Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2012/January

January 2012

English law stubs

{{England-law-stub}} was created out of process by Mais oui! (talk · contribs) who seems to unilaterally create stubs categories an awful lot and may need to be warned about this. This one seems ok in numerical terms but it should be "England and Wales law stub" not "England law stub". Tim! (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the permcat is at Category:English law, Category:English law stubs is logical and the template name is logical too. I don't see a problem with this stub type, but I wish it had been proposed properly! Perhaps {{Wales-law-stub}} would be an acceptable redirect, if anyone feels it is needed. Severo^TC 09:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Car Racing stub

{{Sports Car Racing stub}} was created out of process, is misnamed, and populates an inappropriate category, i.e. Category:Stub-Class Sports Car Racing articles, which is a category for talk pages. I am pretty sure that this template is redundant to {{Motorsport-stub}}, which populates Category:Auto racing stubs. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the category is redundant. No more redundant than {{F1-stub}} is to {{Motorsport-stub}}. --Sabre ball^{t c} 22:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that the category is redundant. Category:Stub-Class Sports Car Racing articles is definitely not redundant, because it is part of the article assessment scheme and is intended to contain talk pages, and so is being misused here.

I said that Template:Sports Car Racing stub is redundant. Given that sports car racing is a subset of motor sport, is it a significant subset? That is, is it possible that there are more than 60 articles which are stubs, and which cover sports car racing? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals#Proposing new stub types - procedure. {{F1-stub}} is transcluded by well over 250 pages, so has justification for its existence. There are presently 23 articles transcluding {{Sports Car Racing stub}} - can another 37 suitable candidates be found? If not, there is little purpose to {{Sports Car Racing stub}}, even if it were correctly set up. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that a discussion had already started about an appropriate template for this topic. See here. Since we have a separate permanent category (Category:Sports car racing), I don't see why the template would be redundant. I agree that the existing template is malformed, but I support building a template based on the results of the discussion on the proposal page. Dawynn (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the discussion was started on 11 January 2012, and that the template was created on 19 January by the same person who started the discussion, even though the discussion was still open. Fait accompli. Why do we even bother having WP:WSS/P if people feel that they can drive straight through? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to renaming the template. --Sabre ball^{t c} 13:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fair to call out {{Sports Car Racing stub}} for only having been transcluded 23 times. It's barely even a week old. If you check the category its places articles in, there are over 80 articles that could have that template placed on the page its just not there yet. --Sabre ball^{t c} 21:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have turned this template into a redirect. Created the template name that had been discussed on the proposal page. Please use the new template name ({{sportscar-autoracing-stub}}) Dawynn (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kupres, Bosnia and Herzegovina

I recently built {{Kupres-geo-stub}} for the municipality in Republika Srpska. This template name was approved back in April 2011. In the midst of building this template, I found that there are two separate municipalities, both of which are in Bosnia and Herzegovina:

Normally, when we have such instances between two countries, we add a country code to the template to differentiate. But what is the proper nomenclature in this situation, where the two municipalities are within the same country? Dawynn (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R&B song stub templates

{{1960s-R&B-song-stub}} / {{R&B-1960s-song-stub}}
{{1970s-R&B-song-stub}} / {{R&B-1970s-song-stub}}
{{1980s-R&B-song-stub}} / {{R&B-1980s-song-stub}}
{{1990s-R&B-song-stub}} / {{R&B-1990s-song-stub}}
{{2000s-R&B-song-stub}} / {{R&B-2000s-song-stub}}

Yes, both versions have been built for the last 5 decades. The {{R&B-9999s-song-stub}} versions were approved here. The other versions have not been approved, but all the articles have been tagged with the non-approved versions. I'm OK with keeping one set, and changing the other set to redirects, but would like some guidance as to which should be preferred. Dawynn (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use 9999s-R&B-song-stub, for consistency with 9999s-country-song-stub, 9999s-rock-song-stub, 9999s-pop-song-stub. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gastropod family templates

Found the following. I see no issue with keeping these.

Dawynn (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]