeople stubs and Category:Fijian sportspeople stubs have been created. Few of these are likely to break a dozen articles. The parent categories (national (bio) stubs, Oceanian sports people stubs and sport bio stubs) are not oversized. Not worth keeping any imo. Severo^TC 23:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Fijian one was proposed and should reach 65 at least - the others probably need monitoring but yes, upmerger definitely seems possible. However it wouldn't surprise me if several of them could get to 60 stubs (we're not talking Category:Pitcairn sportspeople stubs, after all!). As for whether Lebanon is in Oceania, that's another matter... :) Grutness...wha? 00:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick scan through the What-links-here of {{samoa-bio-stub}} reveals about 35 rugby union, boxing, and athletics bios to go with the 22 rugby league ones - it will come very close to 60 overall. Tonga would also get a significant boost towards threshold. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm. You're right about the proposal though - looks like the creator of these completely misunderstood what had been said about upmerging - these should all have simply been templates pointing to Category:Rugby league biography stubs, their own Category:Fooian people stubs, and (in all cases except Lebanon) to Category:Oceanian sportspeople stubs. There shouldn't have been any new categories made (other than the Fiji case I mentioned). The parenting of these new categories is a bit shocking, too - there's the assumption that all sportspeople from these countries are rugby league players, and the categories are also recursive. If these are kept they'll also need separate {{Foo-sports-bio-stub}} templates. This is in the "needs a lot of work" basket. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tidied up the categories and parenting; they could make viable categories, although they seem quite premature. Some of the countries here don't even have {{foo-stub}}, let alone {{foo-bio-stub}} (particularly Cook Islands). I'll have a look at numbers tomorrow. Severo^TC 22:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Following playing with CatScan, all bar PNG and Cook Islands appear to be viable as cats (which will also need standard {{foo-sport-bio-stub}} templates); I support PNG and Cook Islands as upmerged templates. Severo^TC 23:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If kept, Category:Cook Islands sportspeople stubs would also need moving to Category:Cook Island sportspeople stubs following this recent discussion. Severo^TC 08:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Coal-company-stub}} / Category:Coal company stubs

Unproposed, and not really needed given the size of its stub parent (Category:Energy company stubs has only about 360 unsubcategorised stubs - only about halfway to the point where splitting's desired). No indication whether it would reach the 60-stub threshold either, though it seems implausible at present (Category:Coal companies and all its subtypes between them have fewer than 70 articles). Might be worth keeping, but upmerging is definitely a prospect unless it grows beyond its current size of one stub! Grutness...wha? 01:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Large number of Middle Eastern footy-bio-stubs

Our old friend Matthew hk has created a large number of new stub templates for football biography stubs by country in the Middle East, all of which are listed at thge top of the unfortunately named (also by mhk) Category:West_Asian_football_biography_stubs, a category which I've taken to SFD for renaming. Grutness...wha? 23:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

{{feminist-stub}}

I found this stub on the article Anne Carr that has no Stub Category. Do you know what should be done about this? I've looked through the Stub List and can't find it. Kathleen.wright5 10:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's already listed under discoveries from February - basically it's an unproposed copy of {{Fem-activist-stub}} (which was decided some year or more ago to be a more precise name for what it shoud cover. {{tl|Feminist-stub will probably be taken to WP:SFD for either deletion or redirection at some point - for now, just change any stubs you find using it to use {{fem-activist-stub}} instead. Grutness...wha? 22:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Australia-rugbyleague-bio-1990s-stub}} / Category:Australian rugby league biography, 1990s birth stubs

Unproposed, though well-formed. No problems with the template, and no doubt the category will be needed sometime soon, but is it needed yet? Do we have stubs for 60 current Aussie rugby league pros under the age of eighteen and a half? This may be a case of "upmerge for now, with no prejudice against re-creating the category later". Grutness...wha? 01:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with upmerge. Waacstats (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Albania-basketball-bio-stub}} / Category:Albanian basketball biography stubs

