Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NOTE: This page is not a forum to suggest the creation of articles. If you wish to create an article on any subject, go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and follow the instructions there.

CfD for stub categories[edit]

There are several stub categories being proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 28. Please weigh in with your opinions. Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder[edit]

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC).

Interpreter stubs[edit]

See The cat "Chinese interpreter stubs" was deleted, but none of the possible associated actions were taken. I tweaked the stub template but was reluctant to create the new cat. Do feel free to change it further. All the best: Rich Farmbrough00:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC).

Leaflet For Stub Sorting At Wikimania 2014[edit]

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Most visited stub articles on wp:en[edit]

Would this be helpful? I ran a report to collect most visited stubs on English Wikipedia in March 2014. Using seed category: Stub_message_boxes here are the results. Erik Zachte (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I certainly see how this could be useful. While, of course, it is important to expand all stubs, this lets us know which stubs we should tackle first. Thanks Erik! TCMemoire 19:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:People stubs[edit]

Stub-sorters might like to have a look at this category. There are 967 pages at the moment. I keep an eye on one letter of the alphabet (P) and sort the bio-stubs there: other stub-sorters might like to adopt another letter so we can keep it sorted. "People stubs" is a pretty useless category, so they all need to be refined into narrower stubs - by nationality if nothing else, but there's usually something better. PamD 08:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

A deletion discussion for stub tag redirects[edit]

Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 1#Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 1. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types[edit]

Do we still need Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types? I think we should depricate that page (and its subpages), for the following reasons:

  1. This page works best if the stub category system were more or less a true category tree - that is, each node (categoiry) having a sert of children, none of which are shared with other nodes. In fact, we don't have that - many stub categories have multiple parents (especially categories about people and structures) - for example, Category:California railway station stubs has 3 stub type parents - a geographical parent (Category:Western United States railway station stubs) and 2 other parents (Category:California building and structure stubs and Category:California transportation stubs). And ultimitely, its parents would trace back to 3 differnet pages - Category:California stubs is on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Geography, and Category:Railway station stubs is a child of both Category:Building and structure stubs (Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Stub categories - over 88K, not even a subpage of the subtype list, and not transcluded there) and of Category:Rail transport stubs (Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Transport)
  2. Stub type renames and deletions are now (since we depricated SFD) handled largely by non-WSS people; it's unreasonable to expec tthem to dig through these pages to handle the renames.
  3. Having these gigantic pages (Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/People is almost 118K, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Science is over 112K, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Government, law, and politics is over 87K, and some others are over 20K), which means that any change to the satub category tree structure is an expensive task for a user to handle.

Any opinions about this topic? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Anyone have anything to say about this? Especially Dawynn, the most active stub sorter other than me? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Honestly -- its a pain to try to bring these up-to-date. And, as you point out, I've often been confused as to exactly where to place categories when they fall under multiple parents. If anyone finds the lists helpful, we can try to keep maintain. But I feel they've become more pain than they're worth. Dawynn (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikiproject anti-stub[edit]

I'd like to revive this project. Anyone want to help?--75* 19:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Only one stub template per article[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Proposal: Only one stub template per article. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Fewer stub types[edit]

Hi everyone. I'm starting this discussion as a tangent to another discussion on the number of stub templates per page. I'm having it on this WikiProject talk page rather than there because I think the conversation is more appropriate here.

According to calculations done by User:Od Mishehu, we have 23,300 stub templates and 12,600 stub categories. The high number of categories means that each category is fairly small in size, but what results is a system that is ridiculously difficult to navigate. Even the relatively user-friendly list gets complex once you go beyond the top level of categorization.

If the purpose of stub sorting is to allow specialized editors to find interesting articles to work on, are we really making it easier for them to find the articles if they have to navigate over 10,000 different categories? I think we need to consider reducing the number of categories and stub types overall. The categories will be bigger but they will be easier to find. Harej (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The other problem is oversized stub categories - we have some stub categories which are too big to be usable - Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs has over 17000 stubs, we have an other 60 categories with over 1000 stubs, and almost 3400 over 1 page (200 stubs). (These numbers are based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub type sizes, updated as of June 10th.) And upmerged stub tags generally represent eventual stub categories. And with over 1.8 million stubs, we need many categories to keep category size useful. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The solution to one problem aggravates the other; we resolve oversized categories by creating new categories, which contributes to the category creep I complained about above. We have to decide what is worse: having too many categories, or having categories that are too big. I'm not opposed to subdivision in general but it should serve a purpose: to divide up the stub backlog by subject matter for the benefit of specialized editors. One category with all the stubs would be highly centralized while impossible to navigate. The categories are mostly small under the current approach, but it splits up the work into so many categories it can be difficult to keep track of. Want to work on American journalist bios? Fine, you have your pick of American journalist stubs, American journalist, 19th century birth stubs, American journalist, 20th century birth stubs, American journalist, 1920s birth stubs, American journalist, 1930s birth stubs, American journalist, 1940s birth stubs, American journalist, 1950s birth stubs, American journalist, 1960s birth stubs, and American journalist, 1970s birth stubs. Imagine you're looking to improve articles on American journalists, but to do so you need to navigate nine different lists. What is wrong, in this case, of just simply having one slightly longer list? Harej (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand, someone who wants to find stubs about American journalists who were active during World War II would generally be focused on those born between the late 1870s and the early 1920s; others may prefer to focus on those active now - generally those born since around the mid 1950s. By categorizing them by when they were born, you make it easier for these users. And I can find you all the stubs on American journalists (at least those tagged as such) on a single page - this one; there are currently 1784 of them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Pageant stubs[edit]

