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

Newly discovered, October 2008

{{Punkmusic-stub}}

Unproposed though thankfully upmerged, but misnamed - should be {{Punk-music-stub}}. I'd question, however, just how useful it will be. We've already got stub types for {{punk-song-stub}} and {{punk-album-stub}} - a separate {{punk-band-stub}} and {{punk-musician-stub}} might be more useful than this - what else is there that will really make this useful? There's only so many articles that can be written on punk clothing and lifestyle - most of which isn't really punk music per se.

There's also the less important but still worth-mentioning problem that "punk" is really two specific genres - the current style of music that goes by that name and the "classic" punk from the late 70s (which itself could be split into UK and US). I'm a little concerned as to which style this would be used for.

Grutness...wha? 01:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about creating it without a proposal. I was copying from another Wikiproject & didn't notice the banner on the top of the category until after I'd created it & then linked over to the category. Renaming would be fine. The idea is to have a catchall stub type for articles that don't fall into the existing types (album & song). Separate stubs for band & musician certainly would be useful, but there are also a lot of films, books, magazines, websites, clothing, persons, tours, artists, etc. etc. that are within the general category of "punk" but aren't covered by the existing stub types. That's what this one is meant to be for. As to the second point, it covers all eras of punk, from late 70s to today. Anything that's labeled "punk". I know that doesn't sound too specific, but remember it's a catchall for topics not already covered by the existing stub types. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Crypto-stub}}

There are 456 in the category, but it's not properly presented as an official stub type. It lists within Category:Cryptography under "s" rather than at the end, so I missed it first time round. I don't know where it fits in the hierarchy of stub types... perhaps under "Miscellaneous"? PamD (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's there - under science. This one's been around for a long time and, judging by the history - which contains edits from both Alai and former stub sorter BL Lacertae - it's known here. No sign it was ever proposed, but it looks reasonable enough. At one time it was stabndard for stub categories to be listed under "s", BTW - this probably just wasn't switched over to a "µ" piping. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Gibraltar-bio-stub}}

Perfectly sensible-looking addition to the by-nation/country/territory/whatever bio-stub range. Mercifully it's upmerged, since I doubt this would get close to stand-alone viability for some time. A keeper, IMO. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I created this stub in order to separate the biographical articles, as is done for other countries/territories. It just makes for easier sorting. It's already proving to be very useful. I apologise for not having taken the necessary step of proposing the stub for creation, I will make sure I do so next time.

I would also like to create a new category for this stub in order to separate these stub articles from those listed in Category:Gibraltar stubs, are there any necessary steps I need to take? Thanks, --Gibmetal 77^talk 09:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup - first, there need to be 60 stubs marked with the template (in this case, you can include any marked with {{Gibraltar-politician-stub}} in that count, since it would also feed into any new category. At the moment, their "what links here" buttons say they have 25 stubs between them). Once there are, propose the category at WP:WSS/P. There shouldn't be any objection if you can reach 60 - it's a standard way of splitting out stubs from a generic country stub cat. Grutness...wha? 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

{{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)

Hello WPSS. I didn't realize this meant every category; just new templates. Alas, I have been proven incorrect. What's going to happen now? My actions:Downmerge the template's category from regioanl (midwest) to state (Ohio) because I believed there were enough articles for there to be a split. Is there a cutoff? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What happens is it gets left here for a while (often a few months) to discuss it or see if it will reach the necessary threshold (60 stubs). If there's no sign of it doing so, it'll be probably be taken to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion where it will likely be upmerged. Grutness...wha? 05:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that if it was used primarily by a WikiProject that 60 became 30? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not quite - for the principal stub category for a wikiproject it's 30, for all additional ones it's 60. So the threshold would only be 30 here if there was a WikiProject Ohio television stations. For WikiProject US television stations (if there is one) US-tv-station-stub would have a threshold of 30, all state-specific ones would have heshold of 60. Grutness...wha? 20:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay, I understand now. Then where would I list the same template for Indiana and a basketball stub template for Ohio teams? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Um...not quite sure what you mean by "where would I list them?" If you mean where can you propose them for creation, then WP:WSS/P is the place. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think §hep means where to list {{Indiana-tv-station-stub}}, {{Ohio-basketball-team-stub}} and {{Indiana-basketball-team-stub}}. Which of course would be here. I support all these templates, categories for any that reach 60. Waacstats (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not being clear. Anyways the matter at hand is the template above. I really think that this project has a bit too much power, similar to BAG. If a group creates a category to better classify articles, and they're willing to maintain what they create there shouldn't be any problems? Right? (And the Indiana TV stub only has 44 articles) §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Creating permanent categories is fine, but not stub categories - these are all primarily maintained by WP:WSS (hence the banner template which should be at the top of them). Reducing the threshold below 60 for some cases where there is no specific Wikiproject would set a precedent for the same thing happening elsewhere. Even reducing the threshold to 50 would likely risk doubling the number of categories we'd have to keep track of. As Waacstats points out, the idea of templates os fine, but there should only be categories if there's over 60 stubs - other than that they should be upmerged into larger regional categories. If any group wants to check what articles use a specific template, then it's just as easy to use the template's "whatlinkshere" link in the toolbox if there are small numbers of stubs. Grutness...wha? 21:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

But it wouldn't be taken to stub types for deletion? The stub is an official one, the category is what's new. Two clicks and a {{db}} should do the trick, right? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(slaps forehead) You know, for some reason that's never been done here, but you're right. A repointing of the template would instantly render the category as a speedy candidate. Why the hell don't we do that normally? (this isn't sarcasm - it's a genuine, if partly rhetorical - question) Grutness...wha? 00:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I also have 4 more articles to create, but I just checked over all the Ohio TV stations and the cat hit 60. I used AWB to check the articles so if they were not stub length (whatever they use for that) it shouldn't have gotten tagged. If it gets to the 64 can it be kept? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That's generally the way it goes, so yup, I guess that would be fine :) Grutness...wha? 04:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

↔Most of those ended up working better as redirects. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:24, 22 November 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)

Yes and no -you've got the right idea, except we use camelcaps and always abbreviate the UK and US (but nowhere else), so those two examples would actually be NewYork- and UK- respectively. Other than that though, that would be the style of them. Grutness...wha? 21:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It happens that a category for U.S. NRHP cemeteries has just been discussed, along with others, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Discussion of categories related to religion. It was noted there by User:Elkman, who has an NRHP database, that there are 1472 cemeteries, 687 grave/burial sites, and 102 mortuaries listed on the NRHP. Hope this is helpful somehow; it is very random that i happened by the discussion. doncram (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely relevant - number of stubs and number of articles isn't directly related - but if the percentage of stubs is high, then that definitely indicates that this would have plenty of use. Mind you, it also indicates a complication, since it would cross the existing NRHP-stubs. Grutness...wha? 20:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Does complicate it a bit, since most cemetery stubs would more than likely be NRHP's, not all, but most. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it complicates it for US cemeteries, at least, but there are plenty of cemetery stubs from other countries that don't have that problem. We can always double-stub when cemeteries are also NRHP sites. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

{{SouthAfrica-cricket-tour-stub}}/Category: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}} / Category: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)