Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting

---

---

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.

---

---

Question regarding more specific stubs versus main notability

I noticed that {{BritishColumbia-politician-stub}} had been replaced by {{BritishColumbia-mayor-stub}} for Robert Dickinson (British Columbia politician) and William James Armstrong as the result of stub sorting. Both of those individuals are mayors but they are also Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) of British Columbia, provincial level politicians.

How to mark an article as a stub says "If an article overlaps several stub categories, more than one template may be used, but it is strongly recommended that only those relating to the subject's main notability be used". One might argue that there is more notability associated with being an MLA compared to being a mayor, and, therefore, with {{BritishColumbia-politician-stub}} compared to the more specific {{BritishColumbia-mayor-stub}} since all MLAs are politicians but all are not necessarily mayors. So, is using a more specific stub appropriate in such cases? --Big_iron (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one who was sorting these stubs, so I can only speak generally, but stub sorters often sort stubs according to the categories they are in. The nature of categorisation and stub sorting are both far from perfect, especially when it comes to main notability - a biography may be sorted in one way due to the categories it is in although the particular category is only a minor part of the person's notability. In my opinion, think about what stub sorting is most useful for: helping editors find similar articles to expand and de-stub. Is the article you mention better in Category:British Columbia politician stubs (bigger so less easy to find) or Category:British Columbia mayor stubs (smaller, easier to find, but not the main notability)? You can always revert and put it back into the previous category if you think it fits better. Severo^TC 09:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think an important thing here is the interpretation of the word "those" in it is strongly recommended that only those relating to the subject's main notability be used. To me (and I'm sure to many other stub-sorters) it suggests more than one is possible if there's notability in more than one area. There's no reason why the articles you mention can't have both the mayor and politician stubs. Chances are, as Severo says, whoever sorted the articles was guided primarily by the permanent categories (a lot of stub sorting is done that way), and if an article is in a fairly general category (e.g., politicians) and a more specific one (e.g., mayors), it's quite common to use the stub type relating to the more specific category. It's not perfect, and there will be stuff-ups, but the good thing about stub sorting (and Wikipedia in general) is that if a more knowledgeable editor (in this case, like you!) notices a mistake, then there's nothing to stop them fixing it :) Grutness...wha? 13:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible overlinking in bio stubs

There are several open requests for editing protected biography stub templates (example), all asking the removal of wikilinks to the word 'biography' and to the name of the subject's country. The argument repeated in each are that 'biography' is a common word that requires no link, and the subject's country is likely to already be linked somewhere in the article body. These requests seem reasonable, but since there were several and I know the individual stub templates will not have many watchers, I wanted to raise the issue here to make sure there are no objections prior to acting on the edit requests. If there is consensus to remove these links, it might be better to sweep all the bio stubs at once rather than editors making separate requests for each one. --RL0919 (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Biography, fine. Country names: not always. Well-known long-established country names like United Kingdom, France, Italy, United States of America are OK to de-link. However, it's sometimes it's necessary to distinguish, say, Georgia from Georgia; Congo from Congo, or to explain recently-introduced country names such as South Sudan or Caribbean Netherlands. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Any necessary link or clarification of the country name will already be present in the article to which the stub template is attached. so it's superfluous to do it again. These links have already been removed from the related (non-protected) stub templates with no objections - some recently, some many months ago. Only these few protected stub templates remain to finish the job. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Not always it won't. A Prussian general wouldn't necessarily have the word Germany anywhere in his article. A Rhodesian politician wouldn't necessarily have the word Zimbabwe anywhere in her article. A Flemish painter wouldn't necessarily have the word Belgium anywhere in his article. Biography can be removed, sure, but with country names it's less clear-cut. As to there having been "no objections", there were, as I personally restored quite a few of the links to country names at the time. Grutness...wha? 01:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If such clarifications would be of use to the reader, they should be in the article, not the stub template. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Should be" is not the same as "are", and when you're dealing with stubs you're always dealing with articles which are not as complete as they might be. For that reason, such information is more often than not missing. As such, having the link in the template is often of great importance. Grutness...wha? 23:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Beg pardon Chris, but there were objections: some on this page, some at WT:STUB, and some on your own talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I initially raised the whole question myself at WT:STUB here back in October 2010, before even starting on this, and only Grutness objected. He then took it to WT:WSS here, where there were two very specific objections, not to the general principle but to specific cases. I made a similar protected unlinking request to Song-stub here; the admin handling it took it to WT:WSS and there were no objections. A few people raised the question on my talk page, and I pointed out that it had already been raised at the two principal forums for stub-related matters, and nobody there had any problem with what I was doing. They did not take it any further. Since then I've been delinking common and duplicated terms from stub templates, and there have, as I said, been no objections. The only ones remaining to do of the bio-stubs are these last few protected ones. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that the "no objections" you mentioned above was only a few objections? And that the one case where there really were no objections was to {{song-stub}} which didn't have any country links anyway? That's pretty unconvincing... Grutness...wha? 23:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Deserves some kind of award really. Post (by proxy on one occasion) once or twice on obscure talkboards, and no one responds - and, hence, of course equally no one comes in to say "yes please, definitely go ahead and do that" - and this becomes "no one objected". Then, when several people do come to your talk page to complain once you start this obsessive de-linking, these opinions can supposedly be discounted because no one had complained at the point when you chose to announce your plans and also because, having said their piece, "they did not take it any further" as if this was some kind of war of attrition rather than a simple exchange of opinion with an intelligent adult who, one would hope, would pause for thought occasionally when challenged. At the end of the day, you claim that you have consensus for what you are doing, even though, of those who have commented, about 6-1 were against or at least raised some concerns. It takes some kind of genius to rationalise all that in quite that way. Is there not some other forum where this kind of behaviour can be looked at? WP:ANI perhaps? N-HH talk/edits 00:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep it cool, N-HH. I don't think there's any need for that. RL0919 - I notice that the example you gave as a request for de-linking was also by Colonies Chris. Was he responsible for the other requests as well? So far he seems to be the only person who would favour the delinking of countries, at least as far as the arguments here are concerned and - judging by the other comments - as far as the other times it has been raised are concerned as well. I certainly don't think that it would an acceptable thing as far as WP:WSS is concerned (though I could be wrong about that). Grutness...wha? 08:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Before even starting this process, that was going to affect a large number of stub templates, I posted my intention on the main talk page of the stub project (WT:STUB) and awaited comments - there was only one, from Grutness, and his request for discussion there and on WT:WSS did not receive any further support. N-HH may consider that the stub project talk page, and the main talk page of the stub sorting project WT:WSS are 'obscure talk boards'. Where else does he suggest I should have raised the question? That's where admin MSGJ went to ask for comments before accepting my request to delink song-stub. Does N-HH think I should have asked his permission personally? If he wants to take me to ANI, I'm prepared to vigorously defend my actions.

