![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
50 Boyz
Referred to as the 50 Boyz[1] first by Gus Johnson of CBS Sports, the indomitable trio of DeMeco Ryans, Brian Cushing, and Zac Diles helped to establish the Houston Texans' run defense in 2009. The heart of The 50 Boyz, DeMeco Ryans(number 59) established himself immediately as the Texans' eminent linebacker after being drafted in the second round of the Texans' stellar 2006 draft(that saw them draft Owen Daniels, Eric Winston and Mario Williams)[2]. He won the Defensive Rookie of the Year award, and he is the heart of the 50 Boyz as he has played injured for a substantial amount of his career. However, Brian Cushing (number 56) brings a very ferocious mentality to the 50 Boyz. Drafted in the 2009 draft, Cushing came from a very distinguished group of SoCal linebackers that terrorized the PAC-10 for two seasons[3]. Cushing has brought the physicality that the Texans has yearned for, and he has established himself as the enforcer[4]. Last, Zac Diles, number 54, earned the starting job over talented linebackers Xavier Adibi and Cato June in the preseason of 2009 after playing well in 2008. A success story, Diles was drafted in the last round of the 2007 draft and was not expected to make the team. He brings finesse, hustle and intelligence to the trio. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Houstontexans ( talk • contribs) 04:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Following a discussion here, I propose changing the stub template text from
to
This article is a
stub. Please help by expanding it.
or something similar. The goal is to emphasize that not only readers can edit, but that they are invited to edit. GeometryGirl ( talk) 13:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems people are happy about it. I'll make a poll. GeometryGirl ( talk) 15:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Proposal: change
to
This article is a stub. Please help by expanding it.
What's up with the strangeness at the start of the 'Ideal Stub Article' segment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.158.41 ( talk) 21:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Discovered that whatever it is has something to do with this: { { a r t i c l e c r e a t i o n } } Remove spaces from that, and you get the following:
What.
173.8.158.41 ( talk) 21:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
That could scan a category and list stubs with specified size, so one could for example check if there are indeed stubs, or maybe already start articles? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Still Bob! Sowy! I am not Bob, it is spellt Bobb.Hmph! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlf ( talk • contribs) 23:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
In my view of how we do things here, a two-line article is in no conceivable way more than a stub. Heads up: User talk:Trevor MacInnis#Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions/Zyxw. Geschichte ( talk) 14:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The entry Andal Ampatuan Sr. is inaccurate.
Cory Aquino did not appoint Andal Sr as OIC of Maguindanao in 1986. It was another person, Datu Modi Ampatuan, who was the Cory appointee.
The source of the entry is a political column of a commentator, which sadly, is biased against Cory Aquino. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.207.250 ( talk) 08:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
SmackBot has now twice (if not more) removed my marking of stub templates, the latest being at Battle of Temesvár with this edit.
I have got on to the bot's maintainer recently about this when it did it at Battle of Pakozd. Unfortunately the matter there seems to have been dropped and archived before achieving consensus.
In my opinion, a bot should not make the decision to remove a stub, but WP:STUB says "Any editor can remove... without special permission". It depends, then, whether a bot is regarded as an editor for the purpose of this sentence. I believe in practice, though, it is best to leave such removal to a human's decision. In particular, in these articles which form part of a series:
{{
Expand Hungarian}}
and {{
Expand section}}
tags. WP:STUB says an article should not have both the {{
expand}}
tag and stub templates. I do not think by extension this should mean any template that happens to start with "expand". I am not assertoing this was the reason for removing them, but I would regard it being so as very much too liberal an interpretation of WP:STUB, since those templates have quite distinct usages/meanings and are not merely artifacts of {{
expand}}
. Clarification there please.{{
underconstruction}}
tag. While not of itself even intended to prevent/delay other editors' contributions, it may be taken as evidence indicating that the article is actively being expanded, and so hint that in its current state it could well be considered a stub. Again I am not suggesting that it will always do so (otherwise it might as well come under the same guidance as {{
expand}}
) but it may give a hint to a human editor that it is indeed a stub.In short, I think it entirely inappropriate for a bot to make this kind of decision. For a human editor, with the assistance of AWB, to do so, is entirely another matter, since in good faith I accept that an editor will consider the whole balance of the article and use AWB to find candidates, not automatically trust it (as a bot does).
