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. |
Why is this page in Template:? Shouldn't it be in Wikipedia:Template messages/stubs or something like that? -- Paddu 21:10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The request for cleanup is the reorganization of the stubs into categories. I'm too tired to complete this task, and I unfortunately can not fix or finish at this time. --[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion (talk)]] 12:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) (-0800 GMT)
I think adding the little pics to the stub messages is annoying and adds no value. I already thought categorized stubs were bad enough. Nelson Ricardo 05:16, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
I don't have time at the moment, but someone should add a template and category for weapon stubs. Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Stub seems to have a lot of weapon-related articles. — msh210 00:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Template:HK-stub redirects to Template:Hong-Kong-stub. All the articles with the HK-stub properly show Category:Hong Kong-related stubs, but when you go to Category:Hong Kong-related stubs, that page doesn't show any of the articles with the HK-stub. Is this a bug, or should one of the Hong Kong stub templates be deleted, with all the articles moved over to the other template? (Thank goodness there aren't too many articles using either template (see [1], and several of those articles should be moved to the template:Hong-Kong-geo-stub if things do get moved.)
gK ¿? 02:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I can see no reason why both MetaPicstub and Metapicstub should exist: surely one should REDIRECT to the other (and be deprecated anyway). Can you REDIRECT a transclusion with parameters? -- Phil | Talk 12:19, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Is it time to split this section up into stubs by region and geo-stubs by region? Grutness| hello? 07:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is getting way too large to use effectively. I propose (informally) the following:
Obviously for this to work, several stub tags would have to be renamed. Please note that I am not proposing doing away with the current version of the page, simply providing a more compact alternate version. It would be great if it could be automatically generated from the full version. - dcljr 01:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm having a discussion at Talk:Bolyeriidae about biosci-stubs versus animal-stubs (and plants for that matter). My argument is (or became during discussing) that animal stubs should be changed into zoology stubs, to ensure that they are more inclusive. Systematics of animals-stubs (Families, Orders etc.) should not be neither animal-stubs nor biosci-stubs. Animalstubs deal with animals, not with systematics, and bioscistubs are to general. So, is it possible to change animal-stub into zoology-stub? Also, I noticed the dog stub. Wouldn't it be better to change this into a pet stub? Phlebas 16:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the name "zoology-stub" would be clearer than "animal-stub". I'm not sure what you mean by your double negation. It sounds like "Systematics of animals-stubs should be either animal-stubs or biosci-stubs". But from the context of
Talk:Bolyeriidae you seem to mean that we should separate stubs for species from stubs for families, orders &c., keeping
Bolyeriidae a bio-stub, while
Casarea dussumieri would be an animal- (or zoo-) stub. I would vote against such a distinction because I don't think there will be anyone who's interested in one and bothered by the other.
Sebastian 17:52, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Like me, you may well get fed up with waiting for all the icons and tables to load at Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs when you want to find out which stub to use on a particular article. for that reason, I've added an extra page to my user pages ( User:Grutness/Stubs) with a plain-text list of all the stub templates listed as they stand now (00:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)). Feel free to amend the list when new stubs are created (but make sure you only list them with SINGLE curly brackets! I don't want my user pages covered in templates!). Also, feel free to advertise this page anywhere where stub sorting is going on. Grutness| hello? 00:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've added a small section at the top of Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs, informing any casual stub-creators of the Stub sorting wikiproject, and mentioning one or two of the the most basic guidelines. Hopefully that will mean that WP:WSS doesn't suddenly discover half a dozen previously unreported stubs and unwanted changes to what categories there are! Grutness| hello? 10:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For the reason given at m:Image server overload 2005-03, an image server which can't keep up with the number of requests it is getting, please temporarily remove the images from any of these stubs which is used by about 500 or more articles. At present, views of all pages, and even more, pages with many images, are being delayed in a queue waiting for a reply from the image server. Please don't be too keen with this and go much below 500 at present - we're trying to see if affecting only a relatively small number of uses can remove the immediate problem. Any page with the stub image removed will load faster because it will have one less wait in the queue... Jamesday 17:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Three ways -
Grutness| hello? 05:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Architecture-related stubs template {{Arch-stub}} is currently under both Arts and Misc. I tried the 'purge page cache' option, but it's still there. Can someone who knows how fix this please? -- Vishahu 00:26, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
There are several problems with the current stub-sorting system that make it virtually unusable, forcing me to use a generic stub tag most of the time.
