Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2007/May
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by SporkBot (talk | contribs) at 00:02, 15 April 2023 (Replace or disable a template per TFD outcome; no change in content). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.Revision as of 00:02, 15 April 2023 by SporkBot (talk | contribs) (Replace or disable a template per TFD outcome; no change in content)
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
{{UK-bsoc-stub}} (upmerged)
[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 kept
Never proposed and hideously named, but perhaps useful. I note that there is no UK-bank-stub, which is perhaps surprising, so perhaps a combined stub for banks and building societies (the latter of which this is for) may be useful. Would need serious renaming, though. BTW, this is upmerged into two stub cats (fine) and one permcat (not so fine). Grutness...wha? 06:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Send to SFD to be renamed as {{UK-bank-stub}} or {{UK-finance-company-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I created this stub template, because the building society sector is both independent, and more importantly mutually-owned (and as you found out, there isn't a {{UK-bank-stub}}). OK, some societies are more commercial than others, but all of them still require members to vote on issues, so they have a bigger role to play than shareholders. If it's felt building societies are not distinct enough, maybe you could create/rename this into a {{UK-mutual-society-stub}} template (which would include friendly societies, and any remaining mutual insurance companies)?? (Extra3 15:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- The second reason, is that many articles about UK-based societies have only been created recently, and, as such, are still only stubs. My intention was to create awareness of them, so they can be filled out. As far as the categorisation goes, well, like I said, many of these articles are stubs. If this means they shouldn't be featured within a permanent category, then I'm a little bemused (unless the category should be embedded within the article, rather than the template). I'd be interested to hear what you think. (Extra3 15:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Usual practice for stubs is to have the stub template only include stub categories (usually just one, but sometimes two for upmerged templates). Appropriate permanent categories should be added to the article directly, not indirectly via a stub template that ideally will be removed once the article is no longer a stub. So it's fine (indeed it's expected) for stub articles to be placed in permanent categories, they just shouldn't be placed by means of a stub template. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now created Category:United Kingdom building society stubs, to allow for stub articles to be grouped in. And as you said, the articles can be grouped under the main category Category:Building societies, with another template. (Extra3 18:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Update: Links to 47 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:34, 30 September 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.
- 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 upmerged
Yipes. Television stubs have been sorted according to genre, people, episodes, stations, countries, etc. but never by "type of technology on which it appears". Unproposed, only 1 article in it. I don't like it One Bit. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And it's listed earlier on this page, as of March 2007. Oops. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:28, 11 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.
- 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
Undecided about this one - I almost took it straight to SFD but had second thoughts. Never proposed... not close to threshold at the moment, but potentially useful, perhaps. Perhaps. At the moment, an upmerging seems plausible. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Now contains 21 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Up to 44 articles and there's a related WP. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:33, 30 September 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.
- 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, but properly named, with 22 articles so far. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Still contains 22 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Up to 23 articles now. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:32, 30 September 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.