Any opinions on this matter?
Best wishes Si Trew ( talk) 20:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
{{bots|deny=SmackBot}}
to the article, to prevent them editing it again (if it is exclusion complient) . –
xeno
talk
20:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC){{
expand}}
template.With reference to the {{ expand}} templates, I'm not sure whether the rule could be extended to cover any template starting with expand, but I wouldn't think so. In any case, if an article has both {{ expand}} and a stub template on it, generally it is the expand template which should be removed, not the stub template, for two reasons: 1) most articles which have both are stub articles which an editor has mistakenly added an expand template to; 2) stub templates subcategorise articles, making them easier for specific groups of editors to find - {{ expand}} doesn't. If a bot has been programmed to remove one of these templates from any article with both, it should be removing the expand template, not the stub template. Grutness... wha? 23:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
Expand Hungarian}}
does not fall under this remit of not mixing {{
expand}}
with stub templates, since its primary purpose is quite different from {{
expand}}
i.e. to hint to other editors where they may find extra content, not merely to say that it's a bit (or a lot) on the short side. Generally speaking the same article in that tag will be an Interwiki link, but an English article may have several such links, and so it points to the one that seems to be the most likely candidate for etting useful information. Of course I am treating Hungarian articles here as an example and not a special case.{{
Austria-battle-stub}}
but on Hungary we only have the more general {{
hungary-hist-stub}}
; while I could create {{
Hungary-battle-stub}}
and an appropriate subcategory etc, it seems superfluous right now because the only articles that would likely live in it are the ones we are currently working on anyway. As it happens, the Military Project tend to remove the stub templates after doing their assessment, which seems right and proper (although I have my doubts whether they should be removing {{
hungary-hist-stub}}
, which probably more rightly comes under the WikiProject Hungary, but that is a much more minor point since the two projects tend to assess the articles within a day or two of each other.)(outdent) I have to second the motion that Smackbot and other bots not remove stub tags from articles, at least not if a WikiProject talk page tag has labeled the article a stub (indicating human judgement unless it also bears |auto=yes
). I've had problems with this bot several times myself. It seems to decide that any article over X number of bytes or lines or characters or something long must automagically not be a stub any longer, no matter how obviously incomplete and messed up it is. I also agree that this is ultimately a BON issue. However, I don't think BON will "get" it or act on it without some consensus already here on the issue. I.e., we should come to an agreement here, then take that to BON for action. —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›
06:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there any point in adding an unreferenced tag to an early-stage stub? I note that people sometimes do this, and I generally remove it with a comment such as "of course unreferenced, it's a stub". The article clearly IS unreferenced, but the tag draws attention to the article giving the impression that it needs attention to add references to fix it up, when this will actually not help at all as there's no information to be referenced yet. I write this thinking, in particular, of the absolutely minimal stub Ship registration that I just created. (The article itself is clearly needed as articles on Flag of convenience, drug submarine and others refer to but do not define or discuss registration, but I am not qualified to write it.) To summarise: should a minimal stub be tagged as unreferenced or not? Pol098 ( talk) 12:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I started with proceeding with changes to existing football bio stub categories in order for them to not infer nationality when this was not known - see log at [1]. However, as well as being an onerous process to just do the one category change, it got me thinking more widely about the purposes of stub categories and the issue of creating too many categories. You will see from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Sports that there are large numbers of sub-categories for footballers by both country, position and year of birth, although I see American football seems to go that detailed as well. I could not see on the main stub page any information on the purpose of stub categories, and the appropriateness of them. I welcome your general views on stubs and in particular on whether football appears to have too many categories. Please note I have previously asked some questions on this at WP:Footy and will aim to do so further before any changes, but I wanted to get some general stub process views. Thanks. Eldumpo ( talk) 11:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The following text was added recently, and then removed because it had been added without consensus. I would like to obtain consensus on this text and then re-add it, because I think it is very sensible, especially in light of the huge problem we have with unsourced and poorly sourced BLP stubs:
Stubs with no possibility for expansion
All stubs should have the potential to develop into full articles. A stub that has no possibility whatsoever for expansion beyond stub status is presenting the verifiable information in the wrong way. Wikipedia should not have single-fact articles.