I am hereby boycotting the use of stub categories, and I encourage everyone else to do the same. I recommend that the founders of this system give it a complete overhaul, or it be abolished.- Casito⇝ Talk 04:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm all for stubsorting and I've been helping when I have some time, but I agree with the name thing. Perhaps the names could be standardised as far as possible and the existing ones, where they differ red'd to them? If people could use an intuitively named stub, they wouldn't dump things into stub in the first place. Grace Note 03:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
There have been attempts to standardise naming (in fact, those instances where WP:WSS named in the stubs there is a reasonable degree of consistency. I see noting wrong with adding redirects in those places where it doesn't work properly (in fact, I made a redirect "Uganda-geo-stub" for the badly named Ug-geo-stub" about two days ago). Personally, i think that would be a reasonable compromise situation and would save a hell of a lot of work with renaming/recategorising. I'm also very much in favour of replacing Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs with Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types (Casito's right - I created it as a bandaid because I could never get the older one to load). I also agree with Zzyzx11 - in fact what he said was a simpler way of saying what i tried to say on May 5. As to Casito's suggestion about two parallel systems, though, I'm less in support, since the two systems have different purposes and therefore have different requirements (the standard categories are for readers, the stub categories are for editors). For the ease of stub-sorting and calculating what stubs are where - and also for the sake of the servers, keeping them parallel is actually an advantage. Stub categories are split at least in part according to size, in order to keep them at a reasonable size for editors and servers alike. For example, Currently there is one category for geography stubs dealing with West Africa. Logically, if you were combining everything into one category type, you'd have different geo-stubs for each of the countries in West Africa - which means the five Gambia stubs would have one category, the two Guinea-Bissau stubs would have their own category, and so on. This would lead to far more fragmented stub categorisation. When a reader is looking for something on The Gambia, it would be logical for them to look in the Gambia category. If they want to edit stubs to do with The Gambia, it wouldn't take too much work to look throuh the 150-odd West Africa stubs, find any Gambian ones and maybe realise they can do one or two on Senegal, which borders The Gambia. Um... I think i lost the thread there, but I hope you get the point I'm trying to make. Grutness| hello? 06:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello all. I recently created a stub on Nazi Germany articles and tried my best to add it to the table. However, the table appears to be distorted as the last column is now cut off and the stub "spills over" to the next line. In addition, when I added this stub to
National Socialist Flyers Corps, it appeared to accept yet upon going to "Category:Nazi Germany stub articles", the article does not appear listed . Any ideas on what the problem is? Thanks! -
Husnock
17:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
OK. Well, the page has been gutted, 90% of the content eliminated and I'm not even going to consider bringing it back as I obviously am misdirected to be doing anything to improve the page ... essentially the person who gutted the page eliminated hundreds of hours of work by many people to suit their own particular tastes. Well, why fight being bold, right? Courtland 22:44, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
Well, this is bad form indeed. This "consensus" was reached in what, a few hours? Before destroying or completely mutating a page, a clear notice should be given at the top of the page being changed. This is a matter of basic wikiquette and is followed on the foo for deletion pages. Being a member in a WikiProject doesn't give special privileges above other users and editors. Also, discussion about specific pages are generally held at the talk pages of the pages in question. Wipe 10:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Before destroying or completely mutating a page, a clear notice should be given at the top of the page being changed.
OK, my comment was too harsh because this issue hadn't been discussed here. But I think that the pages that people actually use as tools in editing need to remain functional. (Not quite sure what's the situation here.) Making drastic changes doesn't just change a piece of prose but also affects the usability of the tool. That demand you quoted doesn't appear to be an official policy, but pages like Wikipedia:Editing policy and WP:BOLD suggest discussing large changes and deletions on the relevant talkpages. Furthermore, whereas normal articles should remain clear of unnecessary instructions to editors, the project namespace pages are generally directed at editors and IMO it's common courtesy to alert users about major overhauls beforehand.
In regard to this page, I think a good compromise would be to add a list of links to all of the subpages that were previously transcluded, ie. Wikipedia:Template_messages/Stubs/Science, Wikipedia:Template_messages/Stubs/Leisure etc. If they are not complete, there should be notices about it, but these pages still give a good overview (see BlankVerse's comment). BTW, I don't mind sarcasm. Wipe 13:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my vote is to eliminate the page altogether; "being used" is secondary to "being utile" (consider the demise of the rotary phone in favor of touch-tone .. why did that happen? Both can make calls perfectly fine, and rotary can emulate pulse, afterall.) Courtland 12:51, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
As a closing comment, I do stand behind what
User:Wipe has said. Allowing the passage of days and following guidelines like "discuss the fate of a page on the page's talk page" are there as a consequence of this being an asynchronous environment. I'll point out that I made 21 edits over the course of 3 days (7 June to 10 June) to the page in question here. Did the activity of an editor on the page trigger any notion that maybe there's some communication gap present, though at this point I doubt the history of the page was looked at prior to the change being made. That's not written down as policy anywhere either, I don't think.
