Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2007/April

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newly discovered, April 2007[edit]

{{Kites-stub}} / Category:Kite 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 rename & upmerge

Unproposed, but potentially useful. This one sort of nibbles at the boundaries of toy stubs and aircraft stubs without fitting comfortably into either. Size is the one potential worry - I'm not sure it will come close to threshold. Perhaps a wait and see approach? Will need to be renamed, though - should be at {{Kite-stub}} (singular). Grutness...wha? 03:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I must first appologise as I didn't realise there was procedure for creating stub-categories. I have been working on many kite related articles, to get them up to scratch. As mentioned, kites don't fit comfortably into a toys stub, especially when you consider large traction kites that require training to use they are more 'sports equipment' than toys. On the other hand certain types of kite are made by hobbyists and would not fit into a sports category. This was the reason for creating the category. Richard Thompson (Talk! | Contribs) 08:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about a category for hobby stubs, and upmerge kite-stub into it?Goldenrowley 04:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would this cover the traction kites used for sports? I use kites for kitesurfing so don't see it as a hobby more of a sport equipment. This is why I created the stub in the first place, because kites fall into more than one general category outside hobbies, sports and toys. Richard Thompson (Talk! | Contribs) 17:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having seen some really neat kitesurfing the other day I tend to agree that hobby sounds a little lame but thats the only permenant category I saw chosen? Goldenrowley 03:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC).. Okay I followed the kitesurfing categories and kitesurfing is too small but it is part of the larger category of "Recreation" which seems to fit for all kites? Goldenrowley 03:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that. Richard Thompson (Talk! | Contribs) 12:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. Kites are used in both hobby and sporting/recreation arenas. Peter Campbell 22:36, 8 April 2007 (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.

Category:Ukrainian politician 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

This template had a short life being upmerged. Less than a day in fact, until an editor gave it a category. I'll clean it up, but it probably won't be worth the effort to delete it again. We have c. 55 relevant articles, and Yushchenko has just called an election, so it is likely this material will grow. Should we add it to WP:WSS/ST ? Valentinian T / C 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume 55 articles "plus an election promise" is a keeper. Goldenrowley 04:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say 55 articles plus an election promise is worth about... 55 articles. :) (Around here, maybe a good deal less.) Alai 06:36, 11 April 2007 (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.

{{Criminology-stub}} / Category:Criminology 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 upmerge

Unproposed - not too sure there'd be the threshold stubs for it. Can't complain about a lack of parent categories though - this one has ten (!) including the potential SFD-bait Category:Forensics stubs (which has garnered about 30 stubs since last November), Category:Criminologist stubs (a clear case of parent/child reversal), and Category:Crime biography stubs (inappropriate). Possibly a "wait and see, tidy and populate or upmerge", though there are enough stub types relating to this topic that one more might just add to the confusion. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The stub was recently proposed but we did not reach a clear consensus? See: proposal archive Goldenrowley 04:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about creating it unproposed, this category is mostly suitable for academic criminology, penology and victimology articles. Also, it can be used for investigative tools, forensic psychology and related subjects. Thanks.

--Cyril Thomas 12:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These seem reasonable to me, in fact, I like that there is a stub for "the study of crime". What if we merged forensic-stubs and crime-stbs into crimology-stubs, since it is the logical umbrella term? Goldenrowley 04:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair to me as far as the forensics one is concerned, and it would get it to a reasonable 40-50 odd stubs - as I implied above, it's likely that forensics stubs would have need looking at sometime anyway. A merging of the two would reach a reasonable size. Not too sure about merging crime-stub in to it, though - that might be a more useful parent category for it and various other subcats (like the crime-bio one) as well. Grutness...wha? 03:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the parent category should stay as it is, criminology is definitely fit to an umbrella term for many categories, still, it's better to seperate forensic science and medicine from the criminology category. Of course, criminology stub could be used as a secondary stub for those articles, including articles deals with forensic psychiatry and psychology, even criminal law, though criminology often acknowledges the descipline is the non-legal aspects of crime. Still, there are many divisions of arts and science criminology tag perfectly fits into, like victimology, correctional administration, police science, penology, law enforcement, criminological psychology, research on crime etc. Thanks for the supporting views.--Cyril Thomas 02:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to keep on the basis of the subcats-that-should-be, but this Needs Work. Alai 06:38, 11 April 2007 (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.

{{StubAttention}}[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

Not sure if this quite qualifies as a stub template... Probably speediable as strange and unused. Alai 02:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's speediable, and if not, definitely SFD fodder. Any page which simply has {{stub}} needs "placing a more exact stub template where the stub currently exists in this article", so it's redundant. Also the pedant in me rankles at "I.E." Grutness...wha? 02:59, 6 April 2007 (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.

{{Kabbalah-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

Unproposed, attached to a WikiProject - in fact, the only category this one has is a WikiProject category, so it at the very least needs a stub category. Currently has eight stubs, of which about half are bio-stubs. Certainly not currently at the viable stage even with WikiProject presence. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 9 April 2007 (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.

{{shoe-stub}} / Category:Shoe 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 upmerge

Empty, unproposed, stub type that would be a subtype of Category:clothing stubs, which at ~500 stubs is splittable, but not badly in need of splitting. Suggest we take this to SFD to upmerge to a somewhat broader {{footwear-stub}} / Category:Footwear stubs if we want to split clothing by the categories of Category:Types of clothing, as I'm not certain if shoes will have 60 stubs but I am fairly certain that footwear will at the vey least be close to 60.

