Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2009/December
December 2009
[edit]I didn't know that there had to be a discussion before a stub was created so I created this stub category yesterday. I was suggested by a "busybody" that I should inform you of its creation. I however believe that it is a very useful sub-category of meat stubs, with 23 entries included when I last checked and with the Bacon WikiCup already running it is very likely to serve a good purpose for a lot more stubs within the relevant range. (I've already added a lot of articles with no stub category to it and have changed the meat stubs template on a few articles to the more specific bacon stub category. Do with this template what you will (I understand now that it should've been proposed before it was created) but I stronly believe it will be a very helpful subcategory within the meat stubs category.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 04:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- 23 is a very small number for a new stub category - the usual threshold before the creation of a category is 60 existing stubs. If this gets to 60 soon, then it may be worth keeping, if not, then the likely outcome is to upmerge the template to have it point to Category:Meat stubs. BTW, referring to someone who suggests you actually follow WP guidelines and policies as a "busybody" isn't going to gain you many friends! Grutness...wha? 23:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- FWIW, the "busybody" comment was in humourous repsonse to this.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 00:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- No worries, the busybody in question referred to herself somewhat tongue-in-cheek that way initially (and is now going to stop referring to herself in the third person). LadyofShalott 06:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- For more on-topic comment... I wonder about upmerging bacon-stub to something along the lines of pork-stub. Would that make the target number of 60? (I really am asking I don't know the answer to that.) LadyofShalott 06:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- {{Pork-stub}}/Category:Pork stubs would be a more widely-scoped stub type, and this suggests there would be over 60 articles. Best thing to do from here would be to take this to WP:SFD and mention this discussion there, asking that Category:Bacon stubs be deleted and the template upmerged into a new Category:Pork stubs, (with either the addition of a {{Pork-stub}} or the renaming of {{Bacon-stub}} to {{Pork-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 22:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I'll take it to SFD now. Should be (hopefully) pretty straightforward. Taken o SFD for renaming/upscoping. Grutness...wha? 04:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- {{Pork-stub}}/Category:Pork stubs would be a more widely-scoped stub type, and this suggests there would be over 60 articles. Best thing to do from here would be to take this to WP:SFD and mention this discussion there, asking that Category:Bacon stubs be deleted and the template upmerged into a new Category:Pork stubs, (with either the addition of a {{Pork-stub}} or the renaming of {{Bacon-stub}} to {{Pork-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 22:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- FWIW, the "busybody" comment was in humourous repsonse to this.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 00:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Stub category that seems oddly named, not big enough, and it is used directly on articles and not with a template. Borgarde (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think this one should probably go straight to SFD. You've mentioned several problems with it - another is that splitting singers by language is a bad precedent to have. Singers are usually split by nationality, and many singers can sing in multiple languages. A Cambodia-singer-stub would be fine (probably upmerged), but not this. Grutness...wha? 05:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Taken to SFD.Borgarde (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Unproposed, only one page in category, category is malformed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Template is misnamed too (should be at SouthOssetia-geo-stub). But if you check the SFD for Ossetia-geo-stub you'll see the reasoning behind it. It should have been proposed though - to save us the work of having to fix it up :/ Grutness...wha? 22:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed this one because it was using a non-standard category Category:Agriculture in India. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- If kept it would definitely need a better category. The articles using this template seem to be a fairly abstract mix of Indian org-stubs, bio-stubs, hist-stubs and the like, too. AFAIK we don't usually split agri-stubs by nation, though if we did, india would be a reasonable one to start with. Grutness...wha? 23:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)