Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Archive/2012-2017

Before proposing or creating a new type of stub, please read How to propose a new stub type.

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.

WikiProject Stub sorting
Information
Project page	talk
- Stub types (sections)	talk
- Stub types (full list)	talk
- To do	talk
- Naming conventions	talk
- Redirects category	talk
Wikipedia:Stub	talk
Discussion
Proposals (A)	talk
- Current month
Discussion	talk
Criteria (A) (discontinued)	talk
Deletion (Log) (discontinued)	talk
Category v t e

• Category:Romanian military stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Romania-mil-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Romania-mil-ship-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All unused, and all created out of process by The Bushranger (talk · contribs), presumably acting upon Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Stub label for Romania. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I've found Category:Chinese Roman Catholic diocese stubs which was created out of process by Allenkong11 (talk · contribs), and populated improperly (direct use of category, since reverted). As it has 108 potential members, it could stay, provided that {{China-RC-diocese-stub}} is created properly and used properly as well. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

There was a {{PRChina-RC-diocese-stub}} approved back in 2008, but the category was approved as Category:People's Republic of China Roman Catholic diocese stubs. Should I/we propose a revision? Her :Pegship 01:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If it was approved, then fine; but the name should fit in with the convention. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I've also found others created out of process by Allenkong11 (talk · contribs): Category:Tianjin stubs and Category:Chinese subdivision stubs. I'm not sure what purpose the latter is intended to serve. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Quite apart from their being created out of process, the latter category says "This category is for categories for stub articles relating to the individual China." Oy vey. I will leave a comment on the user's talk page if that's OK with everyone. Her :Pegship 00:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't left the note yet, but I have found that {{Tianjin-stub}} was actually approved in 2011, along with a bunch of other "geography of China" types. I/We can create the template for the Tianjin stub type in order to populate the stub cat properly, but I will still give Allenkong a note about Category:Chinese subdivision stubs. Her :Pegship 01:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

{{Caribbean-women-footy-bio-stub}}, {{CentralAm-women-footy-bio-stub}}, {{Mexico-women-footy-bio-stub}}, {{Canada-women-footy-bio-stub}} and {{US-women-footy-bio-stub}} in Category:North American women's football (soccer) biography stubs and daughters. Expansion of the existing US category, could do with a quick look from someone as I don't think they've been formally proposed? Le Deluge (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I've found {{G-B-geo-stub}}, {{GB sport stub}} and {{GB-history-stub}} each with one transclusion and a redlinked category. They were created by Kazmi (talk · contribs) on 22, 23 and 27 June 2017 without prior proposal. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

{{American-telenovelas-stub}} has put one member in Category:American telenovelas stubs. Merge to {{US-drama-tv-prog-stub}} ?? Le Deluge (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

{{St-Martin-footyclub-stub}} Le Deluge (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Newbie creation - I moved it from {{2017s-Tamil-film-stub}}, I assume the convention is to have decade categories only? Le Deluge (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

This is indeed the convention, and it does not seem to have enough articles in the category to warrant creation of it anyways. Proposed for deletion. Keira1996 04:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

{{2010s-Scotland-film-stub}} seems to be unapproved creation, parent is {{2010s-UK-film-stub}} Le Deluge (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Came across {{Medal-of-honor-stub}} via Category:Medal of Honor stubs, looks like not created through consensus. 20 members so not the worst one ever but still. Le Deluge (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Le Deluge: That one is mine. When I created it, I didn't really know the proper way to go about making a stub. From reading through a bit more, I guess it'll go up for debate as to whether or not to keep the template up, right? Jionunez (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I've found {{Antlion-stub}} and Category:Antlion stubs. Like {{Cleroidea-stub}} and Category:Cleroidea stubs (below), these were created by Caftaric (talk · contribs), apparently without discussion, in January 2017. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Caftaric (talk · contribs) has been busy... creating and rearranging templates and categories, apparently unaware of stub sorting and creation procedure. (Assuming good faith, here.) I'll leave a note on its talk page and see what ensues. Her Pegship (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I've found {{Cleroidea-stub}} (34 transclusions) which doesn't use {{asbox}}, and Category:Cleroidea stubs (35 members) which doesn't use either {{WPSS-cat}} or {{stub category}}. Here's the chronology as I see it:

• 11:20, 25 August 2014: Dawynn (talk · contribs) creates Category:Cleroidea stubs (using the normal format for a stub cat page) following this proposal
• 02:18, 26 August 2014: Dawynn creates {{Cleroidea-stub}} under the same proposal
• 11:10, 26 August 2014: Dawynn requests deletion of Category:Cleroidea stubs under WP:CSD#G7; this is actioned by RHaworth (talk · contribs) at 14:19 the same day
• 09:07, 21 November 2014: Good Olfactory (talk · contribs) converts {{Cleroidea-stub}} to a redirect to {{Polyphaga-stub}} following this CfD discussion
• 18:20, 6 February 2017: Caftaric (talk · contribs) converts {{Cleroidea-stub}} back to a non-redirected (but misconstructed) template, apparently without discussion
• 18:21, 6 February 2017: Caftaric recreates Category:Cleroidea stubs (using a non-standard format: there are two categories, nothing else), apparently also undiscussed

What shall we do about these? Fewer than 60 pages use these, so it's probably easiest to restore the template to a being a redirect, and delete the category again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• I agree, and the template should be adapted to {{asbox}} format as well. Her Pegship (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  Caftaric (talk · contribs) seems to have boosted the category to 64 members but it is still in a highly non-standard format. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

See the original conversation at the WPSS talk page for context. An editor created a WikiProject for articles pertaining to Akwa Ibom State in Nigeria, then created {{Akwaibom-stub}} and Category:Akwaibom stubs (in good faith). They want to keep a general stub category and template for Akwa Ibom State; there are two other general state stub types (Abia and Rivers) already. We do have a {{AkwaIbom-geo-stub}}, upmerged to Category:Nigeria geography stubs.

If we decide to keep a general Akwa Ibom stub type, I move we restructure it as {{AkwaIbomState-stub}} and Category:Akwa Ibom State stubs to conform to naming conventions. Her Pegship (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

In the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#Akwaibom stubs? I see several different spellings of the place name in the page titles (in several namespaces) mentioned so far:

• Akwaibom
• akwaibom
• Akwa Ibom
• AkwaIbom

Whatever other editing applies, these should be unified under a single form.

(I hope this appears in the right place on the page. I'm following the directions Redrose64 gave me.) --Thnidu (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Discovered when updating the stubs list for writers that there are several unproposed templates and categories in use. All seem useful and properly named, and would be speediable if proposed fresh:

• {{Morocco-writer-stub}} / Category:Moroccan writer stubs
• {{Algeria-writer-stub}}
• {{Angola-writer-stub}}

Anyone have a problem with adding these to the official list? --Qetuth (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Found more of the same in Europe:

• {{Albania-writer-stub}}
• {{Estonia-writer-stub}}
• {{Lithuania-writer-stub}}
• {{Slovakia-writer-stub}}
• {{Ukraine-writer-stub}}

All upmerged templates with 10-50 translusions each. --Qetuth (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Was alerted to this when I looked at Category:Stubs and found Category:Camping stubs listed as a subcategory. (Have now removed the "parent category", so it doesn't show up for everyone else stub-sorting, and added a topic parent cat and a stub parent cat). There's a template {{Camping-stub}} and a category and no evidence of either being discussed here.PamD 07:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I was editing camping-related articles and noticed that there wasn't a camping stub available to tag stub articles with, so I created one and the (initial) category page. Thanks to User:PamD for further organizing it as a subcategory of Category:Camping. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

