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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
We have once again achieved full stub sorting. Currently, only those stubs that are candidate for deletion are under the category of stubs. We should keep up the tempo so that the number of articles in this category restrict to a bare minimun. - Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 13:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
overnight we seem to have got about 800 new stubs! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a little boggling to have so many show up so quickly. Anyone worked out "where" they've come from? Are people like the above nay-saying anon, and those on SPUI's "petition", not using any sort of sorted type? Or... hrm, I notice quite a number of them are being automatically stub-tagged as very short, by User:Bluebot. Perhaps a case of what AWB maketh easier with the right hand, gives us more to do with the left! Alai 17:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The Japanese Mythology Project has created {{ Japan-myth-stub}} as per the proposal page (there was no opposition). I hope this is the correct forum to announce this. Please have a look and make sure it is properly sorted in the stub tree. Thanks! — BrianSmithson 17:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm at my wits end with this one, and any help is *very* welcome. The stub template seems to work ok, but the category seems to bundle all stubs in one giant heap instead of sorting them by A, B, C etc. Both stub and category were modelled over similar stubs that worked well, so I really don't understand what's gone wrong here. Have any of you seen this one before? Valentinian (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[[Category:South American politician stubs| ]]
) Categories appear to be indexed by sort key, not numerically, so anything beyond the first 200 is (temporarily) "lost".[[Category:South American politician stubs]]
. I believe that you don't need to do the null edits to all articles now.
Conscious 05:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I realize there are some people still enamoured of the quaint notion that there should only be one stub tag on each article, but I wonder if we should go further with our guidance on double-stubbing people. Almost every biographical stub should really have both a nationality stub-tag, and a type relating to their main notability, generally an occupation. Indeed, the whole biography hierarchy is organised on those two bases. Single-stubbing of people leads to inconsistency, where some people are only classified along one axis, and others only along another; and makes subsequent resorting or resplitting harder (for example the scads of US-bios that are actors, military, politicians, businesspeople, but not tagged as such, or likewise for existing occupation stubs not yet split out by country). Would anyone else be in favour of adding this as an open task/strategic objective here, and delicately hinting at WP:STUB that it's not such a bad idea? Alai 05:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea for any stub supercategory that has been split orthogonally. I'm having difficulty keeping track of struct-stubs by nationality because the continent-struct-stubs keep being replaced rather than augmented with things like stadium-stub and bridge-struct-stub. Double-stubbing in these cases is a very important measure IMHO. Grutness... wha? 08:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
A new stub type going through the proper proposal procedure requires consensus to create. However, AFAIK, a stub type that was not created after going through the proper channels requires consensus to delete once it is "discovered". This seems a little perverse - effectively, it means that a borderline case of a malformed or unnecessary stub type increases its chances of survival by avoiding the proper channels. Obviously AFD, CFD etc should always require consensus to delete. Stub types for deletion is different because there's no obligation to ask for permission before creating a new article or category; stub types are only useful because there is a hierarchy and system that they should slot into. Would it be sensible for there to be a reversed burden of consensus for deletion (i.e. consensus is required to keep) for a stub type that skipped the proposals page? TheGrappler 14:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It's somewhat perverse, yes, and certainly creates perverse incentives. Probably the only things that stop this from happening more is that, a) it'd be a shedload of work to do this on a large scale, and heartbreaking to have it all reverted (as people are never slow to poiint out after they've done so unilaterally); and b) surprisingly, most people are in fact not complete jerks, and are likely to make a good faith attempt to make nice with the stub-sorting project, where what they're going is indeed stub-sorting.
I suspect it'd be problematic to change. Stub creation is governed by "mere guidelines" (in the form of the WP:STUB page), and an even merer Wikiproject, in the form of this page-cluster -- and some people find even that much excessively burdensome. Deletion, OTOH, is a matter of policy. Establishing a "consensus to keep" standard on SFD would require we either on the one hand, make a formal policy proposal (and wait for the fur to fly); or, change it after only local discussion and consensus (among "the stub people"), then start implementing it (and then wait for the fur to fly even higher).
I'm not sure we've ever defined in numeric terms what our consensus threshold is to be. I know at times I've been seriously tempted to "re-weight" votes (to the detriment of the creator, their chums, and other "keep it because I both like it and find it useful, and I have to Perfect Right(TM) to 'vote' to ignore guidelines"). OTOH, the people closing the debate are generally the same people arguing adamantly to delete the things in the first place, so that risks looking over-cosy if done too liberally.
On balance, I'd favour we do one of the following. Firstly, we could "policify" WP:STUB, modifying or refactoring as necessary, to put that and SFD on more of an even footing, and establishing that the naming conventions, and the size criteria have that force. (I'd suggest we not try to make the Proposals page "mandatory", as people will probably see that as especially "unwiki", and personally, I think that if an unproposed stub is otherwise fine, we've nothing to complain about anyway.) Secondly (and either alternatively or additionally) we (try to) could establish speedy criteria to back up some of the more common problems, like undersized and obviously misnamed types. If we end up with the situation that unproposed and obviously problematic stub types can be deleted and renamed -- despite the "creator and chums" effect, and speedily or otherwise -- I'd be satisfied either way. Alai 06:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Many MEP stubs can be expanded using the web site of the MEP. See [1], [2] and the MEP's group site. For a list of already expanded articles, see here.
Tried and failed to find a stub category for this article: Stop, drop and roll. Ideas, anyone? - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 02:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
It's inevitable this will happen occasionally, due to the somewhat "bottom up" way stub types are created, as against the main category system. If we had higher-level types like "safety-stub" or "health-stub" (which do have perm-cat equivalents), which in theory would normally consist entirely of sub-types, we'd have greater coverage of cases like this. I suspect they're not that uncommon, but the "majority of the minority" that would ideally have a more general type are crowbarred into a more specific one without too much of the old Procrustes being employed.
It should be noted that the main cats are not without their 'issues' at the higher levels; if one asks, "what articles are underneath each of the 'top ten' categories", the answer is "all of them, under each". And that's to say nothing of inclusion loops. But that's another day's -- and another wikiproject's -- work. Alai 03:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The stub list is rather long, so I went creating a more compact list of all stubs, with only the specific relevant information needed to use them: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/List of stubs. → A z a Toth 19:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yet another list to keep updated. It's also unreadably wide. Can we get rid of it, please? Alai 21:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Is this an actual policy of wikipedia or a guideline? I see nothing that indicates that this is anything more than a project that editors may or may not choose to follow. The process of proposing a new stub cat seems a bit red tape-ish. Please point out the errors in my logic. Cheers. youngamerican ( talk) 17:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to ask other users (stub sorting users) if they could view my proposal, change it a bit, and put it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting#Stub sorting methods Genereal Rules.
I have added this because stubs added one line after the text, are very close to the text, and it's easier to read if it is a bit spaced. This is simply for esthetic purposes, though this is an encyclopaedia it should also be pleasing to the eye, or it will be repulsive to readers.
Example, one paragraph:
or, two paragraphs:
You see the difference!
The example is related to music because I mostly do music related articles, but it's the same situation in any type of articles. For any questions or comments, please contact me! Death2 16:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right section, but as there are problems with stubs and stub-sorting, such as an article being categorized under several stubs (which can cause many different stub templates at the bottom of the page; example), requiring a lot of time and wasted resources, and different-sized images for stub templates (e.g. RC-stub image is much larger than India-stub image), I'm offering a suggestion:
I'm not sure if this is even possible programming-wise, but since all (or at least the great majority of) articles have categories, what if stubs were just signified in categories? The category pages maybe would then list the article with a bolded "s" similar to an "m" for minor edits or an "N" for new pages.
For example, Kinosaki District, Hyogo is under Category:Districts in Hyogo Prefecture, Category:Dissolved municipalities of Japan, and so on. On the category pages, Kinosaki District, Hyogo would have an s beside it to signify it's a stub. This way, instead of Hyogo location having its own stub page (Category:Hyogo geography stubs), categories themselves would show which articles are stubs.
This has several advantages:
Here, the dome of St. Peter's Basilica is almost three times as big as the flag of India. This is awkward, to say the least...
-- 3345345335534 03:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
But that is saving time, isn't it? Instead of categorizing an article under a certain stub, then coming back and adding categories to it, why don't you just add the categories then and there? Why list article "A" under stub "B" then come back and add category "B" when you can just add category "B" without first adding stub "B"?
For example: Applestone, it says he was a sculptor. I've added the {sculptor-stub} to it, and now its listed under Category:Sculptor stubs. All this is redundant, since I've also added Category:Australian sculptors to it. If I add the standard stub template, Category:Australian sculptors would then have an s beside Applestone to show it's a stub. People who look to expand stubs can just go to Category:Australian sculptors and look for the s, instead of going to Category:Sculptor stubs.
