This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
 |
Before proposing or creating a new type of stub, please read How to propose a new stub type. |
| WikiProject Stub sorting |
|
| Information | |
|---|---|
| Project page | talk |
| - Stub types (sections) | talk |
| - Stub types (full list) | talk |
| - List of stub redirects | talk |
| - Naming guidelines | |
| - To do | talk |
| Wikipedia:Stub | talk |
| Discussion | |
| Criteria (A) | talk |
| Proposals (A) | talk |
| Discoveries (A) | talk |
| Deletion (Log) | talk |
| Category | |
| Archives |
|---|
| 2005-2006 summaries |
This WP:WSS subpage is for discoveries of stub templates not cleared by WikiProject Stub sorting which have been encountered on Wikipedia. Stubs that have been put on the official stub type list without discussion on this page or /Proposals should be listed here as well. If you discover such a stub type, please list it at the top of this page along with any relevant details. Do not enter it on the stub type list until it has been discussed here to determine whether it should be kept or proposed for deletion at stub types for deletion.
To check whether a stub type has been discussed in the past, click on either the template or category link and select "What links here" from the toolbox on the left (set it to find only items in the Wikipedia space). Find the link to a WikiProject Stub sorting page such as Deletion or Proposals to see if there has been any discussion on this type previously. Note: If possible, check both the template and the category, in case one has been discussed but not the other.
Newly discovered, October 2008
NEW DISCOVERIES
{{Ohio-tv-station-stub}}
Apparently unproposed, although decently formed (has its own category, which are placed into appropriate higher categories, etc.), and parallel to similar stubs for other US states. The stub itself appears fine, although perhaps the category will need to be deleted and the stub upmerged to the regional category, as I counted only forty pages tagged with this stub. I've never before listed stubs here: should I notify the creator, Stepshep? Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yup - use {{wssdnotify}}. Grutness...wha? 05:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
{{Cemetery-stub}}
Unproposed, and poorly formed (no category link of any kind, but possibly not too bad an idea. Cemeteries currently get geo-stub types, which isn't altogether appropriate (though not too bad). If kept it would certainly need a category, and would also need many subtypes (there are possibly enough cemetery stub articles for about a dozen viable by-country types and several US by-state types). Should go through some form of formal count-up and propose process, though. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I'm the creator, and wasn't aware of the proposal required. Should we just can it, and I can propose it the right way? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, on further examination it looks like it has been proposed in the past, waaay back in 2005. In which case, simply tidying it up and adding a category would be the way to go with this one - though separate by continent/country/region ones would still need proposing (and probably will need to be, from the numbers point of view. It seems likely there will be some problems of overlap with things like NRHP-stub, but we'll just have to deal with them as and when with double-stubbing, probably. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, refactored the stub template for proper formatting, and added it to the Geography category. I would assume possible future stubs would be along the lines of newyork-cememtery-stub, unitedkingdom-cemetery-stub, etc when proposed? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
{{SouthAfrica-cricket-tour-stub}}/Cat:International cricket tour of South Africa stubs
Created in July 07, empty category, probably should be deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
{{Devon-stub}} / Cat:Devon stubs
While there is might be sense in having a template for this, there is no current justification for a separate category, especially since the one stub marked with this was a bio-stub (not normally given a subnational stub type except in rare cases) and was best served with other stub types. If there are 60 stubs, then a category is fine, if not, this probably needs upmerging. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Newly discovered, September 2008
{{Niue-stub}} / Cat:Niue stubs
Unproposed, but well-formed. The idea of a template is a perfectly reasonable one; every country should have a generic stub template of its own. The category, however, is never going to come within a bull's roar of threshold - even adding in the six articles marked with {{Niue-geo-stub}} would only bring the total up to nine at the moment. If all the articles in Cat:Niue and its subcats are stubs (highly unlikely) and if there's no double-catting there (which there is), and if every article in there was best suited by a Niue-stub (unlikely, given that articles like English language are in there) then there'd be 73 stubs - just 13 above threshold. But all that seems highly unlikely. This should almost certainly be upmerged to Cat:Oceania stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Given that when you count unique articles there are only 64 I think, this should be upmerged. Waacstats (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
{{Beijing-Subway-stub}} / Cat:Beijing Subway stubs
