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

Newly discovered, April 2008

{{Portugal-actor-stub}} and {{Portugal-film-director-stub}}

Neither proposed, but both upmerged and potentially useful. Looks like keepers. Grutness...wha? 03:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cooks-geo-stub}} (up-categorized to Category:Oceania geography stubs)

Useful but not in the list. Powers ^T 02:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'twas proposed, though. Lots of nation-specific geo-stubs which have yet to get their own categories aren't on the main list, to avoid cluttering it up still further (you'll find a comprehensive "by country" list at User:Grutness/Geo-stub list. FWIW, at 35 stubs, the Cook Islands are well on their way towards "category independence". Grutness...wha? 03:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how was I supposed to know where to find that comprehensive list? Is there something wrong with the official list being the comprehensive one? Powers ^T 12:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, though the list I linked above has been mentioned frequently on the proposals page and elsewhere. As to "is there something wrong with the official list?" yes there is - it is already under fire for being too long and causing huge problems with loading (see, for instance, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types and Wikipedia: Village pump (technical) , for instance). Grutness...wha? 01:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I meant the "Geo" list moreso than the mega-huge(-won't-load-for-me-either) combined list. =) Powers ^T 21:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Child-stub}} / redlinked category

Unproposed, and possibly useful, though the potential scope for this one could be used for is so wide as to make it impractical - covering psych-stubs, med-stubs, toy-stubs, sociology-stubs, school-stubs, and a host of other more specifically-scoped stub types. As such, SFD is a possible outcome. Category is redlinked, which is just as well, since it uses the long discarded "-related" format (Category:Child-related stubs) Only used on one article, which is also a psych-stub. Might be better changed into something like a child-psych-stub (or developmental-psych-stub) or paediatrics-stub rather than having something this broad and unwieldy. Grutness...wha? 02:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry—I checked at the main page (WikiProject Stub Sorting), but at first I couldn't find a proposals/policy page, but that's because I only skimmed it. Anyway, it's my fault. So…pretty much any outcome is fine with me, especially if it turns out something more specific that can be used in articles related to the one I first put the stub on. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:59 27 April, 2008 (UTC)

{{Alaska-bio-stub}} / Category:Alaska people stubs

despite WP:WSS's general rule of "no bio-stubs for subnational regions", Alaska has now become the sixth US state to have an unproposed bio-stub and category created for it. On size grounds it's fine, but - as always - there's the distinct risk of these stub types being used liberally for anyone who lives in a state for a few years, leading to massive overtemplating of anyone who moves house a lot. Grutness...wha? 02:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone "moves around a lot" — not just living here and there, but actually doing something during their stay, something worth mentioning (otherwise few would know and fewer would care about the places the person had resided, making massive over-templating improbable as the selection of stub templates generally depends on the article's existing content) — that alone would likely yield enough information to expand their article beyond the magical "stub" threshold. Thus if there is a "distinct risk" of a problem, it would be self-correcting in most cases.

In the remaining cases, yours would be a better argument for adopting guidelines on how to decide which stub templates are most appropriate (and omit those of lesser relevance) than for limiting the types of stub templates which should be created. Apologies if something like this already exists, but if so I haven't seen it. — CharlotteWebb 10:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that something like that is probably needed. An example of the sort of potential problem I mentioned with people moving would be something like George Andrews (footballer), which would - if stubbing were based on subnational region - be not only and England-football-bio-stub, but also a Bedfordshire-bio-stub, WestMidlands-bio-stub, Cardiff-bio-stub, Lancashire-bio-stub, Shropshire-bio-stub, Staffordshire-bio-stub and Worcestershire-bio-stub (these on the basis of the clubs represented) - all without yielding enough information for this to be more than a stub article. The same problem would occur with many sportspeople worldwide. Using the most appropriatee templates almost always results in there being no need for a specific subregion-bio-stub - the few bios that are specifically related to particular subregions are usually covered by subregion-politician-stubs and (every now and again) subregion-pioneer-stubs. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been my experience that over-templating occurs more often with people who fall into multiple occupational categories, such as musicians who play multiple instruments and do a bit of acting on the side. I don't think the free agency of sports leagues is a legitimate reason to use geography-based stub templates for any location other than place of birth. If other users disagree about this, which they might, it would be another reason to adopt a guideline for when to use what, or to just impose an arbitrary maximum like "pick the 2/3/4 most relevant ones and forget about the others". — CharlotteWebb 17:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your experience tends to be different to mine, I must say. As, it would seem, do your experiences with people reading and sticking to guidelines. We already have a guideline as to the number of stub templates to use (up to four of the most relevant ones, preferably only two or three), but that doesn't mean people sticking to them. As to only using country of birth, that simply wouldn't work - it would mean, for instance, that a stub on Golda Meir would be a Ukraine-bio-stub, and one on John McEnroe would be a Germany-bio-stub. John McCain's would of course be a Panama-bio-stub, and Freddie Mercury's would be a Tanzania-bio-stub. Going by place of birth ignores the areas they are most associated with - areas that often encompass a whole country rather than a specific subnational area. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "country of birth", I said "location of birth" and I was referring to sub-national regions as in the example above about George Andrews (footballer) having played for several UK teams. I thought that was made clear where I said "free agency of sports leagues". I agree the suggestions regarding John McCain, et al. are absurd. If his article were a stub and it would probably be an "arizona-bio-stub" (if said template exists and "arizona-politician-stub" doesn't). Sincere apologies for the confusion. — CharlotteWebb 13:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think state-level stubs are okay if the numbers exist to support them. I realize we don't generally categorize by sub-national divisions but if the numbers require it, why not? Individuals not strongly associated with a single state (or maybe two) would just be categorized under the country as normal. Powers ^T 13:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's probably the way we're heading. There has been strong resistance to the idea in the past though, so it was definitely worth mentioning as a potential problem. As I said, there are a few other US states that have their own bio-stubs though, so purely personally I don't think it's too much of a problem as long as it's kept monitored. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Brazil-scientist-stub}}/Category:Brazilian scientist stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, but seems a sensible scope for a template at least. Currently only a couple of stubs, so upmerging may be an option if that doesn't change drastically. Category also needs some work (no parents, a single article link as the description, etc). Grutness...wha? 01:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Brazil-scientist-stub is based on the French template. I thought, in creating the new template, that this would be standard across countries, and I did not know about the need for prior proposal. The parent category should be Brazilian scientists. With few exceptions, these biographies are stubs and need work. I can think of at least 30 top Brazilian biologists whose bios will have to start out as stubs until we can fill an Infobox scientist. --Wloveral (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)--Wloveral (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals are useful (both to double-check that they are made properly - including things like adding parent categories - and also, how else are stub sorters to know what stub types to use?). Also, there are set thresholds for the number of stubs currently existing before a category is created - unless there is a specific WikiProject relating directly to brazilian scientists, the threshold is 60 stubs. If you can find 60 articles tha will fit the category, then all well and good; if not, it may need upmerging (i.e., keeping the template but pointing it at a more general category like Category:Scientist stubs unil the number of stubs grows). I've fixed the category with appropriate permcat and stubcat parents, BTW. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is upmerged it should be upmerged to Category:Brazilian people stubs and Category:Scientist stubs. Waacstats (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The highly diverse List of Brazilian scientists includes well over 60 Brazilian scientists who are notable but yet without biographies on Wikipedia. Many of the existing biographies of Brazilian scientists are, in fact, stubs, albeit without a proper Brazilian scientist-stub template. In due time, I would like to contribute biographies of Brazilian zoologists and reduce the red links on this list. --Wloveral (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC) corrected --Wloveral (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once they are made, there will be no problem having a stub category. Until there are, there is no indication that there are 60 stubs. Stub categories are created based on current need and current stub numbers - not on potential future numbers. Almost every soublecy theoretically could have 60 stubs created for it, but unless it actually has those stubs the category is just clutter. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How much time do I have to write 60 scientific biographies? There are already 19 on the "Category:Brazilian scientist stubs" page. Maybe by the end of the week... Cheers, --Wloveral (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Correction: we have 22. --Wloveral (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no immediate hurry - items often hang around here on the discovery page for some time. If there's no change in the category for a month or so, it's likely to be proposed for deletion at WP:SFD, but if it's clearly growing it'll be likely left here until it either stops growing or reaches threshold. Grutness...wha? 07:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the information. We are at 29. --Wloveral (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC). Correction: 44. --Wloveral (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC). Update: over 60! --Wloveral (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, it looks like a keeper. Good work :) Grutness...wha? 02:01, 30 April 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.

{{mil-memorial-stub}} & Category:Military memorials and cemeteries stubs

Doesn't appear in the Stubs category hierarchy. Found while looking for a generic cemetery stub template (which doesn't seem to exist, so not sure where in the hierarchy this should go). Powers ^T 14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was the result of a deletion process (see Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2007/October/15#.7B.7BMilitary-memorials-and-cemeteries-stub.7D.7D). I'm still not overly happy with it, but given the attitude of the cretor of the original I'm a bit leery of tangling again. It's still pretty small, mind, and does cut through the "by country" system (one which I suspect would make sense in this case). As to where in the hierarchy, I'd put it under buildings and structures, since many of them are memorials (cemeteries would normally go under geo-stubs) - then again, there may be a section for cemeteries in the hierarchy somewhere and this could fit there. Grutness...wha? 23:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is an approved {{cemetery-stub}} on the to-do list. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Mobile-stub}} & {{Mobile}}

The former appears to have been unproposed, but is being used in a number of mobile phone related articles. It doesn't have its own category, instead it feeds Category:Wireless stubs. The latter seems to be a poorly worded and little used duplicate. PC78 (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawdy. I was sure those had been SFD'd, but I can find no sign of it (I may be getting confused with Category:Mobile, which I took to CFD a few months back). These both need sfd'ing, and the sooner the better, before we start getting stubs about Alabama piling up in them. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unproposed... I can definitely see the sense in this split, but it cuts across the current part-completed split of fish stubs. Actually, in some ways, this makes more sense than the current split, since splitting by class (rather than order, which is how the other splits have been done) makes for broader, larger categories. Something needs to be done one way or the other though... many of the stubs that would fit into this new stub type are already covered by the likes of characiformes-stub and its ilk. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, the reason I did it by class instead of order was because I had read somewhere once that a stub should be good for something like 250+ instances, and so I took the fishes I was wanting to stub with more than just {{fish-stub}} and took the deepest taxon I was sure I had seen hundreds of times, and made a stub out of that. As I mentioned on Grutness's talk page, let me know if I need to take any action to fix any problems this may have caused. Bob the Wikipedian, a WikiDragon (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading what you wrote a bit closer, what you are saying makes sense. I didn't even realize I was doing cutting across the system, the appropriate thing to do would have been to create {{Acanthomorpha-stub}}, {{Alepisauriformes-stub}}, and {{Aspidorhynchiformes-stub}}, although Acanthomorpha contains 11 pages and won't expand much further, and Alepisauriformes is near its max at 2. Aspidorhynchiformes still has quite a ways to go and could probably qualify for its own stub. Bob the Wikipedian, a WikiDragon (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

56(!) new airport-stub templates and five new categories

The spring thaw must've got to CambridgeBayWeather... in the last 24 hours he's created unproposed {{Foo-airport-stub}} types for every country in Africa (including at least one unrecognised territory), plus five regional categories for them. Since we only had 450 or so African airport stubs, this seems like overkill, but at least the regional categories all scrape past the 60 stub threshold (in one case only just). On misnamed one, plus the unrecognised state one (Somaliland) have gone to SFD, but the rest can probably stay, I guess... full details are shown here. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Flevoland-geo-stub}} (upmerged)

Somehow this one got missed out when we were dividing the Dutch provinces out of Netherlands geography stubs. An editor has seen fit to correct that - a clear keeper, I'd say. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]