Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice Before proposing or creating a new type of stub, please read
How to propose a new stub type.
For discussion about creation of stub types or the hierarchy of stub categories,
see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Betacommandbot antics

I can't even read the AN/I page from my current connection, so I'm not quite clear if "closure" was achieved on this. Can I assume this can be filed under "Beta runs a massive unapproved bot task, gets it badly wrong, is utterly inpenitent, immediate crisis is averted, no meaningful followup action is taken", otherwise known as "situation normal"? Alai (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stub template categories; stub category iw's; stub template iw's

I do not find stub template categories. I assume this is a conscoius exeption from the general guidelines for template (stating that templates should be contained in a tree with Category:Wikipedia templates as its root. However, I do not find the documentation of this exeption, neither there nor here. (It is indeed an exeption; the aforementioned root category text begins: This is the top-level category for all Wikipedia templates; stub templates are templates.)

Likewise, I find few interwiki links for stub categories and stub templates. I've inserted some myself; but since there are so few of them, I've started to worry that this might be against some kind of guidelines.

My reason for interest in these matters are essentially practical. I work mainly on the Swedish wikipedia, where people often make stub templates by copying en:WP ones. Unhappily, now and then it turns out that one template is translatet to several similar but not identical names. I suspect the same may be a problem on other WP's, too. IMO, template categories and iw linking is a great help in avoiding such problems, in the parts of the template domains where they do exist.

I suspect that this has been discussed before, and that there indeed are policies, guidelines, or at least recommendations about this, which I just do not find. I would appreciate links to such old discussion and/or guidelines; or else a brief explanation about the lack of stub template categories and the rareness of the iw links. In particular, is it recommendable or not to create such?-JoergenB (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The template category has been discussed here in the past (you'd have to search through the archives to find it, though this might give you some leads). Basically, they're not used because stub templates already automatically link with categories, and as such Cat:Stub categories already basically performs the same function, especially when used alongside the canonical list of stub types (WP:WSS/ST). Creatng a separate category or categories for stub templates simply duplicates an existing process, and - since there would undoubtedly be a category tree for the templates, given how many of them there are - would likely cause headaches in trying to keep it consistent with the stub categories and stub list. It was also found to encourage the creation of new stub templaes, most of which needed considerable work to get them to a usable state.
As far as iw links are concerned, there's not been any discussion that I'm aware of on this, and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be added to stub templates.
Regarding your problems with similarly named templates, the solution we have for this here is simply to make stub template and category naming as uniform and rigorous as possible - if we find a template or category that doesn't conform to the naming conventions (WP:WSS/NG), it gets taken to Wikipedia: Stub types for deletion. Also, of course, there's the whle proposal process before creation of stub types (at WP:WSS/P). It's a bit authoritarian compared to a lot of areas of Wikipedia (and we get some negative comments from people who don't understand the reasons for it), but it's pretty effective. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, it's possible to use the stub categories tree in order to find stubs, although it is a slower process; but I'll certainly adapt. I still think that it would be good to mention this stub template exemption somewhere early in Category:Wikipedia templates (and to mention WP:STUBS as a kind of substitute, if that is what it is).
So, I'll not create stub template categories, but I am going to insert stub templates and stub categories iw links now and then, until someone tells me differently. (In the long run, of course the hope is that stubs become a rarity everywhere, since full articles get written faster.) JoergenB (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point - I'll add a note to that category. As to the long run, yes, that aim is to have no stubs at all, but I don't think that will even happen, as new articles are constantly being created. I think the best we can realistically hope for is a reduction of the proportion of stubs as a fraction of the total number of articles. Grutness...wha? 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Interwiki-ing both seems to be slight overkill, but there's no policy, guidelines or systematic practice of doing one vs. the other. Or any systematic practice at all, to be candid. I'd personally favour IWing only the stub categories, but I'm open to persuasion if there's an argument for both, or for templates only. Categories of stub templates by topic I'm strongly opposed to, and several discussions and deletion debates have reached a similar conclusion, though adding stub templates to "templates by topic" and "templates by wikiproject" categories does happen, and seems not unreasonable. Alai (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too specific

