Category talk:Stubs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice Most of the discussion relating to this and other stub categories occurs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. You may wish to consider leaving a note there rather than here.

Old talk: Category talk:Stubs/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] removal of category from UTC pages

Suggest removal of stubs category from all the UTC pages - they are really linked redirection pages. Scottkeir 04:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You're more likely to get a response by taking this request to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting, or maybe Wikipedia talk:Stub. The category talk page isn't really the place for it. Grutness...wha? 04:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks, suggestion now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. So many talk and discussion pages, hard to know which to pick! Scottkeir 19:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why don't you just

Change the stub template to make it say something about how you categorize stubs now, and link to the stub categorization page?

A lot of editors dislike referring to the inner workings of Wikipedia in articles, so it would quickly be reverted. In fact, there's a specific guideline not to link more than is necessary to Wiki-space - Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference). Grutness...wha? 01:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Heh, the subtlety is what got me intrigued in wikipedia in the first place :) Xhin 22:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, the whole idea of stubs is a self-reference, no? A slightly more explanatory version, though, might encourage better self-stub-sorting.--Pharos 12:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree. If you added something to the stub template saying something like "this template is deprecated, please choose one of the recognized stub types instead, then the stub sorting work would be way reduced. Stifle 16:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I at first had similar thoughts, but on the discussion page for the template, it was basically suggested that it remain this way so as to prevent inexperienced users from trying to be too helpful and in essence make things harder. Besides, don't you want to do some fun sorting anyway? Jfingers88 03:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
There is some truth to that (the first part :) - Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion is frequently flooded with invientive new stub templates which some newbie has decided to create in order to help out. And there are definitely quite a number of stubs which have been assigned to...erm, shall we say surprising stub categories. Though it's good to have as many people helping out with stub sorting as possible, the whole stub system has got so convoluted that it's good if people have some idea of what categories there are before they start. Some might point out that this is a flaw in the whole stub-sorting system, and it's a justifiable comment, but given that there are an estimated 1/3 of a million stubs on wikipedia, the classification system is necessarily big (which is why WP:WSS/ST takes so long to load!). The fact that we managed to keep all but a couple of hundred stubs categorised at any one time is quite a feat in itself. Grutness...wha? 04:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Very Large Stub Category" notice addition

Is this really necessary? By all accounts, this category is not large, let alone "very large". Using the template only serves to dilute the impact it might otherwise have. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Especially since the stub category is empty right now. Jfingers88 00:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points. The reason that notice is often there is that this category fluctuates enormously - sometimes it'll suddenly get flooded with a few hundred articles, although a lot of the time it is nearly empty. That notice comes and goes from it, but because of the rapid fluctuation sometimes it's there when the category is very small rather than very large. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zero

I'm new here to the project, and I've been working like crazy getting rid of all these stubs. I just thought I'd never see it blank :p Amazing. SynergeticMaggot 03:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It happens every now and again (but not often enough :) Good to see yet another new stub-sorter, BTW! Grutness...wha? 05:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Well as long as I have nothing in particular to do, I'll be a-stub sorten :p SynergeticMaggot 06:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Awesome. Keep up the good work. It's nice to see the "Empty Category" notice here once in a while, though it usually takes a ton of work. Jfingers88 19:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yawn. Finally I emptied it. Too tired to shout hooray. :D Picaroon9288|ta co 04:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's empty again. --andrew 06:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC) ...and again --andrewI20Talk 04:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's gotten big again... NauticaShades(talk) 16:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Empty again --Skapur 16:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
And empty again --- Skapur 03:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Empty once more --- NielsenGW 18:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
No offence folks, but... it fills, it empties. Unless it suddenly gets really big, we don't really need to keep reporting its size here! Grutness...wha? 21:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Suddenly REALLY BIG, film at 11...Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For those keeping track, it's been macheted back to 800 stubs. We're getting there... Grutness...wha? 00:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stub on user pages

If, like me, you get fed up with having to subst stub templates on user pages, you might like to know that I've just made {{Stubbed user}} - a template that can be subst'ed onto user talk pages to quickly explain what you've just done. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleared

Cleared on Saturday, March 31 2007. Just thought I'd show off a little. ;) Thanks to everyone else went through these articles. Black-Velvet 06:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's 1,000+ again. :( MahangaTalk 01:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleared a load...

Well, I've cleared out quite a few of these over the last couple of days (not that the list seems to be shrinking much - lol), but I thought I'd just apologise in advance, if I've put any in the wrong stub. I don't think I have, but it's not always easy to tell exactly which one it should be, is it? Cheers, --Midx1004 19:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Even very experienced stub sorters like myself get them wrong every now and again. But even if only 90% are right, then it's a good load of work done :) Grutness...wha? 00:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coming down...

We seem to be back to just over 600 again. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

...and again, for the first time in nearly three months. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
One can now see as far as "R" on the first page - it's been a while... GregorB (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Now were only at about 160! :) Icestorm815 (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen - I an happy to announce that, for the first time since April, the {[tl|Backlog}} template has ben removed from the top of Cat:Stubs! :) Grutness...wha? 23:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel bad about single handedly putting it back in about 2 hours with AWB :S. --Nn123645 (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
(Sh)it happens - we just keep bailing. :) Grutness...wha? 22:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cleared the page

last one just done! PamD (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All hands to the pump...

