Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2010/December
December 2010
[edit]Many sub-cats and sub-temps. Just created today. I have no objections to keeping them. Category:Australian women's football (soccer) biography stubs/{{Australia-women-footy-bio-stub}} Category:Norwegian women's football biography stubs/{{Norway-women-footy-bio-stub}} Category:New Zealand women's football (soccer) biography stubs/{{NewZealand-women-footy-bio-stub}} Category:German women's football (soccer) biography stubs/{{Germany-women-footy-bio-stub}} {{US-women-footy-bio-stub}} {{England-women-footy-bio-stub}} ~Gosox(55)(55) 13:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please refer to the original discussion found on this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2010/August. As you can see, the main category (Category:Women's association football biography stubs) was approved, as well as general consent that national subcategories would be quickly needed. Granted, the national sub-cats and templates were not officially registered. I took the liberty to copy the name of the main biography category for each country and just add 'women's' into the title. So, the reason for inconsistent naming in the subcategories, is because of inconsistent naming in the main national association football biography stub categories. (And the German category is Category:German women's football biography stubs). Dawynn (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- My bad, I completely missed that. My apologies. I believe that it's generally recommended that you get national subcats and temps approved, however, even though they can be speedied. (Correct me if I'm wrong?) ~Gosox(55)(55) 15:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep parent cat as proposed and keep the subcats as they would be speediable anyway, I think I mentioned creating upmerged templates in the discussion and that was supported do I have no problem with them at all. Waacstats (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Created 22 Dec, doesn't appear to have been discussed. Noticed it because the category had parent category Category:Stubs, which I've removed. PamD (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- The template name is distinctly non-standard and will need to be changed,
and there's no indication which Black Sea region these are for (if it's for the sea itself, then it's definitely faulty, but it could well be for a Black sea region of Ukraine, Turkey, or the like.Hm. Looks like it's for the black sea itself, which is also not a good way to split these stubs. they should be marked with whichever country has jurisdiction over the locations (or if none, with marine-geo-stub). And every onje of these stubs is already bcorrectly marked with that. Distinctly SFD material. Grutness...wha? 10:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)- Moved to SFD. Grutness...wha? 10:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Created today unproposed. The template seems OK, and the category's almost passable, though it was an unnecessary split given the current size of Category:Algae stubs. Looks a likely keeper. Grutness...wha? 18:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Whoops - skip this - just found the proposal. Grutness...wha? 18:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Not used and not even using the asbox template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- ...and already adequatelyu covered by the correctly named {{art-stub}} and various other related {{culture-stub}} types. This is an SFD candidate. Grutness...wha? 18:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
My cat scan of stub articles for the top 5 levels of Category:Kingdom of France revealed over 1000 articles as potential stubs. Some may be false positives, but I believe we have plenty to justify this category. My only issue is the template name. But I'm not sure what to propose. Any suggestions? Dawynn (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Any objection to {{KingdomOfFrance-stub}}? Dawynn (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- {{KingdomofFrance-stub}} would be better. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)