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 result of the debate was list on
WP:STUBS
And their categories
Category:BBC Radio Stubs and
Category:BBC Television Stubs. Used never and 6 times, respectively. If we decide we don't even want {{
BBC-stub}}, as was mentioned, these ought to go too. At the very least the categories need the capitalization corrected. --
Mairi 05:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was send to
WP:CFD
All 3 are US television networks. All 3 were created today, and are unused. -- Mairi 02:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC) reply
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 result of the debate was list on
WP:STUBS
Created yesterday without proposal. Used by 20 articles, but lacks a category, and I'm not certain how populated it could get. Perhaps redirect to {{
hotel-corp-stub}}?
GeeJo
(t)
(c) • 20:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was list on
WP:STUBS
Created today, used on 53 articles. Worth keeping; perhaps {{
theology-stub}} should be unredirected too? --
Mairi 06:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename to extrasolar-planet
Created today, used once. Might be useful, but if so the category probably ought to be renamed to match Category:Extrasolar planets. -- Mairi 07:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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
The result of the debate was list on
WP:STUBS
Created today without a proposal. It doesn't have its own category and uses
Category:Music stubs instead, which is not correct. Currently used in only 2 articles and appears to be part of
WP:AFR. --
Bruce1ee 09:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was list on
WP:STUBS
Included in 19 and 14 articles respectively, without much hope of rapid expansion. Both were created today (14 April), have no associated WikiProject, and the templates just feed the articles into the main category spaces
Category:Pirates and
Category:Privateers rather than stub categories. If they stay, I'd suggest merging them with each other in some way, maybe a {{
Navy-bio-stub}} to bring in other articles from
Category:Military biographical stubs and its subsidiaries for some bulk.
GeeJo
(t)
(c) • 19:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
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:
The result of the debate was upmerge
AFAIK it wasn't proposed, undersized with 35 articles. Alai suggested upmerging to a new UK category, seems like a good idea to me. New cat would also be good home for Welsh clubs, and a new parent for the Scots and English stub cats. -- E ivind t @ c 05:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
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
The result of the debate was send to
WP:CFD
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
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
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)
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 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
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
The result of the debate was upmerge
37 articles right now, but that's about the only thing that this one has going against it. It's well-named, and despite the size, I'm not so sure that it's worth deleting. -- fuzzy510 19:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
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 result of the debate was rename
On first inspection, seems well-formed. Populated with 38 stubs, and there is an associated WikiProject, for what it's worth. - GTBacchus( talk) 07:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was send to
WP:CFD
No cat, currently used on 3 articles. It now feeds into
Category:Iceland stubs and
Category:European airline stubs.--
Carabinieri
TTaallkk 13:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was renamed
There must be some deep (or otherwise) reason by FL is the first state to split out anything -- invariably undersized and unproposed, of course. The template was created for our regional split, and so in fine (aside from the stonkingly over-height image it's just had added), but the category will either have to be populated adequately, or deleted. Alai 21:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
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
anyone know anything about this one? Only 18 stubs, despite being created two months ago, and a curious mix of ethno-group stubs, hist-stubs and geo-stubs. Template and category have unnecessary plural names, too. Looks like potential SFD material... Grutness... wha? 23:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
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 result of the debate was list on
WP:STUBS
Don't remember this one being proposed... 32 stubs in two months. Well-formed, and there is a Wikiproject. Probably a keeper.
Grutness...
wha? 23:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was list on
WP:STUBS
Guess who? 50 stubs and well formed, though, so probably a keeper.
Grutness...
wha? 23:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was list on
WP:STUBS
Created today without debate, along with its appropriate category (which has no parents, stub or otherwise). Otherwise well-formed, but completely empty, and the chances of it getting to threshold are low, to say the least (there are only 80 non-geo stubs for Rwanda in total, and fewer than half of those are bio-stubs). An upmerging of the template and deletion of the category may be a reasonable option.
Grutness...
wha? 03:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was redirect to flag-stub
This one has apparently been around since May but it was only used on four articles, I only found it because I'm going through all flag- and heraldry-related material. I haven't taken this one up with WP:HV (yet) but I doubt we'll need it. I've retagged the affected articles with {{ flag-stub}}. Nice image though. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 09:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Category renamed.
Currently contains 42 articles, but there probably could be more. Category name isn't well formed. -- Carabinieri TTaallkk 22:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply
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
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 result of the debate was take to sfd for rename
Created in March, used on 25 articles, not listed on the stub types list. I have no problem with it personally but would like to have it renamed with correct case, i.e. Category:Finnish artist stubs. Cheers, Pegship 00:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
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
The result of the debate was list on
WP:STUBS
Seems we've had a well-populated
Category:Cephalopod stubs since March. Looks like a keeper - nice of WikiProject Cephalopods to let us know about it (grrr).
Grutness...
wha? 20:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was list on
WP:STUBS
And another new addition to the list which hasn't passed through here:
At least this one looks reasonable in terms of its construction and number of stubs (actually 59, not 62). Prtobably a keeper, assuming it fits within the hierarchy, which someone with more knowledge on the subject needs to check. Grutness... wha? 21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was send to
WP:CFD
Naming seems kind of odd.
Agathoclea 18:03, 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
Here is the rest of the list:
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
The result of the debate was list on
WP:STUBS
Created last month, already has 65 uses but isn't listed on the
Stub types page. Couldn't find it on Proposals either, although it could be archived by now. An equivalent US stub exists.
Fleebo 05:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was list on
WP:STUBS
Created on the pattern of the various per-decade splits, but not proposed, and not populated (one article).
Alai 01:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
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
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 result of the debate was upmerge
It looks like the Caucasus templates are multiplying. This one was created around a week ago. Nicely formed but not proposed. It is used on around 50 articles, and the collection seems to me to be somewhat none-standard. It would probably be a good idea to recheck this material. As commented elsewhere, the parent category is rather empty and I wouldn't rule out an upmerge either. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply
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 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