Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Archive17

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 send to WP:CFD

Created today, used on 13 articles. Since we have other OS-related stubs, this might be useful; the category would need to have the capitalization corrected, tho.--Mairi 05:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The template itself is a horrid mess, too. Just look at its source. Yick. —Cryptic (talk)

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.

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 send to WP:CFD

• {{ABC-stub}} / Category:ABC stubs
• {{CBS-stub}} / Category:CBS stubs
• {{NBC-stub}} / Category:NBC stubs

All 3 are US television networks. All 3 were created today, and are unused. --Mairi 02:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hopefully all should remain so - I don't think this is a particularly useful split at all. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And yet {{BBC-stub}} is? All three have origins going back to radio. The main problem with them is that only CBS is reasonably unambiguous. Caerwine 05:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - I'd forgotten BBC stub (although I'm not sure that's too useful, either. Which ABC is it, BTW, the U.S. one or the Australian one? Grutness...wha? 08:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All three are for the major American broadcast networks, so ABC = American Broadcast Company. I found out about the {{ABC-stub}} when it was tagged to one of the articles on my watchlist.

I shrunk down the graphic on the ABC-stub. I think that there should be some standard for the size of stub graphics because I keep seeing all sorts of sizes. I'd have to go back through the edit histories, but I also think that some stubs have had their graphics made slightly large recently. ^BlankVerse 12:57, 6 December 2005 (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.

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 send to WP:CFD

Created today, used on 18 articles. It probably could be viable, but it has the same problem's that've been mentioned with previous stubs for specific networks.

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.

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 send to WP:CFD

Redirect to {{mathematician-stub}} -- along with {{mathbio-stub}} and {{math-bio-stub}}. Can we perhaps sic a bot on these to eliminate some of these redirects, and then get rid of at least the first one, as badly named? Doubtless if we put it straight onto SFD with the current (huge) number of transclusions, there will be much yelping. Alai 22:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, {{math-bio-stub}} may be the most well-formed of the 3 redirects, but it also had <50 articles using it, so I just retagged them manually. The other two each have hundreds. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISTR that mathbiostub was the original name, before we started making all the template names uniform. It could probably go with being removed, though, as could mathbio-stub. The others look fine. Grutness...wha? 23:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No matter which one is used {{math-bio-stub}} or {{mathematician-stub}} - the first is probably better for simplicity's sake, there's no use keeping the redirects. They only confuse more than they help (IMO). Valentinian ^(talk) 23:29, 14 March 2006 (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.

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 send to WP:CFD

Reporting this one really bugs me and most of you probably know my opinion regarding Belarus, but here goes; created today and used on 19 articles (mostly on political parties, which normally have been stubbed with {{Belarus-stub}} and {{euro-party-stub}}. Three problems with this one:

1. It is way below the size threshold.
2. The template uses "politics-" rather than "poli-"
3. The use of the pre-Lukashenko flag is associated with the opposition. Valentinian ^(talk) 09:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding issue no. 3, I've swapped the image to a neutral map. Anyway, I'm not convinced this template will be viable. Valentinian ^(talk) 15:18, 27 May 2006 (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.

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 send to WP:CFD

Created earlier this month and used on only one article. It appears to be associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject The Legend of Zelda series. As there are approximately 103 Legend of Zelda articles in total, I don't think there is a prospect of the stubs growing to a substantial number in the near future. Road Wizard 23:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also one of the most hideous-looking stub templates I've seen in my life. I'd recommend a mercy-SFDing. Alai 00:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. Valentinian ^(talk) 20:59, 2 July 2006 (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.

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 send to WP:CFD

We already knew we had {{Belarus-politics-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Belarusian politics stubs but it seems that we have *two* oddly-named and underused templates relating to this county. The "history" one is used on a mere 15 articles and the "politics" one is used on 19. I hate to say it, but I doubt any of them will reach threshold. Both were created on 27 May. Valentinian ^(talk) 12:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Currently at SFD. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:00, 19 October 2006 (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.

