Which stub should be used for nutrition related stubs, such as Prebiotic (nutrition). {{ biosci-stub}}? or {{ food-stub}}? -- Singkong2005 03:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

try double-stubbing them with {{ food-stub}} and {{ health-stub}}. That should find the right editors. Grutness... wha? 06:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

At the top of the music stubs section it says that there are 7 pages in the general category. When I went to the page there was >180. Can someone explain this to me? If not I will change it.-- Yarnalgo 04:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You were seeing ~180 stubs on the first page. Each category page contains 200 items (comprising both articles and subcategories). Between The A-Z list and the "Subcategories" heading you'll see two links that look like this: "(previous 200) (next 200)". Click on "next 200" to see the next page. The actual number of pages has gone down to 5 since the last time it was looked at (in March) so I have updated the figure. -- TheParanoidOne 05:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the word "stubs" from each item and added "stubs" to each section heading. This makes the page about 15k smaller and makes it easier to read and edit. -- Jonathan Kovaciny 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it (before I found this note). We've already got enough people confusing stub categories with non-stub categories. Removing the word "stubs" from all the category listings will only confuse them still more. Grutness... wha? 04:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the inclusion of the word stubs in all the section headers and the fact that there's a {{tl|stubtype}} on every line make it obvious enough? I know a lot of people don't take the time to pay attention to what they're looking at, but removing "stubs" from everything makes the page a lot more readable, in my opinion. -- Jonathan Kovaciny 15:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

well, if people were getting it wrong even with all the categories listed as "xxx stubs", I don't think reducing the number of times the word is mentioned is going to make it any clearer. Grutness... wha? 01:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cat piping

While on the subject of cleanup, I've noticed that changes to categories via sfd don't always get updated on the piping of this page - we end up with things like [[:Category: United States geography stubs|US geography stubs]]. It's worth running a check on places the piping's letting us down, and also remembering to fix both when any changes are made! Grutness... wha? 01:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame that the software places the full category name after the bar, if you just leave that empty. There seems to be no reason for it. -- TheParanoidOne 05:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry for dredging up an old topic, but I was wondering if it would save space in the edit window if we did leave the piping blank for most things, such as:
  • [[:Category:Art stubs|Lace stubs]] --> [[:Category:Art stubs|]]
  • [[:Category:Literature stubs|Literature stubs]] --> [[:Category:Literature stubs|]]

There would be some that we'd want to pipe, like the United States/US thing, but most of them could be blank-piped with no problem. This would clean up the edit window a bit and save a few bytes. Just a thought. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The part after the pipe is inserted by the mediawiki software. ie. If you were to enter [[:Category:Some category|]], next time you edit that section it will show [[:Category:Some category|Some category]]. -- TheParanoidOne 21:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed that I already said that. Oops. I fail at reading. -- TheParanoidOne 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Apparantly I also fail at reading... I didn't know that happened. Thanks for pointing it out (twice)! ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 21:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Should articles like Fioricet be sorted as {{ pharma-stub}} or {{ treatment-stub}}? - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 00:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Pharma-stub. Treatment-stub is for things like aortic valvuloplasty and cold turkey. Actual drugs get pharma-stub. Grutness... wha? 08:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Would a book of short stories go with {{ book-stub}} or {{ story-stub}}? I don't see a category for collections of short stories! thanks -- hibou 07:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's a book, it would get book-stub. If it's for one individual story from that book it would get story-stub. FWIW, there's a proposal for a possible anthology-book-stub currently being debated at WP:WSS/P, so the point may soon be moot. Grutness... wha? 08:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:United Arab Emirates stubs has no templates, just a geography-stub subcategory. You may want to note that, seeing as it wasn't mentioned under WP:SC's Stub categories without a stub template header. Picaroon9288| ta co 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a Category:United Arab Emirates stubs. he geo-stub category was created the other day and a redlink was deliberately left on it for such a time as a separate parent category was needed (which it isn't yet). Once one is, it will be created with template. Until then, there shouldn't be a category. Grutness... wha? 01:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Should railway stations be listed here under Buildings and Structures/By building use or type or under Transport/Rail? They're currently listed (incompletely) under both. -- CComMack ( t• c) 09:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In order to avoid a long run-on sentence, here's what I did:

1. Looked at the Proposal archive between ~May (Archive 26) and July, inclusive
2. Anything that was created, I listed on WP:STUBS
3. Anything that was wrong, created out of process, whatever, I took to WP:SFD
4. Added {{ WPSS-cat}} to any categories that were missing it

So, as far as I know, the stub types list is accurate as of July 31 (only about a month behind). As long as we keep up with the archiving and those handy summaries, I will try to keep WP:STUBS updated accordingly. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have done the above to all of the Proposals that are in the August archive, with the exception of a couple things that I'm not sure what to do with.

