Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Archive17
- 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
Created today, used on 13 articles. Since we have other OS-related stubs, this might be useful; the category would need to have the capitalization corrected, tho.--Mairi 05:56, 18 December 2005 (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.
- Update:Listed on list of stub redirects. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{BBC-radio-stub}} & {{BBC-TV-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
And their categories Category:BBC Radio Stubs and Category:BBC Television Stubs. Used never and 6 times, respectively. If we decide we don't even want {{BBC-stub}}, as was mentioned, these ought to go too. At the very least the categories need the capitalization corrected. --Mairi 05:16, 17 December 2005 (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.
Television network 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
- {{ABC-stub}} / Category:ABC stubs
- {{CBS-stub}} / Category:CBS stubs
- {{NBC-stub}} / Category:NBC stubs
All 3 are US television networks. All 3 were created today, and are unused. --Mairi 02:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- hopefully all should remain so - I don't think this is a particularly useful split at all. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet {{BBC-stub}} is? All three have origins going back to radio. The main problem with them is that only CBS is reasonably unambiguous. Caerwine 05:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point - I'd forgotten BBC stub (although I'm not sure that's too useful, either. Which ABC is it, BTW, the U.S. one or the Australian one? Grutness...wha? 08:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- All three are for the major American broadcast networks, so ABC = American Broadcast Company. I found out about the {{ABC-stub}} when it was tagged to one of the articles on my watchlist.
- I shrunk down the graphic on the ABC-stub. I think that there should be some standard for the size of stub graphics because I keep seeing all sorts of sizes. I'd have to go back through the edit histories, but I also think that some stubs have had their graphics made slightly large recently. BlankVerse 12:57, 6 December 2005 (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.
- 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
Created today, used on 18 articles. It probably could be viable, but it has the same problem's that've been mentioned with previous stubs for specific networks.
- 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.
{{Casino-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
Created yesterday without proposal. Used by 20 articles, but lacks a category, and I'm not certain how populated it could get. Perhaps redirect to {{hotel-corp-stub}}? GeeJo (t) (c) • 20:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake, listed at Proposals under "Resort, Hotel, Casino". GeeJo (t) (c) • 20:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well yes, it was, but the proposal was met with the answer that this stub wasn't necessary since hotel-corp-stub already existed! Grutness...wha? 22:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it was met with the question if the proposer, User:Texaswebscout (also the template's creator), had {{hotel-corp-stub}} in mind, which he apparently hadn't. It wasn't so much met with the answer that it wasn't necessary. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose so... I wish I'd realised I'd misread it that way at the time - I would have objected, or at least asked Texaswebscout to make sure they were double-stubbed with the specific location-struct-stub. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well yes, it was, but the proposal was met with the answer that this stub wasn't necessary since hotel-corp-stub already existed! Grutness...wha? 22:21, 23 January 2006 (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.
- 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
Created today, used on 53 articles. Worth keeping; perhaps {{theology-stub}} should be unredirected too? --Mairi 06:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - completely viable. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:15, 29 November 2006 (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.
- 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 rename to extrasolar-planet
Created today, used once. Might be useful, but if so the category probably ought to be renamed to match Category:Extrasolar planets. --Mairi 07:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm doubtful about whether it would be useful. Most of the articles in Category:Extrasolar planets are articles about the stars with a section about the extrasolar planet. That would seem to be a reasonable convention, especially for exoplanets where the Wiki only has a stub amount of information about the planet. A stub for planetary systems as a way of paring some articles from the overlarge {{star-stub}} might be useful. I'll leave a note on Astronomical objects wiki project talk page and see what they think. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:16, 8 January 2006 (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.