Unproposed, small, and unlikely to come within easy reach of the category threshold any time soon. Also a severe case of "cart before the horse" since we don't even have an {{Albania-sport-bio-stub}} yet! Indeed, the number of otherwise unsubcategorised people in Category:Albanian people stubs is fewer than 150, so no split is needed, and the size of Category:Albanian basketball players (two articles) is hardly reassuring. Upmerging is probably the most sensible option here. BTW, on a related subject, it appears that there's something wrong with the subcategorisation of several basketball-bio types, if the population of Category:Basketball players is anything to go by... Grutness...wha? 02:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Support deletion and upmerger. As an aside I think the cart is already ahead of the horse given that we have more foo-footy-bio cats than foo-sport-bio cats (Albania included), but this is certainly not a case where we need to go that way. Waacstats (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Cambodia-politician-stub}} / Category:Cambodian politician stubs

Seems pretty well formed, and at 53 stubs is only slightly short of threshold - looks like a keeper, though it would have been nice to have found out about this before it was made :/ Grutness...wha? 02:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

i'm on a huge run from a spreadsheet of these (check Special:Newpages), and there should be about 100 (or more?) when i'm done. i figured it was ok since there are similar ones for other countries. Mangostar (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

They should still be propsoed (they're speediable in cases like this, so it's not a huge hold-up). It's still a good idea to do that, since how are the stub-sorting project supposed to be able to sort stub types using stub templates they're not aware of? Grutness...wha? 02:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Manhwa-stub}} / Category:Manhwa stubs and {{Manhua-stub}} (redlinked)

Two new unproposed stub types for different yet related forms of Asian comics. Given the size of the parent permcats, it's doubtlful whether either would currently meet bthreshold (this is partticularly true for the Korean one). Perhaps creating an overarching Category:Asian comic stubs would be a better idea than having these two separate marginal stub types, with these two templates upmerged into it. Grutness...wha? 02:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk page note! For some background, the World Comics working group at WikiProject Comics has been almost dormant since its creation, but now we're actively doing an enormous amount of work getting things set up to truly handle world comics, and we're starting with manhua and manhwa. These stub templates were created following current comics categories, and were separated because they deal with subjects in entirely different languages, thus largely attracting entirely different editors. Until now there has been no coordinated effort for dealing with Asian comics outside of Japan, and currently many articles in these subject areas are uncategorized or incorrectly categorized as Japanese manga. We are currently getting things correctly categorized, so their present size isn't necessarily indicative of their "actual" size, or potential size in the future. Lumping everything as "Asian comics" is, in my opinion, too broad and yields the tag fairly useless. At the absolute minimum, this large and diverse continent would need to be broken down. Note, the manhua-stub template is red-linked because the admin who's been working on the categorization is likely in bed at the moment. :) Sorry about all this - I had no idea I'd skipped an important step. Learning all the wikiprocedures can be quite an overwhelming task! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've now spent some time tagging many known stubs with the two new stub templates. There are now over 100 articles split between these two tags, I believe. I'll now spend time trying to find uncategorized or incorrectly categorized articles, and get them tagged, too, which may take quite a while. I'm also making a list of redlinks that I run into repeatedly or that I know are notable enough to deserve an article. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 10:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Part of the need for these stubs is that the areas of manhua and manwha have rather been overlooked and there is an effort through the Comics Project World comics workgroup to get things up to scratch. We've already been sorting out the relevant categories and the next stage will involve the creation of a number of new articles on the major works not yet covered which will probably involve translating from the original Chinese and Korean versions of Wikipedia. So one of the reasons they each need one is because we'll be working with the respective sister projects who will providing input on translation, transliteration, etc. and sinking the two into some broader category (which itself could conflict with the work of the Anime and Manga Project) would reduce the usefulness of them engagement with the different projects. (Emperor (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

