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

Newly discovered, August 2008

{{Pakistan-lit-stub}} / Category: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. Category: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 Category:Students' unions, Category:Student societies, or Category: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 Category: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 Category:Associations of students be renamed to a more reasonable-sounding Category:Student associations. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

{{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}} / Category: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}} / Category: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)

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}} / Category: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 Category: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 Category: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 Category:Nunavut stubs - there are, however, lots of Category: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)

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 huge number of stub types ion Wikipedia and the necessity to have them organised in some form of order so that they don't become unmanageable. Trying to keep the stub types useable is so much of a case of herding cats as it is that anything that can be done to reduce the free creation of new stub types is a major advantage, not just for WP:WSS, but for Wikipedia as a whole. It is the only way that the creation of tens of thousands of stub types on a host of trivial ssubjeects 9and also the creation of hosts of virtually identical stub types) can be avoided. That's why WP:STUB gives pretty comprehensive guidelines on the best way to create stubs. It's also why we have a "discoveries" page here, rather than simply taking any unproposed stubs to WP:SFD to be deleted or keept by consensus (in a way, this discoveries page acts as a stepping stone to either acceptance of the unproposed stub or - if it has too many problems - nomination for deletion. In the case of this stub, acceptance is likely, I'd say, though there are, as I've pointed out, some concerns with it. (BTW - there is a Category:Alaska stubs with four subcategories for those stubs!)

Unfortunately, the easiest way to assess which articles in a list like that are stubs and which aren't is by manually sorting at them. An article isn't simply a stub by virtue of its length (see my short essay on that point). And if you're going to sort them manually, then going the whole way with assessment templates and FA- A- B- C- Stub-Classes is probably handled at that time. As to why have stubs at all, the reason lies in the fundamental ddifference between assessment templates - used by just one WikiProject - and stub templates - used by the whole of Wikipedia. If every simgle possible subject had its dedicated WikiProject, and all Wikipedians were members of those projects, then we probably wouldn't need stub templates. But that isn't the case. So two parallel systems are used, one to cover specific subjects by specific projects, and one to cover all subjects and for all editors. This also gives some indication as to why individdual WikiProjects are better off concentrating on assessment templates (a point also made in the blank wikiproject template {{WikiProject}}). A suitable example of an arctic stub might be something like SCICEX, currently listed in Category:Oceanography stubs

Admittedly, marine-geo-stub couldn't be used for all of those articles you mention, though others, such as, for instance, {{explorer-stub}}, {{Greenland-stub}}, {{geophysics-stub}}, {{ocean-stub}}, {{{{glaciology-stub}}, {{NorthAm-native-stub}} (a separate inuit-stub might be a reasonable idea, as might a svalbard-geo-stub, which seems to be missing from our Norwegian geo-stubs), do exist. If there are enough articles tagged with these stubs that would qualify for an arctic-stub, then they could be double-stubbed with them (i.e., adding the arctic-stub but also keeping the stub that's there) - and remember that as the main stub type for a wikiproject it only needs 30, not 60, to be regarded as a reasonable stub type. Those stub types would probably be the best first places to start looking for arctic stubs. The main problem really is defining exactly what should and shouldn't have such a stub type, especially given that - as I pointed out - the Arctic isn't a sovereign nation, and as such many stubs which seem to qualify are better stubbed in other ways. {{Glaciology-stub}} is an example of the sort of problems faced - that stub type is for glacier science, but the category doesn't (or at least shouldn't) articles about the glaciers themselves, each of which has its appropriate geo-stub. As for marine-geo-stub itself, BTW, if it grows to several times its current size it may well eventually be split by region - in which case an arctic-marine-geo-stub would be a logical type (not yet, though!). Grutness...wha? 00:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply, which has helped clear things up a bit for me. In terms of actually getting things done, do you think having both a WikiProject-assessed stub category and an article-tagged stub category would help, or just the WikiProject stub category alone? My other question concerns areas where some of the articles have already been expanded beyond stubs. If this has happened, and the remaining stubs are low in number, does this preclude the creation of a stub category? What happens to existing stub categories when they only have 10-15 stubs left? Are they upmerged and deleted, or are they left in place in the hope that more stubs will be created? How is it decided when an "approved" stub category has finished its purpose and can be deleted? I'm still looking at Category:Antarctica stubs, and I suspect that it used to have a lot more stubs in it that got expanded (not that it is easy to tell). Carcharoth (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that concentrating on the assessment template would probably be best, though the stub type may be useful as well if enough stub articles are found (the two can coexist comfortably enough). With the assessment template it wouldn't matter if the number drops too much, though you're right that it might cause a problem with a stub category. It rarely happens, given that the rate of new article creation is usually greater than the rate of article expansion, but proposed stub types have been taken to SFD in the past, though usually simply for upmerging (i.e., keeping the template but pointing it at a larger, more general category). WP:WSS usually takes a 'wait and see" approach tol see whether the numbers go up again, so it's often a year or more between the number dwindling away towards zero and anything being done about the category. Antarctica stubs hasn't changed in size too much since it was made - the threshold for category creation is often lowered if there's a natural subcategory such as the geo-stub one. Grutness...wha? 08:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As I feared, this stub type is being thoroughly misused. At the time of writing there are 100 stubs marked with arctic-stub. Of those, eight seem to use it legitimately - the remaining 92 are geo-stubs already marked with appropriate geo-stub templates. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

kleinian theory/object relations/depressive and paranoid-schizoid positions

kleinian theory/object relations/depressive and paranoid-schizoid positions: hi. im not sure this is how or where to ask or say so, but this is my discovery. Object relations theory is part of the psychology portal, and Melanie Klein is a major theorist. The Object relations page needed work, so i wrote little subsections on the theory. Today, I realize there are already stubs written on Depressive position and paranoid-schizoid position but they are just danglers, and not linked up. They should be within the object relatons page at a minimum. I would be happy to do something about this, but im not really sure what or how, i just know it needs to be linked, or integrated, or something. and it seems one is requested to say so here. Thanks. Majicshrink (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the forum for this - this is to discuss stub templates and categories. You'd be better taking this to somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

{{UFO-stub}} / (redlinked)

Seems vaguely reasonable, though size and actual scope could be an issue. Should it, for instance, include religions and similar like raelism and scientology? Seems plausible that it might reach threshold, though if not it can always be upmerged into the correctly but somewhat unnervingly named Category:Paranormal stubs (do these stubs dematerialise before your eyes? Or edit themselves?) Grutness...wha? 01:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Turkish Olympic medalist stubs

Currently only 36 articles, but I'd hold off with anything for a couple of weeks for obvious reasons! Severo^TC 21:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

{{France-swimming-bio-stub}} / Category:French swimming biography stubs

Seems a reasonable - if unproposed - addition to the range of stub templatyes, though the category seems woefully undersized at present. Category:French sportspeople stubs is getting close to the point of needing to be pared back, though, so trying to find the remaining 30 stubs necessary is probably a first option over upmerging. Grutness...wha? 02:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• If nobody gets there first I'll try and find the extra articles this weekend. Waacstats (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There are 39 articles in Category:French swimmers (plus one in subcat) so I don't think 60 is going to happen. This was actually on my list of upmerged templates to propose. Upmerge. Severo^TC 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree with Severo Upmerge.Waacstats (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)