{{Database-stub}}
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion 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, redlink category. Seems a reasonable idea, though, given the size of Category:Databases. Mind you, that doesn't guarantee 60 stubs (well, 30, since there seems to be a nascent WikiProject - the same person who created that created this stub type ten minutes later, surprise, surprise). May well be a case of fixing it up and seeing whether or not it grows. If it does, fine. if not, there's still SFD... Grutness...wha? 01:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Might be worth upmerging to {{database-software-stub}} or seeing if there are articles tagged with that stub that aren't about specific programs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it. There are literally dozens of Category:Databases articles that are naught but stubs. Use {{database-software-stub}} on all database stubs, even those that are unrelated to database software. BTW, the nascent WikiProject was suggested a week ago (Look It Up, surprise, surprise). For an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit, you bureaucrats sure give hell to people who are trying to do the right thing. Delete the stub, delete the project, do whatever you really feel like doing. Enough of this nonsense, trying to improve Wikipedia by wasting ridiculous amounts of my time bringing articles like Null (SQL) from a one-paragraph stub up to Good Article status, and trying to help bring some badly needed attention to the extreme lack of good, solid database-related articles on this thing. Be Bold! Right? Apparently it only applies to vandals, and not to people trying to do the right thing. You need to get rid of that God Awful article since that's not how it works in reality. If it's not there already, you should add Wikipedia as a prime example of Bureaucracy. Please feel free to remove it all, there are way too many bureaucrats and dictators running around for me to try to do anything more. Peace. SqlPac 02:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:BOLD. It makes it clear that it applies to articles, but not to templates or categories. The nascent Wikiproject may have been suggested a week ago, but no stub type was, and that is what we are discussing here. We are not bureaucrats, nor are we dictators; we are people trying to keep track of what stub types are available and sort stub articles accordingly. unproposed stub types do nothing to help with that - in fact, they can seriously hinder the work of editors on wikipedia. You =might also want toread WP:CIVIL. Grutness...wha? 02:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Get rid of the stuff I've done, and you and I are through WP:CIVIL. BTW, here are a couple of Database-related stubs for you. Many are already indicated as stubs under a very wide variety of labels, a few are not currently labeled stubs even though they are stubs. Some are software-specific, some are not. Some do not currently exist. You might want to get crackin' on those. Update (SQL), Merge (SQL), Create (SQL), Drop (SQL), Begin work (SQL), Commit (data management), Rollback (data management), Truncate (SQL), Alter (SQL), View (database), Table (database), Index (database), Partition (database), Database storage structures, MyISAM, Deductive database, Distributed database management system, Relational_calculus, Database normalization, Referential integrity, Relational database management system, Superkey, Candidate key, List of object-oriented database management systems, Online transaction processing, Data Mining Extensions, SuprTool, Molecular Query Language, SPARQL, CODASYL, QUEL query languages, Object Query Language, Poliqarp Query Language, Data Definition Language, Data Manipulation Language, Data Control Language, Bulk Load, SQL:1999, SQL-92, SQL-96, SQL:2003, SQL:2006, Order by (SQL), Group by (SQL), Having (SQL), Where (SQL), From (SQL), PL/pgSQL. Peace. SqlPac 03:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you so angry about? The only person here who has suggested deletion as a first course is you - and presumably you were being sarcastic. Both I and Caerwine have suggested that it may be worth keeping in some form. The 41 existing stubs listed would be quite enough to qualify for a stub type, given that there is a wikiproject. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What am I so angry about? Because Ignore All Rules and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy are patent lies. You are enforcing an apparently non-existent Bureaucracy which I don't have time nor interest in dealing with. Don't presume. I'm not being sarcastic, you can honestly do whatever you like with all of my contributions so far. Though I would prefer you just delete all my contributions and be done with it. I've removed myself from trying to do anything beyond spell-checking an occasional article, and I couldn't care less (surprise, surprise) what you do with stubs or anything else beyond that. Those 41 existing stubs were located in the course of a 10 minute search. There are literally hundreds of database stubs that could potentially be categorized as such (I located over 100 on my first search a few weeks ago, as well as about 3 dozen articles that haven't even been created yet), but I'm not interested in continuing to document, organize, create new articles, or having anything else to do with these items. I'll continue making occasional edits to correct spelling errors in articles, but I have no reason to put myself in a position where I can be called to task for trying to contribute anything more to your Wikipedia. In the meantime, please delete the stub and let someone who understands/cares about the Bureaucracy do this type of thing in the future. I've come to the conclusion that beyond spell-checking an occasional article, Wikipedia is not interested in attracting subject matter experts and writers. It appears that recruitment efforts should be aimed at attracting the bureaucrats so desperately needed to avoid stepping on people's toes around here. Be Afraid!. SqlPac 17:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you so angry about? The only person here who has suggested deletion as a first course is you - and presumably you were being sarcastic. Both I and Caerwine have suggested that it may be worth keeping in some form. The 41 existing stubs listed would be quite enough to qualify for a stub type, given that there is a wikiproject. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 13 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.
- 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 material is now 60+ so I've been bold and given the template a category right away to cut the Asian category down a bit. The category is parented by both Category:Asian politician stubs and Category:European politician stubs as agreed back in November 2006.[1] Valentinian T / C 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Serbia is above the mark as well, so I'm listing both categories on WP:WSS/ST. Valentinian T / C 09:09, 17 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.