Moving on from these bad-tempered personal attacks, what are the objections to unlinking country names in stub templates? That they might carry some information that isn't in the articles to which they're attached? Then instead of just slapping on a stub template, using information which you know yourself but that isn't in the article (such as the Prussia/Germany association), take a few seconds to add it to the article. (Or if there are many Prussia-related stubs, create a Prussia-bio-stub template). That would be a much more useful activity than wasting time arguing here. In any case, the six unlink requests that prompted this discussion were to bio-stub, India-bio-stub, Ireland-bio-stub, Turkey-bio-stub, Croatia-bio-stub, Islam-bio-stub. Of these, two have no country link, and only one refers to a lesser-known country - the other three should automatically be unlinked in acordance with WP:OVERLINK anyway. So this all comes down to an argument about whether there are any Croatia-related stub articles that don't already link Croatia. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Um...you do know how stub sorting works, don't you? Largely through AWB? So that massive loads of articles can be done in one go without having to edit any text manually? And deliberately - with very few exceptions - only using current country-specific tabs to stop a profusion of over templating of articles? Perhaps you'd prefer it if all stub sorters abandoned using such techniques so that they could manually alter text as they went, thereby getting though about 1% of the work, and adding as many templates as is necessary top cover all past and present countries - a dozen or more for some people living in central Europe during the 20th century. As for the "obscure talk pages", it seems quite clear to me that the pages being referred to were the rarely-patrolled template talk pages (to which - it seems - you can also add the rarely patrolled WT:Stub) and it was only later that one stub type - one which had no nationality linking - was brought here that it garnered any comments at all. Once any dealing with nationality were brought up for conversation here (i.e., in this current conversation), the reasons why it is a bad idea started to be voiced from people who actually work in the stub-sorting field. The fact that there is fairly strenuous opposition if this discussion is anything to go by, and with reason well-enough explained already (I advise you to reread the earlier comments since judging by your question as to what the reasons are, you haven't done so), with only your one lone voice indicating that they should be delinked, it seems clear that the whole idea to delink nationalities in stub templates should be abandoned. For thew examples you give, it is very very likely that there will be articles relating to people from the princely states, ancient Connacht, ancient Anatolia, and Istria which do not have India, Ireland, Turkey, or Croatia in the articles. As with all other countries, these should be linked in the stub templates. Grutness...wha? 11:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's look at a (theoretical) stub article about a person connected with ancient Connacht. A stub-sorter encounters it. He knows, from his own reading, that ancient Connacht is part of modern-day Ireland (even though the article doesn't explicitly say that), so he tags it with Ireland-bio-stub. The hope and intention behind tagging it is that someone else, with expert knowledge in the field, will come along someday and expand the article. Yes? Now, how will this expert who wants to use his expertise find an article that would benefit from it? It won't be by looking through everything that links to 'Ireland' - that's far too large and varied a set of articles to be useful for this purpose, and even if this expert finds, in that long list, an article that appears to be about a subject where his expertise lies, he won't be easily able to tell whether it's a fully formed article or a stub he could usefully expand. The only way he can determine that is by looking through the sub-category Ireland-bio-stubs. So whether the stub template actually links to 'Ireland' is completely irrelevant. Nobody's going to make use of that link. (And any expert who's working on the article will already know that Connacht is part of Ireland, so that link is no use to him whle he's there). Colonies Chris (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, you don't seem to have much knowledge of how AWB is used in stub-sorting, and how stopping at every article in a batch run to change the text enormously slows down the process. You also don't seem to realise that articles aren't only read by experts, but also by readers. Linking to Ireland makes perfect sense in a stub template when Ireland may not be linked in text. Let's look at your theoretical example. A stub-sorter encounters it. He knows, from his own reading, that ancient Connacht is part of modern-day Ireland (even though the article doesn't explicitly say that), so he tags it with Ireland-bio-stub. Correct. This places it in a stub category for eitors to expand, and also adds a link that may not be there or casual readers. The hope and intention behind tagging it is that someone else, with expert knowledge in the field, will come along someday and expand the article. Yes? That's certainly one of the aims, but not the only one. Now, how will this expert who wants to use his expertise find an article that would benefit from it? He'll look in the stub category, of course. But a casual reader woudn't. A casual reader looking at an article may require a link to a more overarching article. So whether the stub template actually links to 'Ireland' is completely irrelevant. For expansion by an expert, yes. To assist readers, no. And the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to be used by readers. In any case, linking to the country name in a stub template is a good idea even when the country is also linked in the lede. This isn't "overlinking", but is analogous to linking in separate sections of an article, which is standard practice. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have accepted your point that stub sorters don't want to spend time also changing the article. You appear to have accepted my point about the expert not gaining any benefit from the link to 'Ireland'. So now let's look at the casual reader. They certainly won't be using the link to Ireland as a way of reaching the article, for the same reasons the expert wouldn't. So the question comes down to whether the link to Ireland would be useful to them when they're reading it, having found it by some other means. Accepting the (somewhat unlikely) contention that a reader who has sought out this rather obscure and specialised article does not already know that Connacht is nowadays part of Ireland, is it likely that they would then use the link in the stub template to find out more? Is it not much more likely that the reader will click on a link (if provided) to 'Connacht' (which will of course contain an upward link to the wider concept of 'Ireland'), or will use the search box to get there if it hasn't been linked in the article? Remember, we're talking about a reader who is not so unsophisticated as to be unable to use the search box - how else would they have reached the article? Either way, the link in the template is valueless. You react as if I'm suggesting removing the fact; I'm just talking about removing the link, not the fact. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

