This project page was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Perhaps what is in order is creating and maintaining a list of stub templates or categories which, under conditions of "normal full sorting" at the time, should be completely unused or empty, and have a script that generates a list of articles currently using these stub types. Essentially, we would expand the scope of the treatment we give to {{ stub}} and Cat:Stubs to these officially deprecated stub types. Is that workable? -- CComMack ( t• c) 06:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Starting tomorrow, i.e. at the start of new month, and unless anyone has objection, I'm going to tweak the names of the log per-day files, to make them more consistent with other *fD pages, and to make transcluding into the archives more natural. Since the current choice of names is under the "own stupid fault" category, I assume this won't be too controversial. I won't bother re-doing the August ones, so unless anyone else is super-keen to do that, there will be some "irregularity" in the format of the current listings for a week, but nothing too perplexing I wouldn't think. Alai 01:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This was crossposted and has little to do with the specific workings of this page. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Informing the creators is being ignored. The comments have already been moved. Please do not spam such complaints across multiple pages. Rossami (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I got sort of confused following this page's instructions on my stub work deletions. I thought after deleting "craft" stub I was supposed to per instructions on this page request a "speedy delete" because it was an "empty category". Therefor after getting some specific advice from Alai on my page, I propose below a new bullet point on this instruction page as follows:
This is WAAAY too long. I doubt most people will get through a tenth of this page. I suggest condensing it. (If there is already a section on this, consider this backing it up as I did not see it, as I skipped most of this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxman280 ( talk • contribs)
Do we have a template or anything to notify stub template/category creators when something goes up for deletion? I've been trying to be more consistent with my notification, and it would seem that a quick talk page template would be useful. Perhaps something that would look like this (which is what I've been using):
==SFD notification==
This message is to notify you that a stub template and/or category that you created (<template link> and/or <cat link>) is up for deletion at [[WP:SFD]]. Please join [[<link directly to the discussion>|the discussion]]. Thanks. ~~~~
~ Amalas
rawr
=^_^= 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Category:Stub templates has been sent back to CFD; Deletion Review felt that it was worth seeing if consensus has changed since the very minimal discussion back in March. Please feel free to provide any input on the new deletion discussion, as this touches on an aspect of the Stub Sorting project. -- nae' blis 19:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Aka "admin huddle" =) There are a couple cases out on SFD right now that having been sitting there awhile. They're kinda tricky and I don't want to do anything "unilaterally" (to use the dreaded u-word). If any admins, or really anyone, would like to voice their opinions, it would be much appreciated. I would prefer the discussion to take place on the SFD case itself so that it will be archived together. Thanks for your help! ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and definitely the Ancient Rome ones too. October 13th! That's just way too long for that to be out there. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Alai has put the SFD template on Category:Estonian record label stubs, but as far as I can tell, hasn't listed it on SFD. The template was added three days ago. Has the SFD been fast-tracked/completed quickly, or did the user (who tagged it with AWB, strangely) just neglect to list it? Esteffect 14:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It's listed right here among many other record label stubs. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
You hopefully won't think it so strange when you see the length of the list... Alai 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
At the top of this page is the following paragraph:
I want to edit WP:TFD and WP:CFD to spell out their full names so that other new users will not be as stymied by these abbreviatsions as I have been. However, there's no (edit), and when I choose "edit this page", I don't get this paragraph. I'm guessing that it's in a template somewhere. Please direct me to such a template. Thanks. RSLitman 00:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Look what I just speedied :o) Grutness... wha? 06:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Several times recently there have been group nominations of similarly named categories at CFD, including a stub category. I've argued a couple of times that the stub cat should be handled separately, but it doesn't really make much sense to do so, so I've added a slight change to the wording at the top of CFD. It also affects things here, so if I've been too bold, feel free to revert or alter what I've done.
Previously, the instructions at the top of CFD said:
I've added an extra line:
That way, we get to find out about it, but it doesn't disrupt the CFD process.
(BTW, this was prompted by a current proposal to rename the Cat:Manga and anime categories to Cat:Anime and manga equivalents). Grutness... wha? 23:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
(This is just a courtesy copy of the note originally posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting, since more sorters may actually be reading over here than over there.)
Took me about 7-8 hours, but I think it sings. Did not change a single substantive thing about it either, as far as how it works, what is recommends, what procedures are, etc., etc. It's just a massive cleanup. Please see first wikilink ("The story") for proposal on how to proceed, in stages, designed to prevent the process from descending into argument and editwarring. Goal: Have WSS/NG become a formal Wikipedia Proposal and then Guideline. At a guess this is stage 1 of 4. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 11:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming guidelines/Redraft2 I have listed a bunch of unlikely-to-be-controversial improvements for the NG document. Most of these were already clearly identified in Redraft1 as HTML comments, while a few come from Redraft 1 discussion. The HTML comments just mentioned are still (as of this writing) present in Redraft2, to indicate likely insertion points. Depending on when you read this, some of them may have alread been replaced with new text, or removed because controversial. I would propose that any item on the list that anyone feels is controversial in any way should be struck out and saved for Redraft Phase 3, the dealing with controversial stuff. Several of them may require a consensus discussion to determine what exactly they should say/advise. Let's do it! — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 04:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Given that we do a fair amount of renaming here, might it not be time to consider moving SFD to Stub types for discussion along the lines of CFD, RFD, and WP:UCFD? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caerwine ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
File:Foo Fighter.png | This foo article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
I wouldn't necessarily object to merging /D and /P (forgiveness and permission, as it were); they're both "just" project pages, after all (though use of the latter is upheld by a guideline). But SFD is a "process" page governed by the deletion policy, and to merge the project pages with that would be to imply "policy status" to the proposal and discovery processes, or else to dilute the status of the deletion process. Or at least, to cause confusion between the two. Alai 02:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I've moved and depopulated the transclusions of {{ China-geo-stub}} and {{ China-struct-stub}} in favour of {{ PRC-geo-stub}} and {{ PRC-struct-stub}}, and full-protected the latter, given the nature of their recent history. I'm having second thoughts about outright deletion of the redirects, though, since they're heavily referenced in many, many talk pages, and there might be some consternation at the "sudden" disappearance of "China". I'd suggest either leaving it as a redirect (as at present), or replacing it with a "deprecated, please re-sort" message. Alai 03:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
What does that mean?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.120.221 ( talk • contribs)
Could somebody give the result please, the time has flown. -- Bohater 12:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi all - I've added a sentence in the page instructions asking editors not to rename templates or categories while they are being discussed - it usually does nothing but cause added headaches, more work, and more confused discussions. If i've been too bold, feel free to revert/amend as necessary. Grutness... wha? 01:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Having reviewed some of the polling on renaming/deletion of stubs, I am now of the opinion that, as the Wikipedia has had an impact on the Internet and more traditional encyclopedic works as sources of information in the global marketplace for content, there is a developing market for non-Wikipedia online references linking to groups of Wikipedia articles that appeal to those individuals who see organization of thought that we may have overlooked or agreed by concensus to eliminate. I suspect that I will be flamed for posting this as not suitable for mention here, but I believe mention relates to (1) the frustration of editors who passionately believe in what they are doing in Wikipedia editing, especically in the organization of knowledge (stubs or otherwise) that the Wikipedia represents and (2) the number of those frustrated editors who have a choice in taking more blood pressure medication as a result of organization-by-open-committee or permanently walking away in disgust. I am not yet that disgusted, but I can see that, as some Wikipedia editors feel justified in their triumphs over others' organizational ideas here, there will be more of us who choose to index Wikipedia articles in our own cataloging reference works on web sites not under the control, influence or other regulation of that which is Wikipedia. I wish upon them the same profitable good fortune that I would wish upon myself in that endeavor. Hotfeba 17:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Any admins out there who have to occassionally protect deleted stub templates of categories nows have a little tweak they can add to {{ Deletedpage}}. Deletedpage works by looking at the namespace and directing the reader to whatever XfD archives are appropriate. Unfortunately, up until now, that means that stub template and stub category protected deletions have pointed viewers to TfD or CfD rather than SfD. Now though, by typing
{{deletedpage|stub=yes}}
the correct (SfD) archive will be linked. See Template:TRNC-stub for an example. (Thanks to User:Jitse Niesen for adding the parameter). Grutness... wha? 01:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi all - I suddenly realised there was nothing about SfD at Wikipedia:Deletion process, so I added a section. Please check it out to make sure I haven't missed anything or misrepresented things at all. Grutness... wha? 01:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Could a stub expert please contribute to the stub issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#Other stuff? Thanks. Carcharoth 00:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Where should stubs for merger be proposed?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I just followed the instruction posted in WP:AN. Anyways, I was going to report that the discussion of the {{ Philippine Movie Stub}} / Cat:Philippine Movie Stub seems to be resolved but not yet closed for over a month now. However, seeing that there is a case that is still open which was made on November 2007, I think some admin must really sort out the page.-- Lenticel ( talk) 09:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
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:
Grutness... wha? 07:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
There are over 500 of these which need to be upmerged somewhere. Can someone please suggest where, and whether this is bot-doable? thanks... Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I know this is already mentioned as a notice at the top of everyone's watchlist, but the new {{ Cmbox}} is likely to affect the way {{ sfd-c}} and related templates look, so it's well worth taking a look. Grutness... wha? 00:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I found Template:ride-stub that was marked sfr, but I can't find any entry for it... did it get overlooked somewhere? Aaronw ( talk) 22:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed a new way of handling XfDs - please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Transcludable XfD discussions. JohnnyMrNinja 00:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This project page was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Perhaps what is in order is creating and maintaining a list of stub templates or categories which, under conditions of "normal full sorting" at the time, should be completely unused or empty, and have a script that generates a list of articles currently using these stub types. Essentially, we would expand the scope of the treatment we give to {{ stub}} and Cat:Stubs to these officially deprecated stub types. Is that workable? -- CComMack ( t• c) 06:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Starting tomorrow, i.e. at the start of new month, and unless anyone has objection, I'm going to tweak the names of the log per-day files, to make them more consistent with other *fD pages, and to make transcluding into the archives more natural. Since the current choice of names is under the "own stupid fault" category, I assume this won't be too controversial. I won't bother re-doing the August ones, so unless anyone else is super-keen to do that, there will be some "irregularity" in the format of the current listings for a week, but nothing too perplexing I wouldn't think. Alai 01:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This was crossposted and has little to do with the specific workings of this page. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Informing the creators is being ignored. The comments have already been moved. Please do not spam such complaints across multiple pages. Rossami (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I got sort of confused following this page's instructions on my stub work deletions. I thought after deleting "craft" stub I was supposed to per instructions on this page request a "speedy delete" because it was an "empty category". Therefor after getting some specific advice from Alai on my page, I propose below a new bullet point on this instruction page as follows:
This is WAAAY too long. I doubt most people will get through a tenth of this page. I suggest condensing it. (If there is already a section on this, consider this backing it up as I did not see it, as I skipped most of this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxman280 ( talk • contribs)
Do we have a template or anything to notify stub template/category creators when something goes up for deletion? I've been trying to be more consistent with my notification, and it would seem that a quick talk page template would be useful. Perhaps something that would look like this (which is what I've been using):
==SFD notification==
This message is to notify you that a stub template and/or category that you created (<template link> and/or <cat link>) is up for deletion at [[WP:SFD]]. Please join [[<link directly to the discussion>|the discussion]]. Thanks. ~~~~
~ Amalas
rawr
=^_^= 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Category:Stub templates has been sent back to CFD; Deletion Review felt that it was worth seeing if consensus has changed since the very minimal discussion back in March. Please feel free to provide any input on the new deletion discussion, as this touches on an aspect of the Stub Sorting project. -- nae' blis 19:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Aka "admin huddle" =) There are a couple cases out on SFD right now that having been sitting there awhile. They're kinda tricky and I don't want to do anything "unilaterally" (to use the dreaded u-word). If any admins, or really anyone, would like to voice their opinions, it would be much appreciated. I would prefer the discussion to take place on the SFD case itself so that it will be archived together. Thanks for your help! ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and definitely the Ancient Rome ones too. October 13th! That's just way too long for that to be out there. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Alai has put the SFD template on Category:Estonian record label stubs, but as far as I can tell, hasn't listed it on SFD. The template was added three days ago. Has the SFD been fast-tracked/completed quickly, or did the user (who tagged it with AWB, strangely) just neglect to list it? Esteffect 14:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It's listed right here among many other record label stubs. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
You hopefully won't think it so strange when you see the length of the list... Alai 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
At the top of this page is the following paragraph:
I want to edit WP:TFD and WP:CFD to spell out their full names so that other new users will not be as stymied by these abbreviatsions as I have been. However, there's no (edit), and when I choose "edit this page", I don't get this paragraph. I'm guessing that it's in a template somewhere. Please direct me to such a template. Thanks. RSLitman 00:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Look what I just speedied :o) Grutness... wha? 06:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Several times recently there have been group nominations of similarly named categories at CFD, including a stub category. I've argued a couple of times that the stub cat should be handled separately, but it doesn't really make much sense to do so, so I've added a slight change to the wording at the top of CFD. It also affects things here, so if I've been too bold, feel free to revert or alter what I've done.
Previously, the instructions at the top of CFD said:
I've added an extra line:
That way, we get to find out about it, but it doesn't disrupt the CFD process.
(BTW, this was prompted by a current proposal to rename the Cat:Manga and anime categories to Cat:Anime and manga equivalents). Grutness... wha? 23:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
(This is just a courtesy copy of the note originally posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting, since more sorters may actually be reading over here than over there.)
Took me about 7-8 hours, but I think it sings. Did not change a single substantive thing about it either, as far as how it works, what is recommends, what procedures are, etc., etc. It's just a massive cleanup. Please see first wikilink ("The story") for proposal on how to proceed, in stages, designed to prevent the process from descending into argument and editwarring. Goal: Have WSS/NG become a formal Wikipedia Proposal and then Guideline. At a guess this is stage 1 of 4. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 11:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming guidelines/Redraft2 I have listed a bunch of unlikely-to-be-controversial improvements for the NG document. Most of these were already clearly identified in Redraft1 as HTML comments, while a few come from Redraft 1 discussion. The HTML comments just mentioned are still (as of this writing) present in Redraft2, to indicate likely insertion points. Depending on when you read this, some of them may have alread been replaced with new text, or removed because controversial. I would propose that any item on the list that anyone feels is controversial in any way should be struck out and saved for Redraft Phase 3, the dealing with controversial stuff. Several of them may require a consensus discussion to determine what exactly they should say/advise. Let's do it! — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 04:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Given that we do a fair amount of renaming here, might it not be time to consider moving SFD to Stub types for discussion along the lines of CFD, RFD, and WP:UCFD? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caerwine ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
File:Foo Fighter.png | This foo article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