Category:Manhwa stubs now just sneaks in over the threshold with 62 stubs - Category:Manhua stubs (created since this was listed here - again without proposal, but still) is still well below threshold at 41 stubs. Sounds like there's enough material that it may get up to the required 60, but if it doesn't, it may still need to be upmerged somewhere. It would have been very useful and saved a lot of fuss if these had been proposed first, though - please, in future, if you're planning to create stub types, propose them at WP:WSS/P for discussion! Grutness...wha? 00:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, thank all of you for the input on this. I do believe that the two category need their own stub, because the subject is also associated with Chinese and Korean WikiProject respectively. Naturally, many editors who edit manhwa articles are likely Korean editors or editors interested in Korean pop culture so does the same on manhua. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Grutness, for the feedback. Again, had I known this had to be pre-approved, I certainly would have gone through the process. The amount of procedures on Wikipedia is extremely overwhelming (not a criticism, just a fact). These stub tags go a long way in helping us identify where work needs to be done, and what's missing. As an essentially brand-new project, it would be very tough to get off the ground without them. I do have a procedural question, though. What happens now? You say it may still need to be upmerged somewhere. When does that happen? What does that mean for all the articles we've tagged? Who makes the decisions? Thanks for your help. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 01:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically, to cut a long story short, there's a set threshold of 60 stubs for separate stub categories, so the Manhwa one's fine. As for the Manhua one, it will sit on this page for some time (often months!) to give us the opportunity to see whether it will get to 60 stubs (which of course you can help out on). If there's no sign of it doing so, it will be proposed for deletion/upmerging at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. In this case, it seems likely it will get to 60, but if it doesn't, then upmerging's the most likely outcome. That will simply mean changing the category link on the template to put all the articles into Category:Comics stubs. Even then, you'd still be able to see what articles use the template using the "What links here" link in the toolbox. The template will still remain in use, so if it is eventually used on 60 articles then a separate category can be proposed for re-creation at WP:WSS/P. Hope that makes sense. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay, thank you so much! We'll have 60 in no time. I was worried this would happen, like, tomorrow or something.  :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Scotland-newspaper stub}}

Unproposed and badly named (spot the missing hyphen). When found it had no category, either - I've upmerged it into the UK category until we decide what to do with it. Potentially useful, though Category:United Kingdom newspaper stubs is hardly in need of splitting at only around 350 stubs. Probably reasonable as an upmerged template - if renamed to {{Scotland-newspaper-stub}} per standard. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There are 30 articles in Category:United Kingdom newspaper stubs and in Category:Newspapers published in Scotland so it seems fair enough to have an upmerged template. Severo^TC 23:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that it seems to have been renamed and the version with the space is not used on any articles, I've done my "rouge admin" act and got rid of the original version. I agree that the rename is a reasonable upmerged type. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Nagano-rail-station-stub}}

Upmerged and cookie-cuttered from an existing stub type, so probably perfectly fine. Why on earth it should feed into a geo-stub category is beyond me, though - buildings aren't supposed to go into those. Grutness...wha? 11:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

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

A non-geo type for an Indian state. Plausible, but the number of stubs may not warrant a separate category. Grutness...wha? 02:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Grutness: I think this stub will attract people from Maharashtra to contribute to articles relating to the history, culture and geography of this state. It's a lot easier for someone like me who knows something about Maharashtra, but very little about other states in India, to have a specific category to look for articles which need to be expanded. {{maharashtra-geo-stub}} doesn't quite cover it, as many articles (e.g. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Battle of Khadki, Nana Fadnavis, Maharashtra Academy of Sciences, Maharashtra Rashtravadi Congress, Shiv Sena) are directly or indirectly associated with the state, while not being "geographical" articles.

Additionally, as a state organized along linguistic lines, Maharastra's history and culture is tightly bound to all the languages found within its borders, including the Marathi language, Konkani language, and Gujarati language, along with their respective writers, poets, scholars, social activists, and so on. Stubs within these areas could also be tagged as a {{Maharashtra-stub}}.