They certainly won't be using the link to Ireland as a way of reaching the article, for the same reasons the expert wouldn't. I beg to differ. They would most certainly be using the link - to get to the article on Ireland. The expert would have no need to get to that article, and would be attempting to go the other way anyway, from Ireland to the article (which s/he'd do through the stub categories). The reader, however, would be going the other way, from the stub to the Ireland article, and the best way to do that would be through the link. And who said anything about "seeking out an obscure article"? You never heard of random links? In any case, this doesn't answer the other comment, that the link is not overlinking in any case, given that a stub template is regarded as separate from the main text and therefore akin to the idea of inkingin oth an article's lead and in later sections of an article - something which is standard practice.

Sigh. We've wasted far too much time on this. There are more important uses of our time on Wikipedia than arguing over links in stub templates. I am clearly not going to change our views on the subject, just as you are clearly not going to change mine. Please, accept the fact that since there has been quite some opposition to your ideas here this may be some indication that your suggestion that there is no opposition to your suggested change is wrong. A couple of senior members of WP:WSS, plus others not connected to the project, have voiced opposition. Yours, in comparison, appears to be a lone voice. I'll leave it at that, and ask User:RL0919 to take all this into consideration when considering any delinking. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that in the great scheme of things, this is pretty small stuff. But since you are so insistent on retaining these links, I think we should clearly establish the rationale. I find your preceding response rather confusing. You write (quoting me)

"They certainly won't be using the link to Ireland as a way of reaching the article, for the same reasons the expert wouldn't. I beg to differ."

