Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2008/September: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
m Replace or disable a template per TFD outcome; no change in content |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 37:
==={{tl|Norway-newspaper-stub}} / {{cl|Norwegian newspaper stubs}}===
<div class="boilerplate metadata mw-archivedtalk" style="background: #9F9; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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 '''list on [[WP:STUBS]]'''<br /><br />
Can't find any sign of this being proposed. The template looks fine, but it may be struggling to reach threshold (the parent permcat and its subcats have at most 133 articles, even assuming no double-catting in parent and subtype - and a considerable proportion of them are not stubs), so upmerging may be on the horizon for this one. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small style="color:#008822;">wha?</small>]]'' 23:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:The stub is now used on 108 articles, which should put it over the limit for its own category. <
::In that case, it's fine - I'm surprised there are so many, though. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small style="color:#008822;">wha?</small>]]'' 01:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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.''</div>
Line 48 ⟶ 50:
==={{tl|Liliales-stub}} / {{cl|Liliales stubs}}===
New unproposed stub type for an order of monocot plants, complete with its own category (don't you love it when unproposed categories spring up with the WP:WSS notice saying not to create stub types without proposal already in them? Sort of adding insult to injury, or - in this case - perhaps gilding the lily is a better term). Problem with this one is that {{cl|Monocot stubs}} has fewer than 210 unsubcatted stubs, so it's not within a bull's roar of needing a further new split. It also greatly reduces the chances that this type - currently with 25 stubs - will get close to threshold. The template may well be useful in the long run, but it should very likely be upmerged for now. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small style="color:#008822;">wha?</small>]]'' 11:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
*How quickly we forget. See [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/August_2007#Plant_taxonomy_stubs|Proposals, August 2007]]. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] [[User talk:Pegship|<small
*My count then didn't show viability, either, so I think a category was not necessarily implied by that discussion. If not populable now, upmerge. [[User:Alai|Alai]] ([[User talk:Alai|talk]]) 00:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:The count at the time was 68. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] [[User talk:Pegship|<small
::And now it's at 80. May we keep it, please? [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] [[User talk:Pegship|<small
:::Sure. Sorry I didn't know qabout the proposal - trouble with "implied splits" like this one and the one below is that there's no link to the proposal in the "what links here" of the category or template, so it didn't look like it had been proposed. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small style="color:#008822;">wha?</small>]]'' 00:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::There's a link to the category from the proposal (but admittedly not to the template). [[User:Alai|Alai]] ([[User talk:Alai|talk]]) 01:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::...and I spot them when I go through Special:NewPages/Templates each day, which explains why I didn't see it. I'm far more likely to check the template's links, and didn't recognise the creator's name, so assumed it was unproposed - sorry :/ [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small style="color:#008822;">wha?</small>]]'' 05:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::No harm, no foul. Not my proposal in this case, but I must admit I tend to only link (or indeed explicitly list) the category. Of course, if something is proposed initially as an upmerged template, the reverse will be the case (and perhaps otherwise, too). [[User:Alai|Alai]] ([[User talk:Alai|talk]]) 12:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I have assuaged my (admittedly microscopic) feelings of indignation by adding a note to the top of this page. :P [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] [[User talk:Pegship|<small
==={{tl|Defensive-lineman-1990s-stub}} / {{cl|Defensive lineman, 1990s birth stubs}}===
Unproposed, but at least the template seems reasonable. Seems to have been pasted over from the equivalent 1980s template and category... Unfortunately, the new category is a problem, however, since it's clearly not likely to reach threshold in the immediate future (I doubt we have 60 stub articles on teenaged defensive linemen at present). Suggest that for the time being upmerging would probably be the most sensible option. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small style="color:#008822;">wha?</small>]]'' 00:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
*Implied in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/May_2007#Split_of_2_subcats_of_Cat:American_football_biography_stubs|Proposals, May 2007]]. This is not my day. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] [[User talk:Pegship|<small
[[Category:WikiProject Stub sorting archives: Discoveries]]
| |||