In particular, I'm hoping to create stubs for the Peshwa and people relating to their history, and I'd like a way to attract people to work on these stubs in a more specific way than setting it as an {{India-hist-stub}}. I suppose the argument could be made that you're likely to get a better quality of edit from people who are more interested in Indian history than in Maharashtra in particular, although this way you'd probably get more enthusiastic edits. Although the Maratha empire and confederacy were India-wide in their influence and area, the Peshwa himself was always associated with Pune and its surroundings, particularly during the final, tumultous years of the empire.

This stub would also not be without precedent: Both Kerala and Karnataka have stub categories with plenty of articles. Personally, I think it'd be nice to have Peshwa, modern history, culture, religion, writing and poets based mainly or significantly within the state of Maharashtra all having their stubs in one place, so that people with an interest in or who are familiar with the state can work on them.

One possible counterargument in that all of the above deserve their own stubs: sub-stubs of Category:Indian writer stubs, Category:Indian royalty stubs, Category:Indian political party stubs, and so on. Counterarguments: there's bound to be some articles which are hard to categorize, this will create even more stubs (while the current proposal only results in one), and I think that using {{Maharashtra-stub}} will be an easier mechanism for new contributers to bring their articles to the attention of other writers familiar with this state than {{WP India}} in the talk page.

That's my five cents, let me know what you think. -- Gaurav (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hey - one question. I see that once a category has sixty articles or so, it's generally accepted unless it's really silly. Would it be unethical if I try to find sixty such articles - it'll all be wasted effort if this stub is deleted, but it might help make the point. What's the right thing to do under these circumstances? Thanks! -- Gaurav (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Best thing to do is either to create a list of them on a user subpage (e.g., User:Gaurav/Maharashtra stubs) or simply to mark any you find with {{Maharashtra-stub}} - chances are that even if it doesn't reach 60 stubs we'll keep the template and upmerge it (i.e., make it add stubs to a more general category like Category:India stubs). That way, if there aren't 60 stubs now, the template will already be ready for when there are. As you pointed out, there are already similar categories for a couple of states, so this is a reasonable type - it's just a question of whether there are enough articles for it. As for the points about what could be covered by it, the solution is often to "double-stub" articles - e.g., buildings in Maharashtra would get both {{Maharashtra-stub}} and {{India-struct-stub}}. Most of the sub-types you suggest wouldn't have enough articles to warrant separate templates, and in any case, some types are specifically not made for national subregions (most bio-stubs don't have them, for instance, since people are free to move from place to place - most of them are more likely considered connected to a country than to one specific region of it. for that reason, we wouldn't consider a Maharashtra-writer-stub, for instance). Grutness...wha? 06:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good; I'll go hunting tonight and put {{Maharashtra-stub}} anywhere relevant. If I can't prove that the category is useful, it'll get merged upwards somewhere. Thanks for your help, and all the best with cleaning up the stubs - it must be the Aegean stables itself! -- Gaurav (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Messianic Judaism-stub}} / Category:Messianic Judaism stubs

WPJ, smattering of articles. Looks like a rename and upmerge to me. Alai (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree. A rename's a definite (to lose the space), and unless there are a few dozen more articles areound upmerging seems a sensible option. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:natural science stubs

Not sure I see the point of this. I'm by no means against "container" categories, but this looks like it's trying to be an index of some kind. I'd be inclined to at the least remove the categories that wouldn't logically be top level children of this. Alai (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not overly sure of it myself, though as a parent-only type I doubt it does too much harm. Perhaps if it's kept a similar Category:Natural science researchers (or similar) subcat should become a first level child to house the astronomers, biologists etc. If it's kept. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Sims-stub}} / Category:The Sims stubs

Not too bad an idea for an upmerged template, perhaps, but there's damn-all evidence that this is going to come close to threshold for its own category. The parent Category:The Sims only has 23 articles, so even if every single one of them were a stub it would still be 37 short. The current Category:The Sims stubs contains one article, and has no parents - stub or permcat. Potential upmerger candidate, perhaps? Grutness...wha? 02:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Lebanon-footy-bio-stub}}