But in fact, you don't appear to be differing with me on that statement at all. We're agreed that it's very unlikely that anyone would reach the article through the link to Ireland. What's at issue is whether anyone already reading the article would find the link useful. I suggested that a reader would be much more likely to navigate to the more immediate and less familiar concept of 'Connacht', and that therefore the link to a much wider and more familiar concept like 'Ireland' was superfluous, but you didn't respond. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This is dragging on. The central issue seems to be on the interpretation of WP:OVERLINK. The talk page for that (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking)) concerns amendments to that page, not interpretations of it: so, since it's largely a policy matter, I have requested assistance at WP:VPP#Overlinking in templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• I saw the note at the Village Pump, and I think that fewer (but not zero) links in stub templates is generally a good idea. It should be sufficient to link to the most important or unusual one (or perhaps two) words. [ip address redacted] User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thank you for widening the discussion - it's always useful to get a wider view. The spirit of our linking guidelines is that we should link items likely to deepen a reader's understanding, and not dilute the value of those links by reflexively linking anything that's distantly relevant. I don't see any reason for the fact the a link is in a stub template to give it some sort of privileged status. No-one advocating retaining these links has been able to come up with a clear example of them providing significant benefit - in fact Grutness's response was to divert attention from the lack of an example by attempting to patronise me. I may be a lone voice, but I'm asking a sensible question and not getting a good answer. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Also coming from the Village Pump. I see no overlinking problem, stub templates are small work templates and links in them should be used as a function of its utility to stub sorting and article expansion. Utility for readers is of marginal importance, as they are not 'article text' (except noting that the article is known to be incomplete) and as such there is no problem in a eventual link duplication. As to the actual links. A link to [[biography]] looks clearly unnecessary as any potential editor knows what a biography is. Though I wouldn't mind keeping it for consistency, as most (all?) stub templates link to their subjects for reference. Alternatively linking to [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] could be interesting, even if many of them are not BLPs the extra warning could be welcome. Linking to the country seems to be useful for checking the correctness of the stub sorting. - Nabla (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Nabla, one possibility might be replacing the biography link with one to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography or even Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) - though I suppose they would be out on the grounds of self-reference... Grutness...wha? 11:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Sounds fine! (I like the WikiProject most, but all 3 suggestions - mine included... - sound much better) Self-reference probably not a problem because work templates often naturally have it; already including stub templates, as (almost?) all point to Wikipedia:Stub. - Nabla (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Nabla, you say 'Linking to the country seems to be useful for checking the correctness of the stub sorting'. I presume you mean in a case where the article's been assigned the wrong country stub. Could you explain how the country link would help this? To use the hypothetical example we've been discussing above, if a Connacht-related bio article has been wrongly templated as e.g. a Croatia-bio-stub, surely the correctness is best checked by navigating to 'Connacht', and discovering there that it's in Ireland, rather than navigating to 'Croatia' and searching it for 'Connacht'? Colonies Chris (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• My takeaway from the discussion so far is that there doesn't seem to be much objection to removing the link from the word 'biography', but there is not currently consensus for removing the other links in these templates. So for now I'm going to partially fulfill the edit requests by just unlinking 'biography'. Please continue your discussions about the other links, and if it produces a consensus that requires further edits to protected templates, just put in a fresh edit request. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Use AWB to gradually reduce the use of moved stub tags?

Feel free to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion#Use AWB to gradually reduce the use of moved stub tags?. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Israeli artists

There are now about 40 articles that are tagged with Template:Israel-artist-stub. Is that enough to justify their own stub category, Israeli artist stubs? (At the moment the stub template lumps them into the broader category artist-stubs). Colonies Chris (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, not yet - unless there's a specific Wikipedia:WikiProject Israeli art. The thresholds are pretty clearly explained both at WP:Stub and at the top of WP:WSS/P - 60 stubs unless it's the primary stub for a specific WikiProject, in which case it's 30. We've got tons of templates with 40 or more stubs that are still upmerged (if you want the explanation for why, check WP:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub rationales). Hopefully they're currently in both Category:Artist stubs and Category:Israeli people stubs, BTW. Grutness...wha? 13:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

49 transclusions - plus there's nothing stopping you from writing 11 stub articles on notable artists and then a category would be viable! Severo^TC 07:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Plus I've just notices that there's a {{Israel-painter-stub}} with about a dozen articles which would be upmerged in there... I've proposed the category :) Grutness...wha? 10:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

3.7 Monthly Newspaper Topic Request

99.194.217.121 (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Grutness...wha? 09:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

New report idea

Please discuss the feasibility of this idea:

It would be *nice* (although, potentially difficult) to have a periodic list of all templates that pass the following criteria:

1. template name ends in '-stub'
2. template is transcluded on at least 60 articles
3. template is *not* found on the newstub= field of any...
   • {{stub category}}
   • {{regional stub category}}
   • {{parent-only stub category}}

