Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2008/July

Newly discovered, July 2008

{{Law-term-stub}} / Category:Legal term stubs

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 was created April 30th by Waacstats (talk · contribs), with the summary "new stbu cat as per wss/p". Despite the reference to WSS/P, it appears this never happened! I have sifted through proposals, discoveries and deletions for March and April, along with Waacstats' WP-space history for those months—a task in itself!mdash;but can't find any evidence that this proposal ever occurred and was approved. That said, this should definitely be kept—I came across it when I was about to propose it myself—as it is already populated and there are plenty more articles in Category:Law stubs that should be sorted here; I just don't want to add it to the list without there ever having been any discussion! — Skittleys (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/June 2007#Cat:legal term stubs. Severo^TC 18:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Thanks! Adding this to the list now... — Skittleys (talk) 04:45, 28 July 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.

{{Cuba-film-stub}} / Category:Cuban film stubs

And another unproposed one. Seems reasonable in scope, but will likely never get close to threshold for a separate category - the parent permcat only has 24 articles, less than half the number needed for a stubcat. Even if stubs were made for every redlink on List of Cuban films it still wouldn't get within 15 of threshold. Upmerging is definitely desirable. Grutness...wha? 01:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Estonia-actor-stub}}/redlink

Another unproposed one.Possibly useful and in line with other similar splits, but unlikely to reach threshold for its own category (I've upmerged it). Grutness...wha? 02:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Turkey-writer-stub}} / Category:Turkish writer stubs

Unproposed, and probably fine as an upmerged template, at least. This linked both to upmerged types and also to its own new category (a clear example of overcatting if ever there was one). The Category:Turkish writer stubs is currently undersized, and may well stay so - if it does, upmerging looks the most sensible option. Grutness...wha? 02:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unproposed, and likely to remain very small - but it is standard and upmerged, so it can probably stay in that form. Grutness...wha? 02:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{England-viscount-stub}} / Category:Peerage of England viscount stubs

Despite the categories rather combersome name, this is in line with other similar categories. Unproposed, and currently undersized - will probably grow to threshold, but if not upmerging is always an option. Grutness...wha? 02:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - I didn't realise all new stub templates had to be proposed now. Yes it is rather undersized at the moment. Feel free to get rid of it as it can't always be merged back into Category:British nobility stubs. Craigy (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]