{{India-edu-stub}} (redlinked)
[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, not really needed, except maybe as a parent for the {{india-university-stub}} and {{india-school-stub}} types which have been in long and continual use. Grutness...wha? 02:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly could use the category Category:India(n) education stubs more than the template as a parent for the university and school stubs. Probably worth keeping and catting assuming we can agree on the name for the cat. We have Category:Japanese education stubs and Category:Mexico education stubs so we don't have consistency in the existing sub categories (without even considering the British / United Kingdom issue). Caerwine Caer’s whines 14:33, 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.
- 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
Sounds reasonable as a subtype of Romania stubs except for one niggling doubt - I have a feeling that Transylvania is a historic region of Romania, and is no longer used as a defined official region. If so, this one is a big problem, since subnational splits are always by current region. If it is kept, the category will need to be tidied up (it has no stub parents), and will also clearly need populating (there is currently but one stub). Grutness...wha? 01:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for the random and haphazard stub creation. I basically created it on the spur of the moment upon encountering one article that I suddenly thought "Hey, this belongs in a Transylvania category, not just a Romania one!". If it is better to delete it, I won't lose too much sleep over it.
- As for Transylvania as historic region--I don't know for sure what the current "official" status of Transylvania is, but it is a clearly-defined region with a unique (and tremendously interesting) history and a similarly unique multiethnic blend of cultures. It's also been bouncing back and forth between Hungary and Romania for the last 1000 years or so as borders and ethnic groups kept moving around (I think it was even independent for a while). K. Lásztocska 01:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Links to 3 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Transylvania was indeed independent for a while [2]. A template would make sense, given the uniqueness of the region. Grutness is correct that it is a historical region rather than a current administrative entity. Valentinian T / C 07:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Links to 7 articles, still no stub parent. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:30, 30 September 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.
{{Austin-stub}} / Category:Austin 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 take to sfr
Unproposed. Not about the car, but about Austin, Texas (and should therefore be named as such). Currently has one stub, which is also (correctly) marked as a Texas-geo-stub. Might be able to get to the threshold of 60 stubs for this one, but will need renaming to t:AustinTX-stub/c:Austin, Texas stubs for reasons which should be obvious if you look at Austin. Category will also need tidying, since it has no parent categories, stub or perm. Probably a "wait and see" for whether it should be kept or not. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's now been moved by its creator to {{Austin-TX-stub}} - another incorrect name :( At least the category now has a stub parent... Grutness...wha? 02:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Should this name stay the same, or would you like to change it to {{AustinTX-stub}}? There are now 60 stubs categorized under it, with more to come I'm sure. Joe I 04:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Give us a chance! :) Not everyone checks this page every day. I'd continue using the current names for nowGiven that there are 60 stubs, it seems likely to be worth keeping under some name, so it will be simply a matter of using a bot to do any necessary changeover. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Links to 88 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:26, 2 August 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.
- 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... not really sure about this one. Certainly the permcat parent has a lot of articles, but I can't see where it would fit on the stub tree (and there are no stubcat parents, so clearly its creator wasn't sure either). Grutness...wha? 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The conspiracy stub, as [:category:conspiracy], is categorizable under a few different categories; I just didn't feel the stub needed to be categorized under anything except the conspiracy category. Conspiracy can fall under politics, pseudohistory/history, paranormal, spiritual, etc. However, I have since categorized it under a couple stub categories. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 03:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Links to 5 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:26, 2 August 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.
{{China-radio-station-stub}} and {{Taiwan-radio-station-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 upmerged
Two new unproposed templates, both feeding into Category:Chinese radio station stubs (also unproposed). The category has some problems (recursive, and no perm or stub parents other than itself), and it seeems pretty small at present. Perhaps tidying it up and seeing if it reaches threshold is a reasonable move, though the combining of Taiwan and China into one category opens up "ye olde canne of wyrms" (or dragons, at least). Grutness...wha? 06:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: China-radio-station-stub links to 26 articles; Taiwan-radio-station-stub links to 4. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Numbers are still the same, although I did correct the category problem(s). Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:46, 30 October 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.