This report would list templates that are ripe for splitting into categories of their own. Dawynn (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm. Yeah, that would point out a lot of viable new categories... Grutness...wha? 02:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hum .. I can't precisely manage that, but can run a very similar query: "Titles ending in '-stub' that are not linked to from any category page that transcludes {{stub category}}, {{regional stub category}} or {{parent-only stub category}}". Report is posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Uncatted stubs. - TB (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this is useful - but the result gives a lot of redirects: is there any way to fold these into where they redirect? Severo^TC 20:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"Templates that are not redirects and that have titles ending in '-stub' that are not linked to from any category page that transcludes {{stub category}}, {{regional stub category}} or {{parent-only stub category}}". List updated - 287 entries on it now compared to the 591 before. - TB (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Getting better but it's still tripping over template redirects a bit - now I notice that if a template redirect is linked on {{Stub category}} (let's say {{Euro-foo-stub}} instead of the template {{Europe-foo-stub}}), it brings up the template anyway. I wish I could be more helpful but I have zero experience working with the database dumps. Severo^TC 17:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

So .. a categeory linking to a redirect to a template is sufficient to exclude that template from the report ? That's doable. Watch this space. - TB (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's right: basically I think what we're interested in here is how many times {{Europe-foo-stub}} is transcluded in total (directly or through redirects), because the existence of {{Euro-foo-stub}} doesn't really matter too much. Severo^TC 17:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(A list of template redirects linked from category pages would also be useful I guess, as one place we do want to update their usage (i.e bypass the redirect) is on the category page which gives editors advice on how to use the templates. Severo^TC 17:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

Okay, updated. Elimiating templates linked to from category pages via redirects reduced the list from 287 to 187, but counting transclusions viua redirects towards the 60 limit increased this again to 219. I'll look into listing categories making use of the three named templates above linking to stub templates via redirects in a separate list. - TB (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The list of categories advising to link to a redirect rather than directly to a stub template is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stubs catted via redirects. Enjoy. - TB (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone have any objections if I were to bypass the redirects on the category pages, so that the links provided as guidance to editors were of the template, not the redirect (and match what is listed at the top of the category listing)? Severo^TC 16:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool! I ask for one report, afraid that it would be too cumbersome to build -- and I get two reports! Great work. Can we make these run on a regular basis? (No more than weekly, no less than once a month, please) Dawynn (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Rebuilding instructions for both reports are posted at the bottom of each. Anyone with toolserver access should be able to run them as needed - it's a five minute job. I'll keep this page on my watchlist, or you can of course post on my talk page to request a refresh. - TB (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem. Not sure how Wikipedia does everything behind the scenes, but it seems to sometimes credit articles tagged to redirects to both the redirect and the true template. Which means that a simple add function will produce an inflated count. Not sure how to work around that, but feel free to review {{oceania-hotel-stub}} as an example. Dawynn (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Checking the database directly (as the report does), I see that {{Oceania-hotel-stub}} has 33 transclusions and {{Oceania-hotel-struct-stub}} 32 right now. The report lists 65 total, which agrees with this. Pages that link to "Template:Oceania-hotel-stub" shows both tranclusions ({{ }}) and links ([[ ]]), listing 77 in total. Counting by hand I see the same number of translusions (33 and 32) and an additional 8 and 4 links. 33 + 32 + 8 + 4 = 77. - TB (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Take a moment to look closer. Going back to Pages that link to "Template:Oceania-hotel-stub", you see something like this:

• Menen Hotel
• Vaiaku Lagi Hotel
• OD-N-Aiwo Hotel

. . .

• Template:Oceania-hotel-struct-stub
  • Menen Hotel
  • Vaiaku Lagi Hotel
  • OD-N-Aiwo Hotel

Again, I don't know why, say, the Menen Hotel is listed as being tagged by both templates when its truly only tagged by the redirect, but that's the way it is. There is only one Menen Hotel article, not two. It shouldn't be counted twice. I'm not sure how "Jarry" counts transclusions, but the "Transclusion count" link gives an accurate count of the true transclusions (33). Dawynn (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah - I see your point now. Short answer is Mediawiki is weird about counting links, I just go with that weirdness. Ultimately it's a flaw in the MediaWiki software on which Wikipedia runs - see bug #12019; the semantics of one of the underlying database table have been muddled by a bit of lazy development. Nobody has (yet) been brave enough to fix this.

For your example, both 33 and 65 are estimates, although in this case the 33 is a rather good one ;) - TB (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made a number of changes, based on these reports. I'd like to see them run again, when you have a chance. (Even if the count issue is not fixed) Dawynn (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Lists

Remind me: can a list be a stub, or not? An editor/bot has recently tagged a whole lot of lists as stubs: I had thought that a list could not be a stub, but can't find chapter and verse to support this and am suddenly wondering. PamD 14:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Stub, "Similarly, stub status usually depends on the length of prose text alone – lists, templates, images, and other such peripheral parts of an article are usually not considered when judging whether an article is a stub." That being the case, list articles would all be stubs. In order to avoid this, I think we've generally agreed that lists are not stubs.