{{mathbiostub}}
[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
Redirect to {{mathematician-stub}} -- along with {{mathbio-stub}} and {{math-bio-stub}}. Can we perhaps sic a bot on these to eliminate some of these redirects, and then get rid of at least the first one, as badly named? Doubtless if we put it straight onto SFD with the current (huge) number of transclusions, there will be much yelping. Alai 22:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, {{math-bio-stub}} may be the most well-formed of the 3 redirects, but it also had <50 articles using it, so I just retagged them manually. The other two each have hundreds. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ISTR that mathbiostub was the original name, before we started making all the template names uniform. It could probably go with being removed, though, as could mathbio-stub. The others look fine. Grutness...wha? 23:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No matter which one is used {{math-bio-stub}} or {{mathematician-stub}} - the first is probably better for simplicity's sake, there's no use keeping the redirects. They only confuse more than they help (IMO). Valentinian (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2006 (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.
- Currently at SFD. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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
Created today without a proposal. It doesn't have its own category and uses Category:Music stubs instead, which is not correct. Currently used in only 2 articles and appears to be part of WP:AFR. --Bruce1ee 09:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If people wish to change the current system of how to arrange musical stubs, the correct way would have been to propose it first. It should be deleted. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 08:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and populate Monni 10:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently at SFD for rename. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:54, 19 October 2006 (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.
{{Pirate-stub}} & {{Privateer-stub}} / No categories
[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
Included in 19 and 14 articles respectively, without much hope of rapid expansion. Both were created today (14 April), have no associated WikiProject, and the templates just feed the articles into the main category spaces Category:Pirates and Category:Privateers rather than stub categories. If they stay, I'd suggest merging them with each other in some way, maybe a {{Navy-bio-stub}} to bring in other articles from Category:Military biographical stubs and its subsidiaries for some bulk. GeeJo (t) (c) • 19:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Navy-bio-stub seems a little antithetical - although many pirates were naval characters, they're often thought of as being specifically non-navy. A merge of some sort would be better - possibly into pirate-bio-stub. I'd suggest buccaneer-stub, but both buccaneer and privateer seem to refer primarily to specific types of pirate, so pirate-bio-stub has the broadest catchment. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course there'll have to be something to make explicit whether or not the template is for traditional Long John Silver-style pirates, or will include people guilty of Software piracy or Pirate radio broadcasts. GeeJo (t) (c) • 01:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- mm. Good point. Any other possible name suggestions? Grutness...wha? 07:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Form a {{Sailor-stub}} and dual it with {{crime-bio-stub}}, I guess. GeeJo (t) (c) • 03:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Bumping this. I found it again today. Cat for Privateer-stub is Category:Privateers Amalas =^_^= 18:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- UPDATE: Found SFD discussion here rescoping this. As a result, I'm going to list this. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:09, 6 December 2006 (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.
- 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
Reporting this one really bugs me and most of you probably know my opinion regarding Belarus, but here goes; created today and used on 19 articles (mostly on political parties, which normally have been stubbed with {{Belarus-stub}} and {{euro-party-stub}}. Three problems with this one:
- It is way below the size threshold.
- The template uses "politics-" rather than "poli-"
- The use of the pre-Lukashenko flag is associated with the opposition. Valentinian (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding issue no. 3, I've swapped the image to a neutral map. Anyway, I'm not convinced this template will be viable. Valentinian (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2006 (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.
- Currently at SFD. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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
AFAIK it wasn't proposed, undersized with 35 articles. Alai suggested upmerging to a new UK category, seems like a good idea to me. New cat would also be good home for Welsh clubs, and a new parent for the Scots and English stub cats. --Eivindt@c 05:18, 12 May 2006 (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.
- 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
Created earlier this month and used on only one article. It appears to be associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject The Legend of Zelda series. As there are approximately 103 Legend of Zelda articles in total, I don't think there is a prospect of the stubs growing to a substantial number in the near future. Road Wizard 23:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also one of the most hideous-looking stub templates I've seen in my life. I'd recommend a mercy-SFDing. Alai 00:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes. Valentinian (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2006 (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.
