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.



Redirects to stub categories[edit]

Hi, there is a discussion about redirects to stub categories at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_25#CAT:Novel_stub. Your input would be appreciated. --John Vandenberg (chat) 11:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That discussion closed with only some deleted.
There is now a redirect being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 11#Template:Portugal-noble-stub. --John Vandenberg (chat) 09:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Chromosome 1 gene stubs[edit]

Almost all of the Category:Chromosome 1 gene stubs are not stubs at all. They are well documented articles. They should be class=start or class C, and the stub tag should be removed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This is beyond the scope of this WikiProject, which is WikiProject stub sorting. If you think so, feel free to remove the stub tags. Then, if what's left in the category is below 50, feel free to nominate it for upmerging. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Tagging a template at CFD[edit]

As I understand it, since WP:WSS/D was abandoned and the deletion discussion system was moved from WP:SFD to WP:XFD a couple of years back, a stub category and stub template should be discussed together at WP:CFD. I've marked Category:ISRO stubs with {{subst:cfm}}, but what is the template that should be placed on {{ISRO-stub}} to direct users to the CFD page? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:GeorgiaUS-stub and related[edit]

Can someone pleasew explain to me why the stub tags for Georgia (U.S. state) are all "GeorgiaUS-", not "Georgia-US-"? Since a GeorgiaUS-foo-stub is a type of US-foo-stub, it seems to me that "Georgia-US-" should be the correct form. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Compare {{SouthCarolina-stub}} or {{Florida-stub}} which are at the same level as {{GeorgiaUS-stub}}. They do not have "US" in their names; it's only used here because {{Georgia-stub}} doesn't refer to the U.S. state but to the Eurasian country. Kind of like a disambiguator. So, by parallel, we have SouthCarolina-foo-stub, Florida-foo-stub and thus GeorgiaUS-foo-stub. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The fract that it's a disambiguater doesn't amke it any different than {{bridge-struct-stub}}, where the "struct" is a disambiguater; this is on the same level as {{museum-stub}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study[edit]

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC).

Input requested[edit]

I opened a thread on WP:PUMP, Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 13#The issue of permanent stubs, & would appreciate further comments. -- llywrch (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Stub categories should be hidden[edit]

I have proposed that stub categories be changed to hidden categories, in line with other non-topic-specific/project categories. Please contribute to the discussion at Category talk:Stubs. Thanks. SFB 21:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

New rock-song-stub and category[edit]

{{2010s-rock-song-stub}} and Category:2010s rock song stubs were improperly created as redirects and I'm not sure how to go about adding them as proper stubs or deleting them. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

In the old days you would list them at WP:WSS/D - but nothing's happened there since August 2012. {{2010s-rock-song-stub}} has been fixed by Fortdj33 (talk · contribs) which I generally agree with under WP:WSS/P#"Speedy creation" S2, but the cat doesn't yet qualify; I think that it's a WP:CFD matter. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
As Redrose64 mentioned, I re-created the stub tag, which still directs to the parent category, and nominated the sub-category for deletion. However, the creator of both modified them, so that the stub now populates the category. Not sure that there are enough articles to warrant a separate category, but I agree that it's now a WP:CFD matter, since the creator didn't appear to propose why the category was needed. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I've just seen this cat/stub at CfD, and I'm puzzled as to why this process of proposals still exists. Anything created in error (either not-needed, or named incorrectly) can be dealt with at CfD. Can someone shed some light on this? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe that it still exists to try and keep things tidy, so that established naming conventions are applied and diffusion is not carried out to too fine a level. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks RR. It's kind of a paradox. Experienced editors aren't going to wait 5 days to be told by someone they can create a stub/category, as they know how it works and new editors simply wont know the process exists. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
When I was a new editor and first came across a stub category, I found the {{WPSS-cat}} template quite helpful. Just by seeing that, I knew there was a procedure to follow for this type of thing. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
As a non-new editor, do you still raise proposals here? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Iran film bios[edit]

I've found that {{Iran-film-director-stub}} and {{Iran-film-bio-stub}}, despite being closely related (to my mind, a film director is a specialised form of film person) are two levels apart: Category:Iranian people stubs (which contains {{Iran-film-bio-stub}}) → Category:Iranian artist stubsCategory:Iranian film director stubs. Is it normal to have them separated like that? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be completely consistent, but for the most part it appears that any country with a separate category for film directors, usually has it as a sub-category of "Fooian film biography stubs" (which itself is usually a sub-category of "Fooian people stubs"). If the film biography category doesn't exist, then the director category is usually a sub-category of "Fooian artist stubs". And if the artist category doesn't exist either, then the director category is simply a sub-category of "Fooian people stubs". I agree that some criteria should be agreed upon, to make things more consistent. Fortdj33 (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

US county stub tag names[edit]

I have found that the stub tagfs related to US counties are inconsistant. Just to take California as an example, we have {{AlamedaCountyCA-geo-stub}} (with the word "County" in it), {{OrangeCA-school-stub}} (without the word "County", but still with the CA), and {{Riverside-school-stub}} (not even a CA - ambiguous, for example, with Riverside, Iowa). I think we should go for a consistant set of names for all US county-related stubs - definitely with the state abbreviation, and probably with the word "County" (since many county names are also names of cities within these counties, such as the 3 mentioned above). And in cases which are ambiguous with locations outside the counties, we should probably update all references and delete the redirect. Anyone else have an opinion here? (Note that I'm excluding cities which are identical with their counties, such as San Francisco, as well as the boroughs of New York City.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. I agree. I like the idea of the first example; while it can get lengthy (such as "NorthumberlandCountyPA-geo-stub", perhaps?), that method leaves the least amount of room for ambiguity. Or, we could abbrevitate "County" as "Co" (NorthumberlandCoPA-geo-stub). TCMemoire 22:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that "County" is clearer, especially since we're using CamelCase. I think that "NorthumberlandCountyPA-geo-stub" is clearer than {{eventoedungulate-stub}}, which has 3 words grouped together with no indication where one ends and the next begins.
By the way, one of the places which is ambiguous with places outside the county would be {{NassauNY-NRHP-stub}}, refering to part of Long Island (south of mainland New York), which is ambiguous with Nassau (town), New York (and Nassau (village), New York, which is part of it), located much farther north within the state. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
And I wasn't quite correct about the exclusions - some of the NRHP tags use the county names, including {{RichmondNY-NRHP-stub}} (Staten Island), redundant with Richmond, New York. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

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 (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_12#Category:Chinese_interpreter_stubs. 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 (77.126.206.211 (talk), Sillyfolkboy (talk · contribs), 65.94.171.126 (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)