• {{ actor-model-stub}} / Category:Actor-model stubs - would that be listed under Actors, Models, or both?
• {{ FrenchGuiana-geo-stub}} - would this go under France or under South America? (My tentative guess is SouthAm)
• {{ lighthouse-stub}}, {{ US-lighthouse-stub}}, {{ pharology-stub}} - where do all these go? I'd like to keep them together, perhaps under misc? lighthouse- would seem like it would go under structs by type, though
• {{ orchestra-stub}} - not sure what's happening here, there's a discussion going at /P concerning this as well

If anyone wants to tackle those, feel free to do so and make a note here. Thanks! ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Everytime I try to go to the project page, my browser crashes, its a fresh update of Firefox and i have plenty of processor power. Its just too damn long.-- aceslead 22:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm using Opera on a rather new computer. Although it doesn't crash, it becomes quite sluggish and moreover the wikipedia server needs 16 seconds before it starts sending the page, while 1-2 seconds is normal for other pages. I would suggest putting each section into a subpage, with just plain-text keywords on this page to facilitate searching. Han-Kwang 16:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Per the WP guideline "Be bold" I have reorganised the page a bit: section 2 is now transcluded from subpages and I made a plain-text index page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types index. As of now you won't notice much difference on the Stub types page, but whoever updates the "<200 links as of October 14" remarks will need to adapt their software a bit. I think that it would be even better to move the fully hyperlinked list to a new location and put the text-only list in its place. Whenever I add a stub category to an article I'm annoyed by the slow loading of this page. Han-Kwang 18:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

you are my HERO!-- aceslead 19:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

WHAAAT HAVE YOU DONE??????? PLEASE don't mess around with this wikiproject's pages without thoroughly discussing things with the wikiproject first! This should have been suggested at WP talk:WSS before anything of this nature was done. Be bold - as it clearly states at WP:BOLD is for articles. This isn't an article - it is a resource page for a wikiproject. REVERTED. Next time, get some form of consensus before blundering in and stuffing around like this. I haven't proposed the subpages for deletion yet, simply because someone else might think this is a good idea. But unless there is a call for them, they should go to MFD. Grutness... wha? 21:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being a bit too bold, but I don't think it is necessary to start screaming like that. I did consider creating a sandbox version as a proposal, but since it doesn't change the appearance of the page and prevents me from having to do this again in case the proposal is accepted, this seemed a better solution to me. Han-Kwang 22:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the screaming... but perhaps if you'd checked this page history you'd have noticed that similar changes have been soundly rejected in the past. It may seem like a better solution to you, but it is not regarded as such by most of the people who regularly use the page. And as you said, this page is regularly updated by bot - to change it without proposing such a change causes quite a bit of havoc. Grutness... wha? 22:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The page is long, but this is better than having to watch an unknown number of pages. If we split the list into more pages we might soon end up with ten or so pages to update and keep free for vandalism (and to check for duplicate entries which would be a real pain.) In some cases it is better to keep all eggs in one basket and keep a good look on that basket. We should keep the current system. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is continued on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. Han-Kwang 17:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks-- aceslead 17:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: all the transcluded pages are now speedy-deleted on my request. Han-Kwang 21:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that the disaster stub tag be reworded to refer to disasters generally, rather than "disaster management"? There is no separate tag to use in the case of an article about a specific disaster, though a number of articles use the existing tag for this purpose. This could also become a seperate stub type, whatever works better. Thanks! -- Swpb 03:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Individual disasters, being historic events, get marked with whatever the appropriate history stub is (usually by location). Thus Aberfan, for example, would get a UK-hist-stub, and the Tangshan earthquake would get a China-hist-stub. Note that hurricanes do have a separate stub, so disasters connected with hurricanes (e.g., New Orleans vs Katrina) can use hurricane-stub. Grutness... wha? 04:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What about an airplane crash, particularly one in the ocean, where there is no particular country associated with the event? -- Swpb 21:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