This does not necessarily mean that stubs that have no possibility for expansion should be copied to Wiktionary, if they are stub encyclopedia articles and not stub dictionary articles. Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia, and the solution for an unexpandable stub encyclopedia article on Wikipedia is not to create encyclopedia articles on Wiktionary.
Per our deletion policy, stubs that cannot possibly be expanded beyond perpetual stub status should be either renamed, merged, or refactored into articles with wider scope, that can be expanded beyond perpetual stub status, or deleted or speedy deleted if it cannot be renamed, merged, or refactored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wordsmith ( talk • contribs)
Stubs which cannot be expanded are not stubs. They are short articles. In general very short articles which cannot be expanded should be (as things are done at teh moment) merged. There is usually a way to do this even if it means articles called "Minor characters from My Very Big Soap Opera (Ma-Mb)". The utility of doing this is still questionable however. If I type in "Humble Maltracht", why does it help me to load 127 other characters from MVBSO at the same time? I would argue that it doesn't. A one line article "Humble Maltracht is the substitute janitor in Episode 21,373 or MVBSO. He rescues a number of pupils from the burning building before having to leave for an orthodontist appointment." provides the information needed and the requisite links. Rich Farmbrough, 02:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
50 Boyz
Referred to as the 50 Boyz[1] first by Gus Johnson of CBS Sports, the indomitable trio of DeMeco Ryans, Brian Cushing, and Zac Diles helped to establish the Houston Texans' run defense in 2009. The heart of The 50 Boyz, DeMeco Ryans(number 59) established himself immediately as the Texans' eminent linebacker after being drafted in the second round of the Texans' stellar 2006 draft(that saw them draft Owen Daniels, Eric Winston and Mario Williams)[2]. He won the Defensive Rookie of the Year award, and he is the heart of the 50 Boyz as he has played injured for a substantial amount of his career. However, Brian Cushing (number 56) brings a very ferocious mentality to the 50 Boyz. Drafted in the 2009 draft, Cushing came from a very distinguished group of SoCal linebackers that terrorized the PAC-10 for two seasons[3]. Cushing has brought the physicality that the Texans has yearned for, and he has established himself as the enforcer[4]. Last, Zac Diles, number 54, earned the starting job over talented linebackers Xavier Adibi and Cato June in the preseason of 2009 after playing well in 2008. A success story, Diles was drafted in the last round of the 2007 draft and was not expected to make the team. He brings finesse, hustle and intelligence to the trio. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Houstontexans ( talk • contribs) 04:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Following a discussion here, I propose changing the stub template text from
to
This article is a
stub. Please help by expanding it.
or something similar. The goal is to emphasize that not only readers can edit, but that they are invited to edit. GeometryGirl ( talk) 13:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems people are happy about it. I'll make a poll. GeometryGirl ( talk) 15:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Proposal: change
to
This article is a stub. Please help by expanding it.
What's up with the strangeness at the start of the 'Ideal Stub Article' segment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.158.41 ( talk) 21:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Discovered that whatever it is has something to do with this: { { a r t i c l e c r e a t i o n } } Remove spaces from that, and you get the following:
What.