Am I the only one that thinks the stub categories have gotten out of hand? It looks like we have categories so specific that someone could spend as much time trying to classify a stub as it would take to actually expand it to be a real article. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 13:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It only reflects how much Wikipedia's got out of hand. Look at it this way. There are now 2.1 million articles, of which, conservatively, one third are stubs. That's 700,000 stub articles. The choices are threefold: 1) keep going the way we are, with increasingly fine stub categories of easy to scan size (60-800 stubs), doing our best to maintain them in some sort of order so that editors can use them; 2) stick to a far smaller number of stub templates (easier work for sorters, but stub category sizes move into the thousands or even tens of thousands - very difficult for editors and hard work on the technology that maintains wikipedia); 3) do away with the concept of stubs altogether, thereby providing no help to editors at all. Though the first option is harder work, it's the only one which provides enough help to editors to be worthwhile. In any case, classification of stubs isn't quite as impossible as you think, though it is a several stage production line process these days. Someone will grossly classify a stub, then another sorter who regularly scans a lower level category will move it to a finer grading, and so on. No stub-sorter's expected to know all the stub types, though keeping the template names as uniform as possible makes it easier to guess where they are likely to be in those areas an individual stub sorter doesn't know. Grutness...wha? 13:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] shortpage text

Hi all - I've noticed quite a few stubs coming through lately with <!!--this text has been added to stop the article appearing in the Shortpages list--> or similar attached to them. What, if anything is the purpose of this (apart from the obvious) - why shouldn't these short pages appear in the Shortpages list? I have, BTW, been removing this string when I see it - feel free to tell me off if this is wrong! Grutness...wha? 23:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the appropriate thing to do, if you feel that a certain article is as complete an article as the subject motivates, although it is rather short? How do you inform other editors, who otherwise might stub-mark it without afterthought, just because it is short?
There was some sv:wikipedian who made a "not a stub" template (sv:Mall:Ickestub) just for facilitating putting html comments on the short articles in such situations; but I think the template hardly ever is used. Could what you describe be the result of a similar try in en:WP?-JoergenB (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Data dump drama?

Soooo...the suspense is killing me...when's the next Data Dump Due?? Her Pegship (tis herself) 07:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How many is too many?

Just wondering whether any guideline exists as to how many categories a stub should be sorted into? There are some impressive lists at the ends of some articles! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about stub templates and not permanent categories, ideally they should be for just the primary reason(s) that the subject is notable. More than three is generally, but not always, overkill. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. There's no limit to permanent categories, but as far as stub categories is concerned, to quote Wikipedia:Stub: If an article overlaps several stub categories, more than one template may be used, but it is strongly recommended that only those relating to the subject's main notability be used. A limit of three or, if really necessary, four stub templates is advised. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ta - I knew there had to be a guideline somewhere! --Rlandmann (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types

I have a problem with the following:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types (WP:WSS/ST) - lists all stub categories (with statistics).

1) it claims to be a list of ALL stub categories, which it is not. The list of US school stubs is currently nothing more than a random sample of some of the existing categories and the templates that link to the listed categories.

2) it states with statistics which I do not find (am I just not seeing them?)

Compare the list found at Wikipedia:WSS/ST#Education with the complete list of US school stubs found at User:Dbiel/ScratchPad/test2(this page has been deleted as its purpose came to an end when the master page was updated, see below) Before I replace the current list with the complete list I compiled I would like to get some feed back.