{{ Aviation-stub}} or one of its subtypes should cover that. BTW, the Disaster stub is worded in that way because it's been made in association with a WikiProject on disaster management. It might well be worth having separate stub types for different types of disaster, though... proposing some at WP:WSS/P might be a reasonable idea. Grutness... wha? 22:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are not all stub types listed for US states? In particular, I noticed that the {{iowa-stub}} is not listed. Is this page intended to list all stub types, or is it just a summary of major ones? Thanks. -- Swpb 21:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is supposed to list all the stub types that are official - that is, all the ones which have been approved for use and are used by WP:WSS. Ones which don't appear here haven't gone through the debating process prior to creation and should be listed at WP:WSS/D for a decision of whether they should be listed, fixed up, or sent to WP:SFD as potential candidates for deletion. Iowa-stub should be listed, though. Grutness... wha? 22:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Barbershop music is a genre by itself. Groups that sing barbershop (quartets) should have their own stub. Hip hop groups also number in the hundreds, and they have their own stub. Why not barbershop? just because there are less of them, doesn't mean anything, especially since barbershop is a truly unique american form of singing. Please reinstate this stub. Dullfig 02:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Can this stub be reinstated? Dullfig 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you should familiarize yourself with the goals of the stub-sorting project. Having or not having a stub type is not a judgment on the importance of the topic, but only on the effectiveness of the type in getting the articles filled out so that they're no longer stubs. Stub status is supposed to be temporary, and no one, as far as I know, is opposed to having a permanent category for barbershop quartets and barbershop choruses. -- Trovatore 19:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC) (who sang with the Peninsulaires in the mid-80s).

As you know, Dullfig, there is active discussion on this stub type at WP:WSS/D. Whether or not the stub is "reinstated" will depend on the outcome of that discussion. Stub types should not be added to the list until they have been debated (actually, they shouldn't be created until they have been debated, but this is one of those cases where one was). The WP:WSS/D discussion will determine whether the stub type comes here or goes to SFD. Grutness... wha? 21:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did not know there was an active discusion. Thanks, I will check it out. Dullfig 23:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wait, that discussion. Never mind, carry on :-) Dullfig 23:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not positive that this list is supposed to be all inclusive, but if it is there is no spot (at least that i see) for the protein-stub. I would add it, but 1. I'm not sure i know how 2. I'm not sure it belongs here. If it does belong here methinks that it should be a subset of biochem-stub, and enzyme-stub should be a subset of it, Thanks. D-rew 14:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The list is for any stub types that have been proposed and/or agreed to by the stub sorting wikiproject - "official" stub types, if you like. AFAIK protein-stub has never been mentioned, let alone proposed, at WP:WSS/P. As such, it's better to report it at the project's "discoveries" page so that it can be discussed to see whether or not it should be officially adopted. Grutness... wha? 21:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to split it up into smaller pages. Just H 18:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally agree, but the project members prefer everything in one page for the sake of maintenance. I've built a bot to create derived pages, but with surprisingly little feedback. See [1]. Han-Kwang 18:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's some feedback: at first glance, it wasn't what I was expecting. I think the request for a top-level list might be more in line with my expectations:

• Culture
• Education
• Commerce
• Government-law-and-politics
• Leisure
• Sports
• Religion-mythology-faiths-beliefs
• Geographical
• History
• People
• Science
• Technology
• Transport
• Military and Weaponry
• Organizations
• Miscellaneous

I guess these would best be split as subpages of the Stub Types article. How many stub types do we need, anyway? Xaxafrad 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess I should've read a bit of the talk page before adding a whole new section.... Xaxafrad 22:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose. This has been suggested and rejected many times before. Just keeping one list up to date is bad enough, maintaining 10 will be impossible. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose If you work with stubs, having it all in one page is a lot easier. The stubs have many "intercategory" connections and ctrl-f'ing them this way is a whole let easier then having it all nice and clean and divided over several pages. The list is not intended to be read, it's just a maintenance page. TheDJ ( talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support I do a lot of stub sorting, but at 410 KB this page is just too damn long for me to be able to use it on my dial-up connection. Not only that when I create approved stub types, I don't add them to the list because my connection usually times out before the page finishes loading, let alone lets me open the appropriate section for editing. This page strongly needs factoring though I agree that because of the bot maintenance aspect it needs prior approval. Just as Criteria was split up because of size (and it was only half the size of this behemoth when split), so does this need to split. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Support per Caerwine. — CComMack ( t– c) 03:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Support we need to put this to a vote, see my section above. This is a top priority initiative. --–  Daimengrui   talk  20:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the talk page takes a long time to load too, but I came here to comment that the project page takes longer to load (at least on my system) than it does to find the right stub and add it to an article. I should probably just copy a list of stubs into a text article on my desktop, eh? Xaxafrad 22:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you Xaxafrad, that is a good idea. It's taking me forever to load that page, but it's rather useful and I don't particularly feel like arguing with these people over subdividing it or whatever (no offense, but I don't understand how Wikipedia can still function sometimes, there's so much gridlock.) Just H 23:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)