But I only added them as a temporary measure while the stub type/cat waited for proper consideration. PamD 07:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The template seems like a good idea to me! Usually though we wouldn't have a category for so few stubs unless it is the parent of a tree or the main type for another project. I'd recommend having it upmerge to Category:Outdoor recreation stubs which itself is quite small. --Qetuth (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Have found Category:Filipino long-distance runner stubs and associated {{Philippines-long-distance runner-bio-stub}}. There is only one article so tagged, and to my mind, there is limited scope for expansion: consider that {{Philippines-athletics-bio-stub}} (which upmerges to Category:Asian athletics biography stubs and Category:Filipino sportspeople stubs) has been placed on just 11 articles, so is hardly in need of subdivision. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree these should be deleted. {{Philippines-athletics-bio-stub}} should be fine for these. If the template is kept, it should be renamed to {{Phillippenes-longdistance-athletics-bio-stub}} to match existing templates. --Qetuth (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Try {{Philippines-longdistance-athletics-bio-stub}}, if it gets kept. I'd suggest that first we might try double-tagging with {{Philippines-athletics-bio-stub}} and a generic {{longdistance-athletics-bio-stub}}. Dawynn (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

{{Sabah-stub}} and Category:Sabah stubs were created without proposal, and added to a handful of articles - all of these appear to either not be stubs or already have {{sabah-geo-stub}}. Don't see a reason to keep this, but also not sure what's going on with deletions...is it on hold until the templates are sorted out? --Qetuth (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Have found Category:Kaiser Wilhelm II Land geography stubs as a sub-cat of Category:Antarctica geography stubs. The sole member of that cat is Kaiser Wilhelm II Land which is only in the cat by being placed there directly. The matching stub template {{KaiserWilhelmIILand-geo-stub}} upmerges to Category:Antarctica geography stubs but has nowhere near sufficient transclusions (12 at present) to justify a separate cat. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

{{Multi-star-stub}} and {{Star-system-stub}} are two templates, placed in the same category, with identical descriptions. This category holds about 500 pages, so a reasonable split is not mandatory, but wouldn't hurt. Still, this could use some expert help at least on establishing the proper wording for each template. Dawynn (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Have found Category:Iranian editor subs as a sub-cat of both Category:Iranian writer stubs and Category:Editor stubs. Believe that it should have been Category:Iranian editor stubs. There does not appear to be a matching stub template. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be one missed at Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2011/June#Premature_Iran_categories. No template, no permcat, not all the articles included are stubs, and certainly not enough articles. I suggest either deleting or making it the permcat (ie, Category:Iranian editors). --Qetuth (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No complaints, I'll move it to Category:Iranian editors...--Qetuth (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

{{Denmark-music-stub}} appears unproposed, and has over 60 transclusions. Currently upmerges to both Category:Music stubs and Category:Denmark stubs. It mostly consists of albums and songs with a few other odds and ends. So it appears we could create Category:Danish music stubs to match existing categories such as Category:Japan music stubs.

There seems to be no consistency at the moment though with how countries are treated in the music stubs section. Some of the fooian music stubs categories are mostly used for songs and yet are not part of the Category:Song stubs tree. They also collect up the subcategories scattered among Category:Music biography stubs. Category:Canadian music stubs is a parent only category for the bio stubs. On the other hand, countries like Australia, UK, and US have no such category so their stub categories are unrelated, in some cases only sharing a parent all the way back at Category:Music stubs.

I think we should either start a 'Songs by country' and 'Albums by country' sorting, or otherwise start moving songs back into the songs by year/genre categories, for consistency. Albums by country might help the overpopulation in the albums. And seeing how hard it is to navigate between, for example, Category:Australian guitarist stubs, Category:Australian musical group stubs, Category:Australian record label stubs makes me think at the very least the parent only categories are needed. --Qetuth (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

{{England-law-stub}} was created out of process by Mais oui! (talk · contribs) who seems to unilaterally create stubs categories an awful lot and may need to be warned about this. This one seems ok in numerical terms but it should be "England and Wales law stub" not "England law stub". Tim! (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As the permcat is at Category:English law, Category:English law stubs is logical and the template name is logical too. I don't see a problem with this stub type, but I wish it had been proposed properly! Perhaps {{Wales-law-stub}} would be an acceptable redirect, if anyone feels it is needed. Severo^TC 09:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

{{Sports Car Racing stub}} was created out of process, is misnamed, and populates an inappropriate category, i.e. Category:Stub-Class Sports Car Racing articles, which is a category for talk pages. I am pretty sure that this template is redundant to {{Motorsport-stub}}, which populates Category:Auto racing stubs. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the category is redundant. No more redundant than {{F1-stub}} is to {{Motorsport-stub}}. --Sabre ball ^{t c} 22:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that the category is redundant. Category:Stub-Class Sports Car Racing articles is definitely not redundant, because it is part of the article assessment scheme and is intended to contain talk pages, and so is being misused here.