So essentially, you're just skipping the unnecessary step of categorizing the article under a stub. -- 3345345335534 16:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to get more involved in sorting, so I am attempting to learn to create approved templates - South Asian history in this case ({{ SAsia-hist-stub}}) but it doesn't seem to be working like it should according to the creation guide. Request backup, please. Aelfthrytha 01:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Question. If a stub could fit in more than one section, is it better to give it two stub tags, or choose one so that the page looks nicer? On the one hand, having two tags would help it get unstubbed faster, but on the downside it would ruin the page. -- Xhin 05:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there general consensus about top-sorting of stub (sub-)categories? If so, is there further agreement about whether we're using " " or "*" -- or indeed, anything else -- as the sort key (prefix)? I'll put in a weak vote for "*", and a strong vote for consistency either way. As the same applies to categories in general, I've also mooted this here. Alai 23:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to using two characters for multi-dimensional splits (and I can certainly think of some that need it), but I'd strongly prefer to have some guidance on which it should be, otherwise, and in my recent experience, it ends up getting changed, left inconsistent within a category, getting changed again, etc, and other such petty annoyances. Can't we just pick one? (And I did note, as a prefix; I didn't suggest it be used as the entire sortkey.) Alai 14:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Another entry in the contest to work out what WP:SC is an abbreviation for? Alai 15:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that Category:Articles with sections needing expansion has become very large. Could we put section stubs into different categories depending on the article they are in, like article stubs? SCHZMO ✍ 21:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
"Section stubs" aren't stubs. They are, as you point out, articles with sections that need expanding. As such, they're not dealt with by WP:WSS. Grutness... wha? 02:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
We have a template {{ Australia-university-stub}} and a category Category:Australia university stubs. Unfortunately, some (to use a local colloquialism) nong changed the name of th caategory on the template, so now there are 92 stubs swimming in a limbo called Category:Australian university stubs. I've reverted the template, but should we (a) null-edit the articles, or (b) rename the category? Grutness... wha? 12:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I have a question and I thought this might be the best place to ask. Is it acceptable to add a link to a WikiProject in a stub template? (eg. {{ digi-stub}}) Joelito 17:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Is this an offical cat or one that just happened to have been created? I think this is already covered by the offical Category:Hotel company stubs. Vegaswikian 02:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's a new toolserver tool, StubSense. Give it some random category, and it will list the most frequently used stubs for articles under that category. -- Interiot 02:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I've added a "list" feature, since I noticed that categories sometimes have many mis-sorted articles. For instance, looking at Category:Faculties by university in the United States, there were 29 articles with {{ academic-bio-stub}} and 27 articles with {{ US-academic-bio-stub}}. Most likely, most of the former could be sorted into the latter (I'll sort these now... it's just one of the clearest examples of category-level stub-sorting I've found). -- Interiot 21:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I was doing a bit of a tidy up on a random vlogger, BowieChick and was looking for some stub to throw on it. I found Template:Vlog-stub and the Category as shown above. However, vlog-stub has like 5 things in, and is probably too narrow a stub type. Whereas there doesn't seem to be a generic stub for bloggers is there? I could look further, but I really don't care much for blogs or blogging anyway, but would like to point this out to those stub fetishists who keep the WP running. - Hahnch e n 14:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Very many stubs lack pictures. Since the requested image procedure is underused (and, indeed, seems to be barely functioning) I have been working on a subcategorisation of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs by location, especially relevant for buildings, structures and places. Hopefully people will add their local area subcategory to their watchlist and keep an eye on it from time to time to see if they can help out. At the moment the system is in quite a basic form - the USA is subcategorised by state, everywhere else by country except Africa (likely to be broken down soon) and Antarctica. The trick to sorting an article in this way is to use {{ reqphotoin}} or {{ reqphotoin2}} in the article's talk page, for instance: {{Reqphotoin|Australia}} adds it to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Australia and {{Reqphotoin|Canada|the United States}} adds it to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Canada and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the United States. I am basically posting here for two reasons: (1) this sort of activity seems to be the thing that very many stub-sorters might enjoy, and (2) if stub-sorters did a little of this while stub-sorting (you're all likely to come across many articles fitting this description) that would be great too! If there is enough support it may even be worth setting up a dedicated WikiProject. Are there any stub-sorters who are interested in helping out with this task? Or others who wouldn't do it specifically, but may do a little whilst they are stub-sorting? TheGrappler 23:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Per the United Nations definition of Middle Africa, could {{Cameroon-geo-stub}} be made a subcategory of Category:Central Africa geography stubs in addition to Category:West Africa geography stubs? — BrianSmithson 22:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I've compiled a couple of lists "un-double-stubbed" articles from two of the oversized people stub-types: the UK- and US-bio-stubs. These are lists of articles that have no occupation or notability stub type, and no permanent category either (other than things like date of birth, death, the dreaded "living people", and various meta-categories). If anyone is stuck for something to do (as if!), they might take a batch of ten of those, double-stub (or perm-cat) them, and strike that block from one or other list. If this is a roaring success, I can upload similar lists for other categories, and of course if anyone has any input on the format, or the basis for generating them, please fire away. Alai 04:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Alai recently encouraged me to try AWB, and it seems like a pretty useful tool. Pardon me for asking a stupid question, but is there any easy way to use the find-and-replace feature to change an article from using one template to using two - e.g. from {{ SouthAm-footybio-stub}} to using both {{ Bolivia-stub}} and {{ SouthAm-footybio-stub}} ? My computer and I don't really agree on this one. Btw, don't bother fixing this example, btw, I'll do them by hand. Valentinian (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
When im putting a stub category in another category, what letter should it be in the alphabetical categorization? thanks, -- Urthogie 11:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Could anyone help me find a stub for rowing and/or boat races? I'm having problems finding where to look, before I propose one. thanks Mike 16:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to mentally compose some notes to add to the naming guidelines on current schemes, customs and practices, etc, etc, and it occurred to me: what to say about sportbio-stub, and children? Do we want to talk round that, and further systematise it as an exception, or should we rename the whole hierarchy in line with the more general -bio-stub scheme? I thought it better to flag this up here first, since you can be sure that nominating it as a SFR will produce the usual amount of reflexive "STRONG NO CHANGE WHATSOEVER, this is the way we've Always Done Things" votes. Alai 20:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey all, I just stumbled upon this: Kreis_Jarotschin and discovered there's a boatload of these things here: Category:Counties_of_Prussia. Some of these would be germany geo stubs, some would be poland geo stubs, and all of them are historical. I am soliciting suggestions on how to sort these. - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 16:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious about something. Do stub categories really attract experts to expand articles? Does anyone really look at the stub category pages for articles to work on? Or is it more just a tag to alert readers that the subject may not be complete? - Freekee 04:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
...is busted. It was pointing to Category:Stubs, which flooded that cat, and now it's pointing to the non-existent Category:Mascot stubs. Would a maven plz fix it? - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 18:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
What criteria are involved in deciding whether or not an article is a stub? Wikipedia articles are obviously not all the same length: a famous world politician is going to merit several pages, whilst a minor 15th century composer about whom little is known may be worth an entry in Wikipedia but is never going to make it beyond a "stub". Yet the "stub" tag will remain there for ever because the short paragraph is really all that is commonly known about him. Does this matter? Hikitsurisan 06:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned with the use of male icons in bio-stub messages, which are both androcentric and reinforce stereotypes. For instance, it seems to say that the person depicted in the image is what a "typical" Korean or "typical" American politician looks like, and reinforces the idea that women are a less perfect representation of a group than a man (in the same way that "man" used to be used to represent everyone). My suggestion is to prohibit the use of images of people in bio-stub templates. Sarge Baldy 18:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys,
after fixing {{ Italy-politician-stub}} I have noticed that all the other templates in the European Politicians category have similar problems. Many of them diverge into their own style, with variations in italicization and/or image size. Would you mind if I factored out all the common code and made each template just forward to the master one? Note that all these templates are already meta-templates, so factoring out common code can only improve consistency and make maintenance easier. — Gennaro Prota •Talk 12:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
'
characters when removing
and then found an unmatched ''
at the end, which I removed as well, thinking I had introduced it. Oh, let me also suggest to never let you frighten by someone's appearant competence: it could be completely false. I can explain what's going on, there's no need to believe me "on faith" :)
solution is faulty because it adds a space before the first word *only*; thus if you make the browser window small enough you'll get something like:
This article is a
stub belonging to the following categories:
| |
You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
V is right about his estimate being low: 400,000 would be closer. GP's correct on the SE principals, but there's no way this could be implemented using meta-templates: every time the master were edited, the server would fall over for a week (and the perpetrator would be banned for a year). The only way to do this would be do maintain a centralised list of template parameters, and when a change is to be made, to propagate it to the individual templates in a gradual fashion, by bot. Even that would have to be very tightly controlled, as a single stub template edit could be very "expensive" (bear in mind that UK-bio-stub is transcluded 3,000 times), which is likely far too much "democratic centralism" for the tastes of our numerous critics. Continued semi-controlled quasi-consensual anarchy is far more likely to be the order of the day for the foreseeable future. Alai 01:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is not a typo. I think a completely different approach should be used for stub marking. The current situation is a total mess where even experienced users find it difficult to choose the appropriate stub tag(s) for a given article. Actually, we already have categories, so why having "stub categories"?. If an article is, let's say, an Italy-related article and it is a stub then it is, as a plain logical consequence, an "Italy-related stub". Therefore, MediaWiki should manage everything. We should only mark the article as stub and the software should provide a way to browse either all stub articles or all stubs by categories. And it could use a special symbol (let's say [stub] or [s] to indicate stubs in categories pages. The current "solution" is absolutely unmaintainable and error-prone and wastes everyone time. — Gennaro Prota •Talk 17:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
-- (gp)= Gennaro Prota •Talk 12:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not "inventing rationales"; please assume good faith. I've also no idea what you mean by your reply to my second point; I think I've demonstrated that the issues are far from "trivial", but as you don't address any of my points, further comment would seem, well, pointless. Alai 14:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
You haven't addressed the main concern - which is the viability of stub categories on the basis of size. You may look on it as inventing a rationale, but it is the main single reason why stub sorting exists. Otherwise we'd have done it by the method you suggest or similar ages ago. There is simply no point in calculating and marking stubs in cases where there may be one or two stubs per category. The whole purpose of stub sorting is to help editors to find stub articles that they can expand. To do that, it is no use to list the one or two stubs per category that need sorting - it is far more useful; to have reasonable numbers of stubs assembled into one place. Stub sorting does that by creating categories only when the number of stubs hits a reasonable threshold and splitting these categories only when the number of stubs becomes excessive. That can't be done by the methods you suggest, which is why similar suggestions have been rejected in the past. Look at it this way. You're an editor looking for stubs to expand. You might be able to expand 1/10 of the stubs around in a moderately broad subject area. Which is easier - to look through a category containing 100 stubs, picking out the ten or so you can work on, or looking through five to ten main categories each of which have one or two stubs before even finding one that you can edit? Grutness... wha? 01:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a proposal to use per-month trancluded pages for WP:WSS/P, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/June 2006. Hopefully this will simplify archiving and reduce the size of the page you load when editing.