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 send to WP:CFD

Associated non-stub categories are Category:Academic transfer and Category:Educational programs. Stub template created 1 June 2006 by User:^o^. Less than 50 articles are tagged with this template as of 11 June 2006. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the @#$%^& have they got to do with AP? If kept (which I'm very doubtful or the worth of) it'll need a drastic rename. Grutness...wha? 06:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Watch your blood pressure, we can't afford to lose you). Ok, if we give this one the benefit of the doubt, perhaps only 95% of the World's population will think of the Associated Press first. Still, this means a drastic rename is in order iff the template is kept at all. I have to admit this material confuses me: some of the "articles" using it contain no text at all save a template. My first hunch would be to use {{edu-stub}} and just axe this one. On a more general note: I can see that this College Board (whatever it is) describes itself as not-for-profit (not non-profit), but this entire material looks a wee bit too much like an advertisement for my taste. Valentinian ^(talk) 10:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:) I'm fine (and thanks for the compliment!). SFD would be fine with me, too, since this doesn't make much sense and, as we both pointed out one way or the other, it's not what people are most likely to think of when they think AP. (FWIW, I actually work for one of the other APs on the list at AP (disambiguation) - Allied Press, but to me, A.P. means my gf - they're her initials :). Grutness...wha? 11:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can hear somebody sharpening an axe. Valentinian ^(talk) 21:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI: College Board is both the company which administers the tests and the company which publishes test guide books for them. APs are a big deal for educators and the whole college-entrance industry. If kept, imho it should go under {{edu-stub}} per Grutness. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:31, 11 June 2006 (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.

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 send to WP:CFD

Horribly named, used on many articles, half of which were blank and have been redirected, half of the rest are blatant and obvious copyviolations. So much cleanup needed - I can't even begin... - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this one's discussed further up the page. It's pretty horrible. And you didn't even mention the part about the template being transcluded onto those pages... Grutness...wha? 03:44, 23 June 2006 (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.

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 send to WP:CFD

These two were created within the last week or so, but they are very undersized. I doubt they'll be able to reach 60 anytime soon (unless I've missed a lot of articles on the Bosnian war). Valentinian ^(talk) 14:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My error: The Croatian material is listed further up this page. Still massively undersized through. Valentinian ^(talk) 23:05, 8 August 2006 (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.

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 send to WP:CFD

Created today, 8 articles so far. --Dijxtra 19:37, 3 July 2006 (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.

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 send to WP:CFD

Here comes Template:Whedon-stub (not in stub types), its redirect Template:Buffyverse-stub (yes in stub types, though should have been SfD'd, I think), and its cat, Category:Buffyverse stubs. - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm... I've used the Buffyverse-stub on a ton (well it seemed like a ton) of articles, but it's not really on that many. There is a Buffyverse WikiProject that has the buffyverse-stub on their template list. There were some random things in the SFD archive (Whedonverse stubs). *shrug* ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have guessed {{Buffy-stub}} as the name for this. Including 88 articles in Category:Angel episode stubs it's well over threshold. Kappa 14:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! If you check the archive you'll find that this is an old and long-established stub type. It was deliberately named Buffyverse rather than simply Buffy, since the latter would imply that it was only for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and not for "Angel" or any other spin-offs. It was in fact, IIRC, merged from two stubs called whedon-stub and buffy-stub, which had been separately created for just this reason (one for BTVS and one for all of the other related projects). It was about March last year, IIRC, and - if you look at the history, you'll see that it was long-time stubsorter Ceyockey who did the work. It should be at Buffyverse-stub not at Whedon-stub, though - why the redirect was reversed is a mystery (it was certainly never proposed, and I'm reverting it). Grutness...wha? 00:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This and this are the relevant discussions. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 20 August 2006 (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.

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 send to WP:CFD

I just found both of these, neither of which seems to have been proposed, and which seem a little malformed at best. Can someone SFD them or redirect {{Berbers-stub}} to the other one? Aelfthrytha 15:22, 13 September 2006 (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.

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 send to WP:CFD

No cat, currently used on 3 articles. It now feeds into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Iceland stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:European airline stubs.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 13:35, 14 September 2006 (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.