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 60#Stub adding bot, could a knowledgeable editor look at the new Template:Pageant-stub and determine what the appropriate categorization should be? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Award stubs looks good if it's about the awards themselves. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

"Saint" vs "St" in stub tag names[edit]

Currently, the stub tags with the word "Saint" at the beginning is "Saint" some of the time, "St" other times:

This list looks like it's completely arbitrary which uses which form. We should either have them all renamed to the same form, of decide on a clear rule which shouls have which name, and rename them all to match. (A full list can be found at User:Od Mishehu/Saint.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Grutness, Redrose64, Dawynn: (or anyone else) Does anyone else have anything to say? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Not sure that one form will work for all of them, but to be consistent, the stub tags should at least use the same form as the articles their being used on. Therefore, IMO St. Charles County, Missouri should use "St" instead of "Saint", and conversely Saint Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands should use "Saint" instead of "St", but others that already match up, such as Saint Barthélemy and St. Louis County, Minnesota should be left alone. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What Fortdj33 said; plus, in cases where the main article title is normally shown with an abbreviation for the word "Saint", and that abbreviation is in the American style (with trailing period), as in St. Louis, the period should be omitted from the stub template name - {{StLouisCityMO-geo-stub}} instead of {{SaintLouisCityMO-geo-stub}} but not {{St.LouisCityMO-geo-stub}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree - there shouldn't be a period/full stop in the template names (nor, IMO, in the articles themselves, since the word saint ends in a t - but it seems to be a UK vs US thing). Grutness...wha? 23:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a problem I've had with articles too - and in the real world (I live in Saint Clair, which is apparently officially St Clair - or not, depending on your source). A few general points though:

  • "Saint" seems to be the standard for country, territory, and island names (Barthélemy, Helena, KittsNevis, Vincent&G, Martin, Pierre&M all seem to use that in their articles, as do the three USVI islands).
  • The US standard for cities and counties seems to be St.
  • That only leaves a French one, a Russian one, and a Swiss one to worry about at the moment - all of which should simply follow the article names.

In every case listed, though, surely it's simply a case of having a redirect from the alternative form. Grutness...wha? 13:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types[edit]

Please note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types and its suybpages have been nominated for deletion. Feel free to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Noone? Would really like to see ANY comments on the MFD. — xaosflux Talk 02:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Stubs about Wikipedia[edit]

I've just come across the category Category:Stubs about Wikipedia, because it's appeared in Wikipedia:Database reports/Dubious stub categories today; previously it was absent. It was copy/paste moved from Category:Wikipedia stubs on 30 June 2014 following discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 20#Category:Wikipedia stubs. The category is populated by {{Wikipedia-stub}} and so the cat name no longer follows the naming convention for stub cats. It concerns me that this naming convention was not respected, that this project was not informed, and that the participants in that CFD ( (talk), Sillyfolkboy (talk · contribs), (talk), RevelationDirect (talk · contribs), and closer Good Olfactory (talk · contribs)) do not appear to be regularly involved in stub sorting.