Another proposal is to change logging scheme for WP:SFD. Currently, closed discussions are cut-and-pasted to the logs. What about transcluded per-week logs? I think that per-day logs (similar to WP:CFD) would be clearly too short (sometimes there are 0-1 nominations per day). Per-month logs, on the other hand, are going to be too long (about the combined size of these two). We can also create templates similar to {{ cfd top}} and {{ cfd bottom}} to mark closed discussions. Conscious 07:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, is there any sense it {{ sfd top}} and {{ sfd bottom}} if one has to move discussions to logs anyway? I mean, the discussion is closed if and only if it's been moved to the log. Conscious 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The reason I think they'd be useful is because of the number of times that discussions have been moved down to "old business" and been ready to deal with, then someone comes along and adds further comments. Most of the time the extra comment isn't helpful (some times, if it's a close call it may tip the scales one way or the other, but usually it makes no difference at all). Grutness... wha? 01:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
What about three-day logs, by way of an admittedly arbitrary compromise between the possibly-too-short per-day, and the possibly-too-long week? Alai 18:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
/Log/{{CURRENTMONTH}}/Period {{#expr:({{CURRENTDAY}}+1)/3 round 0}}
or something along those lines?
Alai 11:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Yes, a good consideration is needed. For example, a list to watch shouldn't contain newest entries (newer that 2 months, for example) or should just be sorted by date of creation. I'm just throwing in an idea, maybe there's a way to get /D straight. Conscious 14:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
On third thoughts, I'm inclined to say that we should actually go with per-day transclusion and logging. It's potentially slightly more work, but equally one should be able to do a number "at one gulp" pretty readily, without the complication of a whole week being held up by one "problem case". Alai 03:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
We seem to have stalled somewhat: I suggest we implement some version of this, starting on the 1st August. If I'm left to my own devices, naturally it'll be done my way... I'll leave a note at WT:SFD, too. Alai 22:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
What do we think of the above? The coding looks dodgy to me, given the unclosed div tag, and I'm not too sure about the visual appearance, but the general idea seems to be on the lines of something we've been discussing for a while. The main stumbling block seems to be that unless we start messing around with the coding of the stub types themselves, or duplicating same, there's still the same amount of spamming with redundant information (this is a stub; please expand; yadda). If anyone has any bright ideas on how to improve... Alai 01:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I hestitate to do this, since we've plenty to do as things stand, but... Preliminary poking around in the db dump indicates over 10,000 very short articles not tagged as stubs. I'm going to try to produce a cleaned-up list, possibly after the next en. db dump, but before I do so I thought I'd better check a) are people ready for the shock, and b) exactly what criteria should be used? Bluemoose was previously using a size threshold of 350 bytes; I'll use the same, unless someone has strong preference otherwise. He was also excluding any page with a template inclusion; I'm more likely to exclude on the basis of category membership. In particular, anything that looks like a disambiguation page, copyright violation tagee, deletion or wiktionary candidate. More marginal would be categories indicating a lack of sources, expansion request, merger, cleanup, incomplete lists, wikification, context, verification, and importance. I'll include or exclude these or the basis of whatever feedback I get here. Alai 03:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Further investigation indicates about 7,500 of these without any categorisation, so that aspect's something of a nicety: plenty to be going on with, possibly excessively so. I won't upload those for the time being unless there's a major clamour, as it's by this stage about 12 days out of date, and I don't want to get a pile of hate-mail about whipping you into a frenzy of action(?) on the basis of possibly dud info (though I'd be surprised if it's changed that much). My crystal ball's a little misty as to when the next en. db dump will be (and no-one on meta is letting on); presumably not until after a de. dump has finished, which itself will take a number of days, and it's not yet begun; but I won't in any event be downloading it before the 7th. Alai 00:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
All hands to the pumps! Category:Stubs is back to almost 400 articles... Grutness... wha? 06:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Seems that User:220.253.3.186 has discovered a new way to vandalise using stub templates. Have a look at this. To paraphrase the great Alexei Sayle, "Stub templates are very important to this story - see how many you can spot!" Grutness... wha? 08:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion at the pump about a mysterious glitch with stub icons has produced the answer to a question I've wondered about for a while. It'll be worth keeping an eye out for any other icons that have this problem!:
Putting the politics and economics stubs together indents the second one. Is this attributable to the size of one of the graphics?
RyanEberhart 01:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The template {{ GuantanamoBay-detainee-stub}} is quite long, well over one line on my small screen. Ideas on shortening it are appreciated. - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 15:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks persistently fried. Anybody know what's up? - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 00:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
There is an active discussion at Template talk:Stub about changing the way stub templates are worded (originally the suggestion was to change all references to the word "stub", but that seems to - thankfully - have died down. The gist of it is that templates saying "This article is a stub" are not instantly understood by casual editors, who would be far more likely to understand something like "This article is short and undeveloped". Input from more of the old hands would be welcome! :) Grutness... wha? 08:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Since I know how heavy a use this WPmakes of them, I thought I shouid point this out: [3] (For those who don't know, Brion is the Wikimedia Chief Technical guy...) - SoM 10:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I was searching for a stub template name recently and it took a while to find it. I had a look for something like category:stub templates (like in our Turkish Wiki) but found nothing. I went to #wikipedia on IRC, had a chat and they proposed to ask a bot to do some work...
If one analyses for example Category:Animal stubs one needs maybe one Category:Animal stub templates category for all those stub templates listet there but it would be nice to have a bot do it because it may be way too much work to add a <noinclude>[[Category:stub templates]]</noinclude> (or even sub categories) to every single stub template. Any ideas? -- katpatuka 10:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
We have {{ Stub Category}} and {{ regional stub category}} to provide some basic boilerplate for categories. I'd like to propose a third {{ Biography Stub Category}} to provide boilerplate that would be appropriate for all the stub biography categories. I have a proposed version at User:Caerwine/Template:Biography Stub Category that in addition to what {{ Stub Category}} does, includes text recommending the three basic categories all biographical articles should ideally have, year of birth, year of death/not dead yet, and what they are. Any thought for either possible improvement or abandoning this idea? Caerwine Caerwhine 01:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Over on the Commons they have a category commons:Category:Stub pictures that has some nice pics that people might find useful for stub templates, especially the ones that mix a picture with a wiki puzzle piece. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should have a designated place for "noting" that a stub type is undersized. At present, if a stub type is already on the list, or has been proposed, or has already survived an SFD, it's not really a "discovery" any more, though we could use that page regardless certainly; or else a section on the todo page (long-standing undersized types). I suggest this as it seems that often we take a "tiny" type to SFD, whereupon it's either populated, there's suggestions we might wait and see if it grows, or else there's protestations that it's soon to be. A less formal process might have similar effects, and perhaps with less agro on occasion. Alai 22:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, reversing myself yet again, {{ popcat}} pretty much covers this. On the other hand, might it be worthwhile splitting out the stub types, say with {{ popstub}}? (With associated category, which one could of course then request to be populated...) Alai 22:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
We have a mess here, especially in, but not limited to, UK and US stub types. I'd like to suggest the following additions to the naming guidelines.