- 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
- We already knew we had {{Belarus-politics-stub}} / Category:Belarusian politics stubs but it seems that we have *two* oddly-named and underused templates relating to this county. The "history" one is used on a mere 15 articles and the "politics" one is used on 19. I hate to say it, but I doubt any of them will reach threshold. Both were created on 27 May. Valentinian (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently at SFD. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:00, 19 October 2006 (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.
- 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
Associated non-stub categories are Category:Academic transfer and Category:Educational programs. Stub template created 1 June 2006 by User:^o^. Less than 50 articles are tagged with this template as of 11 June 2006. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What the @#$%^& have they got to do with AP? If kept (which I'm very doubtful or the worth of) it'll need a drastic rename. Grutness...wha? 06:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (Watch your blood pressure, we can't afford to lose you). Ok, if we give this one the benefit of the doubt, perhaps only 95% of the World's population will think of the Associated Press first. Still, this means a drastic rename is in order iff the template is kept at all. I have to admit this material confuses me: some of the "articles" using it contain no text at all save a template. My first hunch would be to use {{edu-stub}} and just axe this one. On a more general note: I can see that this College Board (whatever it is) describes itself as not-for-profit (not non-profit), but this entire material looks a wee bit too much like an advertisement for my taste. Valentinian (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- :) I'm fine (and thanks for the compliment!). SFD would be fine with me, too, since this doesn't make much sense and, as we both pointed out one way or the other, it's not what people are most likely to think of when they think AP. (FWIW, I actually work for one of the other APs on the list at AP (disambiguation) - Allied Press, but to me, A.P. means my gf - they're her initials :). Grutness...wha? 11:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can hear somebody sharpening an axe. Valentinian (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What the @#$%^& have they got to do with AP? If kept (which I'm very doubtful or the worth of) it'll need a drastic rename. Grutness...wha? 06:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI: College Board is both the company which administers the tests and the company which publishes test guide books for them. APs are a big deal for educators and the whole college-entrance industry. If kept, imho it should go under {{edu-stub}} per Grutness. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:31, 11 June 2006 (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.
- Currently at SFD. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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
Horribly named, used on many articles, half of which were blank and have been redirected, half of the rest are blatant and obvious copyviolations. So much cleanup needed - I can't even begin... - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure this one's discussed further up the page. It's pretty horrible. And you didn't even mention the part about the template being transcluded onto those pages... Grutness...wha? 03:44, 23 June 2006 (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.
- Currently at SFD. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{Croatia-hist-stub}} / Category:Croatian history stubs and {{Serbia-hist-stub}} / Category:Serbian history 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
These two were created within the last week or so, but they are very undersized. I doubt they'll be able to reach 60 anytime soon (unless I've missed a lot of articles on the Bosnian war). Valentinian (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2006
(UTC)
- My error: The Croatian material is listed further up this page. Still massively undersized through. Valentinian (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2006 (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.
- 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
Created today, 8 articles so far. --Dijxtra 19:37, 3 July 2006 (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.
Buffyverse
[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
Here comes Template:Whedon-stub (not in stub types), its redirect Template:Buffyverse-stub (yes in stub types, though should have been SfD'd, I think), and its cat, Category:Buffyverse stubs. - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm... I've used the Buffyverse-stub on a ton (well it seemed like a ton) of articles, but it's not really on that many. There is a Buffyverse WikiProject that has the buffyverse-stub on their template list. There were some random things in the SFD archive (Whedonverse stubs). *shrug* ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have guessed {{Buffy-stub}} as the name for this. Including 88 articles in Category:Angel episode stubs it's well over threshold. Kappa 14:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! If you check the archive you'll find that this is an old and long-established stub type. It was deliberately named Buffyverse rather than simply Buffy, since the latter would imply that it was only for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and not for "Angel" or any other spin-offs. It was in fact, IIRC, merged from two stubs called whedon-stub and buffy-stub, which had been separately created for just this reason (one for BTVS and one for all of the other related projects). It was about March last year, IIRC, and - if you look at the history, you'll see that it was long-time stubsorter Ceyockey who did the work. It should be at Buffyverse-stub not at Whedon-stub, though - why the redirect was reversed is a mystery (it was certainly never proposed, and I'm reverting it). Grutness...wha? 00:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This and this are the relevant discussions. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 20 August 2006 (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.