Unproposed - the template seems reasonable, but given that there are only 41 articles in Cat:Beijing Subway, the category seems doomed to fall below threshold. Will probably need upmerging. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Canonical template name also would strictly-speaking be either {{Beijing-Subway-stub}} or {{Beijing-metro-stub}}. Since only around two people seem to know or care about the naming guidelines -- and those don't always agree -- keep existing name as redirect post-move. Alai (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
{{Supergiant-star-stub}}
Unproposed. No stub category of any kind. Could potentially reach threshold for its own category (there are 110 articles in Cat:Supergiant stars and its subcats), but unless there's evidence that it does, this should be upmerged (if kept) into Cat:Star stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Logical scope, given the long-standing {{giant-star-stub}}, etc. Indeed, this may have been mooted in the proposal for that split. Upmerge. Alai (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
{{16thC-novel-stub}}
Upmerged and in line with naming of other templates, but I can't see any sign this was proposed. Looks like a keeper, though. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
{{Netherlands-cricket-bio-stub}} (upmerged)
Not really sure if it's needed or not, but it's upmerged to the directory the stubs would be in anyway. (Assuming I've understood what upmerging is correctly... bit new to this. :)) Does not appear to have been proposed, as far as I can tell - was created in Feb 08 but no sign of it in that month's proposals log. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed in january 2008. You appear to have understood upmerging corerctly. Waacstats (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
{{Gymnastics-stub}}
Seems necessary but appears not to have the stamp of approval, nor to have the parent category Category:Sports stubs. 45 pages in it - will be 47 in a minute as there are 2 to go there in the current stubs list. PamD (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- It was proposed, but for some reason must have slipped by withoutthe category being properly parented. A little small, but likely as not that's due to undersorting. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
{{Taiwan-edu-stub}} / Cat:Taiwan education stubs
Unproposed, and used on ten articles, nine of which are actually school stubs and should be marked as such - only one would really count as an edu-stub. I've no objection to creation of an upmerged Taiwan-school-stub, but I'm not convinced we need an edu-stub for Taiwan, nor that we need a separate category. Grutness...wha? 08:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't realize this would be a problem and I'm sorry I didn't go through the proper channels. I work extensively with school articles, and I say that placing all the Taiwan school stubs under Category:Asian school stubs was not ideal, as it made finding Taiwan stubs quite difficult. It seemed easiest to group all Taiwan school stubs under an education category like Category:Hong Kong education stubs and per convention at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Education i.e. everything covered under Education in Taiwan and for any future project such as WikiProject:Education in Taiwan. There are certain to be Taiwan stubs for libraries, schools, school districts, universities, vocational schools, examinations, and teachers, but I'm not convinced we are at the quantity where a subcategory of stubs is needed. When such a breakdown is needed, I think it should be done as Category:United States education stubs where there is a breakdown between schools and universities and then a further breakdown by territory --Jh12 (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- No real problem, though as I said, a Taiwan-school-stub would make more sense, and I'd suggest renaming and rescoping this one appropriately, especially if you're intent on filling it up rapidly. In most cases, Cat:Foo education stubs are made largely as holders for separate school and university stub subcategories, and the -edu- templates are mainly used for things which don't really fall under either. This is the case, for instance, with the United States education stubs category you mentioned. Note that they should never be used for biographical articles in individual educators, as you have done with quite a number of articles since I listed this category here! As for the Hong Kong category, it was largely the work of an editor who was long a thorn in the side of the stub-sorting project, and we simply haven't got around to renaming it yet :/ Grutness...wha? 09:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm; perhaps if I simply created Template:Taiwan-school-stub as well, and have Taiwan-school-stub and Template:Taiwan-university-stub add articles to Category:Taiwan education stubs. The policies regarding all this could be made somewhat clearer. I saw educators under the Hong Kong category and assumed they belonged; note that Hong Kong and Singapore are the largest Asian school categories, at least for WikiProject Schools, so I hope those categories are made clearer. I also work on all of the base Category:Schools from time to time, and it's often a mess. Was there a specific guideline page regarding education stubs? Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not as far as I know - it is a little ad hoc, as you point out above. Theoretically, a new {{Taiwan-school-stub}} should be proposed at WP:WSS/P too - just for form, since I doubt there'd be any objections (it's a speediable type). It may even have enough stubs for its own category (which would be a subcat of both Cat:Asian school stubs and Cat:Taiwan education stubs). {{Taiwan-university-stub}} already exists, but yes, it could be upmerged to both Cat:Asia university stubs and Cat:Taiwan education stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm; perhaps if I simply created Template:Taiwan-school-stub as well, and have Taiwan-school-stub and Template:Taiwan-university-stub add articles to Category:Taiwan education stubs. The policies regarding all this could be made somewhat clearer. I saw educators under the Hong Kong category and assumed they belonged; note that Hong Kong and Singapore are the largest Asian school categories, at least for WikiProject Schools, so I hope those categories are made clearer. I also work on all of the base Category:Schools from time to time, and it's often a mess. Was there a specific guideline page regarding education stubs? Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- No real problem, though as I said, a Taiwan-school-stub would make more sense, and I'd suggest renaming and rescoping this one appropriately, especially if you're intent on filling it up rapidly. In most cases, Cat:Foo education stubs are made largely as holders for separate school and university stub subcategories, and the -edu- templates are mainly used for things which don't really fall under either. This is the case, for instance, with the United States education stubs category you mentioned. Note that they should never be used for biographical articles in individual educators, as you have done with quite a number of articles since I listed this category here! As for the Hong Kong category, it was largely the work of an editor who was long a thorn in the side of the stub-sorting project, and we simply haven't got around to renaming it yet :/ Grutness...wha? 09:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
{{England-footy-midfielder-1870s-stub}} (upmerged)
Seems sensible, and in line with other similar templates, and thankfully it's upmerged. Would have nice if it had beeen proposed, though. Grutness...wha? 08:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for not proposing it first, genuinely didn't realise I needed to. The coloured notice says "please propose new stub categories here" and as I wasn't proposing a new stub category, but only a new template which generated the existing stub category Category:English football midfielder, pre-1940 birth stubs, I thought I didn't have to. Will know better in future. Should also declare {{England-footy-defender-1860s-stub}}, also created by me yesterday without proposing first, for which I imagine there'll be rather less demand than for the 1870s one. The rationale for both would be for consistency with the other English footballer playing position/birth decade stub templates. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
{{Norway-newspaper-stub}} / Cat:Norwegian newspaper stubs
{{AFL-bio-1850s-stub}}
Upmerged, and in line with other similar by-decade types, so seems keepable on that basis. Doubt this will ever need splitting out with its own category though, given that the earliest organisation of the AFL was only in the late 1850s - there can't be that many stubs on Aussie Rules players from that era. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
{{Liliales-stub}} / Cat:Liliales stubs
New unproposed stub type for an order of monocot plants, complete with its own category (don't you love it when unproposed categories spring up with the WP:WSS notice saying not to create stub types without proposal already in them? Sort of adding insult to injury, or - in this case - perhaps gilding the lily is a better term). Problem with this one is that Cat:Monocot stubs has fewer than 210 unsubcatted stubs, so it's not within a bull's roar of needing a further new split. It also greatly reduces the chances that this type - currently with 25 stubs - will get close to threshold. The template may well be useful in the long run, but it should very likely be upmerged for now. Grutness...wha? 11:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- How quickly we forget. See Proposals, August 2007. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- My count then didn't show viability, either, so I think a category was not necessarily implied by that discussion. If not populable now, upmerge. Alai (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- The count at the time was 68. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- And now it's at 80. May we keep it, please? Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. Sorry I didn't know qabout the proposal - trouble with "implied splits" like this one and the one below is that there's no link to the proposal in the "what links here" of the category or template, so it didn't look like it had been proposed. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- There's a link to the category from the proposal (but admittedly not to the template). Alai (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- ...and I spot them when I go through Special:NewPages/Templates each day, which explains why I didn't see it. I'm far more likely to check the template's links, and didn't recognise the creator's name, so assumed it was unproposed - sorry :/ Grutness...wha? 05:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- No harm, no foul. Not my proposal in this case, but I must admit I tend to only link (or indeed explicitly list) the category. Of course, if something is proposed initially as an upmerged template, the reverse will be the case (and perhaps otherwise, too). Alai (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have assuaged my (admittedly microscopic) feelings of indignation by adding a note to the top of this page. :P Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- No harm, no foul. Not my proposal in this case, but I must admit I tend to only link (or indeed explicitly list) the category. Of course, if something is proposed initially as an upmerged template, the reverse will be the case (and perhaps otherwise, too). Alai (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- ...and I spot them when I go through Special:NewPages/Templates each day, which explains why I didn't see it. I'm far more likely to check the template's links, and didn't recognise the creator's name, so assumed it was unproposed - sorry :/ Grutness...wha? 05:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- There's a link to the category from the proposal (but admittedly not to the template). Alai (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. Sorry I didn't know qabout the proposal - trouble with "implied splits" like this one and the one below is that there's no link to the proposal in the "what links here" of the category or template, so it didn't look like it had been proposed. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- And now it's at 80. May we keep it, please? Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
{{Defensive-lineman-1990s-stub}} / Cat:Defensive lineman, 1990s birth stubs
Unproposed, but at least the template seems reasonable. Seems to have been pasted over from the equivalent 1980s template and category... Unfortunately, the new category is a problem, however, since it's clearly not likely to reach threshold in the immediate future (I doubt we have 60 stub articles on teenaged defensive linemen at present). Suggest that for the time being upmerging would probably be the most sensible option. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Implied in Proposals, May 2007. This is not my day. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Newly discovered, August 2008
{{Pakistan-lit-stub}} / Cat:Pakistani literature stubs
Unproposed. No objection to the template, which looks fine, but the category looks likely to remain woefully undersized for a considerable time. Cat:Pakistan stubs is getting close to needing splitting (more on that at WP:WSS/P), but this isn't the best option for a split. I'd recommend keeping the template but upmerging it. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
{{Student-org-stub}} (redlinked)
Unproposed, but this one sounds pretty useful... though not with this name. The parent permcat would be one of Cat:Students' unions, Cat:Student societies, or Cat:Associations of students, which suggests that this should be at {{Student-union-stub}}, {{Student-association-stub}}, or {{Student-society-stub}} and either be upmerged to Cat:Youth organization stubs or - iff numbers warrant - have its own (not redlinked!) {{equivalently titled stubcat. Student-association-stub might be the most all-encompassing of the three options (and would allow the fraternities and sororities types to be subcategories of it), though student-union-stub also has its merits. BTW, I have proposed at CFD that Cat:Associations of students be renamed to a more reasonable-sounding Cat:Student associations. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
{{Parthian empire-stub}}
{{US-private-equity-bio-stub}} and {{US-private-equity-bio-stub}}
User:Urbanrenewal proposed several templates recently, but when he created them he added in a couple of extra ones (upmerged) for good measure. Probably worthwhile in the long run, though the icon sizes are pretty outrageously large. Grutness...wha? 04:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem with adding these differentiations. I have added two sub-stubs on the expectation that these will likely be subcategorized and would rather tag the articles once rather than have to go back and re-tag. As there was no opposition to the creation of the stubs {{private-equity-bio-stub}}, I see no problem with adding {{US-private-equity-bio-stub}} and {{UK-private-equity-bio-stub}} which both feed into the same category. I made the image size 5px smaller - I think "outrageously large" is somewhat overstated. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 12:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Though yuou don't see any problems with differentiating them, and - as I pointed out - they're probably worthwhile, they should have been proposed with the others. As to the size of the icon, reducing it from 80px to 75px when the standard for stub icons is 40px means they are still outrageously large. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
{{Neopaganism-stub}} / Cat:Neopaganism stubs
Unproposed, though well formed. May meet threshold requirements, given size of permcat parent, but this is not guaranteed. Likely to have significant overlap with several other stub types... Seems like a "wait and see" approach may be best for this one? Grutness...wha? 04:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Trust me, I was looking and searching stubs but I did not find what I was looking for. So I had two posibilities: to create stub for Kemetism or create some general neopaganistic stub. I choose the second option, because I believe, that this general stub can be more usefull. And believe me I would rather use existed stub than cerating a new-one. But there was not what I needed. The closest was paganism stub, but paganism is not the same as neopaganism (each-one has here individual articles and whole individual cathegories).