Anyway, this is nice and straightforward, and I hope it will attract the support of others. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
My argument is simply this: Abolish stub types. Articles would be tagged as stubs by any user, either just like they are now (eg {{stub}} appearing in the code) or perhaps by some other mechanism, such as Flickr-like tagging (see folksonomy). Then the articles would be able to be listed as stubs under the category (or categories) the article has had applied to it. If no category has been applied to the article then it will appear under an 'uncategorised' stub list.
This simply removes the problem of thousands of stub types doesn't it? reinthal 07:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Can people explain exactly what their rationale, and exact criteria for "guessable" stub category names are? Who is being assumed to be doing the guessing, and on the basis for what body of knowledge? People working from the particular permanent category? Other stub categories? One or other naming conventions page? Without further elucidation I don't know what "guessable" category name is supposed to be, much less why they're desirable, in particular above and beyond other desidirata. Alai 06:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
As you can see from the To Do page, we're not getting too far with stub sorting and indeed seem to be going backwards with every update bringing progressively more categories and stubs. Is there any way to fix this other than just "sort more"? Crystallina 18:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I have worked with a few individuals to form a project to eliminate poor stubs and duplicate content in favor of more comprehensive articles. I agree some articles will always be "stub" in size, but those that are suspect to development in more than 1 article for the same subject matter should be merged, and maybe split off again when deemed necessary.
Cwolfsheep 23:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
is a quad stub. k zz * 21:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I've made a request for approval for a bot-task for replacing double tags with "consolidated" stub types. With luck, this will help somewhat with the re-sorting backlog, though it certainly won't be a complete solution by any means. Alai 04:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Talking of bot requests for approval, please note this. In extremis, what this could be is a stub-un-sorting bot, but what it really illustrates is the confused thinking about the whole "Stub-class" thing. Is "Stub-class" the same as "stub", or not? We were unable to get a straight and consistent answer to that when the question arose at SFD, with at least one person arguing to keep the two categories separate on the basis of being different (without really defining how, or addressing the issue of terminological confusion). This sounds like a possible trainwreck. Alai 16:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I've identified this project as a candidate for material to be analyzed by Wikipedia Integration methodology. Please feel welcome to offer suggestions and feedback. WP:ʃ Cwolfsheep 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
As well as merging double tags on stubs, I've also started using my bot to restub some articles on the basis of their permanent category, and parent stub type. See the current contents of Category:Non-profit organization stubs. This method might not find the most appropriate possible stub type, but it should at least find a notionally appropriate stub type. I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on this approach, and on what instances (if any, of course) they think it's appropriate to do this on, etc. Alai 03:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I've just created a new WPSS template for use at the top of category and template talk pages. occasionally WPSS has been tripped up by not knowing about discussion taking place on a template or category's talk page... hopefully {{ WPSS-talk}} will reduce the chance of that happening in future. Grutness... wha? 06:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Would someone mind generating some support for your award? Otherwise the proposal will get archived. -- evrik 15:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think a lot of us have had the impression that it was always better to use very "light" stub images due to potential load problems with the image servers. This post from WP:VPT (Village Pump, Technical) says that this is not a problem at all, since the image is rendered only once. Apparently, we can use any type of stub image that we like.
(copied from a post with the same headline)
Q: Are some images more processing-intensive than others? I was under the impression that image resizing and rendering was done only once (say, the first time an image is requested at ##px), so even if complex svg rendering is required, it wouldn't particularly matter. However, a user has expressed concern that some large images should not be used for stub templates because of their high server load. Is there truth to this? ~ Booya Bazooka 14:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
So at least that is one less concern. :) Valentinian (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Image size for stub icons has never been about server load (although whether there are images or not was). Icon images are kept small primarily because having large images in a stub template draws too much attention to it and away from the article. That's the reason why a small clear stub icon is always preferable to a large clear one, especially when the image is vertical, since that is more likely to take several line widths - which beomes a problem when there is more than one template. Grutness... wha? 09:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Does it say anywhere that stub templates should not be subst'ed? I've had a user telling me that I should be subst'ing all stub templates. If there is an official policy on this, I think it should be put on the project page. -- Bruce1ee 11:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Alai made a comment about how this WikiProject is no fun, so I was wondering if there could be informal titles or something. Something like a leadership council, but without actual responsibilities. Alai already suggested one title: Stub Approval Group Moderator Director For Life [4]
Just something fun to think about. *shrug* ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
See {{ Maintenance}}, and weep. It's probably not SFDable, either, as it's not just a stub template. (The technical term, to paraphrase Slavoj Žižek, would be "nightmare".) Alai 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Category:British royalty stubs says it is for stubs relating to British royalty - however, only actual royals are currently in it. Can I add members of royal households and courtiers, etc? Dev920 12:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make sense for stub tags to be displayed on yellow backgrounds, just as page tags are? It would seperate them from the article, look smarter on the bottom of each page, and would make them more prominent to the eye. Crimsone 20:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
A further thought - I notye that {{ Aviation-stub}} uses grey text rather than black to separate it from the main body of the text. (This was never proposed, it seems, but still... ). Perhaps a similar thing could be done with other stubt emplates. Admittedly it's a bit too grey at the moment, but perhaps something like this would work? Grutness... wha? 01:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to propose that articles be placed in categories at the same time they are stub sorted. For example, if an article tagged with {{ stub}} is sorted to {{ US-novelist-stub}}, which places it in Category:American novelist stubs, that article would also simultaneously be placed in Category:American novelists. The former categorization will disappear when the stub tag is removed. But the later category should stay, so its placement cannot be part of the stub template. Please let me know what you think and how to best implement this. Thanks! — Reinyday, 23:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is the right place for this, but at least some people will see it. I saw some stub templates with a parameter, and realized that could be used as a sortkey for the categories. Of course this would require changing all the stub types (or just biological, since those should usually have sortkeys for their other categories). The appropriate section would be changed to (for {{
bio-stub}})
[[Category:People stubs<includeonly>{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{!}}{{{1}}}|}}</includeonly><noinclude>| </noinclude>]] (for some reason using | didn't work).
TimBentley
(talk) 02:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I notice that Instantnood has added an extra parameter to {{ Stub Category}} to cater for this, which assumes that the sort key is indeed parameter #1. As noted above, I think this is pointless at best, and potentially confusing. In fact, there's been a lot of hither-and-yon edits on this template. As this is used about on about 2,500 categories, it's probably well into "high risk template" territory, and we should probably think about protecting it on that basis. Alai 18:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should systematically employ either {{ CatDiffuse}}, or some bespoke equivalent, on "once and future oversized" stub categories. I don't know if people pay any attention to these things, but it might be worth a shot. A more far-reaching version would be to modify the templates to indicate they should be replaced by something more specific, though in such cases we'd have to make sure that in every case there was a suitable sub-type that would be applicable. An interesting existing example: {{ football-stub}}. In addition, we should probably be more systematic in out use of {{ verylargestub}}. Alai 03:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd more usually stick something to this effect on the /To do page, but "actor stubs still oversized and need sorting" isn't exactly in the "news" department. Specifically, I think I've "diffused" these as much as is possible on current data. The good(ish) news is that the actors and US actors are down to five pages, and the UK actors down to seven pages (I think the last may not be as well-categorised as the others). Caveats would be that these have been moved in several directions at once, so there's lots of stubs that probably ought to be double-stubbed according to specific medium and nationality combos that have not, and that the judgements as to "primary" medium are rather crude: I've moved anything with both a film and TV category (but not a stage) to "-screen-", and anything with only one of those two to that stub type; the "stage" types don't look viable on that basis. The bad news is, first as I said I may not be able to do much more, short of a manual slog through each of those parents, dealing with the cases that have either too little categorisation, or "too much". And secondly, that this is going to make types like UK-tv-actor- worse and worse from here... Alai 01:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone is feeling at a loose end: I've compiled lists of UK actors allegedly of big screen, small screen, and stage and of none of the above. Obviously tagging the former with all three, or with "-screen-" and "-stage-" rather defeats the purpose of the exercise, while there's no category clue what to do with the latter at all. So per-article inspection and re-sorting required. (Feel free to delete chunks of the pages if you do a "batch".) Alai 06:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to say this, but I find it a little POV to associate a Ying-yang with martial arts. I mean, chinese people weren't obsessed with ying-yangs and korean people didn't even know what they were until the rest of the world did. Assosiating a ying-yang with martial arts is like putting the american flag on a category called "smart people". After all, we have pretty smart people. How long is it until that is not a biased, POV statement? Has anyone realised Taekwondo is more popular than Karate? An image associated with chinese popular culture does not belong on a category full of martial arts stubs. Daniel_123 | Talk 13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm rather boggled that yet another bot proposal has shown up to create talk-page spam on an industrial scale, announcing that stubs are (coincidentally enough!) "stub-class articles" -- whodathunkit, hrm? And what's more, this one has already been bot-flagged, and has made over 150,000 such edits already. No wonder the db dumps are getting larger and slower, that's probably almost as many new talk pages that have been created, with remarkably little information content. This is admittedly benign to stub-sorting per se, as it's making no automated changes to existing stub templates, but isn't the duplication getting a little ridiculous at this point? If these things are essentially the same, why do we need two parallel structures, and if they're crucially different, why does mass-duplication of current contents make any sense? Alai 05:50, 28 August 2006 (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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
We have once again achieved full stub sorting. Currently, only those stubs that are candidate for deletion are under the category of stubs. We should keep up the tempo so that the number of articles in this category restrict to a bare minimun. - Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 13:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
overnight we seem to have got about 800 new stubs! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a little boggling to have so many show up so quickly. Anyone worked out "where" they've come from? Are people like the above nay-saying anon, and those on SPUI's "petition", not using any sort of sorted type? Or... hrm, I notice quite a number of them are being automatically stub-tagged as very short, by User:Bluebot. Perhaps a case of what AWB maketh easier with the right hand, gives us more to do with the left! Alai 17:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The Japanese Mythology Project has created {{ Japan-myth-stub}} as per the proposal page (there was no opposition). I hope this is the correct forum to announce this. Please have a look and make sure it is properly sorted in the stub tree. Thanks! — BrianSmithson 17:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm at my wits end with this one, and any help is *very* welcome. The stub template seems to work ok, but the category seems to bundle all stubs in one giant heap instead of sorting them by A, B, C etc. Both stub and category were modelled over similar stubs that worked well, so I really don't understand what's gone wrong here. Have any of you seen this one before? Valentinian (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[[Category:South American politician stubs| ]]
) Categories appear to be indexed by sort key, not numerically, so anything beyond the first 200 is (temporarily) "lost".[[Category:South American politician stubs]]
. I believe that you don't need to do the null edits to all articles now.