The list I put together does include a separate listing for each state regardless if the category exists or not. This seems like the simplist way for some to find the correct state. They are listed under the regional category they belong to, unlike the original list that was a partial list of states with categories all grouped togther following the list of region categories. Dbiel (Talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Some points to make as part of my reply
    1. At one time, we did keep statistics on the page itself, but we no longer do. Those are now found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub type sizes as it was difficult to both keep the counts up to date and keep the list format pretty.
    2. As it is hand maintained, the stub type list isn't always up to date, sometimes from neglect, sometimes because the stub type wasn't proposed and thus officially adopted by the project. In the case of the state level school stub types, feel free to add the templates and the categories to the list if they exist, and we do generally prefer the hierarchical version.
    3. On the other hand if you come across a stub type that isn't on the list, then the general recommended procedure is to list it at WP:WSS/D so that it can either be added to list if it should be there, or sent to WP:SFD if it shouldn't exist. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "hierarchical version". Is the version at User:Dbiel/ScratchPad/test2(this page has been deleted as its purpose came to an end when the master page was updated, see below) OK to use as is, or does it need to be edited? If so, could you do a sample edit so I can see what you are looking for? Thank you. I am going to edit the project page based on your reply. Dbiel (Talk) 06:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There are another point that Caerwine didn't mention. One point in your initial statement isn't quite right. The list never claims to list all stub types. Officially, it only lists those which have been cleared for use by WP:WSS, either through proposal or by acceptance after discovery. This is the reason why the list is hand maintained rather than automated. Unfortunately, this also leads to there being considerable lag from time to time, since not everyone remembers to add stubs once they've been created or approved (I'll put my hands up to being as big a culprit as most with that). And you're right - those school ones (or at least any with categories) should all be on the list. Grutness...wha? 07:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explaination. Before editing the list myself, would you be willing to look at the new version I created at User:Dbiel/US School Stub Categories(this page has been deleted as its purpose came to an end when the master page was updated, see below)

and let me know if that format is acceptable and if any of the templates should be deleted because they are not approved. I removed the categories that do not exist at this time. I have no idea where to look for the approved list. Feel free to edit the list yourself. It is in my user space simply because of the amount of time it took to create and not wanting to make a mess of the live copy. Dbiel (Talk) 02:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

We generally use the small HTML tag rather than italics for the upmerged templates without a category of their own, so I've rectified that. It'll take a little longer to check on the correctness, though in this case as long as the size is OK, they'd quickly pass muster on the Discoveries page if they were sent there, so I see no need to do that. Technically the Stub List page is supposed to be the list of approved stub types. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I've sent the North Dakota and Mississippi cats to SFD as they are undersized, I'll leave it to you to decide whether to wait for the SFD to update the main list. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and updated the main list simply to get it off my plate. I have been working on it for months. Thanks for the help. Dbiel (Talk) 20:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge two stubs?

We have {{Warsaw-stub}} and {{Warsaw-geo-stub}}. They are not identical (the first one is broader), but I am not sure if it fits into our categorization schemes? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Warsaw-geo-stub does fit, Warsaw-stub has never come through any proposal process as far as I know, and in a year and a half seems to have only picked up about ten stubs, several of which don't belong there anyway. At the very least it should go to the discoveries page, though I suspect it could go straight to WP:SFD without much trouble. Grutness...wha? 19:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • On further inspection there are considerably more problems with Warsaw-geo-stub than I thought. Firstly, Warsaw is not a Voivodeship (which is how Polish geo-stubs are split). With 600-odd stubs, though, the Masovian geography stubs category is likely to need splitting at some point. A bigger problem, though, is the actual contents of Cat:Warsaw geography stubs. It contains 81 stubs, which is above threshold - but only about 50 of them belong there. There are at least 25 which should be marked {{Poland-struct-stub}}, a couple of {{Poland-stadium-stub}}s and a couple more {{Poland-road-stub}}s - none of which are geo-stubs. And that's just from a cursory glance (for all I know some of the ones with entirely Polish names may also be roads or structures). Moving these non-geo types into Cat:Warsaw stubs might get that a little closer to threshold. But things only get more confusing when we look at the voivodeship types. There seems to be some confusion in the article names as to whether it's Masovian Voivodeship or Masovia Voivodeship - and since stub types normally se the noun form rather than the adjectival, "Masovia" seems the more likely name. Similar problems occur with several of the other Voivodeship geo-stub types (Lower Silesia and Pomerania, for instance) Grutness...wha? 00:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Has anyone else noticed this problem

I stumbled across this discussion while trying to track down what was happening with mysterious edits to stub syntax. Has anyone else noticed the problem being discussed? --EncycloPetey (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I swear Betacommand and his bot are creating far more work for the project than they're worth to it these days. :(( Grutness...wha? 19:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, I suggested the link format he used as I had thought it would solve his concern while not breaking anything. Would replace "/w/" with "/{{SCRIPTPATH}}/" solve the problem with secure server users? (At least this does verify that people do use the expanding it links.) Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden categories discussion