I also base my conclusion on the fact that "List" and "Stub" are two distinct grades in Wikipedia:Assessment. And there is no "Stub list" class. So, again, lists and stubs are two separate things. Dawynn (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

VIPUL PRATAP SINGH

File:Example.jpgVipul Pratap Singh was born in 24 May 1984 and is the elder child of smt.Vijay Laxmi and Shri.R.B.Atal(doctor). She spent her early childhood at the Lucknow

Career He had completed bachelor in pharmacy from "UPTU" Uttar pradesh jhansi.after completion of cource completed Pharma management and administration degree After completed research training in clinical trail where they learn the clinical pathological remedies.now day he is working in ORGANIC INDIA as executive scientist --223.189.100.138 (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)www.vipulhealthclub.spruz.com

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. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Stubs don't work

The Europe rail transport stub does not work. Neither "Europe-rail-stub" or "Europe-rail-transport-stub" as given in the stub article work; I tried to use both for ASVi museum. Hugo999 (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Seems OK now. PamD 22:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Scotland-Olympic-medalist-stub

Not too familiar with stub creation process so I wonder if someone could kindly add {{Scotland-Olympic-medalist-stub}} to your discovery page. Created by Mais oui! (talk · contribs) without recourse to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, it needs careful consideration as Scotland is not an Olympic nation. Tim! (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Timothy Elie Girard

United States Army, SFC Retired — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girard01 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Stub template list?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub type sizes provides a monthly list of all stub categories. Where could one find a list of all stub templates? 216.188.204.25 (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

At WP:STUBS. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No. That's a manually updated resource. In fact, that's part of *why* I'm looking for a full list -- so we can look at updating this resource. 216.188.204.25 (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

WT:STUBS is the official list. A number of stub templates which do exist were created out of process, i.e. they were not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, or they were proposed there but not subsequently approved. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Or, as often happens, they were approved, and created, but the creator never took the time to list them. The same problem happens with the categories. Some get created without going through the proper channels, some get created with all proper authority. But the approval status of the categories has no bearing on whether they've been added to the list. Some that have not been properly approved are on the list, some that have been approved are not on the list -- again because this is a manual process and depends on creators to actually list their creations. 216.188.204.25 (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. Found what I was looking for: Category:Stub message boxes. 216.188.204.25 (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Italian musicians

We have {{Italy-music-bio-stub}}, which categorises into both Category:Italian people stubs and Category:Music biography stubs; and we have {{Italy-musician-stub}}, which categorises into Category:Italian musician stubs. Is there some subtle distinction that should be noted on the relevant cat pages? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I would guess that a musician would be someone known for ability to play an instrument. (I have seen that, historically, the voice is considered an instrument for WPSS -- so singers are musicians) Anything else related to music would be music-bio. A record producer, or someone known for composing music, but not necessarily for playing would qualify as music-bio. 216.188.204.25 (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to straighten up the European music categories. The main category was correct, and the nationals should follow. For Italy it should look something like this:

• Category:Italian music biography stubs / {{Italy-music-bio-stub}} (23 P)
  • Category:Italian composer stubs / {{Italy-composer-stub}}
  • Category:Italian musician stubs / {{Italy-musician-stub}}
  • {{Italy-conductor-stub}} (upmerge) (39 P)

Just need a proposal for the new parent category. Should be speediable with the two full categories, and two half-full templates. 216.188.204.25 (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Illinois-geo-stub

{{Illinois-geo-stub}} seems unseemly large. The current picture (changed in June 2011 to the current one) leaves a huge amount of whitespace.

See this triple instance:

76.65.128.198 (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-approved stub: Nuclide-stub

See template:Nuclide-stub. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Taken to WP:SFD. Severo^TC 13:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Size of stub categories

Hi! Can someone tell me whether there is a minimum size for stub categories below which {{popstub}} is added? I always thought it was 30, but I can't find the relevant page. The template was recently added to Category:Systemic hormonal preparation stubs (after I had removed it) which has 48 entries. I think it's unlikely that more than a couple of additional articles will turn up in the near future. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"Threshold" is usually 60. Categories with less than 50 can expect {{popstub}} to be added. Cateories with 50-59 are in the danger zone - not usually deleted, but rarely approved for creation. If a category is unlikely to grow beyond 50, it should probably be deleted and the template upmerged to the next category higher. Severo^TC 10:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, perhaps I can find a few more. It would a pity to delete it, since it's part of a series of ATC code based categories in WP:PHARM. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It would also get lost in Category:Pharmacology stubs - perhaps, judging by permcats, an Category:Endocrinology stubs or similar would be useful and a better home for it? (My knowledge in this area is only based upon the permcats though :) ) Severo^TC 11:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm. That would break the (useful, in my opinion) distinction between pharmaceutical stubs (WP:PHARM, Category:Pharmacology stubs descendants) and medical ones (WP:MED, Category:Medicine stubs descendants). Will look for some more stubs fitting in that category when I have time. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian politician template ambiguity.

