![]() | 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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
In other news, I mentioned above that it might be beneficial to use one image
for all stub templates. Or perhaps to assign said image to the standard stub template, then if something cooler comes along (such as the totally wonderful film icons), it could be replaced on that template. I'm thinking, since there is a proliferation of little national icons all over WP, the letter image might be more distinctive in drawing attention to the message. Any takers?
Pegship (
talk)
14:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Why is there a dash in the middle of "screen-writer" in {{ screen-writer-stub}} and {{ US-screen-writer-stub}}? Is it a mistake (see screenwriter, Category:Screenwriters, and Category:Screenwriter stubs) or is it deliberate, perhaps intended to indicate that this is a sub-template of {{ writer-stub}}? – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 21:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed today that several categories for stub templates were created in the past few days by Ark25 ( talk · contribs). This did not strike me as odd at first, but then I noticed that the parent category for these categories— Category:Stub templates—was deleted following a series of discussions wherein it was argued that the existence of stub template categories needlessly increased the workload for this WikiProject and encouraged the creation of stub templates and categories outside of the established review process. I am posting this thread so that editors with more experience working with stubs can assess the necessity and desirability of the new categories. (I have informed Ark25 of this thread.) – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 06:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
There's an interesting discussion at the pump on the use of stub and expand templates (don't worry - nothing that would affect any business done here). It includes a list of the over 1200 articles currently marked with both {{ expand}} and a stub template. I've suggested that if in doubt the stub template should remain (we can always weed out any that don't need it - and much faster than having to re-sort any subcategorised stubs) - and that a bot could be used to remove all the {{ expand}} templates. Anyone up for the task? Grutness... wha? 11:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good - thanks! Grutness... wha? 01:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we may have to accept having /doc files on stub templates, if current debate at WP:SFD is anything to go by. A shame, since it will increase the number of pages we have to partrol by about 40% (if one stub template has one, every template will need one - and they'll all have to be checked regularly to make sure they tally with each other and with WP:STUB). I'm not quite sure how we'll cope with that, but time will tell... Grutness... wha? 01:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
doc|Title:OfCentralDocumentation}}
, and don't bother with individual /doc pages. Maybe in that central documentation we could have a conditional section to display 'specific' documentation from individual /doc pages under a suitable header. The documentation could even be automagically included by {{
asbox}}
in the same was as {{
WPBannerMeta}}
includes its warning omboxes. There are a variety of ways in which we could implement this successfully, now that we have a meta-template to propagate changes with.
(also)
Happy‑
melon
15:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
doc|stub documentation}}
; then in the central documentation we have a section for 'specific documentation', which does a test like {{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/doc|{{FULLPAGENAME}}/doc}} to transclude the /doc subpage of each template if it exists. So interwiki bots can add interwikis in the /doc subpage in the normal way. We could also add a tracking cat so that the use of this system can be easily patrolled.
(also)
Happy‑
melon
15:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Now that the discussion on Template:Stub/doc has closed as "keep" it might be a good time to resume this discussion about providing a standard documentation on stub templates. I propose to do this exactly as Happy-melon has suggested above. Would any of the stub-sorting regulars care to write an abbreviated form of WP:Stub in clear language which would be suitable for this purpose? Otherwise I'll have a go myself but it might not be as good. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 16:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
At
Template:School-stub, I see: [[category:School stubs<noinclude>| </noinclude>]]
At
Template:Lawschool-stub, I see: <includeonly>[[Category: Law school stubs]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category: Law school stubs|*]]</noinclude>
Which form is prefered? I personally think [[Category:School stubs<noinclude>| </noinclude>]]
is better, and when I add an interwiki link to a stub template I am changing the code with that, but I want to be sure. If it's not recommended, then I'll stop making that kind of modifications.
Another question: I see at Template:Seminary-stub, the Template is made using {{ Asbox}}, is this method a new and recommended one? Thanks Ark25 ( talk) 06:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
<includeonly>[[Category: Law school stubs]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category: Law school stubs| ]]</noinclude>
, the effect is the same with [[Category: Law school stubs<noinclude>| </noinclude>]]
, which is much shorter. Other times I see code like <includeonly>[[Category: Law school stubs]]</includeonly>
(the template won't appear in the category). Also, check the
Template:Iran-university-stub, it has: [[Category:Iran university stubs]]
, no "noinclude", no "includeonly", so the Template will be shown at "T" in the category. Of course, "*" is used with a good purpose.