- If that stub will be considered as a mistake I will accept verdict.
But at that moment I did what I considered as the best.
- --Niusereset 25.VIII. MMVIII, 13:35 CEST
{{Ontario-bio-stub}} (upmerged)
Unproposed, and we don't normally split biostubs by subnational reason, per previous precedent. I see noreal reason why Ontario should be an exception to thzt. Grutness...wha? 21:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
{{Australia-plant-stub}} / Cat:Australian plant stubs
Unproposed, and counter-hierarchy. I'd have taken this straight to WP:SFD if it wasn't for the fact that this has already over 800 stubs! Which is understandable, when you think about it, since that's bound to happen with any plant category based on a country - one of the reasons why WP:WSS doesn't split plant stubs in this way. All other plant-stub subtypes are by taxonomy, exactly the same way that animals, fungi, viruses, etc are divided up. Even with 800 stubs, rthis should be deleted: it sets a nasty precedent (do we want country-plant-stubs cropping up for 200-odd other countries?) Yes, much of Australias biota is unique, but enough of it isn't for this to cause many problems, either of overlap or usage definition. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support "Counter-hierarchy"! Crikey Moses! If you delete this, you'll have to upmerge its 850 stubs to {{Australia-stub}}, which currently only has 398 articles in its root category. And do you know what will happen? Someone will look at Category:Australia stubs, notice that more than two thirds of its 1200 articles are plant articles, and say "we really really really need a plant subcategory". And rightly so. So how about doing the sensible thing, and accept that there is a first time for everything, and that this is a perfectly reasonable stub even if it is "counter-hierarchy", whatever than means. Hesperian 00:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. The assertion "All other plant-stub subtypes are by taxonomy" is false; we have {{vegetable-stub}}, {{fruit-stub}}, {{tree-stub}}, {{fruit-tree-stub}}, {{Fabaceae-tree-stub}} and arguably {{Grass-stub}}. Hesperian 01:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- These wouldn't be in Australia stubs for the most part, since they'd be in their taxon groups (several of which might be possible as subtypes of Australia stubs, but generally they wouldn't go in there). And it isn't a "perfectly reasonable stub" for the reasons I mentioned. And though "tree" and "grass" may not be specific parts of the taxonomy of plants, they are descriptive enough that specific taxonomical groups lie totally within them or are readily split by them without overlap - such as the Fabaceae-tree-stub type you mentioned. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Leaving aside the false claim that all that other plant stubs are taxon specific, and the irrelevant observation that this is unproposed, "The reasons [you] mentioned" boil down to "it sets a nasty precedent", which is rather begging the question since you haven't actually given a cogent argument why it is "nasty"; and "problems of overlap".
- With the respect to the latter, no doubt you realise that every tree-stub is also some kind of taxon-stub, just as every Australia-plant-stub is also some kind of taxon-stub. Yes, you are able to eliminate some overlap by creating hideous cross-stubs like Fabaceae-tree-stub, but I am equally capable of eliminating overlap by creating hideous cross-stubs like Australia-Proteaceae-stub. So what's the difference, other than the fact that you like one and not the other?
- And the problem of overlap with other (presently non-existent) country-plant-stubs will still be there regardless, since these stubs will end up tagged with the parent country-stubs, which overlap in exactly the same way.
- I might just as well say that "native to Australia" may not be a specific part of the taxonomy of plants, but it is descriptive enough that specific taxonomic groups lie totally within it or are readily split by it without overlap.