Conscious 05:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I realize there are some people still enamoured of the quaint notion that there should only be one stub tag on each article, but I wonder if we should go further with our guidance on double-stubbing people. Almost every biographical stub should really have both a nationality stub-tag, and a type relating to their main notability, generally an occupation. Indeed, the whole biography hierarchy is organised on those two bases. Single-stubbing of people leads to inconsistency, where some people are only classified along one axis, and others only along another; and makes subsequent resorting or resplitting harder (for example the scads of US-bios that are actors, military, politicians, businesspeople, but not tagged as such, or likewise for existing occupation stubs not yet split out by country). Would anyone else be in favour of adding this as an open task/strategic objective here, and delicately hinting at WP:STUB that it's not such a bad idea? Alai 05:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea for any stub supercategory that has been split orthogonally. I'm having difficulty keeping track of struct-stubs by nationality because the continent-struct-stubs keep being replaced rather than augmented with things like stadium-stub and bridge-struct-stub. Double-stubbing in these cases is a very important measure IMHO. Grutness... wha? 08:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
A new stub type going through the proper proposal procedure requires consensus to create. However, AFAIK, a stub type that was not created after going through the proper channels requires consensus to delete once it is "discovered". This seems a little perverse - effectively, it means that a borderline case of a malformed or unnecessary stub type increases its chances of survival by avoiding the proper channels. Obviously AFD, CFD etc should always require consensus to delete. Stub types for deletion is different because there's no obligation to ask for permission before creating a new article or category; stub types are only useful because there is a hierarchy and system that they should slot into. Would it be sensible for there to be a reversed burden of consensus for deletion (i.e. consensus is required to keep) for a stub type that skipped the proposals page? TheGrappler 14:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It's somewhat perverse, yes, and certainly creates perverse incentives. Probably the only things that stop this from happening more is that, a) it'd be a shedload of work to do this on a large scale, and heartbreaking to have it all reverted (as people are never slow to poiint out after they've done so unilaterally); and b) surprisingly, most people are in fact not complete jerks, and are likely to make a good faith attempt to make nice with the stub-sorting project, where what they're going is indeed stub-sorting.
I suspect it'd be problematic to change. Stub creation is governed by "mere guidelines" (in the form of the WP:STUB page), and an even merer Wikiproject, in the form of this page-cluster -- and some people find even that much excessively burdensome. Deletion, OTOH, is a matter of policy. Establishing a "consensus to keep" standard on SFD would require we either on the one hand, make a formal policy proposal (and wait for the fur to fly); or, change it after only local discussion and consensus (among "the stub people"), then start implementing it (and then wait for the fur to fly even higher).
I'm not sure we've ever defined in numeric terms what our consensus threshold is to be. I know at times I've been seriously tempted to "re-weight" votes (to the detriment of the creator, their chums, and other "keep it because I both like it and find it useful, and I have to Perfect Right(TM) to 'vote' to ignore guidelines"). OTOH, the people closing the debate are generally the same people arguing adamantly to delete the things in the first place, so that risks looking over-cosy if done too liberally.
On balance, I'd favour we do one of the following. Firstly, we could "policify" WP:STUB, modifying or refactoring as necessary, to put that and SFD on more of an even footing, and establishing that the naming conventions, and the size criteria have that force. (I'd suggest we not try to make the Proposals page "mandatory", as people will probably see that as especially "unwiki", and personally, I think that if an unproposed stub is otherwise fine, we've nothing to complain about anyway.) Secondly (and either alternatively or additionally) we (try to) could establish speedy criteria to back up some of the more common problems, like undersized and obviously misnamed types. If we end up with the situation that unproposed and obviously problematic stub types can be deleted and renamed -- despite the "creator and chums" effect, and speedily or otherwise -- I'd be satisfied either way. Alai 06:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Many MEP stubs can be expanded using the web site of the MEP. See [1], [2] and the MEP's group site. For a list of already expanded articles, see here.
Tried and failed to find a stub category for this article: Stop, drop and roll. Ideas, anyone? - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 02:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
It's inevitable this will happen occasionally, due to the somewhat "bottom up" way stub types are created, as against the main category system. If we had higher-level types like "safety-stub" or "health-stub" (which do have perm-cat equivalents), which in theory would normally consist entirely of sub-types, we'd have greater coverage of cases like this. I suspect they're not that uncommon, but the "majority of the minority" that would ideally have a more general type are crowbarred into a more specific one without too much of the old Procrustes being employed.
It should be noted that the main cats are not without their 'issues' at the higher levels; if one asks, "what articles are underneath each of the 'top ten' categories", the answer is "all of them, under each". And that's to say nothing of inclusion loops. But that's another day's -- and another wikiproject's -- work. Alai 03:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The stub list is rather long, so I went creating a more compact list of all stubs, with only the specific relevant information needed to use them: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/List of stubs. → A z a Toth 19:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yet another list to keep updated. It's also unreadably wide. Can we get rid of it, please? Alai 21:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Is this an actual policy of wikipedia or a guideline? I see nothing that indicates that this is anything more than a project that editors may or may not choose to follow. The process of proposing a new stub cat seems a bit red tape-ish. Please point out the errors in my logic. Cheers. youngamerican ( talk) 17:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to ask other users (stub sorting users) if they could view my proposal, change it a bit, and put it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting#Stub sorting methods Genereal Rules.
I have added this because stubs added one line after the text, are very close to the text, and it's easier to read if it is a bit spaced. This is simply for esthetic purposes, though this is an encyclopaedia it should also be pleasing to the eye, or it will be repulsive to readers.
Example, one paragraph:
or, two paragraphs:
You see the difference!
The example is related to music because I mostly do music related articles, but it's the same situation in any type of articles. For any questions or comments, please contact me! Death2 16:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right section, but as there are problems with stubs and stub-sorting, such as an article being categorized under several stubs (which can cause many different stub templates at the bottom of the page; example), requiring a lot of time and wasted resources, and different-sized images for stub templates (e.g. RC-stub image is much larger than India-stub image), I'm offering a suggestion:
I'm not sure if this is even possible programming-wise, but since all (or at least the great majority of) articles have categories, what if stubs were just signified in categories? The category pages maybe would then list the article with a bolded "s" similar to an "m" for minor edits or an "N" for new pages.
For example, Kinosaki District, Hyogo is under Category:Districts in Hyogo Prefecture, Category:Dissolved municipalities of Japan, and so on. On the category pages, Kinosaki District, Hyogo would have an s beside it to signify it's a stub. This way, instead of Hyogo location having its own stub page (Category:Hyogo geography stubs), categories themselves would show which articles are stubs.
This has several advantages:
Here, the dome of St. Peter's Basilica is almost three times as big as the flag of India. This is awkward, to say the least...
-- 3345345335534 03:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
But that is saving time, isn't it? Instead of categorizing an article under a certain stub, then coming back and adding categories to it, why don't you just add the categories then and there? Why list article "A" under stub "B" then come back and add category "B" when you can just add category "B" without first adding stub "B"?
For example: Applestone, it says he was a sculptor. I've added the {sculptor-stub} to it, and now its listed under Category:Sculptor stubs. All this is redundant, since I've also added Category:Australian sculptors to it. If I add the standard stub template, Category:Australian sculptors would then have an s beside Applestone to show it's a stub. People who look to expand stubs can just go to Category:Australian sculptors and look for the s, instead of going to Category:Sculptor stubs.