Ark25 (
talk)
11:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC) [[Category: Law school stubs<noinclude>| </noinclude>]]
is correct - so you're right to change the others - though the longer way of achieving the same thing works (the shorter way is preferred simply because it is easier to code and neater to look at). The template should always appear in the category, so the category shouldn't be includeonly'd - the only exception is the basic {{
stub}}, which doesn't appear in ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Stubs. Sometimes the templates aren't piped and appear under "T"- this was the older way of doing things and most of the ones which used it have gradually been piped, though you still come across the occasional unpiped template.
Grutness...
wha?
01:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Just letting everyone here know that I posted a proposal at
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Stub_Changes.
—
Ω (
talk)
06:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
There are some people proposing to delete or redirect California's geographical stubs having a list because stubs are bad. Is this contrary to policy? Consistent with policy? Need any consensus to implement? Or is it any editor's or a group of a few editors' prerogative to redirect or delete any set of stubs they'd prefer not exist? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 03:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Can I get some eyes on my further proposal here? Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Question: I see Category:Stub categories has zillions of sub-categories. I think it should have sub-categories like "Stub categories by year", "Stub categories by country", "Stub categories by Science", "Stub categories for music" etc. More or less like the Category:Contents is organised. Or not? Ark25 ( talk) 22:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Per this discussion, I thought Template:US-film-actor-1850s-stub and Category:American film actor, 1850s birth stubs should have been changed. Can someone either remove the articles per the discussion or create the category so that it works again? If someone just wants to restore it and needs an admin's help, just message me. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Jarry1250 has now created a list and AWB frontend, to fix the CSS issues with the current deployed stubs. I invite all Windows users to help fix these issues with AWB. This effort is the alternative for the failed standardization proposal. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot 6.1. – xeno talk 18:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
For those of you who don't follow that rarely-used talk page, there's a note at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries#Potentially unapproved stub types using asbox about the discovery of some 3000 stub templates that are either unapproved or unlisted on the main stub list. At first glance, most of them seem to simply be unlisted ones, but there are still a lot of ones we've never had through these pages - including a number which are either pointless or very badly named/structured. Seems like there's a lot of sorting and checking to be done... Grutness... wha? 00:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hin Xeno - is it ok to edit that working list of yours? That way we can add "√ approved, to list", "X not approved, to check" and the like to them so as to get an idea of what is and isn't there. (at a quick glance I'd say that most have been approved, but there are several problem ones that almost certainly haven't, like the Activision ones and all the Virginia county ones which should be at FooVA not FooVI). Grutness... wha? 02:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
not sure if this is the correct page to place this, but here goes.
Template:England-screen-actor-stub seems to be pointing at Rugbyunion-team-stub, which can be seen in Laura Boddington
MasterFugu ( talk) 16:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
What's our position on non-standard stub wording? The standard being
This X article Y is a stub...
Some stubs in place now do not presently contain the word "article" to modify with X or Y.
Shall I convert these verbatim, or should we standardize the wording? – xeno talk 19:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Just wondered how many of the regulars here are watching WP:SFD. It's been very quiet lately - most of the nominations for renaming or deletion have gone through with only the nomination and at most one or two comments, and very few of them from WP:WSS regulars... Grutness... wha? 01:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I've just added {{ logic-stub}} to Symbol (formal), and it looks very odd - I can't remember what the image used to look like, but I'm sure it wasn't this. Could some kind soul fix it? PamD ( talk) 10:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
A stub classification is for editors to expand the article. Currently stub categories are part of article namespace, which is for readers of WP. Even though the stubs are tucked away at the end of the category listings I feel than they should be part of Wikipedia namespace. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 05:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The solution (as I suggested when hiding categories was made possible) is for the stub template itself to contain a link to the category ("You can help improve this and [[:Category:Xxx stubs|other similar articles]]...") That's better for everyone - it lets us take the irrelevant stub category away from the category box where it clearly does not belong, while making it even easier for newcomers to find the related stub articles. -- Kotniski ( talk) 08:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I came across the Atlantic Array article, and noticed that the two stub messages are misaligned & hence messy. Two questions arise:
thanks -- Tagishsimon (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Stub_types_for_deletion#Rename and comment there. Cheers! Grutness... wha? 01:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