173.8.158.41 ( talk) 21:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
That could scan a category and list stubs with specified size, so one could for example check if there are indeed stubs, or maybe already start articles? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Still Bob! Sowy! I am not Bob, it is spellt Bobb.Hmph! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlf ( talk • contribs) 23:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
In my view of how we do things here, a two-line article is in no conceivable way more than a stub. Heads up: User talk:Trevor MacInnis#Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions/Zyxw. Geschichte ( talk) 14:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The entry Andal Ampatuan Sr. is inaccurate.
Cory Aquino did not appoint Andal Sr as OIC of Maguindanao in 1986. It was another person, Datu Modi Ampatuan, who was the Cory appointee.
The source of the entry is a political column of a commentator, which sadly, is biased against Cory Aquino. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.207.250 ( talk) 08:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
SmackBot has now twice (if not more) removed my marking of stub templates, the latest being at Battle of Temesvár with this edit.
I have got on to the bot's maintainer recently about this when it did it at Battle of Pakozd. Unfortunately the matter there seems to have been dropped and archived before achieving consensus.
In my opinion, a bot should not make the decision to remove a stub, but WP:STUB says "Any editor can remove... without special permission". It depends, then, whether a bot is regarded as an editor for the purpose of this sentence. I believe in practice, though, it is best to leave such removal to a human's decision. In particular, in these articles which form part of a series:
{{
Expand Hungarian}}
and {{
Expand section}}
tags. WP:STUB says an article should not have both the {{
expand}}
tag and stub templates. I do not think by extension this should mean any template that happens to start with "expand". I am not assertoing this was the reason for removing them, but I would regard it being so as very much too liberal an interpretation of WP:STUB, since those templates have quite distinct usages/meanings and are not merely artifacts of {{
expand}}
. Clarification there please.{{
underconstruction}}
tag. While not of itself even intended to prevent/delay other editors' contributions, it may be taken as evidence indicating that the article is actively being expanded, and so hint that in its current state it could well be considered a stub. Again I am not suggesting that it will always do so (otherwise it might as well come under the same guidance as {{
expand}}
) but it may give a hint to a human editor that it is indeed a stub.In short, I think it entirely inappropriate for a bot to make this kind of decision. For a human editor, with the assistance of AWB, to do so, is entirely another matter, since in good faith I accept that an editor will consider the whole balance of the article and use AWB to find candidates, not automatically trust it (as a bot does).
Any opinions on this matter?
Best wishes Si Trew ( talk) 20:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
{{bots|deny=SmackBot}}
to the article, to prevent them editing it again (if it is exclusion complient) . –
xeno
talk
20:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC){{
expand}}
template.With reference to the {{ expand}} templates, I'm not sure whether the rule could be extended to cover any template starting with expand, but I wouldn't think so. In any case, if an article has both {{ expand}} and a stub template on it, generally it is the expand template which should be removed, not the stub template, for two reasons: 1) most articles which have both are stub articles which an editor has mistakenly added an expand template to; 2) stub templates subcategorise articles, making them easier for specific groups of editors to find - {{ expand}} doesn't. If a bot has been programmed to remove one of these templates from any article with both, it should be removing the expand template, not the stub template. Grutness... wha? 23:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
Expand Hungarian}}
does not fall under this remit of not mixing {{
expand}}
with stub templates, since its primary purpose is quite different from {{
expand}}
i.e. to hint to other editors where they may find extra content, not merely to say that it's a bit (or a lot) on the short side. Generally speaking the same article in that tag will be an Interwiki link, but an English article may have several such links, and so it points to the one that seems to be the most likely candidate for etting useful information. Of course I am treating Hungarian articles here as an example and not a special case.{{
Austria-battle-stub}}
but on Hungary we only have the more general {{
hungary-hist-stub}}
; while I could create {{
Hungary-battle-stub}}
and an appropriate subcategory etc, it seems superfluous right now because the only articles that would likely live in it are the ones we are currently working on anyway. As it happens, the Military Project tend to remove the stub templates after doing their assessment, which seems right and proper (although I have my doubts whether they should be removing {{
