This page 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. |
Stub sorting | ||||
|
Instead of just placing the proposal here, we should put links to talk pages that have the proposals in them so we don't flood the page with sophisticated paragraphs. -- SuperDude 18:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
-- TheParanoidOne 05:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
That's probably a very good idea - trouble is, of course, knowing when some of these discussions are finished (the same applies on the WSS/D page). I'm amazed that it's 470k, though. I archived some last week and it was about 180k. The other problem is that too few of us are archiving, and one of those ( User:Fingers-of-Pyrex) has just gone on an extended wiki-break. Grutness... wha? 22:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, the page is actually 255k, not 470k. Still too long, though... Grutness... wha? 00:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Aaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!! (he says with a hand full of hair.) Can someone break this page up? I can hardly edit it without it a) locking up, b) someone else editing/sometimes it tells me that and it is just me. c) waiting to load. You know us old farts on dial-up can play a game of solitare while waiting for the this page. PLEASE?!?!!?!! WikiDon 23:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
More transclusion (by month, or by day) would help with the edit clashes, delays, and lockups, but not with simply loading the page in the first place. It'd also mean having to set these up at the appropriate intervals, too, and fixing the inevitable errors when people add things to the wrong sub-page when this isn't done "on time". A more formal procedure for proposals would indeed be a nuisance for adding them, but might make archiving easier technically, and perhaps clearer procedurally, if there are better-defined "close" criteria. That might change the "tone" of the page quite a bit, though: do we want it to become more like AfD? A more modest step might be to separate out formal proposals of particular well-defined stub types, from discussions of the "how to split out X-stubs?" sort, which tend to have rather a different structure. Alai 05:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#Proposing_new_stubs_-_procedure sais that 'a good number' of stubs is required. Weasel word extreme! Please replace it with the customary number used in decision making. What is a good number? Do I have to least 10 or 100 relevant stubs? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and added this note to Proposing new stubs - procedure box. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I've sketched out a possible project "to do" page, to deal with miscellaneous pending business that tends to clog up this project page in particular, while beyond the "waiting period", no actively being discussed any more, and with some sort of apparent consensus. Anyone think this can be made workable? Alai 03:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
There's an annoying format error on the project page - if one clicks on a section edit, it offers you the next section below, rather than the section one wants to edit. Anyone know how to deal with it? - MPF 23:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The proposals page is too long. We should change things to shorten the page. U see, the length of the page shows a problem. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia, not to sort stubs, and I believe we spend too much time discussing how to create stub categories. I think we should remove the one-week-wait rule. Maybe the stub type hierarchy will be worse, but we'll all spend more time on writing articles. --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 22:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow, I just stumbled on this page, and it sucks big time! This is completely unwiki. If someone wants to create a stub template he can just go ahead and create it. That's what WP:BOLD is there for. No need for this ridiculous procedure. Grue 10:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Well looks like this is up for MfD. I think this page is useful, and but it is not a policy, I've added the guideline marker to the page, not in an attempt to give it more authority, but in an attempt to show that it is not a policy, if anyone thinks this is too bold, feel free to remove it, but please comment here. xaosflux Talk/ CVU 06:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
First off, I think this project in general is a good idea, and I certainly don't think that deletion is warranted. However, I find it a little patronising that if some of us in WP:CVG want to add new stub types that we as a WikiProject feel is necessary to Category:Computer and video game stubs, we need to get permission from here. If we have consensus on what stubs are necessary, do you think we cannot be trusted to behave sensibly? What I am proposing basically is that stubs that are created in certain subject areas by members of a WikiProject related to that subject should be given the benefit of the doubt to do the right thing. Thoughts? Jacoplane 18:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see much problem in WikiProjects having stubs, and I doubt there'd be many cases where they'd be turned doiwn here (if any), but consider the number of times we've had WikiProjects create their own stub only for us to later need to rename the stub or category. Checking here first would guarantee that the stub name fitted in with the naming guidelines, and would save everyone a great deal of work later. For that reason, I still think having a stub type checked out here before creation is a Good thing. Also there will be rare occasions (such as the current Category:La Raza stubs situation) where a WikiProject's proposed stub cuts across existing categories quite badly and may not be truly practicable. Grutness... wha? 23:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
This page 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. |
Stub sorting | ||||
|
Instead of just placing the proposal here, we should put links to talk pages that have the proposals in them so we don't flood the page with sophisticated paragraphs. -- SuperDude 18:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
-- TheParanoidOne 05:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
That's probably a very good idea - trouble is, of course, knowing when some of these discussions are finished (the same applies on the WSS/D page). I'm amazed that it's 470k, though. I archived some last week and it was about 180k. The other problem is that too few of us are archiving, and one of those ( User:Fingers-of-Pyrex) has just gone on an extended wiki-break. Grutness... wha? 22:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, the page is actually 255k, not 470k. Still too long, though... Grutness... wha? 00:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Aaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!! (he says with a hand full of hair.) Can someone break this page up? I can hardly edit it without it a) locking up, b) someone else editing/sometimes it tells me that and it is just me. c) waiting to load. You know us old farts on dial-up can play a game of solitare while waiting for the this page. PLEASE?!?!!?!! WikiDon 23:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
More transclusion (by month, or by day) would help with the edit clashes, delays, and lockups, but not with simply loading the page in the first place. It'd also mean having to set these up at the appropriate intervals, too, and fixing the inevitable errors when people add things to the wrong sub-page when this isn't done "on time". A more formal procedure for proposals would indeed be a nuisance for adding them, but might make archiving easier technically, and perhaps clearer procedurally, if there are better-defined "close" criteria. That might change the "tone" of the page quite a bit, though: do we want it to become more like AfD? A more modest step might be to separate out formal proposals of particular well-defined stub types, from discussions of the "how to split out X-stubs?" sort, which tend to have rather a different structure. Alai 05:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#Proposing_new_stubs_-_procedure sais that 'a good number' of stubs is required. Weasel word extreme! Please replace it with the customary number used in decision making. What is a good number? Do I have to least 10 or 100 relevant stubs? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and added this note to Proposing new stubs - procedure box. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I've sketched out a possible project "to do" page, to deal with miscellaneous pending business that tends to clog up this project page in particular, while beyond the "waiting period", no actively being discussed any more, and with some sort of apparent consensus. Anyone think this can be made workable? Alai 03:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
There's an annoying format error on the project page - if one clicks on a section edit, it offers you the next section below, rather than the section one wants to edit. Anyone know how to deal with it? - MPF 23:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The proposals page is too long. We should change things to shorten the page. U see, the length of the page shows a problem. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia, not to sort stubs, and I believe we spend too much time discussing how to create stub categories. I think we should remove the one-week-wait rule. Maybe the stub type hierarchy will be worse, but we'll all spend more time on writing articles. --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 22:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow, I just stumbled on this page, and it sucks big time! This is completely unwiki. If someone wants to create a stub template he can just go ahead and create it. That's what WP:BOLD is there for. No need for this ridiculous procedure. Grue 10:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Well looks like this is up for MfD. I think this page is useful, and but it is not a policy, I've added the guideline marker to the page, not in an attempt to give it more authority, but in an attempt to show that it is not a policy, if anyone thinks this is too bold, feel free to remove it, but please comment here. xaosflux Talk/ CVU 06:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
First off, I think this project in general is a good idea, and I certainly don't think that deletion is warranted. However, I find it a little patronising that if some of us in WP:CVG want to add new stub types that we as a WikiProject feel is necessary to Category:Computer and video game stubs, we need to get permission from here. If we have consensus on what stubs are necessary, do you think we cannot be trusted to behave sensibly? What I am proposing basically is that stubs that are created in certain subject areas by members of a WikiProject related to that subject should be given the benefit of the doubt to do the right thing. Thoughts? Jacoplane 18:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see much problem in WikiProjects having stubs, and I doubt there'd be many cases where they'd be turned doiwn here (if any), but consider the number of times we've had WikiProjects create their own stub only for us to later need to rename the stub or category. Checking here first would guarantee that the stub name fitted in with the naming guidelines, and would save everyone a great deal of work later. For that reason, I still think having a stub type checked out here before creation is a Good thing. Also there will be rare occasions (such as the current Category:La Raza stubs situation) where a WikiProject's proposed stub cuts across existing categories quite badly and may not be truly practicable. Grutness... wha? 23:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)