Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2007/May
Newly discovered, May 2007
{{UK-bsoc-stub}} (upmerged)
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)
- 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)
- 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))
- 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))
- 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)
- 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))
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)
- And it's listed earlier on this page, as of March 2007. Oops. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
Unproposed, but properly named, with 22 articles so far. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
{{Database-stub}}
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 politican stubs and Category:European politician stubs as agreed back in November 2006.[1] Valentinian T / C 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)