As to the intent of {{Wikipedia-stub}}, it's clear to me that it's for articles about Wikipedia itself, not articles hosted on Wikipedia. It appears that some people - including the CFD participants - believed it to be a general-purpose stub template like {{stub}}, so I've cleared up this lot (the usage of {{Wikipedia-stub}} will need checking again every few months}. That belief is echoed by the CFD nominator's rationale: 'Since all stub categories are Wikipedia administritive categories, and many of the administritive categories have "Wikipedia" in front of their names, this category looks like it means "Articles in this category are stubs on Wikipedia".' The fact that it had no subcategories, and therefore does not encompass "all stub categories", seems to have escaped notice. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I think the rationale stands, regardless of my involvement in stub sorting. Categories (whatever their purpose) really need to relate their meaning in a simple and unambiguous manner. "Stubs about Wikipedia" does a much better job of this than "Wikipedia stubs". As a general rule, people shouldn't have to consult the category page to understand its meaning. I do not see the divergence from naming convention as an issue – conventions are there to promote good practice, but where a convention's application is to the detriment of their purpose (i.e. making things clear for users) then we should diverge from it. Hopefully, this change will almost certainly remove the need for clean-up work at "Wikipedia stubs" caused by good-intentioned editors confronted with an ambiguous title. SFB 09:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
What you're suggesting would have repercussions across the whole of the Category:Top-level stub categories tree. By your arguments, Category:Commerce stubs‎ should be Category:Stubs about commerce; Category:Culture stubs‎ should be Category:Stubs about culture; Category:Education stubs‎ should be Category:Stubs about education, etc. This is a huge request: there are 21 top-level stub categories, all bar one of which has at least one level of sub-cat. There are over 600 second-level stub cats, and the whole tree comes in at something over 12,000 cats. I do not think that a general change to the naming convention would be beneficial. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
That is not the scope of either the first or the second proposal. By my argument, Category:Commerce stubs‎ stays at Category:Commerce stubs‎ because no one could possibly confuse it with anything else. The stub nomenclature works fine but starting a category with "Wikipedia" is a special case given that we use it as an administrative prefix (e.g. Category:Wikipedia tools). Hence, on its own, there is the confusion over whether "Wikipedia stubs" would regard (a) stubs about wikipedia, or (b) be the top administrative category for stub articles on Wikipedia. The logic is not that "stubs about X" is superior to "x stubs" generally. SFB 13:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Background The CfD process currently requires a tag to be placed on category. I usually go further by tagging a WikiProject and the original category creator as a courtesy but this is optional at this time. Thanks for your input on the link above.RevelationDirect (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sillyfolkboy, RevelationDirect, Redrose64, Dawynn: FYI, I have made a nomination to rename and rescope Category:Stubs about Wikipedia due to its small size; this should also deal with the issue of ambiguity which caused the mentioned rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I just found and fixed another misuse of {{Wikipedia-stub}}. If the category is to be renamed again, perhaps the template should be renamed to match it. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I've added my input now, to the same effect. SFB 15:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, provide feedback on the nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Large People stubs backlog[edit]

There is a large backlog of 700+ pages in Category:People stubs that could do with clearing as ideally there would be no pages in it. Just thought I'd bring it to your attention. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Why not adopt a letter of the alphabet? There are no unsorted People stubs filing under "P": that's my little patch. (I also sometimes trawl through the ones who have bracketed disambiguation, stub-sorting them while checking that they're linked from the base name via a hatnote or dab page entry.) PamD 15:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Complete template list is up for deletion[edit]

Please note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Complete template list is up for deletion; feel free to comment about it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Complete template list. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Diplomat stubs[edit]

I noticed that the diplomat stub templates like {{India-diplomat-stub}} add the articles to the respective "politician stubs" categories (here Category:Indian politician stubs). Is that appropriate? Is diplomacy considered a subset of politics? Personally I don't think that quite fits. For comparison, Category:Diplomats is not a sub-category of Category:Politicians. Huon (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Any diplomat will need to be a politician of some sort, otherwise we'd have wars breaking out all over the place. Anyway, the top-level {{Diplomat-stub}} populates Category:Diplomat stubs, which is in Category:Political people stubs; and we find a parallel as the templates and cats get increasingly more specific, down to {{England-diplomat-stub}} which populates Category:English diplomat stubs, which is in Category:English politician stubs. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Stub tags by year/decade/century[edit]

Currently, for these tags, we have 2 basic patterns:

I think we should standardize all of these - probably accoreding to the first pattern, because of the stub tag name structure ({{France-painter-17thC-stub}} is a type of {{France-painter-stub}}, not of {{painter-17thC-stub}}). Anyone else have an opinion here? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It has been my experience that stub tags are categorized by topic, and that time is added only if the category is so large that it needs to be broken down into subcategories. Therefore, I agree that the {{time-topic-stub}} format is preferable, and {{France-painter-17thC-stub}} should probably be renamed to {{17thC-France-painter-stub}}, since the category is a sub of Category:French painter stubs. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Stub type sizes page broken[edit]

I'm not sure what triggers the rebuild of this page, but it hasn't updated since June. Can someone investigate and revive the automatic monthly build of this page? Dawynn (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The data comes from a subpage, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub type sizes/data, which was built on the 10th of each month by BernsteinBot (talk · contribs). Many of the reports built by BernsteinBot have not been updated since 1 July 2014, because that is when Toolserver went down permanently. I believe that each individual report needs to be rewritten before it can be run again, so the person to ask is MZMcBride (talk · contribs), who is the operator of BernsteinBot. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

New task for MoohanBOT[edit]

I have just filed a bot request for a new task for MoohanBOT. MoohanBOT currently performs minor stub sorting tasks, retagging biography articles from {{stub}} to {{bio-stub}}. The new functionality I have proposed will enable the bot to sort articles relating to British, English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish people into more specific categories. If the bot is accepted and works as planned there is scope to expand this method to other geographic regions. Your input would be appreciated on the request page! Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Petersburg Census Area replaced with Petersburg Borough[edit]

This CFD clears up a long-standing problem needing correcting, in that the Petersburg Census Area, Alaska ceased to exist when the Petersburg Borough was incorporated nearly two years ago. {{PetersburgAK-geo-stub}} should be changed to reflect the current subdivision. I'll do it myself if necessary, but I thought I would offer notice here first. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)