Hey-la, the backlog's back... Grutness...wha? 00:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the thresold you are using for a backlog? I would think 1,000 articles or three months would be a good threshold considering what is found in Category:Wikipedia backlog.--BirgitteSB 15:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This category is theoretically meant to be completely empty, and frequently is - anything that's in here more than a week is in here far too long, and anything over 100 stubs is too much of a backlog, which is why the template goes in and comes out at approximately the 100 stub mark. Grutness...wha? 23:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If more than 100 stubs is a backlog then we need to invent a new term for the rest of what is found at Category:Wikipedia backlog ;) I am not going to cause a fuss over the tag but for the record I find it clearly unnecessary to be tagging categories with only 100 items with backlog.--BirgitteSB 18:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the threshold used by stub sorters is 100 stubs in Cat:Stubs for good reasons. The category is meant to be entirely empty, and as such a case could be made for saying that just one stub in there is a backlog. But 100 is used as a conventient point for adding the backlog notice, since the editing of the page to do that draws attention to the category for anyonee with it on their watchlist - which isnludes a large number of stub sorters. 100's been used for about two years now very effectively for the purposes of stub-sorting (FWIW, I was against it at first, as can be seen here, but since realising how useful it is, I'm all in favour of it :). It should also be remembered that stub-sorting's a little different to most types of WP cleanup, since most other forms of cleanup backlog primarily require the articles to literally be cleaned for the backlog to go. Here, Cat:Stubs is simply a sorting-house into a couple of thousand more specific cleanup categories (the stub categories by subject). Grutness...wha? 23:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think you all are doing a great job preventing a backlog here. I just try to keep the Backlog category updated.
Fair enough - and thanks for the compliments :) Sounds like you're doing good cleanup work too! Grutness...wha? 05:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleared again

Backlog is cleared again! —BradV 01:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! I'd been working to keep the first half of the alphabet clear this week but it's been hard to push all the way through -- nice job finishing it off! -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Many hands make light work. I would have given up earlier if I didn't know you were there working from the other end. Kudos. —BradV 05:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm one of the many hands Kathleen.wright5 23:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And cleared again, but for one article with a "work in progress" tag and work being done on it today! PamD (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And again - someone else had stubsorted the Work In Progress - interesting dilemma there, as the template says "As a courtesy, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed". Should keen stubsorters ignore that and sort the stub, or leave the {{stub}} there in the expectation that the active editor will either stubsort it or move it beyond a stub?! PamD (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

...or leave a message on the editor's talk page saying "next time you edit this, could you...?" :) Grutness...wha? 21:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Article in Category:Nursing stubs

Why is there an article in the above Stub Category? Kathleen.wright5 11:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think because someone got very muddled! I've unpicked the damage and left a message on both the userpages used. PamD (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Reer Mohamed Arab

What do I do with the above article which is not in English? I removed the Stub which has been put back by User:Kubek15 . Kathleen.wright5 04:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Check the "whatlinkshere"s. One of them says it's a Somali clan. I've put a somalia-stub on it. Grutness...wha? 05:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What Stub is suitable for Writing bump ?

Could someone tell me what is a suitable stub for the above article?, and there is a backlog of a 105 articles at the moment. Kathleen.wright5 05:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmmm. Probably something like {{musculoskeletal-stub}}. We don't have a stub type for the actual writing process, unfort5unately. Grutness...wha? 22:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Help! The backlog is now 264. Kathleen.wright5 11:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
...and many of them seem to be dab pages, which shouldn't have been marked as stubs in the first place... :/ Back to about 210 now. Grutness...wha? 23:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
My bad there, I think: someone'd tweaked MW page-rendering in such a way as to subtly break my bot's check for template-populated categories. Fixed, and added a double-check for the most common such templates, to mitigate the damage if the same thing happens again. Hopefully not too many articles were affected: fortunately I only ran a small portion of the batch before the issue was pointed out to me. Everything from the mid-March db dump's been tagged now, btw. Alai (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
No, the main problem was a number of dab pages which weren't marked with {{disambig}}, so it wouldn't have spotted them anyway. Grutness...wha? 21:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that's a more long-running issue. It may be that I can tag some of these that seem to "partly match" what a dab page ought to look like with disambig-cleanup, but it seems to me that such cases are generally going to need human eyeballs one way or another. Alai (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All hands to the pump !

The backlog is now 1,093 and climbing. Kathleen.wright5 08:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Backlog now 1,200 Kathleen.wright5 07:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Done climbing, though. :) (Give or take whether anyone tops up from the special page, which tends to be much less all-at-once.) Alai (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Backlog now 1,568 Kathleen.wright5 07:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technical problem Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types

There is a technical problem at the above page, please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#WikiProject_Stub_sorting.2FStub_types Kathleen.wright5 24:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be OK now Kathleen.wright5 14:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I was wrong, its still continuing. It happens after I list new or recently discovered Stub Types. Kathleen.wright5 12:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/List of Stubs

How do I turn the above page into a Link so that it can be put onto members User Pages instead of the usual link (parts of which don't work). Kathleen.wright5 23:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved. Kathleen.wright5 08:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holy crap

No wonder there's such a backlog. I stop clearing out A-J for 36 hours and the number of uncategorized stubs goes from six hundred some to over 1300. Gah! Powers T 17:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a huge dump of new stubs into the category about once per month. Last time it took the total to over 1500, and it usually takes it past 2000. if it only climbed to 1300 we got off lightly this time! Grutness...wha? 00:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleared again

Category is now empty! PamD (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

To be accurate... it was empty 10 minutes later. I found, and sorted, 3 stubs in the first part of the alphabet, forgetting that my bookmark points to "P"! But it's still empty now... I wonder for how long? PamD (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice work everyone! -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regular influx of new articles

There's a discussion started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#Auto_Stub_Tagging_Bot which could affect the influx of new articles into this category. Might want to check it out... Grutness...wha? 02:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)