- Hesperian 02:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Offtopic: some confusion was perhaps caused by the fact that a number of taxon-stubs had been inappropriately made children of tree-stub. Sapindales-stub should not have been a child of tree-stub, as many taxa are not trees; e.g. Boenninghausenia is a herb! Palm-stub should not have been, either; e.g. Desmoncus grows as a vine! Ditto Myrtaceae, Acacia, Salicaceae, Ulmaceae, Ilex, and Fagales, all of which have shrubby species) Hesperian 02:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- These wouldn't be in Australia stubs for the most part, since they'd be in their taxon groups (several of which might be possible as subtypes of Australia stubs, but generally they wouldn't go in there). And it isn't a "perfectly reasonable stub" for the reasons I mentioned. And though "tree" and "grass" may not be specific parts of the taxonomy of plants, they are descriptive enough that specific taxonomical groups lie totally within them or are readily split by them without overlap - such as the Fabaceae-tree-stub type you mentioned. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. The assertion "All other plant-stub subtypes are by taxonomy" is false; we have {{vegetable-stub}}, {{fruit-stub}}, {{tree-stub}}, {{fruit-tree-stub}}, {{Fabaceae-tree-stub}} and arguably {{Grass-stub}}. Hesperian 01:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I find this stub category to be very useful and have already used it to update and maintain quite a number of Australian flora articles. Melburnian (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment In my opinion, creating a stub type based on its country is only valid if such templates is created for all the nations listed in List of countries. Singling out a country can show systematic bias. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment - why are people !voting "keep", "support" etc on this page? This is not SFD, this is WP:WSS's discoveries page. There is no point in !voting here - keep that until the if-and-when of this getting transferred to WP:SFD. All that is asked for here is a rationale for the creation of this stub type, and possible arguments for and against it - preferably ones which refer to normal stubbing practice. Grutness...wha? 21:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps because the other two sections that have attracted comments here have also attracted !votes? So who gets to decide whether this gets transferred to SFD if opinions on the matter are unwelcome here? Or, to put it another way, if you're going to take this to SFD regardless of what people say here, then what is the purpose of this forum? Hesperian 01:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- The other two? There are seven other sections on the August section of this page lone, and only one of them attracted similar !votes - followed by a comment that such !votes were inappropriate. As to "what is the purpose of this forum", the purpose is to report to WP:WSS stub types that have been made out of process, to get a response from the person who made them as to why they were made, and to have other members of WP:WSS discuss whether they fit in with that project - this is, after all a WP:WSS subpage. At that point, it should become obvious whether the stub types are definite keepers or are worth opening up to debate by the rest of Wikipedia on WP:SFD. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
{{Arctic-stub}} / Cat:Arctic stubs
Unproposed. Makes some sense, given the number of articles this might be useful for. Certainly with the politics of the area, um, heating up, this may be of use, but atthe moment there's no guarantee of those numbers, so it may need upmerging... somewhere. I';ve fixed the coding on the template and I'm about to give the category some sensible parents, BTW. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support. As creator of the template. This makes obvious sense, and is most certainly needed, it is a perfect companion to WP:ARCTIC and it will also be very helpful with Portal:Arctic, as well as with noting which articles along the topic area require improvement. Cirt (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support quite definitely meets the inclusion threshold. It will also be of use to the corresponding Wikiproject and Portal as Cirt said. - Icewedge (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support The articles which are GA and FA are helping formulate wikipedia's coverage of the arctic, in the same format as the Antarctic project and portal, which has been ongoing awhile. The stub articles have to be discovered first in order for folks to edit and expand them to GA and FA. SriMesh | talk 05:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Look at Cat:Nunavut stubs which has 421. Not all of them will be above the Arctic Circle but I suspect that more than 60 are. In fact there is probably going to be a need for other related stubs to ensure that the Cat:Arctic stubs is not overpopulated. Why I really think there may need to be at least 57 stub types to cover the project. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- All of you need to know what this page is for - there is not much point in expressing "support" or "opposition" here - this is simply a page for announcing new unproposed stubs and assessing them in the context of stub sorting - something which none of you have really done - not for indicating whether the stub should be created (which should have been done at a proposal stage at WP:WSS/P) or kept (which may be done if this stub type is nominated for deletion at WP:SFD). Indeed the notice I placed on Cirt's talkpage only asked for some reason for the stub type's creation. I'm at a little bit of a loss with these replies, since none of them really relate to the need for this stub type, so I'll reply to each in turn:
- Cirt, you have given perfect reasons for having a talk page banner template, but none whatsoever for having a stub template. Stub templates are not used by individual WikiProjects; they are used across Wikipedia as a whole. As such, a stub type is never a "companion" to a WikiProject. WikiProjects use specific talk page banners which allow them to assess all articles relating to their subjects - that's why they're generally preferred by Wikiprojects to stub templates.