- 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
37 articles right now, but that's about the only thing that this one has going against it. It's well-named, and despite the size, I'm not so sure that it's worth deleting. --fuzzy510 19:56, 13 August 2006 (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.
- 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
I just found both of these, neither of which seems to have been proposed, and which seem a little malformed at best. Can someone SFD them or redirect {{Berbers-stub}} to the other one? Aelfthrytha 15:22, 13 September 2006 (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.
- 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 rename
On first inspection, seems well-formed. Populated with 38 stubs, and there is an associated WikiProject, for what it's worth. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Awful template name, though - MMA fails the disambig test. Grutness...wha? 07:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding its low population - Category:Martial arts stubs has got over 800 articles in it, and I'll bet quite a few of them are about mixed martial arts. Perhaps a rename to {{Mixed-martial-arts-stub}}, and some populating from the parent category, will sort this one out? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 600-odd, by my count, though a stitch in time... Population's not an issue for me, given the wikiproject, and I'm not that bothered about the template name -- though I might be biased, having not heard of any of the various other MMAs. (Some items on that list look a little speculative, especially when the associated article doesn't even mention "MMA" as an abbreviation.) Alai 09:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding its low population - Category:Martial arts stubs has got over 800 articles in it, and I'll bet quite a few of them are about mixed martial arts. Perhaps a rename to {{Mixed-martial-arts-stub}}, and some populating from the parent category, will sort this one out? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm taking this one to sfr. Cheers, Pegship 14:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: It's been renamed Category:Mixed martial arts stubs and {{mixedmartialart-stub}}. Pegship 23:41, 3 November 2006 (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.
{{Iceland-airline-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
No cat, currently used on 3 articles. It now feeds into Category:Iceland stubs and Category:European airline stubs.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 13:35, 14 September 2006 (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.
- 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 renamed
There must be some deep (or otherwise) reason by FL is the first state to split out anything -- invariably undersized and unproposed, of course. The template was created for our regional split, and so in fine (aside from the stonkingly over-height image it's just had added), but the category will either have to be populated adequately, or deleted. Alai 21:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah - give it a month, and if there's no luck, then sfd the cat. Note that with the new country-geo-stubs I've been deliberately adding a commented note asking people not to make specific categories without going through the proposal process - perhaps the same should be done on these templates Grutness...wha? 04:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC) (suppressing the urge to comment on "problems with Florida" and US presidential elections)[reply]
- Update: The category was renamed Category:Florida building and structure stubs for conformity. Her Pegship 12:50, 18 October 2006 (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.
{{Berbers-stub}} / Category:Berbers stubs - {{Berber-stub}} / no category
[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
Just found these two, created 27 August and 6 September respectively, lists 19 and 4. I don't recall these being approved and they duplicate each other.--Thomas.macmillan 21:08, 1 October 2006 (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.
anyone know anything about this one? Only 18 stubs, despite being created two months ago, and a curious mix of ethno-group stubs, hist-stubs and geo-stubs. Template and category have unnecessary plural names, too. Looks like potential SFD material... Grutness...wha? 23:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooops - just noticed it (with the same suggestiuon of SFD) further up the page. Okay, SFD it is... Grutness...wha? 00:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{Sahaja-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
Created October 11, 2006. There has been a recent campaign to introduce multiple vanity articles on Wikipedia which are related to this religion (some call it a cult) of Sahaja Yoga, and this stub appears to be part of that. I recommend deletion. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaja Yoga International. --NovaSTL 10:23, 17 October 2006 (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.
- 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
Don't remember this one being proposed... 32 stubs in two months. Well-formed, and there is a Wikiproject. Probably a keeper. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 16 October 2006 (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.
{{HongKong-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 list on WP:STUBS
Guess who? 50 stubs and well formed, though, so probably a keeper. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 21 October 2006 (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.