I said that Template:Sports Car Racing stub is redundant. Given that sports car racing is a subset of motor sport, is it a significant subset? That is, is it possible that there are more than 60 articles which are stubs, and which cover sports car racing? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals#Proposing new stub types - procedure. {{F1-stub}} is transcluded by well over 250 pages, so has justification for its existence. There are presently 23 articles transcluding {{Sports Car Racing stub}} - can another 37 suitable candidates be found? If not, there is little purpose to {{Sports Car Racing stub}}, even if it were correctly set up. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I will point out that a discussion had already started about an appropriate template for this topic. See here. Since we have a separate permanent category (Category:Sports car racing), I don't see why the template would be redundant. I agree that the existing template is malformed, but I support building a template based on the results of the discussion on the proposal page. Dawynn (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I note that the discussion was started on 11 January 2012, and that the template was created on 19 January by the same person who started the discussion, even though the discussion was still open. Fait accompli. Why do we even bother having WP:WSS/P if people feel that they can drive straight through? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to renaming the template. --Sabre ball ^{t c} 13:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not fair to call out {{Sports Car Racing stub}} for only having been transcluded 23 times. It's barely even a week old. If you check the category its places articles in, there are over 80 articles that could have that template placed on the page its just not there yet. --Sabre ball ^{t c} 21:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have turned this template into a redirect. Created the template name that had been discussed on the proposal page. Please use the new template name ({{sportscar-autoracing-stub}}) Dawynn (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I recently built {{Kupres-geo-stub}} for the municipality in Republika Srpska. This template name was approved back in April 2011. In the midst of building this template, I found that there are two separate municipalities, both of which are in Bosnia and Herzegovina:

1. Kupres, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
2. Kupres, Republika Srpska

Normally, when we have such instances between two countries, we add a country code to the template to differentiate. But what is the proper nomenclature in this situation, where the two municipalities are within the same country? Dawynn (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• {{1960s-R&B-song-stub}} / {{R&B-1960s-song-stub}}
• {{1970s-R&B-song-stub}} / {{R&B-1970s-song-stub}}
• {{1980s-R&B-song-stub}} / {{R&B-1980s-song-stub}}
• {{1990s-R&B-song-stub}} / {{R&B-1990s-song-stub}}
• {{2000s-R&B-song-stub}} / {{R&B-2000s-song-stub}}

Yes, both versions have been built for the last 5 decades. The {{R&B-9999s-song-stub}} versions were approved here. The other versions have not been approved, but all the articles have been tagged with the non-approved versions. I'm OK with keeping one set, and changing the other set to redirects, but would like some guidance as to which should be preferred. Dawynn (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Use 9999s-R&B-song-stub, for consistency with 9999s-country-song-stub, 9999s-rock-song-stub, 9999s-pop-song-stub. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Found the following. I see no issue with keeping these.

• {{Abyssochrysidae-stub}}
• {{Aporrhaidae-stub}}
• {{Carinariidae-stub}}
• {{Cochliopidae-stub}}
• {{Dialidae-stub}}
• {{Eatoniellidae-stub}}
• {{Ficidae-stub}}
• {{Lithoglyphidae-stub}}
• {{Modulidae-stub}}
• {{Obtortionidae-stub}}
• {{Pachychilidae-stub}}
• {{Procerithiidae-stub}}
• {{Scaliolidae-stub}}
• {{Stenothyridae-stub}}
• {{Struthiolariidae-stub}}
• {{Truncatellidae-stub}}

Dawynn (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)