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 send to WP:CFD

Just found these two, created 27 August and 6 September respectively, lists 19 and 4. I don't recall these being approved and they duplicate each other.--Thomas.macmillan 21:08, 1 October 2006 (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.

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 send to WP:CFD

Created October 11, 2006. There has been a recent campaign to introduce multiple vanity articles on Wikipedia which are related to this religion (some call it a cult) of Sahaja Yoga, and this stub appears to be part of that. I recommend deletion. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaja Yoga International. --NovaSTL 10:23, 17 October 2006 (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.

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 send to WP:CFD

Atrociously named and unnecessary, but I'm following instructions and listing it here before (I hope) taking it to sfd. There are only two articles in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Punjabi-language films and no stub templates for any films in other Indic languages. I don't even want to tidy up the parent cats in case it encourages anyone. Pegship 00:03, 4 November 2006 (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.

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 send to WP:CFD

The template and category were created on August 13 2006; there are currently 189 stubs in this category. The parent category (which I just added to this subcategory this morning) contains just under 600 stubs. Slambo (Speak) 14:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

seems viable size-wise, but the name... is this for Victoria, Australia, or for railways between 1837 and 1901? if the former, as I suspect, then victoria-rail-stub should be the name of the template, and the category needs some kind of re-think name-wise, too. Grutness...wha? 05:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being another crazy 'Merkan, that was my first thought too, and rail transport research is my specialty. It's on SFD now to change Victorian → Victoria. Slambo (Speak) 11:51, 9 November 2006 (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.

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 send to WP:CFD

Naming seems kind of odd. Agathoclea 18:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Check WikiProject Munich. There's a lot more where that came from. I've also made a comment on the WPSS talk page. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given how much footballers move around, this seems like a very silly idea. We tend to avoid even state-spceific bio-stubs, except for politicians. Having city-specific ones would only be far worse. Stationary items like those covered by geo-stub or hist-stub make some plausible sense, but not bio-stubs. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't worry about my stub here. This was excluse for WikiProject Munich. Kingjeff 23:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No stub types are for the exclusive use of any one wikiproject. That is why this project exists - to tries to coordinate them all for overall wikipedian use. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the rest of the list:

• {{Munich-company-stub}}
• {{Munich-hist-stub}}
• {{Munich-bio-stub}}
• {{Munich-footy-bio-stub}} duplicate listing, my fault.
• {{Munich-politician-stub}}
• {{Munich-university-stub}}
• {{Munich-geo-stub}}
• {{Munich-struct-stub}}

The ones I checked weren't used at all or (in one case) by a single article. Note: The template for the Munich U-Bahn is an older creation, so I've not included it here. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that categories also exist. Btw, I just noticed an interesting thread that the author did know of WP:WSS procedure but ignored it. And that he will "appeal" any decision that goes against his wishes to have a ton of templates, see User_talk:Nishkid64#Munich-related_stub_templates (appeals to whom?) None of them is used except for the one about the footballers (well, I resorted one article about a mayor). SFD seems like the only option. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 01:18, 22 November 2006 (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.

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 send to WP:CFD

Created yesterday. All of you probably know what I think about material like this. Used on 5 articles. I thought a TRNC-stub had been rejected back in September? Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 19:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was. SFD awaits... Grutness...wha? 23:08, 25 November 2006 (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.

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 send to WP:CFD

I just found {{Stub-RBARWS}} which is categorized under stubs --- Skapur 15:59, 26 November 2006 (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.

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 send to WP:CFD

Seems this has been around for six months, but has nly just been added to the stub type tree. In six months, it has gained an astonishing seven stub articles. Unless it can be got up to speed soon, it's in severe danger of SFD-hood. Grutness...wha? 05:35, 21 November 2006 (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.

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 send to WP:CFD

Created yesterday, and redundant with Category:London geography stubs, which includes the borough of Richmond. --Stemonitis 10:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Send to SFD. Some of the articles are rail stations and we have plenty of templates for those as well. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:28, 29 November 2006 (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.