hungary-hist-stub}}
, which probably more rightly comes under the WikiProject Hungary, but that is a much more minor point since the two projects tend to assess the articles within a day or two of each other.)(outdent) I have to second the motion that Smackbot and other bots not remove stub tags from articles, at least not if a WikiProject talk page tag has labeled the article a stub (indicating human judgement unless it also bears |auto=yes
). I've had problems with this bot several times myself. It seems to decide that any article over X number of bytes or lines or characters or something long must automagically not be a stub any longer, no matter how obviously incomplete and messed up it is. I also agree that this is ultimately a BON issue. However, I don't think BON will "get" it or act on it without some consensus already here on the issue. I.e., we should come to an agreement here, then take that to BON for action. —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›
06:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there any point in adding an unreferenced tag to an early-stage stub? I note that people sometimes do this, and I generally remove it with a comment such as "of course unreferenced, it's a stub". The article clearly IS unreferenced, but the tag draws attention to the article giving the impression that it needs attention to add references to fix it up, when this will actually not help at all as there's no information to be referenced yet. I write this thinking, in particular, of the absolutely minimal stub Ship registration that I just created. (The article itself is clearly needed as articles on Flag of convenience, drug submarine and others refer to but do not define or discuss registration, but I am not qualified to write it.) To summarise: should a minimal stub be tagged as unreferenced or not? Pol098 ( talk) 12:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I started with proceeding with changes to existing football bio stub categories in order for them to not infer nationality when this was not known - see log at [1]. However, as well as being an onerous process to just do the one category change, it got me thinking more widely about the purposes of stub categories and the issue of creating too many categories. You will see from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Sports that there are large numbers of sub-categories for footballers by both country, position and year of birth, although I see American football seems to go that detailed as well. I could not see on the main stub page any information on the purpose of stub categories, and the appropriateness of them. I welcome your general views on stubs and in particular on whether football appears to have too many categories. Please note I have previously asked some questions on this at WP:Footy and will aim to do so further before any changes, but I wanted to get some general stub process views. Thanks. Eldumpo ( talk) 11:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The following text was added recently, and then removed because it had been added without consensus. I would like to obtain consensus on this text and then re-add it, because I think it is very sensible, especially in light of the huge problem we have with unsourced and poorly sourced BLP stubs:
Stubs with no possibility for expansion
All stubs should have the potential to develop into full articles. A stub that has no possibility whatsoever for expansion beyond stub status is presenting the verifiable information in the wrong way. Wikipedia should not have single-fact articles.
This does not necessarily mean that stubs that have no possibility for expansion should be copied to Wiktionary, if they are stub encyclopedia articles and not stub dictionary articles. Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia, and the solution for an unexpandable stub encyclopedia article on Wikipedia is not to create encyclopedia articles on Wiktionary.
Per our deletion policy, stubs that cannot possibly be expanded beyond perpetual stub status should be either renamed, merged, or refactored into articles with wider scope, that can be expanded beyond perpetual stub status, or deleted or speedy deleted if it cannot be renamed, merged, or refactored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wordsmith ( talk • contribs)
Stubs which cannot be expanded are not stubs. They are short articles. In general very short articles which cannot be expanded should be (as things are done at teh moment) merged. There is usually a way to do this even if it means articles called "Minor characters from My Very Big Soap Opera (Ma-Mb)". The utility of doing this is still questionable however. If I type in "Humble Maltracht", why does it help me to load 127 other characters from MVBSO at the same time? I would argue that it doesn't. A one line article "Humble Maltracht is the substitute janitor in Episode 21,373 or MVBSO. He rescues a number of pupils from the burning building before having to leave for an orthodontist appointment." provides the information needed and the requisite links. Rich Farmbrough, 02:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC).