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.

In good faith, I've started a new Cat and Template called !stub. ( Template:!stub, Category:!Stubs)

This template is designed to be applied to articles that are very short, but are unlikely to need much expansion. A good example of this would be a biography of a long-dead sportsman who played professionally without achieving much. Such a person passes WP:BIO but unless new research discovers a forgotten side of their achievements, the article may be sufficiently full, yet very short.

The utility in this template is to avoid the usual stub requirement that is a request for people to expand it.

Now, I'm experienced enough in Wikipedia to realise that a) this is probably not a new idea b) there's probably good reasons for not doing it and c) I've probably messed up in the template/naming/Cat etc.

So, I've only applied the template to one article ( William Adshead, a good example of a !stub IMHO) and I will welcome your expert criticism or support equally. This is a learning experience for me. I hope I've come up with something that enhances Wikipedia. If not, I've done no real damage and I'll be happy to nom the template and Cat for speedy deletion. -- Dweller 15:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

While I'm bound to be biased on this one, I think the template (whatever it eventually becomes called, I would advocate Template:Not a stub) is a very good idea. The Rambling Man 15:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I also have to declare an interest, since I'm the original author of the above-mentioned William Adshead article. Three minutes after I posted it, deliberately leaving off a stub tag for the reasons Dweller mentions, another editor added one in. I found that amusing, and said so on WikiProject Cricket's Talk page (section heading: "I can't win!"). Although it has its attractions, I'm not entirely decided about the pros and cons of this proposal in case it too much duplicates the WikiProject assessment banners, though I would agree with The Rambling Man above that {{ not a stub}} would be a clearer, and thus better, name than {{ !stub}}. Loganberry ( Talk) 21:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• There is an "invisible" template at Template talk:Notstub, which might have fallen out of use. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• A template is a good idea (although, as pointed out, {{ notstub}} already exists). I'm not convinced there's any need for a category, though. What purpose would it serve? Stub categories are used by editors looking for articles to expand - I doubt anyone would need to consult Category:!stub while looking for articles they needn't expand! Grutness... wha? 01:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with G.; worse, it's a "maintenance" intrusion on articles... to document that they don't have to be maintained. And logically, it would never be removed. I'd suggest redirecting to the existing template, and deleting the category (or else using it only on talk pages). Alai 01:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll nom the template and cat I created for speedy and replace the stub tag I used with the existing one. Thanks for your specialist input. -- Dweller 09:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've set up redirects from both {{ !stub}} (now that the earlier speedy has gone through as above) and {{ not a stub}} to the existing template. I hope that's okay. Loganberry ( Talk) 14:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is exactly appropriate but I just want to vote I think it's a good idea. I actually came here to make this suggestion and found others already doing it. I have been thinking about this for some time. There seem to be many articles that don't need expansion even though they are short. You would think I could just ignore the stub notice but it bothers me everytime.

Didn't we have a standard stub template code somewhere? It looks to me like some templates regularly get reformatted to non-standard versions, e.g. with the image and text indented. Just a thought. Valentinian ^{T / C} 12:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought the indent was standard. Bl a st ^{[ improve me} 15.05.07 1519 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure {{ metastub}} is supposed to be the standard. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. The indent wasn't originally used, but it was added in March 2006. [1] Not sure why, though. On the vast majority of templates I've seen (generic, bios, geos and similar) there is no indent. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image size limit

Relatedly, is there a standard image-size-maximum? I'm noticing 45 and 50 px wide icons in many stub-tags lately, which is way too large. Wikipedia:Stub#New stub templates isn't clear at all, and mainly talks about {{ Metastub}}. Thanks. -- Quiddity 07:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There have been a number of discussions about this, but I think 30-35 px is good, depending on the height. For example, if something is really short, it may need to be longer so that the image is clear. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A flag would normally be 30px, but a few other images suffer terribly if shrunk all the way to 30px, and in that case, no problem with 35. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I use 40 as an absolute upper limit. 45-50 is too big, but - as V says - some things look too muddy with 30. A bigger problem is what size to make vertical "portrait format" icons. Grutness... wha? 01:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I tend to "standardise" anything larger to 40x30px. Some images won't be very clear at that size (especially if the aspect ratio is more "portrait-ish"), but rather than enlarging them, I'd prefer to see them re-cropped, or else a more suitable image found. Too much variation in size will make multi-stubbed articles distinctly messy-looking, aside from the general intrusiveness of images of inherently oversized images. Alai 13:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Try taking a look at {{ Euro-footy-bio-stub}}. It looks like an editor has created a metatemplate generating stub icons by laying two images on top of each other. Thoughts? Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, since my computer is in the shop, I'm having to use the public one at the local library. In it's antiquated browswer, I'm only seeing one icon, an overlarge soccer ball. Side by side icons have been occasionally seen on these sorts of dual axis stub templates, and some people have even been inventive enought to create custom icons for some of them, but given the nature of the browser compatabilities issues, I can't say that deliberately overlaying images is a good idea at all, especially if it leads to use of such a large icon. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be the bearer of woe, but Category:stubs doesn't seem to have been empty at any point since the last db dump (due to the drop-feed since then from the uncategorised special page), and it's about to get a whole lot worse, since there was a db dump a few days ago. I estimate there's going to be something on the order of 2,500 incoming from same. Alai 13:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy happy joy joy :/ It did get down briefly to about 400 stubs, but it's filling faster than it empties a lot of the time. Grutness... wha? 22:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

More like 4000 (including the existing backlog), as it turned out. Alai 19:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Groaaaan. Well, at least I'll come back into this project with something to do. Bl a st ^{[ improve me} 06.06.07 0441 (UTC)

Western Sahara and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic There is are two ongoing disputes over at Template talk:WesternSahara-stub concerning the content of that template: one over the inclusion or exclusion of a flag and the other over the wording (and consequently, the scope) of the stub. It is the latter dispute to which I was directed here by an admin. Originally, this template read: "This Western Sahara or SADR article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." It had a reference to the SADR for about 14 months and had the flag dispute several times in this interim. It was changed by User:Juiced_lemon to read: "This Western Sahara article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it" with no comment on talk. Since then, there has been a long back-and-forth. I argue that the Template:Taiwan-stub is a perfect model for how to make this template (in point of fact, it was literally the model I used when I made it), and that template includes both the ROC flag, as well as the text reading: "This Republic of China or Taiwan-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." To reiterate, I would like the change modified back to the way that it essentially was for several months; namely: "This Western Sahara or SADR article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." Could you please comment on this matter? - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 18:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of why disputed territories shouldn't in general have their own stub types. Taiwan-stub was also the subject of a long and bitter edit-war and is an extremely poor example to use for any stable stub-type. In fact, until it was mentioned on the talk page of WesternSahara-stub, I thought it had no icon, which was how it was when I last saw it. A better example would be Korea-stub, where a specific new design was created for a stub that clearly represented the whole of the Korean peninsula without being open to interpretations of partisanship. Grutness... wha? 00:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure Where does that leave us, though? I don't know that there is a Korea-style solution to this issue. Do you have any suggestions on how to move forward? It still appears to me that there is an odd and arbitrary double-standard being applied. (posted on Template talk:WesternSahara-stub and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#Dispute_about_the_wording.2Fscope_of_a_stub)- Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 03:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it's an example of that at all: it objectively is a disputed region, but there exist places in it that need to be stub-tagged. Sort-annexing it to Morocco would seem not to be a sensible solution, to put it mildly, so it essentially has to exist. As to wording, it seems to me that the "Western Sahara" wording, with no flag, seems the best option, and to correspond with the UN position that the whole region is a "Non-Self-Governing Territory". Otherwise one will end up attempting to "balance" the opposing SADC and Moroccan views, which is going to be over-long. Add a brief synopsis of the dispute to the category page. Alai 13:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Double-standard It's an arbitrary double-standard because Taiwan is also a disputed region and the Taiwan-stub template has a flag (a secondary issue), and mentions the ROC. Why should the the Western Sahara-stub template not mention the SADR? Why would there be two completely different approaches to the two? - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 14:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(Do you really need to bold your absence of assuming good faith?) I don't see how the Taiwan comparison is at all helpful. You appear to want to "balance" the UN/international POV with the SADR one. By which logic, we'd then have to "counter-balance" it with the Moroccan POV. We'd end up with a mini-essay, in place of what's supposed to be a concise and neutral summary. Please tell me what's actually objectively wrong with the approach I suggested. Alai 14:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith? It's not bad faith; it's a title to help me remember which comment is which. If you honestly want me to not put headers in my comments in this talk, I can oblige. The Taiwan comparison is helpful because here is another situation that is similar and, for some reason, we're doing something different. I would like to know what is different enough about the two examples that two different policies should be applied. I don't want to choose the SADR perspective per se, I want to be consistent. As for the flag issue, note that there are a host of unrecognized countries that have flags in their stub templates as well: e.g. Template:Transnistria-stub. Why is this standard being applied to all the other examples, but not Western Sahara/SADR? What makes it wrong is that it is totally arbitrary and you (plural, you as a community) are choosing to single out one unrecognized country (which actually has more recognition than the ROC, Transistria, etc.) for some peculiar censure. Can you explain that? - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 14:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say "bad faith", I said "absence of assuming good faith", and I don't see how one would equate the two. Be content with being "consistent" with the majority of stub templates, which find it sufficient to use the generally acceptable name for their topics, rather than seeking some sort of parity with (other) problematic cases. I note you didn't address my point about the "Southern Provinces" POV. (And I'd personally suggest not putting "headers" of this sort in any talk discussion, they're simply distracting (and if you're going to make rash accusations, and bold the rashest part, tending to up the contentiousness).) Alai 15:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Alai, there is no reason to escalate things here; I wasn't attempting to accuse you of anything, simply re-wording what you wrote. It seemed like a "lack of good faith" is the same as "bad faith" to me, but let's not debate the semantics of that. Just let it be known that I'm not trying to make accusations. That having been said, if you want to be consistent with the majority of examples, you would include the flag, right? As far as wording goes, there is no other example like this except ROC/Taiwan, so, again, the majority is to include both titles. I'm not sure that I understand your "Southern Provinces" example - what are you asking exactly? Do you have an example in mind? If you're suggesting something like "This Western Sahara or Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which is viewed as the Southern Provinces by the Kingdom of Morocco, stub..." I would be opposed to that because it is ludicrous. I would also be opposed to something like "This Chechnya, which the Russian Federation considers an integral part of its state, stub..." because that is equally ludicrous. Anyone viewing Wikipedia can read the articles themselves and understand the conflict(s). We also don't need to put "This Taiwan or Republic of China, which the People's Republic of China considers its twenty-third province and and illegitimate government, stub..." In short, I am opposed to short essays, so we should just leave them as they were for the past year and a half, flags inclusive. I have no problem with that. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 15:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel I'm escalating anything: I think that statements about application of double standards do that quite efficiently. I said lack of an assumption of good faith: I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that. (Suggesting that someone is applying double standards is accusing them of not acting in good faith (and to point this out is not itself such an accusation).) I'm going to ignore the "flag" issue entirely, since elsewhere you yourself say it's not the key point; let's not successively drag it up and drop it, at least until there's stability on (what you say) is the main issue. Of course the "essay" would be ludicrous, and that's the whole point: there aren't two points of view here, there are (at least) three. If you're going to claim that the UN's view (which so far as I know corresponds to the reporting of most reliable sources) is insufficient, it would seem odd to represent only the "rebel south" additional POV, and not the "occupying power" POV. The name "Western Sahara" might not be the preferred option of either party to the dispute, but it at least hedges between the two in an essentially "neutral" (if not quite NPOV) manner. Alai 15:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, let's leave talk of escalation aside - I don't really care to lay blame. Alai, what exactly is the UN's view in your mind, then (I ask because the UN has called Morocco an occupying power in Western Sahara)? Do you advocate some change on Taiwan-stub? If you don't want to change the latter, then why? It would appear that this is, in fact, a double standard. As a corollary, I would be interested in knowing what you propose to do about the flag issue, but we can set that aside if necessary. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 16:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As I say above, so far as I understand it the general view of international organisations (and the framework of the reporting of the international media) is that that there's a "Non-Self-Governing Territory" called "Western Sahara", which has no generally recognised government (either internal or external). I'm resolutely not getting into the Taiwan issue here: it's wildly off-topic, and these things are difficult enough to resolve separately, without the combinatorics of trying to solve N of them in any "linked" manner. (But as you ask, on the flag issue, I'd for choice, not have any (on the basis of the lack of any generally accepted same), or if that fails, have an "array" of the various purported flags.) Alai 16:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Off-topic? It's the most relevant example. I don't see why you won't answer a fairly straight-forward question, Alai. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 18:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The most relevant? In what way? As I say above... well, I think I've quoted myself enough for one thread. If you have a point to make about Taiwan-stub in and of itself, raise it as such, and let's not get caught up in this "but this other template...!" stuff. Alai 18:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It leaves us with the solution normally used in such cases. There is no reason on earth why a stub template has to have an icon, and many do not, especially those where disputes may arise. This template has managed well enough wothout an icon in the past, and could easily do so again. Grutness... wha? 05:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Artistic prettification should not take preference over dispute resolution, however much I appreciate art and prettification. Bl a st ^{[ improve me} 07.06.07 0557 (UTC)

Folks I'm more concerned about the wording and consequent scope of the stub template, not the flag issue. Please refer to my original post. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 14:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

To Justin → WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. One other important point, as per Alai, is that if you put the SADR reference in the template some would add the Moroccan reference as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And what would the "Moroccan reference" be exactly? And are you consequently advocating the "Russian reference" and "Moldovan reference" on the Transnistria stub, the "PRC reference" on the Taiwan stub, etc.? Obviously not. For some reason, a peculiar standard is being applied here and nowhere else, with no apparent justification. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 18:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Moroccan reference would be something like "Southern provinces". The "no apparent justification" is that you want to include a POV stuff into a NPOV template. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't. If you have the wording "Western Sahara or Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic," how is that POV? - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 19:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it represents the generally (or at least most common) accepted POV, and one minority POV, while omitting the obvious third (also minority) POV that stands in direct opposition to the second. That seems clearly more problematic than just having the first, whereas including all three would be unwieldy, and verging on the ridiculous. Alai 23:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In any case, this template should definitely not include any stub image if kept at all. We have very few of these templates around, and for good reason. {{ Transnistria-stub}} was not created by a member of this project but by a currently-blocked user. Said template was listed for deletion at WP:SFD where the regular stub sorters voted for deletion while a lot of people we'd never seen before voted to keep it. I remain categorically opposed to both that template and {{ Somaliland-stub}} which was also created out of process. Other controversial templates have already been deleted, and the only reason why {{ Chechnya-bio-stub}} (also created out of process) barely scraped through recently was after a strict neutralization of said template, so the same must apply here. Valentinian ^{T / C} 17:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that {{ Somaliland-stub}} used the flag of the secessionist administration, so I've removed it from the template. Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree but the subject of this thread is about the wording/scope of a stub. Justin wants to add a mention to SADR (Western Sahara govt in exile) to the {{ WesternSahara-stub}}. That would be totally against our policy of NPOV. The territory is disputed and parties are still negotiating under the UN umbrella. Western Sahara is disputed between SADR and Morocco so it is obvious that we avoid POVs here. As for his ROC analogies, i must remind him that Taiwan is governed de facto by its own govt, while most parts of Western Sahara are administered by Morocco. So why does he want to add RASD to the template? Opponent parties do not ask to add Morocco to it. So i consider it as NPOV in its actual state. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

To say that it is not an "actual state" is POV. If you write "Western Sahara or Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" that necessitates that the two are separate phenomena. Also, for stubs that only relate to one and not the other, there could never be enough to justify an entirely separate template and category. Consequently, putting the text that was originally on there (not that I want to add it, as you claim, but restore it to what it was), will make the template inclusive of both phenomena and you can interpret that however you wish. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 19:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that people agree that the template shouldn't have any image at all? In that case, I'd consider that progress. At the end of the day, the simplest solution sounds most appealing to me: No image and no reference to either of the two administrations. Simply referring to the geographical entity "Western Sahara" will also minimize the length of the text. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. I still don't see why this template shouldn't have a flag, but Taiwan-stub should. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 23:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that a concern now Justin? The flag? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the ROC ( a full-fledged state) and the governement-in-exile of a guerilla movement compare!!. There are people pretending to the trowns of France, Greece, Bulgaria, etc. Following Koavf's reasoning of "To say that it is not an "actual state" is POV", it would be a POV not to call these pretenders "actual king of France ,..". "If you write "Western Sahara or Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" that necessitates that the two are separate phenomena", so why not say "Western Sahara or Morocco's Southern Provinces" which of course necessitates that they are separate phenomena. Attempting to force the flag of one of the conflict parties or its unrecognized governement's name on the disputed territory's template/stub is a naked POV.-- A Jalil 08:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The ROC is recognized by c. 20 members of the UN as the legal continuation of the Republic of China that was formed in 1911 and was until the 1950s recognized by the overwhelming part of the world as the only legal representative of China. It occupied China's seat at the UN until the early 1970s. I'm not aware that the SADR administration has ever enjoyed undisputed recognition and physical control over the territory it claims. It could indeed be argued that the Taiwan template should not use any flag, but last time I checked, it was also used on some material relating to the pre-1949 situation, so it makes sense in that respect. Back to the matter here: in order to be neutral, this template must either read

• "This article relating to the Southern Provinces or Moroccan Sahara / the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."
• or "This article relating to Western Sahara is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."
• Given these two choices, I support the short text. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

ROC and SADR If the ROC is a full-fledged state, how is the SADR not? To write "Western Sahara or Morocco's Southern Provinces" is to refer to the same entity - a geographic region. To refer to a territory and a state is to refer to two separate things. Hence, Taiwan-stub says "Taiwan or ROC." The SADR controls a greater portion of its claimed territory than does the ROC, and it has never had universal recognition. At the same time, there is also no recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over the region. So, unlike the PRC/ROC debate, where virtually every state has a position on the matter (in favor of the PRC), most states have no position on the sovereignty of the territory and among those that do, they all support the SADR. So, to the extent that there is any recognition in the conflict, it is of the SADR universally. Note also, Valentian, that the text you suggested initially neither mentions nor links to the main article itself (Western Sahara.) Clearly, that would not be ideal. I don't suppose you would suggest changing the Taiwan-stub template to read "Taiwan or ROC or 23rd province of the PRC..." would you? - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 03:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I see the bolding is back, and so is the Taiwan OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument: neither is in the least helpful. There are no PRC "facts on the ground" in Taiwan, and the current wording quite adequately represents the PRC POV. OTOH, WS is de facto part of Morocco, and yet you insist on a wording that represents two POVs: one ignoring Morocco's, and the other directly contradicting it. Alai 15:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Valentinian, every word you wrote is truth and reason. The two options represent either both positions or the simple neutral wording. I would be happy with just any of them. But, unfortunately you have in front of you a guy (koavf) who is only here for one reason as he put it on his user page "and I try to particularly represent the interests of truth and the Sahrawis of Western Sahara (SADR)". We have tried before but failed and the community saw no way but to block him indefinitely. He is now on parole and given another chance and here we are. Neutrality is not his buisness and he is here to make the position of one of the parties to prevail. As to the neutrality of Wikipedia, it means nothing to him, and he can engage you into lengthy arguments (he enjoys) with no result. I write this because I pity the people trying to convince him with what is obvious neutral wording, if they don't know some background about whom they are talking to.-- A Jalil 21:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Alai, I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying about the facts on the ground about PRC and Taiwan, but I will say this: the PRC claims Taiwan, and doesn't administer it. The ROC claims the mainland and doesn't administer it. Morocco claims Western Sahara and occupies and administers some of it. The SADR claims Western Sahara and administers some of it. The wording at Taiwan-stub does not represent the PRC POV; it doesn't even acknowledge it. You're ignoring the fact that WS is not de facto part of Morocco: they don't control a significant portion of it, and the vast majority of companies and states won't do business in it, even when they make agreements with the Kingdom of Morocco (e.g. the latest U.S./Morocco trade agreement.) So, no, in fact, it is treated quite differently than the territory of Morocco and is viewed as such by any third party. As for Jalil's comments, I won't get into a game of mutual mud-slinging but to say that any editor can make as many bad-faith allegations and assumptions about any other as he wants. I put that reference on the userpage about me to be honest and admit my own biases in editing. Everyone has biases and they inevitably come out in one's writing. That does not mean one should be disregarded in the discussion of those topics or that there is a presumption of guilt, incompetence, propaganda, etc. on his part when he edits. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 22:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• koavf, what are you talking about??. Did you (try to ) forget again the fishing agreements between the EU (28 European countries) and Morocco where the waters of WS are included as part of Morocco??. And did you forget that the biggest American Oil companies were untill recently actively searching for oil in those same waters??. The phosphates of Bocraa is exported from the port of Layoune directly to Spain, and the delicious fish is canned in Dakhla to be exported to just any country and I have told you before that Algeria is consuming a part of it. Companies in the Canary Islands are working in WS and economical activity with Mauritania is done officially. I could even go on for long to show you WS is very active economically with the surrounding region and with many parts of the world. During the Algerian Civil War, there were even more international activity with WS than that Algeria itself had with the external world.
• I think again about that comparision between Taiwan and the SADR and can't hold myself from laughing. For just a simple detail, the governement of the SADR is seated in a tent in Algeria. How about the governement of Taiwan?.-- A Jalil 22:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Precisely my point: One fishing agreement with the EU, and that one was and is, contentious. One. And the American and international oil companies are not along the coast of the Sahara now precisely because they were pressured out due to international concerns; they weren't pressured out of Morocco. You're proving my point with your example of the oil companies. The ROC has a temporary capital in Taipei and the SADR has a temporary capital in Bir Lehlou. I don't see anything funny about the massive refugee crisis in Algeria, by the way. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 22:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Contentious!!, well many treaties (shengen, the European constitution, ...) are contentious. It is about an agreement or not. And there is an agreement signed including WS as part of Morocco. There is no way to twist it. Kerr MG left after many years of work without a result, and it left not from only WS as you alledge but from all Morocco. Are not you ashamed to say the SADR gov. is seated in Bir Lehlu? I let recall that false allegation given the fact that they are seated in the Rabouni Camp in Algeria according to the Polisario's own press service.-- A Jalil 23:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You are twisting; for instance, you twisted my words to say that Kerr-McGee only left Western Sahara. I never wrote that. Regardless, my point remains: Western Sahara is not treated like any other part of Morocco and for good reason. I'm neither ashamed nor proud to say that the SADR is in Bir Lehlou; I have no personal investment in it. Polsario's press service explicitly mentions the SADR conducting elections and government conferences in Bir Lehlou on several occasions. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 21:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know anything about this? Grutness... wha? 01:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's just a subst-me "wrapper" for the existing barnstar, right? Alai 13:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is. See the list on Wikipedia:WikiProject_awards/WikiProject where other templates have similar "wrappers" to make them easier to use. Valentinian ^{T / C} 13:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a ribbon to go along with the star? Midx1004 17:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like some of our former category names continue to clutter Special:Wantedcategories. Anything we can do about it? The links seem to relate mostly to old discussion pages, so we can't simply update them. Any chance Alaibot could convert the links to < code > < nowiki > form? Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The list of categories is here Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose; do you have a formula in mind for which link sources to apply such a conversion to? We presumably don't want to do it with current discussions, or "approved, pending creation" links, and I'm not sure about links from non-WPSS pages. Alai 16:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about converting them to "< code > < nowiki > unchanged old name < /nowiki > < / code>" format (removing the extra spaces of course). Wouldn't that do the trick? Valentinian ^{T / C} 17:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

But which ones? Alai 17:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the list. Can't we make a "What links here" in AWB?

   * Category:Stub
   * Category:Historical stubs
   * Category:Substubs
   * Category:Movie stubs
   * Category:Buildings and structures stubs
   * Category:Corporation stubs
   * Category:Computer and video game stubs
   * Category:Ireland-related stubs
   * Category:US geography stubs
   * Category:Math stubs
   * Category:Russia-related stubs
   * Category:Christianity-related stubs
   * Category:India-related stubs
   * Category:Station stubs
   * Category:UK geography stubs
   * Category:Danish stubs
   * Category:Israel-related stubs
   * Category:Election related stubs

Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought you meant something more automated. Yeah, for designated links that should be pretty straightforward. If there's a smallish number you might indeed be faster just doing it in AWB than waiting for bot approval. Alai 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about something automated, but the approval bit didn't cross my mind. The number is smallish, so I'll load up AWB instead. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And I've abandoned that idea again. The darn thing includes pages linked to procedure Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/OldPages2 so it will probably be considered vandalism to tamper with the bot's pages, even though it hasn't used this one for most of a year. Darn. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A new stub category has just been made for pterosaurs (it was on the list at WP:WSS/to do)... and there's something odd with it. The category talk page is somehow listed as a stub in the category, and I can't see why. All that's on the talk page is WikiProject Pterosaurs' banner template, but I can't see anything in that template's history which would cause this irregular stubbing. Any ideas? Grutness... wha? 06:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The bug is in the {{ WikiProject Pterosaurs}} banner, probably due to the self-reference link to the pages the template is used on. I'm rather tempted to change the text to something resembling the text of {{ WikiProject Estonia}}. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/May, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/April, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/March are all nearly blank now (they consist of a one-sentence link), so would someone who's an admin please delete them? Thanks - Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Has anybody heard any news about the toolserver? It seems like ages since StubSense worked with up to date data. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• There was this fairly recently. So possibly "soon". Alai 20:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Hope is light green" (as we say in Danish). Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the toolserver data is now current(ish), and actively replicating. However, stubsense still seems to be much less so: possibly it's still using the old database, or else there might be internal caching involved in the stubsense tool itself. Alai 01:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I get an error using StubSense ( [2]) :( Table 'toolserver.categorylinks' doesn't exist at stub_sense line 301.. CatScan is nice for different approach, but both would be better... --  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  14:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

StubSense seems to remain down. Is Interiot the only maintainer of this tool? Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm noticing a distinct lack of comments on many of the things brought to WP:WSS/P, WP:WSS/D and WP:SFD recently - has everyone given up, or are you hibernating (or out in the sun if you're a northerner)? Grutness... wha? 23:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know what's happened to {{ Sectstub}}? Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Don't know, but it could be something to do with debate at WP:TFD, which I'll mention below. Grutness... wha? 02:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Would an admin please clean up the code on this template? We normally don't use the "This template will categorize articles that include it into Category:..." notices any more, so please clean up the code to something more standard. Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The transclusion on {{ Sectstub}} isn't standard either (neither is its formatting in general). The unorthodox code makes a little more sense here but I'm not a big fan of that one either. Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree, but you should probably place a comment to that effect on the template talk page, lest it look like a WPSS stitch-up. And it's back to using "plainlinks", despite my having changed that earlier. (Is it just me that objects to have an link easter-egged to look like a "normal" one?) Alai 07:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. :-) I really detest having that "external link" icon appear next to a very internal link that just happens to have to use a different syntax due to MediWiki software deficiences. But maybe that's just me. Heh. (Or rather me, and who ever came up with plainlinks to deal with the problem.) — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, it's neither "external" nor "normal". Perhaps we should consider making it plain, but red, or something? There was some discussion of the (lack of a) convention in relation to the section-edit links. A standard 'edit link', distinct from both, would be a Good Thing, I reckon. Alai 03:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The root-of-all-evil stub cat is well north of two thousand again. But be of (somewhat) good cheer: it was actually almost empty until recently, and these are almost all from the recent db dump. So that seems to suggest the people at the coal face are actually keeping in touch remarkably well, so if they keep it up for the next couple of months, hopefully we'll be back down to zero(ish) by the time of the next one. (And some of them will actually be uncategorised disambigs (as I'm currently getting grief over), so those'll be some easy ones to do...) Alai 07:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)