{{Rwanda-bio-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
Created today without debate, along with its appropriate category (which has no parents, stub or otherwise). Otherwise well-formed, but completely empty, and the chances of it getting to threshold are low, to say the least (there are only 80 non-geo stubs for Rwanda in total, and fewer than half of those are bio-stubs). An upmerging of the template and deletion of the category may be a reasonable option. Grutness...wha? 03:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have gone through the rwanda-stub and much of the category:rwanadan people and stub sorted it up to 52. I think its worth keeping. Rwanda, like most African countries, is poorly sorted. With enough love and attention, I think both stubs are worth keeping.--Thomas.macmillan 05:24, 23 October 2006 (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.
{{Vexillology-stub}} / no cat.
[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 redirect to flag-stub
This one has apparently been around since May but it was only used on four articles, I only found it because I'm going through all flag- and heraldry-related material. I haven't taken this one up with WP:HV (yet) but I doubt we'll need it. I've retagged the affected articles with {{flag-stub}}. Nice image though. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 09:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Even as a vexillologist myself I can't really see much of a need for this one - perhaps just making it a redirect to flag-stub will be enough? Grutness...wha? 23:06, 30 October 2006 (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.
- 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 Category renamed.
Currently contains 42 articles, but there probably could be more. Category name isn't well formed. --CarabinieriTTaallkk 22:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very much open to suggestions. I've looked through Category:Belgium stubs and don't think there are currently more articles that can be sorted into that category, but surely there are more to come later! What could be better about the catname? It's follows the uniformity of Category:Sports by country. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but stub categories tend to avoid the "X of Y stubs" construction where possible because it's cumbersome and not particularly grammatical. The usual form would be Category:Belgian sports stubs, IIRC. Grutness...wha? 03:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't that be confusing, because people might think that it's a stub category for sports invented in or traditional for Belgium?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It works fine like that for other countries, though - as you say - it cound a little misleading. As long as it's adequately explained in the category and template, though, it shouldn't cause any problems. Grutness...wha? 23:09, 30 October 2006 (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.
- 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
Atrociously named and unnecessary, but I'm following instructions and listing it here before (I hope) taking it to sfd. There are only two articles in Category:Punjabi-language films and no stub templates for any films in other Indic languages. I don't even want to tidy up the parent cats in case it encourages anyone. Pegship 00:03, 4 November 2006 (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.
- 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 for rename
Created in March, used on 25 articles, not listed on the stub types list. I have no problem with it personally but would like to have it renamed with correct case, i.e. Category:Finnish artist stubs. Cheers, Pegship 00:14, 6 November 2006 (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.
- 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
The template and category were created on August 13 2006; there are currently 189 stubs in this category. The parent category (which I just added to this subcategory this morning) contains just under 600 stubs. Slambo (Speak) 14:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- seems viable size-wise, but the name... is this for Victoria, Australia, or for railways between 1837 and 1901? if the former, as I suspect, then victoria-rail-stub should be the name of the template, and the category needs some kind of re-think name-wise, too. Grutness...wha? 05:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Being another crazy 'Merkan, that was my first thought too, and rail transport research is my specialty. It's on SFD now to change Victorian → Victoria. Slambo (Speak) 11:51, 9 November 2006 (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.
{{Cephalopod-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
Seems we've had a well-populated Category:Cephalopod stubs since March. Looks like a keeper - nice of WikiProject Cephalopods to let us know about it (grrr). Grutness...wha? 20:53, 2 November 2006 (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.
Surgery 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
And another new addition to the list which hasn't passed through here:
- Surgery stubs {{surgery-stub}} - 62 on November 11.