Courtland 18:08, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
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. |
Why is this page in Template:? Shouldn't it be in Wikipedia:Template messages/stubs or something like that? -- Paddu 21:10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The request for cleanup is the reorganization of the stubs into categories. I'm too tired to complete this task, and I unfortunately can not fix or finish at this time. --[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion (talk)]] 12:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) (-0800 GMT)
I think adding the little pics to the stub messages is annoying and adds no value. I already thought categorized stubs were bad enough. Nelson Ricardo 05:16, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
I don't have time at the moment, but someone should add a template and category for weapon stubs. Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Stub seems to have a lot of weapon-related articles. — msh210 00:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Template:HK-stub redirects to Template:Hong-Kong-stub. All the articles with the HK-stub properly show Category:Hong Kong-related stubs, but when you go to Category:Hong Kong-related stubs, that page doesn't show any of the articles with the HK-stub. Is this a bug, or should one of the Hong Kong stub templates be deleted, with all the articles moved over to the other template? (Thank goodness there aren't too many articles using either template (see [1], and several of those articles should be moved to the template:Hong-Kong-geo-stub if things do get moved.)
gK ¿? 02:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I can see no reason why both MetaPicstub and Metapicstub should exist: surely one should REDIRECT to the other (and be deprecated anyway). Can you REDIRECT a transclusion with parameters? -- Phil | Talk 12:19, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Is it time to split this section up into stubs by region and geo-stubs by region? Grutness| hello? 07:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is getting way too large to use effectively. I propose (informally) the following:
Obviously for this to work, several stub tags would have to be renamed. Please note that I am not proposing doing away with the current version of the page, simply providing a more compact alternate version. It would be great if it could be automatically generated from the full version. - dcljr 01:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm having a discussion at Talk:Bolyeriidae about biosci-stubs versus animal-stubs (and plants for that matter). My argument is (or became during discussing) that animal stubs should be changed into zoology stubs, to ensure that they are more inclusive. Systematics of animals-stubs (Families, Orders etc.) should not be neither animal-stubs nor biosci-stubs. Animalstubs deal with animals, not with systematics, and bioscistubs are to general. So, is it possible to change animal-stub into zoology-stub? Also, I noticed the dog stub. Wouldn't it be better to change this into a pet stub? Phlebas 16:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the name "zoology-stub" would be clearer than "animal-stub". I'm not sure what you mean by your double negation. It sounds like "Systematics of animals-stubs should be either animal-stubs or biosci-stubs". But from the context of
Talk:Bolyeriidae you seem to mean that we should separate stubs for species from stubs for families, orders &c., keeping
Bolyeriidae a bio-stub, while
Casarea dussumieri would be an animal- (or zoo-) stub. I would vote against such a distinction because I don't think there will be anyone who's interested in one and bothered by the other.
Sebastian 17:52, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Like me, you may well get fed up with waiting for all the icons and tables to load at Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs when you want to find out which stub to use on a particular article. for that reason, I've added an extra page to my user pages ( User:Grutness/Stubs) with a plain-text list of all the stub templates listed as they stand now (00:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)). Feel free to amend the list when new stubs are created (but make sure you only list them with SINGLE curly brackets! I don't want my user pages covered in templates!). Also, feel free to advertise this page anywhere where stub sorting is going on. Grutness| hello? 00:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've added a small section at the top of Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs, informing any casual stub-creators of the Stub sorting wikiproject, and mentioning one or two of the the most basic guidelines. Hopefully that will mean that WP:WSS doesn't suddenly discover half a dozen previously unreported stubs and unwanted changes to what categories there are! Grutness| hello? 10:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For the reason given at m:Image server overload 2005-03, an image server which can't keep up with the number of requests it is getting, please temporarily remove the images from any of these stubs which is used by about 500 or more articles. At present, views of all pages, and even more, pages with many images, are being delayed in a queue waiting for a reply from the image server. Please don't be too keen with this and go much below 500 at present - we're trying to see if affecting only a relatively small number of uses can remove the immediate problem. Any page with the stub image removed will load faster because it will have one less wait in the queue... Jamesday 17:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Three ways -
Grutness| hello? 05:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Architecture-related stubs template {{Arch-stub}} is currently under both Arts and Misc. I tried the 'purge page cache' option, but it's still there. Can someone who knows how fix this please? -- Vishahu 00:26, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
There are several problems with the current stub-sorting system that make it virtually unusable, forcing me to use a generic stub tag most of the time.