There is a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Hidden categories concerning what kinds of categories should be hidden (using the new HIDDENCAT magic word). For the moment it is proposed that hiding be applied to all categories which classify the article rather than the article subject (i.e. maintenance cats, stub cats, "Spoken articles" etc.) Please weigh in. --Kotniski (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Note - this is a pretty important discussion - it will greatly affect the way stubs are dealt with. I'd advise people here that they should definitely take a look and comment! Grutness...wha? 23:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus required

Hi all - consensus is required on a few items at SFD which have been open for quite some time. At present either they have very few comments, or they become a rambling discussion with no clear decision being made. If any of you could make some comments on the following, it would be very welcome:

  • Dec 11, 2007 - two Indian politician stub types
  • Jan 10 - Ohio sub-region stub categories
  • Feb 5 - Glass-stub

Grutness...wha? 07:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] StubSense not working

StubSense hasn't been available for quite some time. Is there an alternative? Stusutcliffe (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I used it yesterday with no trouble. As long as you don't need to use Commons files, I think it's OK. Sometimes if there are too many users trying to get it at once it balks. Her Pegship (tis herself) 08:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry; I should have been clearer. The download link doesn't work. Stusutcliffe (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, my bad...I was thinking of CatScan. Never mind...Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
So, back to the original question...is there an alternative for StubSense? Stusutcliffe (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
have you tried catscan [[1]] Waacstats (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replacement of Stub redirects page

Redirect templates have been working for quite some time and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub redirects isn't very well maintained. How about we scrap the page and instead use a redirection template to populate a category for the stub redirects? Stub template redirects would this have two redirection templates, one to explain the type of redirect and another such as {{R of stub template}} to populate a category such as Cat:Stub template redirects. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable move to me - the page has been needing an overhaul for a while. Might I suggest rather than outright deletion of the page adding a section to WP:STUB outlining WP:WSS's guidelines on when redirects are/aren't good ideas, and redirecting Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub redirects to that? Grutness...wha? 23:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden-film-stub

Okay, per discussion I have created {{Sweden-film-stub}} but the discussion suggested pointing the tagged files at "its European parent" category. Only I can't find such a category. I've spent all day draining the swamp (sorting, categorizing, wikifying, etc.) of nearly 200 stubs in {{film-stub}} down to a handful and tagged the few Swedish films with the new template but I'm loathe to proceed further until this is worked out. Any hints, thoughts, or suggestions welcomed. (And feel free to tag the rest of those Swedish films, if you wish.)- Dravecky (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

mmm. I'd suggest making a parent-only (i.e., no template) category Cat:European film stubs) to point it to, and add the French, Italian, etc categories as subcats of it. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
In the past, the films people have upmerged country stub templates directly to Cat:Film stubs and Cat:Yourcountryhere stubs, which is as it currently stands, until 60 articles are thus tagged. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US-tv-stub

{{US-tv-stub}} isn't listed here under "By country". PamD (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing this out. Alai (talk) 02:58, 10 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 24:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be OK now. Kathleen.wright5 14:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I was wrong, its still continuing. It happens after I list new or recently discovered Stub Types. Kathleen.wright5 12:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technical problem: How to alphabetize stub books beginning with 'The' or 'A'

In particular, for the Category window at the bottom of a book stub. For example, it is easy to sort for a Book category such as The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy: just add '|Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The' after Category:1995 books (and before)). This fix does not, however, work for {{philo-book-stub. True, the latter uses curled brackets ('{'), not square brackets ('['). Any fix to be found? Thx. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than parameterising the categories in the way you suggest, many articles now use {{DEFAULTSORT}}, which works for categories and stub templates. Mind you, I for one always find it easier if the stubs are all together under "The" or "A", at least for sorting purposes - that way you know you're dealing with titles. I'm probably in a very small minority for that, though. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thx for comment. I tried that for The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. It works for [[Cetegory:1995 books... & Dictionaries:... but not not for {{Philosophy book stubs ... Apparently, the sorting algorithm does not carry over to the latter with its oh-so-fancy curled brackets. Should I take the problem to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
There does seem to be some lag the last couple of days; items I sort are not being migrated to their categories consistently (see Cat:National Register of Historic Places stubs). Might be worth a heads-up at the pump. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Problem solved thx to help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2008/April, which identified poorly customized stub link that concealed default sort. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:39, 23 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 23:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved. Kathleen.wright5 08:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unable to load Stub types

For the last couple of days I've been unable to load Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types; the URL shows in my browser's Location field, and the status bar says "Done", but the page is blank. I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.14 on an admittedly slow (9-year-old) iMac, but I do have DSL and I haven't had this problem for this long before. Any ideas? Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peg et al - looks like one user has unilaterally decided to "fix" this page by turning into a duplicate of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/List of stubs. The list as it was may have been problematic to use when the servers are running slow, but it was still useful for all that, and I for one strongly oppose the change that has been made to it - a change made without any discussion with WP:WSS, I hasten to add. I've tried to revert it, but for some reason can't do so, having the same "done" problems that Peg is having - can anyone else with a more crunchy computer have a go? Grutness...wha? 03:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried both "rollback" and "undo", but neither works. The page may have simply gotten too long to work with MW software? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be loading OK now. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American vs US

There's a current discussion over at the MOS. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replag??

WTF is going on with the database? I have created some revised categories and redirected stub templates to them (see Cat:Medical biographical stubs and sub-cats of Cat:National Register of Historic Places stubs), and for days now have been waiting for the articles to re-sort into their new categories. A few null edits seem to have produced a few results in one case, no results at all in another. Grr. I have emptied my browser cache, reloaded, purged, etc etc, and STILL...Any ideas?? Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I came across the same thing a week ago. The only answer I could find was that somebody was doing something to the server that deals with the replag so it wasn't working. Hopefully whoever it is can hurry up and get it working again. Special:Statistics shows 11.3million pages in the job queue out of 12.8million pages, so even if it started working right away it would take a while to get everything done. Waacstats (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael 'Iron Holdings' Morgan

Iron Mike Holdings are a Scrap Steel co-operation based in Attercliffe, Sheffield. It is estimated by the South Sheffield Review that they occupy 38% of the Scrap Metals market in Sheffield —Preceding unsigned comment added by The machine 1986 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh good. Now we know where to go for scrap metal in South Yorkshire. Sigh. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antarctic geo stubs

I've been trying to work through the massive backlog on the to-do list and while the Illinois categories were relatively painless, it turns out I know nothing about Antarctic geography. So while I have created the long-overdue {{EAntarctica-geo-stub}} and {{WAntarctica-geo-stub}} as upmerged templates, I don't have Clue #1 as to actually applying these templates to articles. Anybody with this sort of specialized geographical knowledge is encouraged to jump in here. - Dravecky (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, West Antarctica is the Ross Sea, the Weddell Sea, and the Antarctic Peninsula which lies between them - i.e., the areas claimed by the UK, Argentina, and Chile, plus much of NZ's claim. East Antarctica is everywhere else - Norway, Australia and France's claims, plus the westernmost part of NZ's claim. It's a little tricky because AFAIK only the United States really makes the distinction between East and West Antarctica - even here, where there is a strong link to the Big Ice, the terms are never normally used (which is one of the reasons I wasn't that keen on this split in the first place). The fact that the articles on East Antarctica and West Antarctica are themselves stubs doesn't help. Grutness...wha? 09:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, maybe that's why they'd sat on the to-do list for over a year. I've spent the last day or so (and am looking at still doing this for the next day or so) working on applying the 32 Mexican state geo stub templates I created (from the to-do list) to the 834 articles in Category:Mexico geography stubs so I'll leave the Antarctic stubs to the mercy of the experts. - Dravecky (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the boundary between North and South Antarctica is more vehemently disputed. — CharlotteWebb 13:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Small mistake on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types

There's a small mistake on the above page just before the Science section, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types#Science. I tried to correct it but I got a blank page as before. The Compact List is fine. Can it be fixed by an Admin? This post is also at the above page's Talk Page. Kathleen.wright5 04:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biting the bullet ofver {{Sectstub}}

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Sectstub

Template:Sectstub has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Grutness...wha? 01:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

See the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Stub#Proposal about using a link to a short tutorial instead of a link to the edit tab in each stub template. 199.125.109.34 (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Closing discussions

This edit summary reports that closings can only be done by an admin; I was also advised earlier that if one has participated in a discussion, one may not close it. I guess I missed the boat; I've been closing left and right for a long time. Sooo...would someone else mind keeping an eye on /proposals, /deletions, and /discoveries, and closing when possible? thanks - Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Here Peggy you may assume that the comment was not directed at you and can safely be disregarded. Expertise takes precedence over user-rights. Cheers. — CharlotteWebb 13:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC) I see you're on RFA and in no danger of failing, so you can probably disregard my comment as well (though as we all know, anything can happen). — CharlotteWebb 14:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {Subst:Stub}

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kolossos/templatetiger/tt-table4.php?template=localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&lang=en

The above link shows some 300 articles (data from March 2008). Most appear to be stubs that use the template's text rather than a template. If someone gets around to fix them [2] before me, I'd be glad. (To avoid overloading the server, the link is not clickable directly). -- User:Docu

[edit] Beauty pageants?

Any suggestions on an appropriate stub type for Miss World Famous Beauties 2007? I've looked in Leisure, Culture, and Miscellaneous and can't see any remotely suitable stub type for it! PamD (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] id="stub"

Because the box standard for stub templates is apparently to wrap them inside a <div class="boilerplate metadata" id="stub">, XHTML errors are generated by pages containing multiple stub templates, as all id attributes on a page should be unique. This concern was raised at the village pump and I offered two possible solutions, so I invite everyone interested in stub template formats to comment here. — CharlotteWebb 13:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Osteopathic medicine stubs

The above category has been deleted, should the stub template Osteo-med-stub be deleted and if so how? Kathleen.wright5 23:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Did the discussion come to a consensus of delete or (more likely) upmerge? - Dravecky (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It was Upmerge to Cat:Medicine stubs, which seems to have been done, so no deletion is needed (or supported, for that matter). Grutness...wha? 01:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Auto Stub Tagging Bot

Hey guys, I'm looking into creating a bot that would tag new pages that much certain stubbish criteria (length, number of sentences, if formatting exists, pictures, etc.) with the stub template or a derivative of a stub template after a certain number of hours after the article was created. I was wondering how you guys would feel about such a bot and if it would overload your current capacity to deal with the stub category. Thanks, --Nn123645 (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, though it's a pretty crude method in some ways (not everything small is a stub - there are things like dab pages, for instance). At the moment we rely on database dumps every month or so, which temporarily fill Cat:Stubs with a couple of thousand new articles. It does have one advantage, though, in that prods and speedies don't geet dumped into Cat:Stubs. Perhaps if you made it a longer period (say one week after creation) it might reduce the number of articles a bit. One disadvantage I see, though, is that the definition of stub is pretty amorphous. I've already mentioned dab pages, but there are other cases where length alone isn't a good guide (articles with one sentence followed by a lioarge infobox, for instance). Of course, the database dumps don't catch them either, so that's a fairrly moot point advantage/disadvantage-wise. As far as overloading us, it depends on the numbers (possibly a short-term trial of it would be the best way to judge?) Grutness...wha? 02:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages shouldn't be too hard to spot and kick out as long as they follow the standard formatting of a disambiguation page (such as in disambiguation catagory and using text like "may refer to" or "can also mean" along with bullted links to multiple pages). The only problem I could see is if a user tried to create a disambiguation and didn't follow the standard conventions with disambig pages. As far as infoboxes are concerned them and other formatting shouldn't be too hard, the main idea idea is not to eliminate the need for wikipedians tagging stubs, but to catch the obvious stuff that gets through. I'm curious as to how you currently search for stubs with the database dumps. I was thinking it would probably be better to create a bot specific tag and maybe a segregated bot category and add the stuff to that rather than putting it into the general stub category to mitigate the effects of false positives. This of course depends on what you guys want, because after all you are the ones who would be dealing with the output. --Nn123645 (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages should be identified by appropriate tags - if they haven't got them, then anyone "stub-sorting" can usefully replace the false stub tag by the correct "dab", "hndis" or whatever. But I too would like to know what process is used in the monthly database dump, which tags a vast batch of articles as stubs. Could someone explain, or point me to where the explanation can be found? Thanks. PamD (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Pam on the dabs: that's the position I've taken with regard to my own bot, which is doing a very simplistic sort of stub-tagging, working only on completely uncategorised articles. And which is overdue a run, now that I think of it... I think this is what Grutness is referring to: the bot can use input data from the db dump, but also from elsewhere (such as toolserver, or the uncategorised special page): it's not any sense tightly integrated with the db dumps, much less an automated part of it. Because all those dab-tags introduce categories, the bot will automatically skip any correctly formatted dab. In theory one could detect intended-to-be dabs that lack the tags in the way Nn suggests, but it's unlikely to be completely reliable, so in effect it's the matter of tagging with one to-be-cleaned-up-by-a-human-editor tag, vs. another (stub and disambig-cleanup). Alai (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, the task approval for the stub-tagging is here: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Alaibot 3. If there's anything that doesn't cover that anyone needs to know, I'll fill in as best as I can. Alai (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This is indeed the process I was referring to - I'd misunderstood how it was being run, thinking that it had been set to run automatically when db dumps were done (I'm extremely un-techno-savvy; I wouldn't know a database dump if one jumped out at me in a purple tracksuit). It sounds like it's a similar sort of process to the one that's been proposed by Nn, but drip-feeding rather than opening monthly floodgates. Perhaps Nn and Alai can get together to discuss which of the two would work best and whether good features from one can be incorporated in the other? It's possible that one of you will have spotted wrinkles that the other hasn't... Grutness...wha? 11:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It's generally more of a floodgate than a dripfeed, but I can control that if people have a preference one way or the other. (Either by slowing down the rate at which the dbdump-indentified candidates are processed, or by running it more often from the other sources I mentioned.) No-one seems to have commented much on that aspect to date, and there's typically a backlog in both the stubs and in the uncategorised articles anyway, so I tend just to run it at my own convenience. (Not to say my succeeding in remembering.)
I don't propose to extend my bot's operation into the area of already-categorised articles, though: my main intention is to get them "in the system", and having a human editor look at them sooner or later, one way or another. If someone else takes on that aspect, I recommend it try to be history-sensitive, so as to avoid excessive cycles of tagging and untagging between bot and human editors. Alai (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I miswrote (hey - it's nearly 1 a.m. here). I meant that Nn's proposal sounds more like a drip-feed compared to your monthly db runs being a floodgate opening. Grutness...wha? 12:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That'd largely depend on that granularity that it was run at, which again I'd imagine to be somewhat orthogonal as to the detail of its operation as a "filter". In either case, it would be interesting to elicit what the 'consumers' of the cleanup cats in question would prefer. Alai (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I posted a note at Cat:Stubs, which is where several of them seem to gather... Grutness...wha? 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) So far my bot really consists of two parts, one is an IRC logger to parse and log the IRC recent changes feed for new changes to a pending table in a MySQL database and remove database rows upon pages being deleted deletion. The other part is the part that interfaces with the wikipedia API to make the edit. This output would result in a dripfeed for the stubs area. The advantage to using the IRC RC feed rather than a database dump is that you don't have to wait for the DB dump to be updated, it will be added and tagged quicker as sometimes it can take months for them to get around to doing a DB dump. --Nn123645 (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned already, if people want it run more frequently, I have ways and means of doing that. (One might wonder if adding a tag too quickly after creation is entirely desirable.) The larger question is whether one is going to tackle a wider scope of articles, which I'd have certain reservations about. As to the distinction being what gets tagged as a "stub", and what as an "uncategorised article", I'm certain that can be done more systematically. (I'm just using wordcount at present.) Alai (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Namespace warnings

The {{stub}} template is intended for use on articles, not on miscellaneous wikipedia pages (like talk pages, categories, redirects, portals, etc.). For the most part this is not a problem, but people do occasionally use them in the wrong namespace. It is relatively simple to give a warning when this is done, similar to how {{prod}} gives a warning when it is not subst'd. The proposal then is to give such a warning.