I wouldn't necessarily object to merging /D and /P (forgiveness and permission, as it were); they're both "just" project pages, after all (though use of the latter is upheld by a guideline). But SFD is a "process" page governed by the deletion policy, and to merge the project pages with that would be to imply "policy status" to the proposal and discovery processes, or else to dilute the status of the deletion process. Or at least, to cause confusion between the two. Alai 02:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I've moved and depopulated the transclusions of {{ China-geo-stub}} and {{ China-struct-stub}} in favour of {{ PRC-geo-stub}} and {{ PRC-struct-stub}}, and full-protected the latter, given the nature of their recent history. I'm having second thoughts about outright deletion of the redirects, though, since they're heavily referenced in many, many talk pages, and there might be some consternation at the "sudden" disappearance of "China". I'd suggest either leaving it as a redirect (as at present), or replacing it with a "deprecated, please re-sort" message. Alai 03:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
What does that mean?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.120.221 ( talk • contribs)
Could somebody give the result please, the time has flown. -- Bohater 12:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi all - I've added a sentence in the page instructions asking editors not to rename templates or categories while they are being discussed - it usually does nothing but cause added headaches, more work, and more confused discussions. If i've been too bold, feel free to revert/amend as necessary. Grutness... wha? 01:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Having reviewed some of the polling on renaming/deletion of stubs, I am now of the opinion that, as the Wikipedia has had an impact on the Internet and more traditional encyclopedic works as sources of information in the global marketplace for content, there is a developing market for non-Wikipedia online references linking to groups of Wikipedia articles that appeal to those individuals who see organization of thought that we may have overlooked or agreed by concensus to eliminate. I suspect that I will be flamed for posting this as not suitable for mention here, but I believe mention relates to (1) the frustration of editors who passionately believe in what they are doing in Wikipedia editing, especically in the organization of knowledge (stubs or otherwise) that the Wikipedia represents and (2) the number of those frustrated editors who have a choice in taking more blood pressure medication as a result of organization-by-open-committee or permanently walking away in disgust. I am not yet that disgusted, but I can see that, as some Wikipedia editors feel justified in their triumphs over others' organizational ideas here, there will be more of us who choose to index Wikipedia articles in our own cataloging reference works on web sites not under the control, influence or other regulation of that which is Wikipedia. I wish upon them the same profitable good fortune that I would wish upon myself in that endeavor. Hotfeba 17:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Any admins out there who have to occassionally protect deleted stub templates of categories nows have a little tweak they can add to {{ Deletedpage}}. Deletedpage works by looking at the namespace and directing the reader to whatever XfD archives are appropriate. Unfortunately, up until now, that means that stub template and stub category protected deletions have pointed viewers to TfD or CfD rather than SfD. Now though, by typing
{{deletedpage|stub=yes}}
the correct (SfD) archive will be linked. See Template:TRNC-stub for an example. (Thanks to User:Jitse Niesen for adding the parameter). Grutness... wha? 01:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi all - I suddenly realised there was nothing about SfD at Wikipedia:Deletion process, so I added a section. Please check it out to make sure I haven't missed anything or misrepresented things at all. Grutness... wha? 01:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Could a stub expert please contribute to the stub issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#Other stuff? Thanks. Carcharoth 00:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Where should stubs for merger be proposed?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I just followed the instruction posted in WP:AN. Anyways, I was going to report that the discussion of the {{ Philippine Movie Stub}} / Cat:Philippine Movie Stub seems to be resolved but not yet closed for over a month now. However, seeing that there is a case that is still open which was made on November 2007, I think some admin must really sort out the page.-- Lenticel ( talk) 09:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
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:
Grutness... wha? 07:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
There are over 500 of these which need to be upmerged somewhere. Can someone please suggest where, and whether this is bot-doable? thanks... Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I know this is already mentioned as a notice at the top of everyone's watchlist, but the new {{ Cmbox}} is likely to affect the way {{ sfd-c}} and related templates look, so it's well worth taking a look. Grutness... wha? 00:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I found Template:ride-stub that was marked sfr, but I can't find any entry for it... did it get overlooked somewhere? Aaronw ( talk) 22:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed a new way of handling XfDs - please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Transcludable XfD discussions. JohnnyMrNinja 00:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)