At least this one looks reasonable in terms of its construction and number of stubs (actually 59, not 62). Prtobably a keeper, assuming it fits within the hierarchy, which someone with more knowledge on the subject needs to check. Grutness...wha? 21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ahh...skip that. It looks like it's been around a while but just didn't make it to the list for some reason. Given that Alai's edited it at some point in the past, it was very probably proposed. Grutness...wha? 21:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it was. Good to see that a hard-earned reputation for pedantry pays some dividends... (Though I have to say, I haven't really been 'patrolling' for SFD or /D purposes much recently, so that wouldn't really follow if I was fixing up obvious problems pro temps, or indeed something "obviously OK" but never actually proposed.) Alai 07:52, 12 November 2006 (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.
- 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
Naming seems kind of odd. Agathoclea 18:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Check WikiProject Munich. There's a lot more where that came from. I've also made a comment on the WPSS talk page. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Given how much footballers move around, this seems like a very silly idea. We tend to avoid even state-spceific bio-stubs, except for politicians. Having city-specific ones would only be far worse. Stationary items like those covered by geo-stub or hist-stub make some plausible sense, but not bio-stubs. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't worry about my stub here. This was excluse for WikiProject Munich. Kingjeff 23:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No stub types are for the exclusive use of any one wikiproject. That is why this project exists - to tries to coordinate them all for overall wikipedian use. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the rest of the list:
- {{Munich-company-stub}}
- {{Munich-hist-stub}}
- {{Munich-bio-stub}}
{{Munich-footy-bio-stub}}duplicate listing, my fault.- {{Munich-politician-stub}}
- {{Munich-university-stub}}
- {{Munich-geo-stub}}
- {{Munich-struct-stub}}
The ones I checked weren't used at all or (in one case) by a single article. Note: The template for the Munich U-Bahn is an older creation, so I've not included it here. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to mention that categories also exist. Btw, I just noticed an interesting thread that the author did know of WP:WSS procedure but ignored it. And that he will "appeal" any decision that goes against his wishes to have a ton of templates, see User_talk:Nishkid64#Munich-related_stub_templates (appeals to whom?) None of them is used except for the one about the footballers (well, I resorted one article about a mayor). SFD seems like the only option. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 01:18, 22 November 2006 (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.
- 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
Created last month, already has 65 uses but isn't listed on the Stub types page. Couldn't find it on Proposals either, although it could be archived by now. An equivalent US stub exists. Fleebo 05:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I proposed this a while ago, but didn't act on it myself. Alai 12:53, 28 November 2006 (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.
- 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
Created on the pattern of the various per-decade splits, but not proposed, and not populated (one article). Alai 01:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been finding numbers of 1940s stub articles within {{novel-stub}}, I have been sorting them to {{1940s-novel-stub}} in the hope this will be approved. The template needs to be sorted point to the category on approval. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; I have big faith in WikiProject Novels to make good use of it. Her Pegship 16:09, 29 November 2006 (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.
{{Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus-stub}} / Category:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus 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
Created yesterday. All of you probably know what I think about material like this. Used on 5 articles. I thought a TRNC-stub had been rejected back in September? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 19:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It was. SFD awaits... Grutness...wha? 23:08, 25 November 2006 (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.
{{Stub-RBARWS}}
[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
I just found {{Stub-RBARWS}} which is categorized under stubs --- Skapur 15:59, 26 November 2006 (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.
- 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
It looks like the Caucasus templates are multiplying. This one was created around a week ago. Nicely formed but not proposed. It is used on around 50 articles, and the collection seems to me to be somewhat none-standard. It would probably be a good idea to recheck this material. As commented elsewhere, the parent category is rather empty and I wouldn't rule out an upmerge either. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:09, 12 November 2006 (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.
- 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
Seems this has been around for six months, but has nly just been added to the stub type tree. In six months, it has gained an astonishing seven stub articles. Unless it can be got up to speed soon, it's in severe danger of SFD-hood. Grutness...wha? 05:35, 21 November 2006 (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.
- 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
Created yesterday, and redundant with Category:London geography stubs, which includes the borough of Richmond. --Stemonitis 10:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Send to SFD. Some of the articles are rail stations and we have plenty of templates for those as well. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:28, 29 November 2006 (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.