Wikipedia talk:Stub

Do we have a tool...

That could scan a category and list stubs with specified size, so one could for example check if there are indeed stubs, or maybe already start articles? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, AWB will do it. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I never used it, is it possible for somebody to generate a list of too large stubs for {{socio-stub}}s? I will happily review and clean them up once this is done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Still Bob! Sowy! I am not Bob, it is spellt Bobb.Hmph! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlf (talk • contribs) 23:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you still interesting in doing this? It is fairly easy to output a list of articles less than (a particular size). What would you consider to be too-large? –xeno^talk 17:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Bot proposal to convert stub templates to Template:Asbox

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot 6.1. Here is a sample of the edits that it will make if approved. –xeno^talk 14:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am happy to announce that this task is  Done, and there are now 13337 uses of Template:Asbox. –xeno^talk 18:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

lol, leeet! -- œ^™ 23:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lines before stub template

This guideline says "It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it". Why 2? I always leave only 1, as between all other things, and see no reason to break conformity. Debresser (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Two allows a space to appear between the bottom of the text and the template on the article. It's hardly a heavily enforced rule, though - as long as there's some space there's no real problem. It's more important to get the right stub and put it below the categories than to worry too much about the number of lines between the template and the text (and if two lines are left bots often come along and remove one anyway). Grutness...wha? 09:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that, about the extraspace. But why should we have it? One blank line is enough, isn't it. Debresser (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems enough for me - perhaps we should reassess whether it's worth having it as a rule? Grutness...wha? 01:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's precisely my point. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If memory serves me correctly another outcome of having two lines before the template is that if there is a template on the side of the page that is longer than the article, 2 lines pushes the stub template out of the way to the bottom of the page, just above the categories. Waacstats (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How would that be? Debresser (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that it doesn't, I'm sure I remember it doing it at some point and assumed it was something in the wiki programming. Waacstats (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Research

Thanks for the link to Wikipedia:Layout#Standard_appendices_and_footers. The text there ("the first stub template should be preceded by two blank lines") was added in this edit on 22 June 2008 by Nurg with the edit summary "including details harvested from other guideline pages". So he got it from here, since the line here predates his edit. Debresser (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The text under discussion was added in this edit on 22 April 2007 by SMcCandlish. He added the reason inside the text "to prevent the stub template(s) from butting up against the preceding content when the page is rendered". For reason I do not understand this is either not the case any more, or it is no longer the opinion of editors that such "butting up" is too close. Debresser (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal (whitelines)

To remove the line "It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it" from this guideline, since there seems to be no necessity to have such a rule. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the rewording of that line to say "It is usually desirable to leave one blank line between the first stub template and whatever precedes it". That way, people stop using two, and there's a place that says what to do for sure. I'm afraid that if we say nothing, both will be used. I'm a big fan of consistency. hmwitht 17:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with that as well. Debresser (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOOTERS states the same thing. I have no idea whether this phrase was introduced for a good reason -- someone would have to do research to figure out how it got introduced, etc. Speaking from my own intuition, I assume that this two-line thing got introduced to make it clear in the wikitext where the body text ends and where the meta data begins, so that editors working on autopilot doesn't attempt to add text below the metadata. I think it would make sense to express that sentiment -- e.g., "Metadata (such as footers and categories) should be grouped together at the end of the article. To prevent this convention from being degraded, the boundary between the body text and the metadata should somehow be indicated. One popular convention is to interpose two line breaks, since two line breaks are never used in the body text of the article."

My prose is stilted, but these are the ideas that would need to be conveyed. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 18:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We have lots of metadata templates at the top of an article, like protection template e.g., and nobody leaves a whiteline after them to indicate the boundary between the text and metadata. Let alone two. So that's not it, I'm sure. Debresser (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, nobody leaves one or two whitelines after the metadata at the TOP because these whitelines would be visible when the page was rendered, i.e. it looks ugly. My impression is that when the extra whitelines are at the bottom, they're not visible. So there is a difference.