I am hereby boycotting the use of stub categories, and I encourage everyone else to do the same. I recommend that the founders of this system give it a complete overhaul, or it be abolished.- Casito⇝ Talk 04:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm all for stubsorting and I've been helping when I have some time, but I agree with the name thing. Perhaps the names could be standardised as far as possible and the existing ones, where they differ red'd to them? If people could use an intuitively named stub, they wouldn't dump things into stub in the first place. Grace Note 03:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
There have been attempts to standardise naming (in fact, those instances where WP:WSS named in the stubs there is a reasonable degree of consistency. I see noting wrong with adding redirects in those places where it doesn't work properly (in fact, I made a redirect "Uganda-geo-stub" for the badly named Ug-geo-stub" about two days ago). Personally, i think that would be a reasonable compromise situation and would save a hell of a lot of work with renaming/recategorising. I'm also very much in favour of replacing Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs with Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types (Casito's right - I created it as a bandaid because I could never get the older one to load). I also agree with Zzyzx11 - in fact what he said was a simpler way of saying what i tried to say on May 5. As to Casito's suggestion about two parallel systems, though, I'm less in support, since the two systems have different purposes and therefore have different requirements (the standard categories are for readers, the stub categories are for editors). For the ease of stub-sorting and calculating what stubs are where - and also for the sake of the servers, keeping them parallel is actually an advantage. Stub categories are split at least in part according to size, in order to keep them at a reasonable size for editors and servers alike. For example, Currently there is one category for geography stubs dealing with West Africa. Logically, if you were combining everything into one category type, you'd have different geo-stubs for each of the countries in West Africa - which means the five Gambia stubs would have one category, the two Guinea-Bissau stubs would have their own category, and so on. This would lead to far more fragmented stub categorisation. When a reader is looking for something on The Gambia, it would be logical for them to look in the Gambia category. If they want to edit stubs to do with The Gambia, it wouldn't take too much work to look throuh the 150-odd West Africa stubs, find any Gambian ones and maybe realise they can do one or two on Senegal, which borders The Gambia. Um... I think i lost the thread there, but I hope you get the point I'm trying to make. Grutness| hello? 06:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello all. I recently created a stub on Nazi Germany articles and tried my best to add it to the table. However, the table appears to be distorted as the last column is now cut off and the stub "spills over" to the next line. In addition, when I added this stub to
National Socialist Flyers Corps, it appeared to accept yet upon going to "Category:Nazi Germany stub articles", the article does not appear listed . Any ideas on what the problem is? Thanks! -
Husnock
17:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
OK. Well, the page has been gutted, 90% of the content eliminated and I'm not even going to consider bringing it back as I obviously am misdirected to be doing anything to improve the page ... essentially the person who gutted the page eliminated hundreds of hours of work by many people to suit their own particular tastes. Well, why fight being bold, right? Courtland 22:44, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
Well, this is bad form indeed. This "consensus" was reached in what, a few hours? Before destroying or completely mutating a page, a clear notice should be given at the top of the page being changed. This is a matter of basic wikiquette and is followed on the foo for deletion pages. Being a member in a WikiProject doesn't give special privileges above other users and editors. Also, discussion about specific pages are generally held at the talk pages of the pages in question. Wipe 10:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Before destroying or completely mutating a page, a clear notice should be given at the top of the page being changed.
OK, my comment was too harsh because this issue hadn't been discussed here. But I think that the pages that people actually use as tools in editing need to remain functional. (Not quite sure what's the situation here.) Making drastic changes doesn't just change a piece of prose but also affects the usability of the tool. That demand you quoted doesn't appear to be an official policy, but pages like Wikipedia:Editing policy and WP:BOLD suggest discussing large changes and deletions on the relevant talkpages. Furthermore, whereas normal articles should remain clear of unnecessary instructions to editors, the project namespace pages are generally directed at editors and IMO it's common courtesy to alert users about major overhauls beforehand.
In regard to this page, I think a good compromise would be to add a list of links to all of the subpages that were previously transcluded, ie. Wikipedia:Template_messages/Stubs/Science, Wikipedia:Template_messages/Stubs/Leisure etc. If they are not complete, there should be notices about it, but these pages still give a good overview (see BlankVerse's comment). BTW, I don't mind sarcasm. Wipe 13:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my vote is to eliminate the page altogether; "being used" is secondary to "being utile" (consider the demise of the rotary phone in favor of touch-tone .. why did that happen? Both can make calls perfectly fine, and rotary can emulate pulse, afterall.) Courtland 12:51, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
As a closing comment, I do stand behind what
User:Wipe has said. Allowing the passage of days and following guidelines like "discuss the fate of a page on the page's talk page" are there as a consequence of this being an asynchronous environment. I'll point out that I made 21 edits over the course of 3 days (7 June to 10 June) to the page in question here. Did the activity of an editor on the page trigger any notion that maybe there's some communication gap present, though at this point I doubt the history of the page was looked at prior to the change being made. That's not written down as policy anywhere either, I don't think.
Courtland 18:08, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)