Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2009/February

Newly discovered, February 2009

NEW DISCOVERIES

{{BDSM-bio-stub}} / {{Category:BDSM biography stubs

Possibly useful but this currently has 22 articles and the parent less than 100, may be best to upmerge template. Waacstats (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I initally thought this was a great idea for splitting Ireland stubs, till I found out we split at the county level and we appear to have all the templates at that level. Given that it may be a keeper if there is significant numbers of articles likely to be related to connacht in general or be across numourous counties (mountains, rivers, lakes etc). Leaving here in case any of our geo experts think it will be useful. Waacstats (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Waacstats, Irish geography is primarily categorised by county, and the stub categories follow the same pattern. However, Mejor Los Indios (talk · contribs) created last year a bunch of by-province categories for landforms, which were deleted at a 29 March 2008 CfD. Several of them were recreated by the same editor earlier this month, and I speedy deleted them a fortnight ago: see my note here.
It looks like I missed this stub template in the tidyup, but it should be deleted along with the categories. It appears not to be used in any articles, so there is no need for any merger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take to SFD. It makes more sense to work on a by-county level. Also this would create a further problem, as hinted at by BHG, since it would suggest we should also have Leinster-, Munster-, and Ulster-geo-stub types - and the latter of those would be cross-border (taking in both RoI and NI). Grutness...wha? 00:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created it specifically for articles that cross county boundaries in Connacht, so as to avoid the necessity of having a stub for each county concerned, e.g. Lough Allen. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The parent Category:Geography of Connacht was deleted, so the question of whether of categorise geography by province has already been decided as a "no". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a totally different question; unlike replacing county geo-stubs with provincial ones, categorising by province does not exclude categorising by county. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reply - what's wrong with using stubs for separate counties? That's the systemk used with all other geo-stubs for everywhere else worldwide. And having these stubs marked with a province-level stub type will simply remove them from the county-level stub categories - which is where local editors would be more likely to look for articles to expand. It would end up being counter-productive. Grutness...wha? 22:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it end? Rivers often go through several counties; are they all to get their geo-stubs and categories on the page? Mejor Los Indios (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum of four stub templates - if something is in more than four counties, the national geo-stub template is used. This is standard practice for stub sorting for all countries worldwide. Grutness...wha? 21:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It couldn't be; not all countries are divided into counties. But if a river flows through four different counties and stays in the same province (I very much doubt this is applicable to Connacht), would it then be acceptable to you to use a provincial geo-stub? Mejor Los Indios (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Counties or the equivalent, and in answer to your question, no. Grutness...wha? 01:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question There seems to be consensus here to delete this stub type. Per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, is there any useful purpose in repeating this discussion at WP:SFD? Shouldn't it just be deleted now? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion probably should have been moved to SFD a while back. It is still worth listing it there, with a link to this discussion. I can understand not wanting to go through the whole process, but it's as well to have it listed at SFD. That page SFD attracts a slightly different audience to this one, and not listing it might just set an unhealthy precedent for deletion straight from the discovery page - WP:WSS are called Wikinazis often enough, without giving disgruntled editors more ammo (the shortcut is perhaps unfortunate, in that regard!). It would also be useful to have the deletion (or otherwise) recorded in the SFD archives permanently. Grutness...wha? 23:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very bureaucratic, but now listed at Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#.7B.7BConnacht-geo-stub.7D.7D. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Electric-vehicle-stub}} Category:Electric vehicle stubs

mentioned in a discussion back in Sept 2008 but turned down as {{EV-stub}}, could be of use but there appeared to be a general dislike of this type at the proposal. Currently used on only 1 stub. Waacstats (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is similar to {{vehicle-stub}}, but about electric vehicles. I am sure the new stub type is vital for Wikipedia, because constantly are appearing new electric vehicles and the number of appearings is dramatically going to increase in the next months. Also, new govermental tax incentives are going to speed up this trend. Not used in more stubs, because of the recent creation. .--Nopetro (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Toponymy-stub}} / redlinked

Unproposed, currently unused, and, to be honest, I'd say of very limited use. Most articles relating to the toponyms of specific places are, by definition, geo-stubs. Those relating to the science of toponymy (of which there are very few) are usually best tagged with one of the geo-term-stub subtypes. SFD may be the best option for it. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unproposed, but seems a reasonable addition to the list. Well-formed and (thankfully) upmerged to Category:Syria stubs, though it should also be upmerged to an appropriate film stubcat. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Child-stub}} / Category:Child-related stubs

Looks like this wasn't discussed anywhere. -- Stepheng3 (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly wasn't - and it uses the long-deprecated naming of "Foo-related stubs". Vague/ambiguous topic area, no category parents, and even from the two stubs it's gained in the ten months since it was created it looks like it would be a mixmatch of subjects covered by other stub types. Looks like WP:SFD material to me... Grutness...wha? 22:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After some false starts, I think I finally managed to take this to SFD. - Stepheng3 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Korea-voice-actor-stub}} / Category:Korean voice actor stubs

Unproposed, but along the lines of similar stub types. The problem - as seems to be predictable lately - is that this has been created with its own stub category where it should have been upmerged (it contains one stub, and the size of the stub parent makes its potential to reach threshold low). Also, given that the vast majority of voice-actors with articles would be post 1950, this should probably not have been created as a general Korean form, but rather as two templates, one for DPRK and one for RoK. Grutness...wha? 23:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Romania-hist-stub}} / Category:Romanian history stubs

The templates fine, though unproposed, and in line with other similar country-hist-stub types. The category, however, may be a problem if there are too few stubs, and there's certainly no current indication that it would reach the required threshold. Both Category:European history stubs and Category:Romania stubs are largish (though neither anywhere near the 800 mark), bujt the proportion of these that are Romanian history stubs doesn't seem to be that high. Grutness...wha? 07:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]