I have created an example such template at User:JackSchmidt/stub with samples in User talk:JackSchmidt/stub. If the template is used on a Category: page, then a fairly bold warning is given (hopefully seen during preview). If the template is used on a User: page a fairly mild notice that they may want to consider a more specific stub tag, with a link to this project. On Talk: pages it warns moderately that the stub template belongs on the article, not on its talk page. On Template: and normal mainspace articles it does nothing out of the ordinary. On all others it gives mild warning that the template is only meant for use on articles.

A previously suggested idea (on Template talk:stub) was to also remove the Category:Stubs except for articles, but I think we have agreed that this creates more work than it saves.

If people like this idea, I'll make the editprotected request on Template talk:stub with the not-demo code (the one in my userspace has some small complications to allow it to make samples; the version for {{stub}} will be slightly simpler). JackSchmidt (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in the concept; I have two nit-picky refinements to suggest. On the talk page version it should read "not talk pages" rather than "not their talk pages", and I really would like to tone down the category warning. Just a "please" would help: "Please do not use the stub template on Category pages"; likewise with "but [please] consider choosing a more specific stub template". Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Toned down. I left the old samples at the bottom of the talk page, and put the current ones at the top. I changed their->the, but I think both are correct (and have no particular opinion on which is better). JackSchmidt (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

One suggestion - usually if someone has added {{stub}} or similar to a category page, they actually should have used {{popcat}}, which is a sort of "this category is a stub" message. Is there any way of incorporating a note about that into the message? Sort of "don't use {{stub}} here - perhaps you want to use {{popcat}} instead?" Grutness...wha? 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Userspace stubs

I separated this issue off, since I think it deserves its own section. The results should probably be incorporated into the template's warnings, but this is also useful to all the stub sorters. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A problem I've come across a couple of times is when an article has been copied wholesale into a user's subpage, complete with the Stub tag. It crops up in the category listing. What's the best thing to do? Should we (a) add "nowiki" markup around it on user's subpage (b) delete the stub tag altogether, (c) stub-sort it, (d) leave the user a message on their talk page asking them to do one of the above, (e) something else? PamD (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of (a), I prefer to use Template:tl, as in {{stub}} (as in {{tl|stub}}). It makes only a minor change. For categories, put a colon before "Category", like Category:Academics (as in [[:Category:Academics]]).
I myself currently lean towards a combination of the modified (a) and (c): stub sort it, and fix the categories, then "deactivate" the stub template and the categories. If we just do (a) it sort of wastes an edit, while (c) definitely does some good. I could even see just doing (c), but I haven't completely adjusted my thinking yet. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I like the modified (a) (using tl instead of nowiki), but I've found that people tend to just undo it as they copy a new version of the page from their word processor over their user space draft, so (d) seems like a good idea too. KathrynLybarger (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
If you're going for something involving (a) -- as I have done myself on occasion -- I strongly recommend using {{some-stub}} rather than nowiki, as Kathryn says. This reduces the chances of the stub-tagging being "lost", since it can then still be tracked from the template's what-links-here. As to which is best overall... it's hard to say, but I'd suggest it depends on part if it's a duplicate draft of an existing article, or a embryonic new article; whether it seems to be undergoing active editing, or looks semi-abandoned; and on whether there are permcats which also need to be 'deactivated' (analogously by turning them into links, typically). Alai (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for (c) only - (a) only causes problems further down the line. Usually what's happened is not so much that an article has been copied across; usually it's simply that someone is working on a draft of a new article. I usually change the stub template to a more appropriate one and leave a note in the edit summary saying what I've done and why. Such articles are usually only temporary inconveniences anyway, since they sooner or later make it out into article space. There's not much point in "deactivating" the stub or category - if you do that then you're likely to find that when the article finally makes its appearance in article space it will still have a deactivated stub type and we're unable to track it down to fix it. Grutness...wha? 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)