A number of stub templates already emit microformats. I have made a request for a change to {{ Asbox}} to facilitate their use with less inline HTML markup, but a couple of editors have expressed concerns. It has been suggested that I ask here for additional input (at that page, please). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I have implemented a new utility which stub-sorters may find helpful. On stub templates, if you choose to enable it, a view/discussion/edit link (v • d • e) will appear on the far right, allowing you to link directly to the stub template. (These links will be hidden to all editors unless they have switched them on.) To enable these links, add the following line to your monobook.css file:
.stub .navbar {display:inline !important;}
Please let me know if you have any comments or questions about this. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 17:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see my request here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi all - while stub-sorting I quite often find new articles which have been created with both {{ expand}} and {{ stub}} on them. It can be a chore to tell editors why only one should be used each time, so I've created a subst'able template, {{ stubexpwarn}} which does the job. Feel free to tweak it and use it wherever you feel appropriate! Grutness... wha? 23:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that the {{ Cuttlefish-stub}} category needs to be populated, and I've been doing some of that myself. The thing is, a bot could do it very easily, simply by looking in Category:Cuttlefish for any stubs. Does such a bot exist and am I wasting my time? Polarpanda ( talk) 19:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
These schools do not accept students unless they have a hawaiian bloodline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.164.34 ( talk) 07:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Stub Sorting. A discussion is underway at Template talk:Nazi-stub regarding the use of the swastika in the stub tag. Please take the time to comment there. Thanks! — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
A quick heads up. Is an article in this state considered a Stub? Yes/No? Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 14:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
A Request for Comment which may be of interest to the stub sorting project: Template talk:Unreferenced#RFC: should this tag be allowed on stubs?. Fram ( talk) 14:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
How feasible would it be to automatically add the overpopulated / underpopulated tags? It's bad enough trying to make sure all appropriate categories have the {{ WPSS-cat}} designation. Adding the {{ popstub}} / {{ verylargestub}} tags is just another hassle to maintain. Would it be possible to add these extra designators somehow into the {{ WPSS-cat}} template?
My thought here is -- if the category has more than 800 articles, always tag it as very large, until it drops back under 800. If the category has less than 60 articles *and* no sub-categories, then tag it as needing to be populated. Once these are auto-identified, the popstub and verylargestub templates would no longer be necessary. Dawynn ( talk) 19:24, 4 March 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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
In other news, I mentioned above that it might be beneficial to use one image
for all stub templates. Or perhaps to assign said image to the standard stub template, then if something cooler comes along (such as the totally wonderful film icons), it could be replaced on that template. I'm thinking, since there is a proliferation of little national icons all over WP, the letter image might be more distinctive in drawing attention to the message. Any takers?
Pegship (
talk)
14:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Why is there a dash in the middle of "screen-writer" in {{ screen-writer-stub}} and {{ US-screen-writer-stub}}? Is it a mistake (see screenwriter, Category:Screenwriters, and Category:Screenwriter stubs) or is it deliberate, perhaps intended to indicate that this is a sub-template of {{ writer-stub}}? – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 21:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed today that several categories for stub templates were created in the past few days by Ark25 ( talk · contribs). This did not strike me as odd at first, but then I noticed that the parent category for these categories— Category:Stub templates—was deleted following a series of discussions wherein it was argued that the existence of stub template categories needlessly increased the workload for this WikiProject and encouraged the creation of stub templates and categories outside of the established review process. I am posting this thread so that editors with more experience working with stubs can assess the necessity and desirability of the new categories. (I have informed Ark25 of this thread.) – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 06:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
There's an interesting discussion at the pump on the use of stub and expand templates (don't worry - nothing that would affect any business done here). It includes a list of the over 1200 articles currently marked with both {{ expand}} and a stub template. I've suggested that if in doubt the stub template should remain (we can always weed out any that don't need it - and much faster than having to re-sort any subcategorised stubs) - and that a bot could be used to remove all the {{ expand}} templates. Anyone up for the task? Grutness... wha? 11:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good - thanks! Grutness... wha? 01:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we may have to accept having /doc files on stub templates, if current debate at WP:SFD is anything to go by. A shame, since it will increase the number of pages we have to partrol by about 40% (if one stub template has one, every template will need one - and they'll all have to be checked regularly to make sure they tally with each other and with WP:STUB). I'm not quite sure how we'll cope with that, but time will tell... Grutness... wha? 01:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
doc|Title:OfCentralDocumentation}}
, and don't bother with individual /doc pages. Maybe in that central documentation we could have a conditional section to display 'specific' documentation from individual /doc pages under a suitable header. The documentation could even be automagically included by {{
asbox}}
in the same was as {{
WPBannerMeta}}
includes its warning omboxes. There are a variety of ways in which we could implement this successfully, now that we have a meta-template to propagate changes with.
(also)
Happy‑
melon
15:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
doc|stub documentation}}
; then in the central documentation we have a section for 'specific documentation', which does a test like {{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/doc|{{FULLPAGENAME}}/doc}} to transclude the /doc subpage of each template if it exists. So interwiki bots can add interwikis in the /doc subpage in the normal way. We could also add a tracking cat so that the use of this system can be easily patrolled.
(also)
Happy‑
melon
15:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Now that the discussion on Template:Stub/doc has closed as "keep" it might be a good time to resume this discussion about providing a standard documentation on stub templates. I propose to do this exactly as Happy-melon has suggested above. Would any of the stub-sorting regulars care to write an abbreviated form of WP:Stub in clear language which would be suitable for this purpose? Otherwise I'll have a go myself but it might not be as good. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 16:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
At
Template:School-stub, I see: [[category:School stubs<noinclude>| </noinclude>]]
At
Template:Lawschool-stub, I see: <includeonly>[[Category: Law school stubs]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category: Law school stubs|*]]</noinclude>
Which form is prefered? I personally think [[Category:School stubs<noinclude>| </noinclude>]]
is better, and when I add an interwiki link to a stub template I am changing the code with that, but I want to be sure. If it's not recommended, then I'll stop making that kind of modifications.
Another question: I see at Template:Seminary-stub, the Template is made using {{ Asbox}}, is this method a new and recommended one? Thanks Ark25 ( talk) 06:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
<includeonly>[[Category: Law school stubs]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category: Law school stubs| ]]</noinclude>
, the effect is the same with [[Category: Law school stubs<noinclude>| </noinclude>]]
, which is much shorter. Other times I see code like <includeonly>[[Category: Law school stubs]]</includeonly>
(the template won't appear in the category). Also, check the
Template:Iran-university-stub, it has: [[Category:Iran university stubs]]
, no "noinclude", no "includeonly", so the Template will be shown at "T" in the category. Of course, "*" is used with a good purpose.
Ark25 (
talk)
11:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC) [[Category: Law school stubs<noinclude>| </noinclude>]]
is correct - so you're right to change the others - though the longer way of achieving the same thing works (the shorter way is preferred simply because it is easier to code and neater to look at). The template should always appear in the category, so the category shouldn't be includeonly'd - the only exception is the basic {{
stub}}, which doesn't appear in ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Stubs. Sometimes the templates aren't piped and appear under "T"- this was the older way of doing things and most of the ones which used it have gradually been piped, though you still come across the occasional unpiped template.
Grutness...
wha?
01:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Just letting everyone here know that I posted a proposal at
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Stub_Changes.
—
Ω (
talk)
06:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
There are some people proposing to delete or redirect California's geographical stubs having a list because stubs are bad. Is this contrary to policy? Consistent with policy? Need any consensus to implement? Or is it any editor's or a group of a few editors' prerogative to redirect or delete any set of stubs they'd prefer not exist? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 03:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Can I get some eyes on my further proposal here? Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Question: I see Category:Stub categories has zillions of sub-categories. I think it should have sub-categories like "Stub categories by year", "Stub categories by country", "Stub categories by Science", "Stub categories for music" etc. More or less like the Category:Contents is organised. Or not? Ark25 ( talk) 22:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Per this discussion, I thought Template:US-film-actor-1850s-stub and Category:American film actor, 1850s birth stubs should have been changed. Can someone either remove the articles per the discussion or create the category so that it works again? If someone just wants to restore it and needs an admin's help, just message me. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Jarry1250 has now created a list and AWB frontend, to fix the CSS issues with the current deployed stubs. I invite all Windows users to help fix these issues with AWB. This effort is the alternative for the failed standardization proposal. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot 6.1. – xeno talk 18:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
For those of you who don't follow that rarely-used talk page, there's a note at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries#Potentially unapproved stub types using asbox about the discovery of some 3000 stub templates that are either unapproved or unlisted on the main stub list. At first glance, most of them seem to simply be unlisted ones, but there are still a lot of ones we've never had through these pages - including a number which are either pointless or very badly named/structured. Seems like there's a lot of sorting and checking to be done... Grutness... wha? 00:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hin Xeno - is it ok to edit that working list of yours? That way we can add "√ approved, to list", "X not approved, to check" and the like to them so as to get an idea of what is and isn't there. (at a quick glance I'd say that most have been approved, but there are several problem ones that almost certainly haven't, like the Activision ones and all the Virginia county ones which should be at FooVA not FooVI). Grutness... wha? 02:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
not sure if this is the correct page to place this, but here goes.