Anyhow, I don't have an opinion -- I'm just hypothesizing an explanation for why it was written. I do think this policy could be justifiable, so before you change it, I'd suggest inviting feedback at Wikipedia talk:Layout. (Sorry to be the bearer of bureaucracy.) Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 19:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll post a link there to this discussion. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Blank lines used to also be the standard for navboxes; a CSS rule for navboxes was added that adds a top margin for the first navbox. The same behavior could certainly be added for {{asbox}}. See MediaWiki_talk:Common.css/Archive_9#Navbox_margin. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And what would that do for us? Debresser (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As best I see it, the two line rule separates the stub and prevents content above it from running into it. By applying the same CSS rules added for navboxes, we can keep the stubs separate without worrying about whitespace. I find that those blank lines are often deleted by editors who do not understand the intent. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that editors, and I am one of them, do not agree with the need for these 2 lines. One line is enough to keep contents from above running down, wouldn't you agree? Debresser (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Debresser, I have to admit that the 2-line policy does makes sense to me, for the reasons I suggested, i.e. to convey where the body text ends and the categories begin. WP:Footers is not written in conformity with this principle, but on those grounds I would suggest a rewrite to incorporate it. Now, there are other ways to convey the end of the body text, e.g. by inserting <!--end of body text-->, but using two lines seems to be the most lightweight way to do it. My !vote is against killing the 2-line principle.
• Given this reason in favor of keeping, I'm not really sure I understand why you want to get rid of it. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 03:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the intent is for {{asbox}} to have a 1em top margin. I will look up the status on this tomorrow. One problem with the two lines is that it requires that the initial editor understand that they are needed, and for follow on editors to understand the same and not delete a line as useless whitespace. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forgot that AWB adds in the two lines with other minor changes so this would need to be altered as well. Waacstats (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This is why I started this: I saw someone with AWB adding a whiteline. If Gadget850 can make the change to stubtemplates through {{Asbox}}, all will agree that we can drop the "two line requirement". Frankly, I hold that we should drop it even without that. I do not think that we need to show the end of the text "proper". Nor is this more than a hunch of one editor, which has no basis in any guidelines. Frankly, I don't believe that was the reason this "two line requirement" was started. It think that was just to avoid overlapping. And it isn't needed. Period. And many don't use it, or even actively remove it. So why keep this contentious line? To have another rule that will be broken countless times every day? Debresser (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT. I haven't really been following this, since too much talk of formatting makes my eyes glaze over, but... if an article is correctlyn formatted, then we have the article, then a blank line, then the categories, then a blank line, then the stub templates. In other words, even with only one blank line betweent he categories and template, we effectively have two between the article text and the stub template. Grutness...wha? 01:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually have been actively adding the extra blank line, and up until this point I wasn't really sure why except that it was recommended in MOS:APPENDIX. Now that I think about it, I have to agree with Debresser that it's not really necessary and only adds extra work for me to do. Plus the page looks nicer aesthetically without an empty blankspace at the bottom, in fact I actually proposed a while back to insert a horizontal line as a separator between the text and stub templates. Besides that, why can't the stub template be a relevant part of the article? Why should it be separated at all? However if we should delete that bit in WP:LAYOUT where it says "(the first stub template should be preceded by two blank lines)" then that still creates work by having to go and delete that extra blank line out all the articles it's in, but I'm sure a bot can be programmed to take care of that. -- œ^™ 21:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The relevant discussion on the CSS rules for asbox is at Template_talk:Asbox#mbox. I had thought this was implemented, but apparently there was no support at the time, and asbox was not then the standard meta-template. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem occurred, IIRC, when the stubs followed a navbox. It exercised my mind for some time, trying to design a template which would have something at the top (blank lines in this case) only if it did not follow another instance of that type of template. Eventaully I had to conclude it was a CSS solution or nothing. Rich Farmbrough, 21:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC).

Navboxes had the same issues; a CSS fix was implemented to clear the first navbox. Probably need to take this up at the mbox discussion. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The questions is: do we really have to wait for that? I see enough opinons here and in actual practise (=editing) that we can remove the requirement for a second line. It is just fine as it is with one line (which is indeed the same as no whiteline at all). Debresser (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

One line is the same as zero lines, I think. A possible kludge would be to end Asbox with <!-- and start it with
&ltfont color=white> -->
<Rest of template>

Of course this would destroy al the interwikis, since the stubs aren't at the actual absolute very end. <sigh> CSS it is. Rich Farmbrough, 09:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC).

Can that be pushed a little? Debresser (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea see the Asbox talk page for the people who have talked to the CSS people. In theory any admin could implement it but since we have specialists, best let them do it. Of course there will probably then be too much blank space before the stubs and we will have to arrange for it to be vanished when the stubs are being edited for other reasons. (there's about 1.1 million of them now.) Rich Farmbrough, 09:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

• Wikipedia_talk:Stub/Archive_7#.22But_before_the_inter-Wiki_links.22 The proposal for the text in the project page
• Wikipedia_talk:Stub/Archive_8#Spacing Extensive discussion which also came up with CSS as the solution.