Please see this discussion. Its an August discussion that needs clarification of a typo before closing the discussion. Dawynn (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Stubs cleared

The stub category has been full of entries for a good month, not least since a particular editor had a blitz of creating stubs (consisting largely of a scatter of google hits) in early December. But the category is now empty - User:KConWiki did a blitz overnight and I finished it off just now. It won't stay empty for long but will be less dispiriting now that we've sorted all of that batch of well-intended trash. PamD 10:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Administrative help!

We could really use an administrator to come help clear the Deletion log. We have requests dating back to November that need a final decision and processing. Dawynn (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan stubs

While I understand that ROC-related stubs are most likely going to be taken care of by Taiwan-based editors or editors interested in Taiwan-related topics, it is going to be problematic to have 'Taiwan' shown in articles unrelated to Taiwan, and it possibly violates existing NPOV policies which stipulate that 'Republic of China' should be used for anything related to the ROC yet unrelated to Taiwan. These include geo-stubs and road-stubs related to locations on Kinmen, Matsu, Wuchiu, Pratas, bio-stubs related to ROC generals and marshals who have never set foot on Taiwan, university-stubs for universities that were not re-established in Taiwan after 1949, and so on and so forth. Should this be solved by having a separate set of ROC-something-stub templates, or by adding an option in the Taiwan-something stub templates so that 'Republic of China' instead of 'Taiwan' will be shown in the tagged articles? 203.98.184.99 (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in Taiwan, RoC and pre-1949 issues. However, I don't see an issue in template names. The wording of the text in the template can be altered to be desirable and the categories don't need to have identical names either. Severo^TC 13:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Should an option be added within the existing Taiwan stub templates? Or should another set of templates be created? I agree that they can be fed into the same categories. 59.188.42.121 (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This IP user can be ignored. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Help with Category:Stub message boxes needing attention

Could someone please review the logic behind Category:Stub message boxes needing attention? There are several templates marked as either containing Non-existent categories, or Category names that don't end with Stubs. These seem to be misflagged, as the templates do not reflect either of these issues. (The Broken image tags all seem correct, and I've been correcting those) Dawynn (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I did some spot checking and found these issues were occurring on recently created/changed templates (from which I would infer job queue issues). Have you found any where the issue is long standing? Severo^TC 13:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Ns I don't know the cause, but I've fixed them by carrying out a WP:NULLEDIT, having found that WP:PURGE didn't work.

I've found that one of the Ss is caused by a mysterious non-displaying character appearing somewhere adjacent to, or within, the word stubs which causes one extra character to be counted, so that the technique

• remove the last six characters from the category
• add back on a single space and the word "stubs"
• is the category unchanged?

detects that the two categories are not identical, so it assumes that the original didn't end in " stubs".

To fix this, I am presently re-entering the cats, like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done, see here. Only three left: one B and two genuine Ss. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That B has now been fixed. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about a specific stub

Hey, I recently came across the Libya-judo-bio-stub, and I was wondering why it even exists? It is only on one page, and from what I can tell, that isn't going to change any time soon. Putting the under the Libya-sport-bio-stub category would seem to make more sense, seeing as there are only twenty in that stub category it isn't overly large. I was just wondering if there was another reason for it to exist. Thanks in advance! Jeancey (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would {{Libya-sport-bio-stub}} be better? Why not {{Africa-judo-bio-stub}} instead? The person fits both, after all. The template {{Libya-judo-bio-stub}} covers the intersection of those, and I imagine that it was created for that very reason - to avoid the need to put both {{Africa-judo-bio-stub}} and {{Libya-sport-bio-stub}} onto articles. Although there is only one current use, the template was created in 2008, when there may have been many more than one candidate for its use. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I was just wondering. I had no idea what the process was for these things, so I thought I would ask. Thanks for clearing it up! Jeancey (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Help with report refresh

Need someone with experience with auto-generated reports to investigate. This report did not refresh for January:

• Wikipedia:Database reports/Stubs included directly in stub categories

Can we please correct the issue so that we can get back to monthly updates? Dawynn (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's built by BernsteinBot (talk · contribs), which is operated by MZMcBride (talk · contribs) - I have left a message. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Spacing betwen stub tags

