Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Archive/2009

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

This is an archive of discussions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries for 2009.

I didn't know that there had to be a discussion before a stub was created so I created this stub category yesterday. I was suggested by a "busybody" that I should inform you of its creation. I however believe that it is a very useful sub-category of meat stubs, with 23 entries included when I last checked and with the Bacon WikiCup already running it is very likely to serve a good purpose for a lot more stubs within the relevant range. (I've already added a lot of articles with no stub category to it and have changed the meat stubs template on a few articles to the more specific bacon stub category. Do with this template what you will (I understand now that it should've been proposed before it was created) but I stronly believe it will be a very helpful subcategory within the meat stubs category.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 04:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

23 is a very small number for a new stub category - the usual threshold before the creation of a category is 60 existing stubs. If this gets to 60 soon, then it may be worth keeping, if not, then the likely outcome is to upmerge the template to have it point to Category:Meat stubs. BTW, referring to someone who suggests you actually follow WP guidelines and policies as a "busybody" isn't going to gain you many friends! Grutness...wha? 23:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the "busybody" comment was in humourous repsonse to this.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 00:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, the busybody in question referred to herself somewhat tongue-in-cheek that way initially (and is now going to stop referring to herself in the third person). LadyofShalott 06:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

For more on-topic comment... I wonder about upmerging bacon-stub to something along the lines of pork-stub. Would that make the target number of 60? (I really am asking I don't know the answer to that.) LadyofShalott 06:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

{{Pork-stub}}/Category:Pork stubs would be a more widely-scoped stub type, and this suggests there would be over 60 articles. Best thing to do from here would be to take this to WP:SFD and mention this discussion there, asking that Category:Bacon stubs be deleted and the template upmerged into a new Category:Pork stubs, (with either the addition of a {{Pork-stub}} or the renaming of {{Bacon-stub}} to {{Pork-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 22:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'll take it to SFD now. Should be (hopefully) pretty straightforward. Taken o SFD for renaming/upscoping. Grutness...wha? 04:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Stub category that seems oddly named, not big enough, and it is used directly on articles and not with a template. Borgarde (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this one should probably go straight to SFD. You've mentioned several problems with it - another is that splitting singers by language is a bad precedent to have. Singers are usually split by nationality, and many singers can sing in multiple languages. A Cambodia-singer-stub would be fine (probably upmerged), but not this. Grutness...wha? 05:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Taken to SFD.Borgarde (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Unproposed, only one page in category, category is malformed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Template is misnamed too (should be at SouthOssetia-geo-stub). But if you check the SFD for Ossetia-geo-stub you'll see the reasoning behind it. It should have been proposed though - to save us the work of having to fix it up :/ Grutness...wha? 22:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this one because it was using a non-standard category Category:Agriculture in India. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• If kept it would definitely need a better category. The articles using this template seem to be a fairly abstract mix of Indian org-stubs, bio-stubs, hist-stubs and the like, too. AFAIK we don't usually split agri-stubs by nation, though if we did, india would be a reasonable one to start with. Grutness...wha? 23:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Two new stub types for Indian politicians, though only one of the four parts gives any indication of that by its name. Both categories are small, though one is fairly close to threshold - the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam one may need to be upmerged, however. And something - anything! -needs to be done with the names, even if only adding "-India-" to both templates and changing the DMK in the second template to something a little less ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is also relevant to any renaming which may be needed. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Quite honestly, when everything else in Wikipedia is create and then discuss/delete, I did not expect stub type creations to be any different. However, now that I know this, I'll bring the next few here before creating. At this point there are over 100 between 200-400 stubs each for these two stub types, they just haven't been categorized yet. Also, User:CarTick, User:Sodabottle and I expect to create at least another 100 each over the next two to four weeks for these two stub types. As far as the naming goes, I kept it consistent with {{INC-politician-stub}} and {{BJP-politician-stub}} which belong to the same Indian politician stub category. -SpacemanSpiff 01:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Check the section of WP:BOLD which relates to templates and categories. This will give you some reasons for the more circumspect nature of creation of stub types. More reasons can be found at User:Grutness/Stub rationales. As far as the nameing is concernedf, the BJP in particular is widely known wirldwide as being a major indian political party, as is the INC (though less so, perhaps). I doubt you'd have the same level of worldwide recognition for either DMK or AIADMK. Grutness...wha? 09:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

many of the politicians from Category:Tamil Nadu politicians will belong to either ADMK or DMK, two main political parties in Tamil Nadu. useful stub as far as I am concerned. --CarTick 05:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said that the aren't useful stub types. All I've said is that the names which have been used for the templates and one of the categories are non-standard, and if kept they will need to be changed; and that neither of the categories is yet up to the point where they should have been created. If they reach the threshold for stub categories (60 existing stubs), then only the names will be a problem. But these problems could have been overcome far more easily and with less work all round if the stub types had been proposed in the first place. Grutness...wha? 09:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• The number should no longer be a problem. There are currently 140 and 97 stubs in the two stub cats, and I haven't even come close to categorizing 30% of the existing stubs. If the DMK name seems too generic an acronym, let's go with {{DMKazhagam-politician-stub}}. -SpacemanSpiff 14:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And AIADMKazhagam-politician-stub? I could go with those, though I'm not sure about others in WP:WSS. Grutness...wha? 18:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that such long an acronym would exist elsewhere, but I could live with {{AIADMKazhagam-politician-stub}}. While I understand the logic behind attaching India, the concern I have is that both these parties have a presence restricted to only Tamil Nadu and Puduchery, and they aren't "national" parties per se. But if it is preferred to make it {{India-DMK-politician-stub}} or {{DMKIndia-politician-stub}}, I haven't any objection to that either -SpacemanSpiff 18:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

India-DMK-politician-stub would be the other way to go (as in {{Australia-Labor-politician-stub}}, for example). As long as they're the only parties of those names in India, it would still make sense, whether they're regional or not. It's probably less urgent for these parties than for the Australian one and others like it, because as far as WP articles are concerned, DMK is the abbreviation for only one political party worldwide. It isn't impossible that there are others, thopugh, and it's certainly not an abbreviation that is likely to mean much to anyone who doesn't know about Indian politics. Grutness...wha? 23:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)