- Icewedge, how does it meet the inclusion threshold? The "inclusion threshold" is to have 60 existing stubs (well, 30, given that there's a WikiProject)which are marked with the template prior to the creation of the category, or the same number of stubs listed which may use it prior to the creation of the template. This template is not used on any articles and the category is empty.
- SriMesh, how does having GA and FA articles in any way indicate that a stub template is needed? The stub articles relating to the Arctic, what there are of them (which is a fairly small number) are already categorised into effective stub types. Again, it wwould be easier to find articles if a talk page template (such as, for example, {{WPBeatles}}) was used by your project instead.
- CBW, there are 33 articles in Cat:Nunavut stubs - there are, however, lots of Cat:Nunavut geography stubs - by definition, these wouldn't be marked with {{arctic-stub}} - they would need to be marked with {{Arctic-geo-stub}} - something which hasn't been proposed and would be highly unlikely to be agreed to, since where possible geography stubs are classified by whichever nation or subnational region they lie within (in this case, quite obviously Canada and Nunavut respectively). It seems highly unlikely that threshold can be reached from those 33 stubs alone. As for the idea of needing 57 stub types, that is - to be frank - fairly ludicrous. A comparison of the necessary split of the Arctic region to the split of Africa into the 57 sovereign nations within that continent is a very poor one - how many sovereign nations actually exist in the Arctic which are not already part of another continental designation? Any at all? Grutness...wha? (adding signature here, since SriMesh has decided to reply in the middle of my comments rather than at the end)
- Because of the Ilulissat Declaration, economics, ice melting, oil drilling, the Arctic boundaries are currently being re-drawn and the scientiic progress will last from now until around 2013. So...Labelling content with a country name now, may change, an arctic related articles//stubs would be so much easier to find all labelled as arctic. Trying to install a wikinew Arctic portal, and arctic new articles are categorized by many countries, but nothing to bring coherency to the arctic. So is the same with arctic related articles. The north pole belongs to no one right now. Every north pole explorer should be tagged with arctic to be accessible, until perhaps the finale of Ilulissat Declaration where maybe there will be an owner. So some things need to be arctic stubs.SriMesh | talk 06:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Are you trying to tell me that places in, say Nunavut might suddenly find themselves becoming part of Greenland, or Svalbard might suddenly find itself part of Russia? Because if not, then no difference will be made that is significant to stub sorting by the declaration, and even if it was, if that difference is not going to occur for over four years then it is not an issue which needs addressing now. All the land mass around the Arctic will surely remain in the countries it now lies within. All the sea and pack-ice area will still be within the ocean, and as such will use marine-geo-stub. All the exploration which has been done by individual countries will still have been done by those individual countries and will be stubbed accordingly. All the oilfields will still use oilfield-stub. All the geological details will still use geology-stub. Every north pole explorer will still be marked with explorer-stub. All these things are already stubbed in such a way that they can be found by general Wikipedia editors, and any editors within a specific Arctic wikiproject would be far better off looking for them using a banner assessment template by which they can find all articles on the arctic, not just stubs. Grutness...wha? 08:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- "...any editors within a specific Arctic wikiproject would be far better off looking for them using a banner assessment template by which they can find all articles on the arctic, not just stubs"' - I agree. But this seems to be an argument against stub templates in general, and in favour of WikiProjects. Wouldn't someone looking for, say, plant stubs, be better off looking at WikiProject Plants (or whatever)? Ditto for lots of stub types. My assertion is that if you look at the current set-up of the Antarctic stubs, you have explorers and expeditions there that are classified by where the exploration took place, rather than the country that did the exploration. Can you explain that? Carcharoth (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Are you trying to tell me that places in, say Nunavut might suddenly find themselves becoming part of Greenland, or Svalbard might suddenly find itself part of Russia? Because if not, then no difference will be made that is significant to stub sorting by the declaration, and even if it was, if that difference is not going to occur for over four years then it is not an issue which needs