Rich Farmbrough, 09:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

Did those experts do anything yet? Debresser (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Slight tweeks to message

Following a discussion here, I propose changing the stub template text from

to

This article is a stub. Please help by expanding it.

or something similar. The goal is to emphasize that not only readers can edit, but that they are invited to edit. GeometryGirl (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I, personally, like the neutral and non-agressive text we have at the moment. If it will be changed, at least don't turn that line into a color exposition alongside with bolds. Make it This article is a stub. Please help by expanding it. Debresser (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think the wording is worth the change. GeometryGirl (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Using "Please" instead of "You can" is probably a good idea - kind of related to WP:YOU. –xeno^talk 14:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems people are happy about it. I'll make a poll. GeometryGirl (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Poll

Proposal: change

to

This article is a stub. Please help by expanding it.

• Support GeometryGirl (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above, but I think the link should retain class=plainlinks. –xeno^talk 15:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What is class=plainlinks? GeometryGirl (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It removes the little icon e.g. expanding it. –xeno^talk 15:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! Another thing is that the first message has a bit of whitespace on the left. GeometryGirl (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea, don't worry, that will still be there. I've updated your proposed version. –xeno^talk 15:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I doubt it will do much good, but I'm certain it will do no harm. Consider this a tacit support as I won't oppose. Shereth 18:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support with the bolding and (slightly) brighter colours to make it stand out as opposed to the plainlinks which really just makes it another note at the bottom of the page that gets missed. Draw people's eyes to the area that says please help by expanding it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's a bit plain. Is there a specific bolding and choice of colours than you would like to propose? GeometryGirl (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I think it's fine the way it is. -- œ^™ 21:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. By removing "you" you'll likely make it less likely that people will consider expanding the article. A direct appeal to the reader with the use of "you" is more likely to see a response than a generic "please help". As to bolding and colours, the whole point of a stub message -as has been repeated here in numerous occasions when proposals are made to "liven up" the stub templates - is for them to be discreet and not draw the reader's eye away from the article. Making them bold and multicoloured will only hinder that (and many readers may be confused by coloured message, thinking they are some strange form of hyperlink). Grutness...wha? 22:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

  Colours have nothing to do with this poll. It is a matter of syntax. Geometry guy 22:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

  Then why were both Floydian and GeometryGirl talking about the colour in this poll? My comment was a direct response to the suggestion regarding "specific bolding and choice of colours" mentioned two comments further up. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  Because that may (or may not) result in a better future proposal. The present proposal is this one. Geometry guy 00:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  If you care to actually read my initial comment, you will see that I did respond to that poll - to refresh your memory, I wrote: Oppose. By removing "you" you'll likely make it less likely that people will consider expanding the article. A direct appeal to the reader with the use of "you" is more likely to see a response than a generic "please help". I then made an additional comment in response to a comment of Floydian and GeometryGirl which I took to be part of this debate - which it is. It in no way changes my stated opposition to the proposal given in this poll, nor is there any reason for you to suppose that I misunderstood the nature of the poll. Grutness...wha? 01:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. As an occasional copyeditor, I find "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it" weak and wordy: the referent for "it" is unclear (Wikipedia or the article?), and there is a presumption of capability on anyone reading it (what if I can't edit Wikipedia?). "Please help Wikipedia by expanding it" is more polite than a pure imperative, yet also covers the capability issue. Geometry guy 22:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• I haven't been here for quite a while, but since I'm here now I though I'd make my position clear: keep as is. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Grutness's sentiment that specifically phrasing it as "you" seems more personal and engaging. I wouldn't object to a rephrasing with consensus, though. The bold is a definite no-no however. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Stub classification for small topics?