Template:England-screen-actor-stub seems to be pointing at Rugbyunion-team-stub, which can be seen in Laura Boddington
MasterFugu ( talk) 16:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
What's our position on non-standard stub wording? The standard being
This X article Y is a stub...
Some stubs in place now do not presently contain the word "article" to modify with X or Y.
Shall I convert these verbatim, or should we standardize the wording? – xeno talk 19:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Just wondered how many of the regulars here are watching WP:SFD. It's been very quiet lately - most of the nominations for renaming or deletion have gone through with only the nomination and at most one or two comments, and very few of them from WP:WSS regulars... Grutness... wha? 01:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I've just added {{ logic-stub}} to Symbol (formal), and it looks very odd - I can't remember what the image used to look like, but I'm sure it wasn't this. Could some kind soul fix it? PamD ( talk) 10:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
A stub classification is for editors to expand the article. Currently stub categories are part of article namespace, which is for readers of WP. Even though the stubs are tucked away at the end of the category listings I feel than they should be part of Wikipedia namespace. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 05:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The solution (as I suggested when hiding categories was made possible) is for the stub template itself to contain a link to the category ("You can help improve this and [[:Category:Xxx stubs|other similar articles]]...") That's better for everyone - it lets us take the irrelevant stub category away from the category box where it clearly does not belong, while making it even easier for newcomers to find the related stub articles. -- Kotniski ( talk) 08:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I came across the Atlantic Array article, and noticed that the two stub messages are misaligned & hence messy. Two questions arise:
thanks -- Tagishsimon (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Stub_types_for_deletion#Rename and comment there. Cheers! Grutness... wha? 01:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
A number of stub templates already emit microformats. I have made a request for a change to {{ Asbox}} to facilitate their use with less inline HTML markup, but a couple of editors have expressed concerns. It has been suggested that I ask here for additional input (at that page, please). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I have implemented a new utility which stub-sorters may find helpful. On stub templates, if you choose to enable it, a view/discussion/edit link (v • d • e) will appear on the far right, allowing you to link directly to the stub template. (These links will be hidden to all editors unless they have switched them on.) To enable these links, add the following line to your monobook.css file:
.stub .navbar {display:inline !important;}
Please let me know if you have any comments or questions about this. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 17:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see my request here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi all - while stub-sorting I quite often find new articles which have been created with both {{ expand}} and {{ stub}} on them. It can be a chore to tell editors why only one should be used each time, so I've created a subst'able template, {{ stubexpwarn}} which does the job. Feel free to tweak it and use it wherever you feel appropriate! Grutness... wha? 23:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that the {{ Cuttlefish-stub}} category needs to be populated, and I've been doing some of that myself. The thing is, a bot could do it very easily, simply by looking in Category:Cuttlefish for any stubs. Does such a bot exist and am I wasting my time? Polarpanda ( talk) 19:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
These schools do not accept students unless they have a hawaiian bloodline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.164.34 ( talk) 07:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Stub Sorting. A discussion is underway at Template talk:Nazi-stub regarding the use of the swastika in the stub tag. Please take the time to comment there. Thanks! — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
A quick heads up. Is an article in this state considered a Stub? Yes/No? Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 14:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
A Request for Comment which may be of interest to the stub sorting project: Template talk:Unreferenced#RFC: should this tag be allowed on stubs?. Fram ( talk) 14:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
How feasible would it be to automatically add the overpopulated / underpopulated tags? It's bad enough trying to make sure all appropriate categories have the {{ WPSS-cat}} designation. Adding the {{ popstub}} / {{ verylargestub}} tags is just another hassle to maintain. Would it be possible to add these extra designators somehow into the {{ WPSS-cat}} template?
My thought here is -- if the category has more than 800 articles, always tag it as very large, until it drops back under 800. If the category has less than 60 articles *and* no sub-categories, then tag it as needing to be populated. Once these are auto-identified, the popstub and verylargestub templates would no longer be necessary. Dawynn ( talk) 19:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)