So essentially, you're just skipping the unnecessary step of categorizing the article under a stub. -- 3345345335534 16:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to get more involved in sorting, so I am attempting to learn to create approved templates - South Asian history in this case ({{ SAsia-hist-stub}}) but it doesn't seem to be working like it should according to the creation guide. Request backup, please. Aelfthrytha 01:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Question. If a stub could fit in more than one section, is it better to give it two stub tags, or choose one so that the page looks nicer? On the one hand, having two tags would help it get unstubbed faster, but on the downside it would ruin the page. -- Xhin 05:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there general consensus about top-sorting of stub (sub-)categories? If so, is there further agreement about whether we're using " " or "*" -- or indeed, anything else -- as the sort key (prefix)? I'll put in a weak vote for "*", and a strong vote for consistency either way. As the same applies to categories in general, I've also mooted this here. Alai 23:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to using two characters for multi-dimensional splits (and I can certainly think of some that need it), but I'd strongly prefer to have some guidance on which it should be, otherwise, and in my recent experience, it ends up getting changed, left inconsistent within a category, getting changed again, etc, and other such petty annoyances. Can't we just pick one? (And I did note, as a prefix; I didn't suggest it be used as the entire sortkey.) Alai 14:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Another entry in the contest to work out what WP:SC is an abbreviation for? Alai 15:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that Category:Articles with sections needing expansion has become very large. Could we put section stubs into different categories depending on the article they are in, like article stubs? SCHZMO ✍ 21:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
"Section stubs" aren't stubs. They are, as you point out, articles with sections that need expanding. As such, they're not dealt with by WP:WSS. Grutness... wha? 02:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
We have a template {{ Australia-university-stub}} and a category Category:Australia university stubs. Unfortunately, some (to use a local colloquialism) nong changed the name of th caategory on the template, so now there are 92 stubs swimming in a limbo called Category:Australian university stubs. I've reverted the template, but should we (a) null-edit the articles, or (b) rename the category? Grutness... wha? 12:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I have a question and I thought this might be the best place to ask. Is it acceptable to add a link to a WikiProject in a stub template? (eg. {{ digi-stub}}) Joelito 17:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Is this an offical cat or one that just happened to have been created? I think this is already covered by the offical Category:Hotel company stubs. Vegaswikian 02:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's a new toolserver tool, StubSense. Give it some random category, and it will list the most frequently used stubs for articles under that category. -- Interiot 02:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I've added a "list" feature, since I noticed that categories sometimes have many mis-sorted articles. For instance, looking at Category:Faculties by university in the United States, there were 29 articles with {{ academic-bio-stub}} and 27 articles with {{ US-academic-bio-stub}}. Most likely, most of the former could be sorted into the latter (I'll sort these now... it's just one of the clearest examples of category-level stub-sorting I've found). -- Interiot 21:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I was doing a bit of a tidy up on a random vlogger, BowieChick and was looking for some stub to throw on it. I found Template:Vlog-stub and the Category as shown above. However, vlog-stub has like 5 things in, and is probably too narrow a stub type. Whereas there doesn't seem to be a generic stub for bloggers is there? I could look further, but I really don't care much for blogs or blogging anyway, but would like to point this out to those stub fetishists who keep the WP running. - Hahnch e n 14:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Very many stubs lack pictures. Since the requested image procedure is underused (and, indeed, seems to be barely functioning) I have been working on a subcategorisation of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs by location, especially relevant for buildings, structures and places. Hopefully people will add their local area subcategory to their watchlist and keep an eye on it from time to time to see if they can help out. At the moment the system is in quite a basic form - the USA is subcategorised by state, everywhere else by country except Africa (likely to be broken down soon) and Antarctica. The trick to sorting an article in this way is to use {{ reqphotoin}} or {{ reqphotoin2}} in the article's talk page, for instance: {{Reqphotoin|Australia}} adds it to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Australia and {{Reqphotoin|Canada|the United States}} adds it to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Canada and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the United States. I am basically posting here for two reasons: (1) this sort of activity seems to be the thing that very many stub-sorters might enjoy, and (2) if stub-sorters did a little of this while stub-sorting (you're all likely to come across many articles fitting this description) that would be great too! If there is enough support it may even be worth setting up a dedicated WikiProject. Are there any stub-sorters who are interested in helping out with this task? Or others who wouldn't do it specifically, but may do a little whilst they are stub-sorting? TheGrappler 23:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Per the United Nations definition of Middle Africa, could {{Cameroon-geo-stub}} be made a subcategory of Category:Central Africa geography stubs in addition to Category:West Africa geography stubs? — BrianSmithson 22:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I've compiled a couple of lists "un-double-stubbed" articles from two of the oversized people stub-types: the UK- and US-bio-stubs. These are lists of articles that have no occupation or notability stub type, and no permanent category either (other than things like date of birth, death, the dreaded "living people", and various meta-categories). If anyone is stuck for something to do (as if!), they might take a batch of ten of those, double-stub (or perm-cat) them, and strike that block from one or other list. If this is a roaring success, I can upload similar lists for other categories, and of course if anyone has any input on the format, or the basis for generating them, please fire away. Alai 04:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Alai recently encouraged me to try AWB, and it seems like a pretty useful tool. Pardon me for asking a stupid question, but is there any easy way to use the find-and-replace feature to change an article from using one template to using two - e.g. from {{ SouthAm-footybio-stub}} to using both {{ Bolivia-stub}} and {{ SouthAm-footybio-stub}} ? My computer and I don't really agree on this one. Btw, don't bother fixing this example, btw, I'll do them by hand. Valentinian (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
When im putting a stub category in another category, what letter should it be in the alphabetical categorization? thanks, -- Urthogie 11:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Could anyone help me find a stub for rowing and/or boat races? I'm having problems finding where to look, before I propose one. thanks Mike 16:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to mentally compose some notes to add to the naming guidelines on current schemes, customs and practices, etc, etc, and it occurred to me: what to say about sportbio-stub, and children? Do we want to talk round that, and further systematise it as an exception, or should we rename the whole hierarchy in line with the more general -bio-stub scheme? I thought it better to flag this up here first, since you can be sure that nominating it as a SFR will produce the usual amount of reflexive "STRONG NO CHANGE WHATSOEVER, this is the way we've Always Done Things" votes. Alai 20:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey all, I just stumbled upon this: Kreis_Jarotschin and discovered there's a boatload of these things here: Category:Counties_of_Prussia. Some of these would be germany geo stubs, some would be poland geo stubs, and all of them are historical. I am soliciting suggestions on how to sort these. - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 16:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious about something. Do stub categories really attract experts to expand articles? Does anyone really look at the stub category pages for articles to work on? Or is it more just a tag to alert readers that the subject may not be complete? - Freekee 04:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
...is busted. It was pointing to Category:Stubs, which flooded that cat, and now it's pointing to the non-existent Category:Mascot stubs. Would a maven plz fix it? - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 18:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
What criteria are involved in deciding whether or not an article is a stub? Wikipedia articles are obviously not all the same length: a famous world politician is going to merit several pages, whilst a minor 15th century composer about whom little is known may be worth an entry in Wikipedia but is never going to make it beyond a "stub". Yet the "stub" tag will remain there for ever because the short paragraph is really all that is commonly known about him. Does this matter? Hikitsurisan 06:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned with the use of male icons in bio-stub messages, which are both androcentric and reinforce stereotypes. For instance, it seems to say that the person depicted in the image is what a "typical" Korean or "typical" American politician looks like, and reinforces the idea that women are a less perfect representation of a group than a man (in the same way that "man" used to be used to represent everyone). My suggestion is to prohibit the use of images of people in bio-stub templates. Sarge Baldy 18:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys,
after fixing {{ Italy-politician-stub}} I have noticed that all the other templates in the European Politicians category have similar problems. Many of them diverge into their own style, with variations in italicization and/or image size. Would you mind if I factored out all the common code and made each template just forward to the master one? Note that all these templates are already meta-templates, so factoring out common code can only improve consistency and make maintenance easier. — Gennaro Prota •Talk 12:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
'
characters when removing
and then found an unmatched ''
at the end, which I removed as well, thinking I had introduced it. Oh, let me also suggest to never let you frighten by someone's appearant competence: it could be completely false. I can explain what's going on, there's no need to believe me "on faith" :)
solution is faulty because it adds a space before the first word *only*; thus if you make the browser window small enough you'll get something like:
This article is a
stub belonging to the following categories:
| |
You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
V is right about his estimate being low: 400,000 would be closer. GP's correct on the SE principals, but there's no way this could be implemented using meta-templates: every time the master were edited, the server would fall over for a week (and the perpetrator would be banned for a year). The only way to do this would be do maintain a centralised list of template parameters, and when a change is to be made, to propagate it to the individual templates in a gradual fashion, by bot. Even that would have to be very tightly controlled, as a single stub template edit could be very "expensive" (bear in mind that UK-bio-stub is transcluded 3,000 times), which is likely far too much "democratic centralism" for the tastes of our numerous critics. Continued semi-controlled quasi-consensual anarchy is far more likely to be the order of the day for the foreseeable future. Alai 01:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is not a typo. I think a completely different approach should be used for stub marking. The current situation is a total mess where even experienced users find it difficult to choose the appropriate stub tag(s) for a given article. Actually, we already have categories, so why having "stub categories"?. If an article is, let's say, an Italy-related article and it is a stub then it is, as a plain logical consequence, an "Italy-related stub". Therefore, MediaWiki should manage everything. We should only mark the article as stub and the software should provide a way to browse either all stub articles or all stubs by categories. And it could use a special symbol (let's say [stub] or [s] to indicate stubs in categories pages. The current "solution" is absolutely unmaintainable and error-prone and wastes everyone time. — Gennaro Prota •Talk 17:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
-- (gp)= Gennaro Prota •Talk 12:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not "inventing rationales"; please assume good faith. I've also no idea what you mean by your reply to my second point; I think I've demonstrated that the issues are far from "trivial", but as you don't address any of my points, further comment would seem, well, pointless. Alai 14:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
You haven't addressed the main concern - which is the viability of stub categories on the basis of size. You may look on it as inventing a rationale, but it is the main single reason why stub sorting exists. Otherwise we'd have done it by the method you suggest or similar ages ago. There is simply no point in calculating and marking stubs in cases where there may be one or two stubs per category. The whole purpose of stub sorting is to help editors to find stub articles that they can expand. To do that, it is no use to list the one or two stubs per category that need sorting - it is far more useful; to have reasonable numbers of stubs assembled into one place. Stub sorting does that by creating categories only when the number of stubs hits a reasonable threshold and splitting these categories only when the number of stubs becomes excessive. That can't be done by the methods you suggest, which is why similar suggestions have been rejected in the past. Look at it this way. You're an editor looking for stubs to expand. You might be able to expand 1/10 of the stubs around in a moderately broad subject area. Which is easier - to look through a category containing 100 stubs, picking out the ten or so you can work on, or looking through five to ten main categories each of which have one or two stubs before even finding one that you can edit? Grutness... wha? 01:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a proposal to use per-month trancluded pages for WP:WSS/P, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/June 2006. Hopefully this will simplify archiving and reduce the size of the page you load when editing.
Another proposal is to change logging scheme for WP:SFD. Currently, closed discussions are cut-and-pasted to the logs. What about transcluded per-week logs? I think that per-day logs (similar to WP:CFD) would be clearly too short (sometimes there are 0-1 nominations per day). Per-month logs, on the other hand, are going to be too long (about the combined size of these two). We can also create templates similar to {{ cfd top}} and {{ cfd bottom}} to mark closed discussions. Conscious 07:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, is there any sense it {{ sfd top}} and {{ sfd bottom}} if one has to move discussions to logs anyway? I mean, the discussion is closed if and only if it's been moved to the log. Conscious 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The reason I think they'd be useful is because of the number of times that discussions have been moved down to "old business" and been ready to deal with, then someone comes along and adds further comments. Most of the time the extra comment isn't helpful (some times, if it's a close call it may tip the scales one way or the other, but usually it makes no difference at all). Grutness... wha? 01:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
What about three-day logs, by way of an admittedly arbitrary compromise between the possibly-too-short per-day, and the possibly-too-long week? Alai 18:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
/Log/{{CURRENTMONTH}}/Period {{#expr:({{CURRENTDAY}}+1)/3 round 0}}
or something along those lines?
Alai 11:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Yes, a good consideration is needed. For example, a list to watch shouldn't contain newest entries (newer that 2 months, for example) or should just be sorted by date of creation. I'm just throwing in an idea, maybe there's a way to get /D straight. Conscious 14:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
On third thoughts, I'm inclined to say that we should actually go with per-day transclusion and logging. It's potentially slightly more work, but equally one should be able to do a number "at one gulp" pretty readily, without the complication of a whole week being held up by one "problem case". Alai 03:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
We seem to have stalled somewhat: I suggest we implement some version of this, starting on the 1st August. If I'm left to my own devices, naturally it'll be done my way... I'll leave a note at WT:SFD, too. Alai 22:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
What do we think of the above? The coding looks dodgy to me, given the unclosed div tag, and I'm not too sure about the visual appearance, but the general idea seems to be on the lines of something we've been discussing for a while. The main stumbling block seems to be that unless we start messing around with the coding of the stub types themselves, or duplicating same, there's still the same amount of spamming with redundant information (this is a stub; please expand; yadda). If anyone has any bright ideas on how to improve... Alai 01:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I hestitate to do this, since we've plenty to do as things stand, but... Preliminary poking around in the db dump indicates over 10,000 very short articles not tagged as stubs. I'm going to try to produce a cleaned-up list, possibly after the next en. db dump, but before I do so I thought I'd better check a) are people ready for the shock, and b) exactly what criteria should be used? Bluemoose was previously using a size threshold of 350 bytes; I'll use the same, unless someone has strong preference otherwise. He was also excluding any page with a template inclusion; I'm more likely to exclude on the basis of category membership. In particular, anything that looks like a disambiguation page, copyright violation tagee, deletion or wiktionary candidate. More marginal would be categories indicating a lack of sources, expansion request, merger, cleanup, incomplete lists, wikification, context, verification, and importance. I'll include or exclude these or the basis of whatever feedback I get here. Alai 03:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Further investigation indicates about 7,500 of these without any categorisation, so that aspect's something of a nicety: plenty to be going on with, possibly excessively so. I won't upload those for the time being unless there's a major clamour, as it's by this stage about 12 days out of date, and I don't want to get a pile of hate-mail about whipping you into a frenzy of action(?) on the basis of possibly dud info (though I'd be surprised if it's changed that much). My crystal ball's a little misty as to when the next en. db dump will be (and no-one on meta is letting on); presumably not until after a de. dump has finished, which itself will take a number of days, and it's not yet begun; but I won't in any event be downloading it before the 7th. Alai 00:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
All hands to the pumps! Category:Stubs is back to almost 400 articles... Grutness... wha? 06:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Seems that User:220.253.3.186 has discovered a new way to vandalise using stub templates. Have a look at this. To paraphrase the great Alexei Sayle, "Stub templates are very important to this story - see how many you can spot!" Grutness... wha? 08:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion at the pump about a mysterious glitch with stub icons has produced the answer to a question I've wondered about for a while. It'll be worth keeping an eye out for any other icons that have this problem!:
Putting the politics and economics stubs together indents the second one. Is this attributable to the size of one of the graphics?
RyanEberhart 01:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The template {{ GuantanamoBay-detainee-stub}} is quite long, well over one line on my small screen. Ideas on shortening it are appreciated. - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 15:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks persistently fried. Anybody know what's up? - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 00:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
There is an active discussion at Template talk:Stub about changing the way stub templates are worded (originally the suggestion was to change all references to the word "stub", but that seems to - thankfully - have died down. The gist of it is that templates saying "This article is a stub" are not instantly understood by casual editors, who would be far more likely to understand something like "This article is short and undeveloped". Input from more of the old hands would be welcome! :) Grutness... wha? 08:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Since I know how heavy a use this WPmakes of them, I thought I shouid point this out: [3] (For those who don't know, Brion is the Wikimedia Chief Technical guy...) - SoM 10:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I was searching for a stub template name recently and it took a while to find it. I had a look for something like category:stub templates (like in our Turkish Wiki) but found nothing. I went to #wikipedia on IRC, had a chat and they proposed to ask a bot to do some work...
If one analyses for example Category:Animal stubs one needs maybe one Category:Animal stub templates category for all those stub templates listet there but it would be nice to have a bot do it because it may be way too much work to add a <noinclude>[[Category:stub templates]]</noinclude> (or even sub categories) to every single stub template. Any ideas? -- katpatuka 10:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
We have {{ Stub Category}} and {{ regional stub category}} to provide some basic boilerplate for categories. I'd like to propose a third {{ Biography Stub Category}} to provide boilerplate that would be appropriate for all the stub biography categories. I have a proposed version at User:Caerwine/Template:Biography Stub Category that in addition to what {{ Stub Category}} does, includes text recommending the three basic categories all biographical articles should ideally have, year of birth, year of death/not dead yet, and what they are. Any thought for either possible improvement or abandoning this idea? Caerwine Caerwhine 01:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Over on the Commons they have a category commons:Category:Stub pictures that has some nice pics that people might find useful for stub templates, especially the ones that mix a picture with a wiki puzzle piece. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should have a designated place for "noting" that a stub type is undersized. At present, if a stub type is already on the list, or has been proposed, or has already survived an SFD, it's not really a "discovery" any more, though we could use that page regardless certainly; or else a section on the todo page (long-standing undersized types). I suggest this as it seems that often we take a "tiny" type to SFD, whereupon it's either populated, there's suggestions we might wait and see if it grows, or else there's protestations that it's soon to be. A less formal process might have similar effects, and perhaps with less agro on occasion. Alai 22:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, reversing myself yet again, {{ popcat}} pretty much covers this. On the other hand, might it be worthwhile splitting out the stub types, say with {{ popstub}}? (With associated category, which one could of course then request to be populated...) Alai 22:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
We have a mess here, especially in, but not limited to, UK and US stub types. I'd like to suggest the following additions to the naming guidelines.