I use wikipedia often for clarification on obscure and highly specific science topics; I often see short articles classified as stubs when there is only a paragraph of useful information worth mentioning on that topic. Should I be bold and "de-stub" an article that is in my opinion complete if it is only a paragraph long? user: npatchett

There is a template {{notstub}} for use in such cases which is invisible but tells bots and stub-sorters not to add stub templates, but it's usually used for things where no other information is ever likely to be possible. Care should definitely be taken with it, though, since what seems a complete article to one editor - even an exprt in an obscure topic - may still seem to be expandable to another. It's not usually used on science articles, though (which may gain more information through research). More info can be found at {{notstub}}'s /doc file. Grutness...wha? 22:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer Grutness. I'm a bit confused about the relation of stub status to "expandability" though. Lets say I read the (relatively long) article about llamas and it has all the basic info that a layman would want to know about llamas, but far less than it could possibly say on the topic; that could be an A class article, even though it is clearly expandable. On the other hand, if I have an article on something simple - lets say a small muscle in the human body - it could have the same degree of completeness as the llama article, yet often it would be called a stub merely because of length. So, I suppose I'm wondering if short topics have a higher standard of completeness that has to be attained before they become an article. It seems to me that stub classification (in practice) addresses elements of both length and completeness, yet the relation of these factors seems unclear in Wikipedian policy. user:npatchett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.237.141 (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

By chance, I have a user essay which addresses just that subject - have a look at User:Grutness/Croughton-London rule of stubs; it may help to explain a little. Grutness...wha? 05:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

To summarize Grutness's argument for any future readers of this post: a stub must be

a) an article

b) short

c) incomplete

Therefore, a long article that is somewhat incomplete (like my llama example) is "immune" except in extreme cases because it meets criterion b; however a short article fails criterion b and must be scrutinized to see if it meets criterion c (completeness). If it clearly is complete to a well-informed user then, the notstup template can be added by that user. user:npatchett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.237.141 (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

50 Boyz

50 Boyz

Referred to as the 50 Boyz[1] first by Gus Johnson of CBS Sports, the indomitable trio of DeMeco Ryans, Brian Cushing, and Zac Diles helped to establish the Houston Texans' run defense in 2009. The heart of The 50 Boyz, DeMeco Ryans(number 59) established himself immediately as the Texans' eminent linebacker after being drafted in the second round of the Texans' stellar 2006 draft(that saw them draft Owen Daniels, Eric Winston and Mario Williams)[2]. He won the Defensive Rookie of the Year award, and he is the heart of the 50 Boyz as he has played injured for a substantial amount of his career. However, Brian Cushing (number 56) brings a very ferocious mentality to the 50 Boyz. Drafted in the 2009 draft, Cushing came from a very distinguished group of SoCal linebackers that terrorized the PAC-10 for two seasons[3]. Cushing has brought the physicality that the Texans has yearned for, and he has established himself as the enforcer[4]. Last, Zac Diles, number 54, earned the starting job over talented linebackers Xavier Adibi and Cato June in the preseason of 2009 after playing well in 2008. A success story, Diles was drafted in the last round of the 2007 draft and was not expected to make the team. He brings finesse, hustle and intelligence to the trio. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Houstontexans (talk • contribs) 04:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to write an article on this, do so, or visit WP:Articles for creation. This page is not for that purpose. Grutness...wha? 21:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what?

What's up with the strangeness at the start of the 'Ideal Stub Article' segment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.158.41 (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Discovered that whatever it is has something to do with this: { { a r t i c l e c r e a t i o n } } Remove spaces from that, and you get the following:

What.

173.8.158.41 (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't quite understand the question - the {{article creation}} navbox is there because much of the Ideal Stub Section is about creating articles. It's hardly "strangeness". Grutness...wha? 22:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Stub or C?

In my view of how we do things here, a two-line article is in no conceivable way more than a stub. Heads up: User talk:Trevor MacInnis#Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions/Zyxw. Geschichte (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're confusing stubs with Stub-Class articles - they are different things. it is perfectly possible for a stub to be Start-Class or even C-Class; it is not possible for a Stub-Class article to be either. Admittedly, most stubs are Stub-Class, but not all of them are. The first few examples from the list you indirectly point to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Contest/Submissions/Zyxw may be C-Class by WP:Aviation's requirements, but they are also stubs and should be marked as such.

The confusion arose when WP:Assessment was set up and some clever users decided to take a word already used for one type of article (stub) and use it for a similar but not identical type of article (as Stub-Class). It's caused us no end of confusion since at WP:WikiProject Stub sorting. Grutness...wha? 22:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Andal Ampatuan Sr.

The entry Andal Ampatuan Sr. is inaccurate.

Cory Aquino did not appoint Andal Sr as OIC of Maguindanao in 1986. It was another person, Datu Modi Ampatuan, who was the Cory appointee.

The source of the entry is a political column of a commentator, which sadly, is biased against Cory Aquino.