Looks OK, and I've now corrected the links to the (upmerged) categories. Would've been nice if it had been proposed first, though! Grutness...wha? 01:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, a split of Asian football biography stubs was proposed somewhere awhile back and accepted, so this shouldn't really be here.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Unproposed creation, a split from the hardly-overpopulated Category:Tyranni stubs, which only had 130 unsubcatted stubs. This currently has 30 stubs, and seems unlikely to reach threshold at present. Upmerging seems a most likely outcome. Grutness...wha? 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, didn't even know there was a Wikiproject regulating this when I created it. Just as a suggestion, is there a way to place the warning banner on the actual create-a-new-stub page? Anyways, upon viewing the criteria, the stub template won't meet the 60 benchmark as there are not 60 species of pittas. I created this new template because I thought, as the pittas are a unique family of birds with a fairly sizable number of species, it deserved its own stub template like many other bird families, such as the tyrant flycatchers or tapaculos. Additionally, the picture on the Tyranni stub template is that of a Scissor-tailed Flycatcher, which in terms of body shape looks nothing like a pitta; as for most of the stub articles it is the only image on the page, new readers unaware of what precisely a pitta is may see the picture of the flycatcher and assume that the pitta is similar in build. With a pitta-specific stub, a picture of a pitta can be used so that, even though there is not a picture of the actual species, a miniature image of a bird with a similar build is on the page. I didn't bring it up for discussion because A. I didn't know this place existed and B. I thought that it would be an uncontroversial move that I didn't need to mention at the Birds Wikiproject.

That said, per the 60 benchmark at least, the pitta stub seems to fail the qualifications outlined by this group, although I feel they are unique and numerous enough to warrant their own stub. If my logic above is not enough to merit the pittas having their own stub group, feel free to delete the group. I'll help put the Tyranni stub marker back in if there isn't a bot to do it. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if there are less than 60, the template can survive. The problem is with the category. If you look in Category:Tyranni stubs there are a couple of other templates with the same problem which are upmerged (i.e., the template feeds into the broader stub category. The same could be done here with no problem. As for your comment about the "create-a-stub page", I'm not sure which page you mean by that... most people wanting to find out about stubs would most likely go to WP:STUB, where it's already fairly prominently mentioned. Grutness...wha? 03:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, if the category is the problem then go ahead and fix it; I created it only to deredlink it at the bottom of the pitta stubs. For the "create-a-stub page", I made the stub by taking the existing stub command (whatever {{Pittidae-stub}} is called) and replacing the word Tyranni with Pittidae. I then previewed the page and clicked on the red link to create the stub. I copied the text from the Tyranni stub code and replaced it with the Pittidae specifics. The only note I ever saw was a small thing at the top of the create template page which asked me to make sure I wasn't duplicating anything. Does that help? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not really possible to put a separate warning on that, since stub templates are fortmed in exactly the same way as other templates. I'll take the category to WP:SFD - the template's not a problem though - I put it here as much as anything just because it was a discovery (i.e., not known by the stub-sorting WP). Grutness...wha? 01:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Do I need to do anything else? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really - as with my comments on Swaminarayan-stub below, if it gets close to 60, then feel free to propose re-creating the category at WP:WSS/P - other than that, it's pretty much sorted out :) Grutness...wha? 02:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Thailand-road-stub}} (redlinked)

Unproposed, but a reasonable template. Should be upmerged for now rather than having its own category if kept, though. Grutness...wha? 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Alai (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Swaminarayan-stub}}

Unproposed, and with no category link. presumably for the Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism, though Swaminarayan itself is a dab page. If kept, it will therefore need rewording, and likely also upmerging into Category:Hinduism stubs. Grutness...wha? 04:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Could anyone help with the rewording. I created the stub not knowing about this. There are at least 15 articles that could use it    Juthani1   ^tcs 15:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Grutness...wha? 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, is there anything else that needs to be done?    Juthani1   ^tcs 11:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is now - if ever it gets to be used on 60 or more articles, feel free to propose a separate category for it at WP:WSS/P, too. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)