From the look of Tree planting bar, either {{forestry-stub}} or {{tool-stub}} has something the matter with their spacing - there's a gap between the two as displayed. Someone might like to take a look and fix one of them? Thanks. PamD 14:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Fixed, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - Tree planting bar looks much tidier now! PamD 23:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

WP Stub Sorting in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Stub Sorting for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

England Test Crickter Stubs

Typing {{England-Test-cricket-bio-stub}} produces a Category called "England Test Crickter stubs", which is apparently on 141 different articles. Whether we need such a category (no other cricketing nation has such a stub category) is one point; more obviously, we should spell "cricketer" correctly. When I tried to make this do that, it spat it back at me, so I've brought it here. Johnlp (talk) 08:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The scope of the category is well within stub sorting norms. The name of the category is obviously wrong! So, as renaming categories is an administrative function, I've posted it at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion (for renaming, not deletion). Severo^TC 08:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Category sort of stub categories

Stub categories were sorted under µ in [1] in 2005. µ was chosen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Archive 6#Very unhappy with over promotion of stub-categories with the rationale: How about using µ, as in "micro-articles"? Quote from Micro: "More generally, the prefix means 'very small'. However, a change in the category software means that lower case letters in other alphabets are now displayed as upper case in category headings. The lower case Greek µ is displayed as the upper case Greek version Μ which looks like a Latin M. See for example Category:Sport in Serbia. The Greek Μ sorts after the Latin letters but it's confusing that it looks like the Latin letter, and the association with micro is lost. In fact the Latin M means mega- which signals the opposite of stubs. Here are some links showing the confusion with the Latin letter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Archive 16#Categorization of stub categories, Template talk:Stub category#Sorting, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wayward letter heading on category page. I think the character should be changed to something still sorting after Latin letters but not looking like a Latin letter. I suggest Σ (sigma) because it carries the 'S' sound as in stub. Σ is used for summation in mathematics. It can be discussed whether this association is good or bad, but most people probably don't know that meaning anyway. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even sure about Σ because it could still confuse people (well, it would confuse me) who aren't familiar with how the sorting is handled. Although it would be an improvement, in principle I don't like hacky workarounds like this. How about using some special indicator like {{other}} which displays under a heading Other at the end of the items? I've no idea what the coding or processing implications might be, though.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what {{other}} has to do with this. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify my suggestion of {{other}}: I don't mean the existing "For other uses..." template, I mean just something else other than a letter i.e. some indicator other than a letter. Anyway, it seems that the software won't allow something like I suggest.--A bit iffy (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The software only allows one character to be displayed. If it's a letter it has to be upper case. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There is tradition for using Greek letters. Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort keys says:

• To place entries after the main alphabetical list, use sort keys beginning with tilde ("~"). Other characters used for this purpose are "µ" (mu), used to place stub categories at the end of subcategory lists; "β" (beta) for Wikipedia books; "Ι" (iota) for images; "Ρ" (rho) for portals; "Τ" (tau) for templates; and "Ω" (omega) for WikiProjects.

The software change means that β is displayed as Β, for example in Category:History. Several of the mentioned Greek letters look like Latin letters, but it's less confusing when it's a logical letter like B for books, I for images, P for portals, T for templates. Using the Greek version of S for stubs makes sense to me in this context. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea! It has looked odd since the software change a few months back. Severo^TC 21:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's really confusing to have letters which look like Latin letters appearing "out of alphabetical order" at the end of the category (even if they are "logical" like B for books). I'd suggest using sort keys for stubs/portals/templates which don't end up looking like Latin letters, e.g. Σ (sigma), "Ω" (omega), etc. Alternately, could we get "the software" changed so it works the way it used to (was it even an intentional change in the first place?) DH85868993 (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was an intentional change, which occurred late February/early March 2011, soon after (but not part of) the MediaWiki 1.17 deployment. The primary intention was to make category sorting case-insensitive, so that kludges like {{DEFAULTSORT:Liberty Head Nickel}} (as seen on Liberty Head nickel) would not be required. An effect of this was that sortkeys beginning "a", "b" and "c" would now sort with "A", "B" and "C" instead of after "X", "Y" and "Z" as previous. This means that 26 letter headings are now needed for Latin letters, instead of 52. Greek letters always sorted after Latin, and suffered from the same problem: "α", "β" and "γ" sorted after "Χ" "Ψ" "Ω", but now sort with "Α" "Β" "Γ". The databases took several days to rebuild, which is why the initial problems described at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 87#categorically random categories appeared. It was known at the time that its effects would be irreversible, so no, it's not going to be changed back. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Given that's the situation then I support PrimeHunter's suggestion of using Σ as the sort key for stub categories. DH85868993 (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)