Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2007/May
Newly discovered, May 2007
{{UK-bsoc-stub}} (upmerged)
Never proposed and hideously named, but perhaps useful. I note that there is no UK-bank-stub, which is perhaps surprising, so perhaps a combined stub for banks and building societies (the latter of which this is for) may be useful. Would need serious renaming, though. BTW, this is upmerged into two stub cats (fine) and one permcat (not so fine). Grutness...wha? 06:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Send to SFD to be renamed as {{UK-bank-stub}} or {{UK-finance-company-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I created this stub template, because the building society sector is both independent, and more importantly mutually-owned (and as you found out, there isn't a {{UK-bank-stub}}). OK, some societies are more commercial than others, but all of them still require members to vote on issues, so they have a bigger role to play than shareholders. If it's felt building societies are not distinct enough, maybe you could create/rename this into a {{UK-mutual-society-stub}} template (which would include friendly societies, and any remaining mutual insurance companies)?? (Extra3 15:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC))
- The second reason, is that many articles about UK-based societies have only been created recently, and, as such, are still only stubs. My intention was to create awareness of them, so they can be filled out. As far as the categorisation goes, well, like I said, many of these articles are stubs. If this means they shouldn't be featured within a permanent category, then I'm a little bemused (unless the category should be embedded within the article, rather than the template). I'd be interested to hear what you think. (Extra3 15:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC))
- Usual practice for stubs is to have the stub template only include stub categories (usually just one, but sometimes two for upmerged templates). Appropriate permanent categories should be added to the article directly, not indirectly via a stub template that ideally will be removed once the article is no longer a stub. So it's fine (indeed it's expected) for stub articles to be placed in permanent categories, they just shouldn't be placed by means of a stub template. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have now created Category:United Kingdom building society stubs, to allow for stub articles to be grouped in. And as you said, the articles can be grouped under the main category Category:Building societies, with another template. (Extra3 18:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC))
Yipes. Television stubs have been sorted according to genre, people, episodes, stations, countries, etc. but never by "type of technology on which it appears". Unproposed, only 1 article in it. I don't like it One Bit. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- And it's listed earlier on this page, as of March 2007. Oops. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Undecided about this one - I almost took it straight to SFD but had second thoughts. Never proposed... not close to threshold at the moment, but potentially useful, perhaps. Perhaps. At the moment, an upmerging seems plausible. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Unproposed, but properly named, with 22 articles so far. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
{{Database-stub}}
Unproposed, redlink category. Seems a reasonable idea, though, given the size of Category:Databases. Mind you, that doesn't guarantee 60 stubs (well, 30, since there seems to be a nascent WikiProject - the same person who created that created this stub type ten minutes later, surprise, surprise). May well be a case of fixing it up and seeing whether or not it grows. If it does, fine. if not, there's still SFD... Grutness...wha? 01:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Might be worth upmerging to {{database-software-stub}} or seeing if there are articles tagged with that stub that aren't about specific programs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete it. There are literally dozens of Category:Databases articles that are naught but stubs. Use {{database-software-stub}} on all database stubs, even those that are unrelated to database software. BTW, the nascent WikiProject was suggested a week ago (Look It Up, surprise, surprise). For an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit, you bureaucrats sure give hell to people who are trying to do the right thing. Delete the stub, delete the project, do whatever you really feel like doing. Enough of this nonsense, trying to improve Wikipedia by wasting ridiculous amounts of my time bringing articles like Null (SQL) from a one-paragraph stub up to Good Article status, and trying to help bring some badly needed attention to the extreme lack of good, solid database-related articles on this thing. Be Bold! Right? Apparently it only applies to vandals, and not to people trying to do the right thing. You need to get rid of that God Awful article since that's not how it works in reality. If it's not there already, you should add Wikipedia as a prime example of Bureaucracy. Please feel free to remove it all, there are way too many bureaucrats and dictators running around for me to try to do anything more. Peace. SqlPac 02:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)