Is that you, CW :)? Upmerging seems to be a good idea. Grutness...wha? 09:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's 30 on the basis of permcatting, so could actually be populable. Upmerge if no one manages/bothers. Alai 06:34, 11 April 2007 (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.

{{2000s-indie-rock-single-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

Unproposed, redlink category, used on just two articles - seems like overkill and is badly named too (we don't have single-stubs, we have song-stubs, and we also don't divide out "indie" songs from the rest, as the dividing line of this subgenre is just too subjective). Looks remarkably like SFD-bait... Grutness...wha? 02:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, we also have {{single-stub}}s; oversized cats of them, in fact. And we split albums into {{indie-rock-album-stub}}, etc. Keep if popula/ble/ted, upmerge if not. Alai 06:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stand corrected. Odd - why would we have both song-stub and single-stub? Seems like the two cover very much the same ground. Yes, I realise not all songs are released as singles, but it still sounds like the sort of articles which would attract the same groups of editors - and many of the "single" permcats have been subsumed into "song" ones over the last few months. Grutness...wha? 05:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure there's any deep thinking behind it; we've ended up with both, hence we've started splitting both. (The original single-stub was created by someone who never even ended up with a talk page, and it went to SFD at the start of 2006 and survived.) WikiProjectwise they'd both be covered by the Songs people, we could ask them if they have any feelings on that. Of course, if we merged them both we'd have yet more re-splitting by decade, genre, and whatever else to do, but other than that... Alai 00:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Links only to userpage and WPSS discussions. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:00, 30 July 2007 (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.

{{Methodist-stub}} / Category:Methodism 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 upmerge

Seems quite a reasonable split - if there are the numbers for it (which there may be, though the current one stub there doesn't necessarily guarantee that it will be followed by 59 more. At least the parent cat has enough articles to suggest that it's likely). The template has the largest stub icon I think I've ever seen, and the category has no valid parents, stub or otherwise (apparently, the category is a template, but that's all it is!). If kept, those items will need tidying up, but an upmerge may well be in order anyway. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Biggest stub template image I ever did see: 75px... on the short side. Shouldn't that be -ism, rather than -ist, to match the cat? Other than that, and the "small matters" G. mentions, sensible enough in principle. Cleanup, move, and possibly upmerge. Alai 00:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wondered about the -ist/-ism thing, too - but it looks like most of our religion templates work that way (T:Anglican-stub/C:Anglicanism stubs, etc). Grutness...wha? 06:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Links to 2 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:00, 30 July 2007 (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.

{{Synagogue-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

Probably a reasonable idea for a stub type, if there are the necessary number of stubs. Would be nice if it had a category, though... Unproposed, and currently used on just one article. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 18 April 2007 (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.

{{Afghanistan-newspaper-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

Never proposed, no category. I can't see any way this is going to get within cooee of threshold - Category:Newspapers published in Afghanistan has only four articles, so I doubt there are 60 stubs. May be better to upmerge it than to delete it outright, though. Grutness...wha? 10:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if its only 4 newspapers from Afghanista, then a generic Newspaper stub should be used. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created that stub template. I'm sorry, I didn't know that there was any formal procedure for making them. Basicly, I saw the "Asian-Newspaper-stub" template and modified it for Afghanistan. Go ahead and delete it if I did something wrong.--Kirby♥time 00:55, 21 April 2007 (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.

{{Phenol-stub}} / Phenol 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 today, 22 April 2007, as a subcategory of Category:Aromatic compound stubs. Currently populated with 4 stubs (there are 56 in the parent category). I don't know anything about aromatic compounds, so I can't speak to this category's potential, but I'm bringing it here for your consideration. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:40, 22 April 2007 (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.

Various Scottish football stub types[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

All created in the last 24 hours, along with their respective categories, shortly after Italy was split in this way. Italy was proposed for this split since the parent category was very oversized, and it must be admitted that the Scottish equivalent is also fairly large. Probably a good split. Grutness...wha? 07:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We've recently split France and Italy this way with a proposal to split Brazil the same way currently unoppsed and all three categories were/are smaller than this one is. Waacstats 12:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - category is larger than Brazil etc. WATP  15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The categories look rather small to me. Three of them have a mere 20-30 stubs. Valentinian T / C 20:23, 18 May 2007 (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.

{{Iran-actor-stub}} / Category:Iranian actor 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

Unproposed, though a logical split. Not convinced yet that it will reach threshold - if it doesn't upmerging of the template and deletion of the category would make sense. Grutness...wha? 07:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - it seems that it already has over 50 stubs, so threshold worries seem assuaged. Looks like a keeper. Grutness...wha? 07:59, 23 April 2007 (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.

{{Nursing-org-stub}} / Category:Nursing organization 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 upmerge

Created earlier today without proposal, and has 28 stubs. I'm pretty sure that a similar stub type has been rejected in the past, though - though not with this exact title - since it was already satisfactorily covered by {{Med-org-stub}}. Suggest an upmerge, with a deletion of the category. Grutness...wha? 07:47, 23 April 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Discoveries/Log/2007/April&oldid=1160937201"