Anyway, this is nice and straightforward, and I hope it will attract the support of others. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
My argument is simply this: Abolish stub types. Articles would be tagged as stubs by any user, either just like they are now (eg {{stub}} appearing in the code) or perhaps by some other mechanism, such as Flickr-like tagging (see folksonomy). Then the articles would be able to be listed as stubs under the category (or categories) the article has had applied to it. If no category has been applied to the article then it will appear under an 'uncategorised' stub list.
This simply removes the problem of thousands of stub types doesn't it? reinthal 07:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Can people explain exactly what their rationale, and exact criteria for "guessable" stub category names are? Who is being assumed to be doing the guessing, and on the basis for what body of knowledge? People working from the particular permanent category? Other stub categories? One or other naming conventions page? Without further elucidation I don't know what "guessable" category name is supposed to be, much less why they're desirable, in particular above and beyond other desidirata. Alai 06:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
As you can see from the To Do page, we're not getting too far with stub sorting and indeed seem to be going backwards with every update bringing progressively more categories and stubs. Is there any way to fix this other than just "sort more"? Crystallina 18:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I have worked with a few individuals to form a project to eliminate poor stubs and duplicate content in favor of more comprehensive articles. I agree some articles will always be "stub" in size, but those that are suspect to development in more than 1 article for the same subject matter should be merged, and maybe split off again when deemed necessary.
Cwolfsheep 23:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
is a quad stub. k zz * 21:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I've made a request for approval for a bot-task for replacing double tags with "consolidated" stub types. With luck, this will help somewhat with the re-sorting backlog, though it certainly won't be a complete solution by any means. Alai 04:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Talking of bot requests for approval, please note this. In extremis, what this could be is a stub-un-sorting bot, but what it really illustrates is the confused thinking about the whole "Stub-class" thing. Is "Stub-class" the same as "stub", or not? We were unable to get a straight and consistent answer to that when the question arose at SFD, with at least one person arguing to keep the two categories separate on the basis of being different (without really defining how, or addressing the issue of terminological confusion). This sounds like a possible trainwreck. Alai 16:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I've identified this project as a candidate for material to be analyzed by Wikipedia Integration methodology. Please feel welcome to offer suggestions and feedback. WP:ʃ Cwolfsheep 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
As well as merging double tags on stubs, I've also started using my bot to restub some articles on the basis of their permanent category, and parent stub type. See the current contents of Category:Non-profit organization stubs. This method might not find the most appropriate possible stub type, but it should at least find a notionally appropriate stub type. I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on this approach, and on what instances (if any, of course) they think it's appropriate to do this on, etc. Alai 03:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I've just created a new WPSS template for use at the top of category and template talk pages. occasionally WPSS has been tripped up by not knowing about discussion taking place on a template or category's talk page... hopefully {{ WPSS-talk}} will reduce the chance of that happening in future. Grutness... wha? 06:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Would someone mind generating some support for your award? Otherwise the proposal will get archived. -- evrik 15:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think a lot of us have had the impression that it was always better to use very "light" stub images due to potential load problems with the image servers. This post from WP:VPT (Village Pump, Technical) says that this is not a problem at all, since the image is rendered only once. Apparently, we can use any type of stub image that we like.
(copied from a post with the same headline)
Q: Are some images more processing-intensive than others? I was under the impression that image resizing and rendering was done only once (say, the first time an image is requested at ##px), so even if complex svg rendering is required, it wouldn't particularly matter. However, a user has expressed concern that some large images should not be used for stub templates because of their high server load. Is there truth to this? ~ Booya Bazooka 14:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
So at least that is one less concern. :) Valentinian (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Image size for stub icons has never been about server load (although whether there are images or not was). Icon images are kept small primarily because having large images in a stub template draws too much attention to it and away from the article. That's the reason why a small clear stub icon is always preferable to a large clear one, especially when the image is vertical, since that is more likely to take several line widths - which beomes a problem when there is more than one template. Grutness... wha? 09:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Does it say anywhere that stub templates should not be subst'ed? I've had a user telling me that I should be subst'ing all stub templates. If there is an official policy on this, I think it should be put on the project page. -- Bruce1ee 11:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Alai made a comment about how this WikiProject is no fun, so I was wondering if there could be informal titles or something. Something like a leadership council, but without actual responsibilities. Alai already suggested one title: Stub Approval Group Moderator Director For Life [4]
Just something fun to think about. *shrug* ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
See {{ Maintenance}}, and weep. It's probably not SFDable, either, as it's not just a stub template. (The technical term, to paraphrase Slavoj Žižek, would be "nightmare".) Alai 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Category:British royalty stubs says it is for stubs relating to British royalty - however, only actual royals are currently in it. Can I add members of royal households and courtiers, etc? Dev920 12:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make sense for stub tags to be displayed on yellow backgrounds, just as page tags are? It would seperate them from the article, look smarter on the bottom of each page, and would make them more prominent to the eye. Crimsone 20:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
A further thought - I notye that {{ Aviation-stub}} uses grey text rather than black to separate it from the main body of the text. (This was never proposed, it seems, but still... ). Perhaps a similar thing could be done with other stubt emplates. Admittedly it's a bit too grey at the moment, but perhaps something like this would work? Grutness... wha? 01:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to propose that articles be placed in categories at the same time they are stub sorted. For example, if an article tagged with {{ stub}} is sorted to {{ US-novelist-stub}}, which places it in Category:American novelist stubs, that article would also simultaneously be placed in Category:American novelists. The former categorization will disappear when the stub tag is removed. But the later category should stay, so its placement cannot be part of the stub template. Please let me know what you think and how to best implement this. Thanks! — Reinyday, 23:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is the right place for this, but at least some people will see it. I saw some stub templates with a parameter, and realized that could be used as a sortkey for the categories. Of course this would require changing all the stub types (or just biological, since those should usually have sortkeys for their other categories). The appropriate section would be changed to (for {{
bio-stub}})
[[Category:People stubs<includeonly>{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{!}}{{{1}}}|}}</includeonly><noinclude>| </noinclude>]] (for some reason using | didn't work).
TimBentley
(talk) 02:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I notice that Instantnood has added an extra parameter to {{ Stub Category}} to cater for this, which assumes that the sort key is indeed parameter #1. As noted above, I think this is pointless at best, and potentially confusing. In fact, there's been a lot of hither-and-yon edits on this template. As this is used about on about 2,500 categories, it's probably well into "high risk template" territory, and we should probably think about protecting it on that basis. Alai 18:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should systematically employ either {{ CatDiffuse}}, or some bespoke equivalent, on "once and future oversized" stub categories. I don't know if people pay any attention to these things, but it might be worth a shot. A more far-reaching version would be to modify the templates to indicate they should be replaced by something more specific, though in such cases we'd have to make sure that in every case there was a suitable sub-type that would be applicable. An interesting existing example: {{ football-stub}}. In addition, we should probably be more systematic in out use of {{ verylargestub}}. Alai 03:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd more usually stick something to this effect on the /To do page, but "actor stubs still oversized and need sorting" isn't exactly in the "news" department. Specifically, I think I've "diffused" these as much as is possible on current data. The good(ish) news is that the actors and US actors are down to five pages, and the UK actors down to seven pages (I think the last may not be as well-categorised as the others). Caveats would be that these have been moved in several directions at once, so there's lots of stubs that probably ought to be double-stubbed according to specific medium and nationality combos that have not, and that the judgements as to "primary" medium are rather crude: I've moved anything with both a film and TV category (but not a stage) to "-screen-", and anything with only one of those two to that stub type; the "stage" types don't look viable on that basis. The bad news is, first as I said I may not be able to do much more, short of a manual slog through each of those parents, dealing with the cases that have either too little categorisation, or "too much". And secondly, that this is going to make types like UK-tv-actor- worse and worse from here... Alai 01:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone is feeling at a loose end: I've compiled lists of UK actors allegedly of big screen, small screen, and stage and of none of the above. Obviously tagging the former with all three, or with "-screen-" and "-stage-" rather defeats the purpose of the exercise, while there's no category clue what to do with the latter at all. So per-article inspection and re-sorting required. (Feel free to delete chunks of the pages if you do a "batch".) Alai 06:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to say this, but I find it a little POV to associate a Ying-yang with martial arts. I mean, chinese people weren't obsessed with ying-yangs and korean people didn't even know what they were until the rest of the world did. Assosiating a ying-yang with martial arts is like putting the american flag on a category called "smart people". After all, we have pretty smart people. How long is it until that is not a biased, POV statement? Has anyone realised Taekwondo is more popular than Karate? An image associated with chinese popular culture does not belong on a category full of martial arts stubs. Daniel_123 | Talk 13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm rather boggled that yet another bot proposal has shown up to create talk-page spam on an industrial scale, announcing that stubs are (coincidentally enough!) "stub-class articles" -- whodathunkit, hrm? And what's more, this one has already been bot-flagged, and has made over 150,000 such edits already. No wonder the db dumps are getting larger and slower, that's probably almost as many new talk pages that have been created, with remarkably little information content. This is admittedly benign to stub-sorting per se, as it's making no automated changes to existing stub templates, but isn't the duplication getting a little ridiculous at this point? If these things are essentially the same, why do we need two parallel structures, and if they're crucially different, why does mass-duplication of current contents make any sense? Alai 05:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)