addressing now. All the land mass around the Arctic will surely remain in the countries it now lies within. All the sea and pack-ice area will still be within the ocean, and as such will use marine-geo-stub. All the exploration which has been done by individual countries will still have been done by those individual countries and will be stubbed accordingly. All the oilfields will still use oilfield-stub. All the geological details will still use geology-stub. Every north pole explorer will still be marked with explorer-stub. All these things are already stubbed in such a way that they can be found by general Wikipedia editors, and any editors within a specific Arctic wikiproject would be far better off looking for them using a banner assessment template by which they can find all articles on the arctic, not just stubs. Grutness...wha? 08:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Compare instead the situation as it is with stub types for Antarctica. The main reason why an antarctica-gteo-stub was created was because Antarctica, by both definition and international treaty, is a continent which is not within the jurisdiction of any nation. As such, any stubs on Antarctica could not be automatically assigned to any currently existing national geo-stub type. Eventually, the number of these stubs became so great that a separate stub type was created for the geography of subantarctic islands covered by the Antarctic treaty. A third stub type, for items about Antarctica that were not geography-related, was eventually created, but it only just scraped into the size where a separate category was warranted. The same geopolitical situation does not occur with the Arctic. It isn't a continent, and national sovereignty covers much of the area. As such, most of the stubs which would possibly warrant an arctic-stub are already well-covered by national stub types. The area which is open sea (or pack ice) outside national jurisdictions is covered by marine-geo-stub as far as its geography is concerned.
- Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that having this stub type is a bad idea per se - I indicated as much in my initial comments. All I'm saying is that the reasoning behind it seems pretty faulty, as does the expectation of what articles should andd could use it - and your WikiProject would be far better off handling the articles in a different way, via a talk page banner. Grutness...wha? 09:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oh dear. I created the category (Category:Arctic stubs) while tidying up Category:Arctic (mainly to dump the Alaska stubs in there), but I was waiting a bit before creating the stub template, as I knew it would need to be approved. I was also waiting to propose the WikiProject and the Portal, but it seems a wave of enthusiasm has resulted in everything being created and lots of work being done. Admittedly, as Grutness points out, not a lot of stubs have been identified and people might be misunderstanding what stubs are for, but can someone who knows more about this clarify what degree of "permission" is needed for new stubs, new wikiprojects and new portals. Anyone? Carcharoth (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- On another point, Grutness, would you have time to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arctic/Likely articles, a long list of about 1500 articles that are in the Arctic Circle (if the bot got this right). Is there a way to identify the stubs in that list and to decide the best way to handle them? I understand your geopolitical argument above, but I think if there is more motivation for people to tackle and improve stubs from an Arctic perspective, than a national perspective, that might be an argument for having this stub type. Ultimately, though, if we just assess stuff within the scope of the project as stubs, then we end up with Category:Stub-Class Arctic articles - which then leads me to ask: Why have stubs at all? Why not just mark stubs by talk page assessments? I'm also looking at Category:Antarctica stubs, and similar stub articles exist for the Arctic, they just aren't tagged yet (look at Category:Arctic). But before we try and find 60 stubs not covered by any other stub type, could you suggest what would be a suitable example of an Arctic stub? Carcharoth (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Making a third post to bring up some detail. I've looked through Category:Arctic, and the areas I think are most suitable in terms of having stubs that *might* benefit from such a stub template, are Category:Arctic research, Category:Government of the Arctic, Category:History of the Arctic and Category:Culture of the Arctic. And Category:Arctic Ocean does have a lot. Could you explain how {{marine-geo-stub}} would be used for that? Carcharoth (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- Ooookay... this will probably need a long answer. As far as "permission" is concerned, it is true that no formal permission is actually needed for new stub types - it's not policy. It is, however, a very strong recommendation, given the hu